Column: What if St. Louis had kept Alex Pietrangelo?

[smilinjoefission]

I don’t think letting Pietrangelo walk was the problem. What was the problem (and still is) are the ego-driven deals given to Faulk and Krug. The Faulk deal was a shot across the bow and the Krug deal was a finger to Pietrangelo. Neither was an honest attempt to fill the hole left by Pietrangelo.

Exactly right, Red.

I disagree. Faulk was a CYA move in case Petro left. And considering you wouldn't wait until the last minute to talk extension with your star player, I wouldn't be surprised if they already knew it was going to be a difficult negotiation.

If Petro had signed, they would have dealt Parayko for a haul and everything would have been fine.

Agree Krug was a bad move. But a lot of that is hindsight. If the deal had been for a little less and a little shorter, it likely would have looked ok. Definitely it was a panic move though.

Yeah it doesn’t look great in hindsight, but Petro was 40ish points and while Parayko was supposed to be our new number one D, he wasn’t much for the points. Enter Krug who was supposed to pick up some of the offensive slack from the blue line. So I don’t consider it a panic move, but we had to do something to replace lost production

Butcher was never suppose to replace Stevens, but he was forced to after what was arguably the biggest fix in NHL history to punish the Blues and prop up NHL favs NewJersey. The problem was the Blues didn't plug the hole Stevens left, they just tried to cover it.

[Red7]

I don’t think letting Pietrangelo walk was the problem. What was the problem (and still is) are the ego-driven deals given to Faulk and Krug. The Faulk deal was a shot across the bow and the Krug deal was a finger to Pietrangelo. Neither was an honest attempt to fill the hole left by Pietrangelo.

I disagree a little as the Faulk contract was needed as Edmunson had some issues and was playing below his $3.6 cap figure. When they signed Faulk, they were still offering the deal to Petro that he rejected. The Krug signing was a complete desperation move by Army and one that played out horribly for the Blues.

As far as Faulk is concerned, the trade for Faulk was seen as an upgrade. The extension was a shot across the Pietrangelo bow. If you don’t re-sign, we have your replacement. Unfortunately, Faulk was uncomfortable playing the left side and when Pietrangelo DID leave, Faulk was expected to fill his skates. It reminded me of Garth Butcher and Scott Stevens. A controversial trade followed by a big extension and the attempt to plug that player into a vacated role (Butcher was named captain and put on the first pairing).

It was nothing like Stevens. He didn’t leave voluntarily he was taken from us. We traded for Butcher because Sutter had a hard on for him

Except for the circumstances around the departures, what followed was the same: an attempt to fill the vacancy with overpriced inferior talent. Faulk could no more be Pietrangelo than Butcher could replace Stevens and both the team and player paid a heavy price.

[jwstlsan]

Hated to see AP27 go, but we needed a new couch any way, Benn wore that one out.

[netboy65]

I don’t think letting Pietrangelo walk was the problem. What was the problem (and still is) are the ego-driven deals given to Faulk and Krug. The Faulk deal was a shot across the bow and the Krug deal was a finger to Pietrangelo. Neither was an honest attempt to fill the hole left by Pietrangelo.

I disagree a little as the Faulk contract was needed as Edmunson had some issues and was playing below his $3.6 cap figure. When they signed Faulk, they were still offering the deal to Petro that he rejected. The Krug signing was a complete desperation move by Army and one that played out horribly for the Blues.

As far as Faulk is concerned, the trade for Faulk was seen as an upgrade. The extension was a shot across the Pietrangelo bow. If you don’t re-sign, we have your replacement. Unfortunately, Faulk was uncomfortable playing the left side and when Pietrangelo DID leave, Faulk was expected to fill his skates. It reminded me of Garth Butcher and Scott Stevens. A controversial trade followed by a big extension and the attempt to plug that player into a vacated role (Butcher was named captain and put on the first pairing).

It was nothing like Stevens. He didn’t leave voluntarily he was taken from us. We traded for Butcher because Sutter had a hard on for him

Except for the circumstances around the departures, what followed was the same: an attempt to fill the vacancy with overpriced inferior talent. Faulk could no more be Pietrangelo than Butcher could replace Stevens and both the team and player paid a heavy price.

My point was we traded for Butcher before we lost Stevens so that wasn’t why we acquired him.

[a smell of green grass]

It was 5 years ago. Let it go already

But don't forget the Stanley Cup 6 years ago?

I recommend that both monumental successes and screw-ups should be remembered for at least 15 years.

If you can’t tell the difference between a championship and just a player, I can’t help you.
Now go ahead, reply with more of your drivel

Netboy65 didn't grasp the gist of the comments I see.

Pietrangelo is the "1 player" that launched a thousand regets.

- Krug and his 50 million
- Faulk and his 50 million
- Perunovich
- Jiricek
- Mailloux
- And the Army band plays on.

[a smell of green grass]

I wonder if it has occurred to Army yet that he let the one player go that he can never replace -- BECAUSE HIS TEAM WINS MORE MEANINGLESS GAMES IN MARCH AND APRIL THAN EVERY OTHER NHL TEAM.

And if you think that the replacing a RHD is impossibly costly, just wait until you see how hard it will ultimately be to find a 2C. Anybody remember the Kevin Hayes debacle?

[sdaltons]

Already addressed the Kevin Hayes thing. Conveniently you didn't respond.

[a smell of green grass]

Already addressed the Kevin Hayes thing. Conveniently you didn't respond.

I can't find it amongst the hamburgers, tacos and pasta. Please resend.

[netboy65]

I wonder if it has occurred to Army yet that he let the one player go that he can never replace -- BECAUSE HIS TEAM WINS MORE MEANINGLESS GAMES IN MARCH AND APRIL THAN EVERY OTHER NHL TEAM.

And if you think that the replacing a RHD is impossibly costly, just wait until you see how hard it will ultimately be to find a 2C. Anybody remember the Kevin Hayes debacle?

As they say in the south

Bless your heart

[DawgDad]

So, if Pietrangelo had signed with the Blues and they had traded away Parayko as someone suggested might have happened guess what they would have left now?

This team is likely better positioned for the future.

[Old_Goat]

Faulk was a good signing at the time.
Don't underestimate the sad loss of Bouwmeister...and to think for so many years too many people were wrongfully all over his case.
At least we have a few D prospects with promise whom are not midgets.

[DawgDad]

I wonder if it has occurred to Army yet that he let the one player go that he can never replace -- BECAUSE HIS TEAM WINS MORE MEANINGLESS GAMES IN MARCH AND APRIL THAN EVERY OTHER NHL TEAM.

And if you think that the replacing a RHD is impossibly costly, just wait until you see how hard it will ultimately be to find a 2C. Anybody remember the Kevin Hayes debacle?

ALL players are replaceable, in time. Edmonton won a Cup without Gretzky, Detroit won several without Howe, Pittsburgh won without Lemieux, Chicago won without Mikita, Montreal won without LaFleur, etc.

Do you not realize how ridiculous your post is?

[HighStick]

I would have preferred that Petro stayed in STL but the signing bonus that Vegas offered made that decision for Petro and I don't blame Stillman and company for not matching. It was too much. Signing Krug was a much bigger blunder than letting Petro walk. That Krug contract is a straight up killer that's been holding this team back. It's never been a good deal. Thank God it's almost over.

If they kept Petro they most likely wouldn't have Faulk or Krug. But would they still have Parayko? They might have traded him off.

I've hated the Krug signing since day 1 but seeing as how it turned out for Petro I think the Blues are in better shape now than if they had kept Petro. It worked out.

[Red7]

Faulk was a good signing at the time.
Don't underestimate the sad loss of Bouwmeister...and to think for so many years too many people were wrongfully all over his case.
At least we have a few D prospects with promise whom are not midgets.

Bouwmeister’s loss was tragic and hurt…in 2020. He had, maybe, another year left. There had been some question about his return for 19-20, much less beyond and he was considering retirement. Then came the good news/bad news of Marco Scandella. Scandella came in and played impressively that led to a disastrous 4 year extension.

[Red7]

I wonder if it has occurred to Army yet that he let the one player go that he can never replace -- BECAUSE HIS TEAM WINS MORE MEANINGLESS GAMES IN MARCH AND APRIL THAN EVERY OTHER NHL TEAM.

And if you think that the replacing a RHD is impossibly costly, just wait until you see how hard it will ultimately be to find a 2C. Anybody remember the Kevin Hayes debacle?

ALL players are replaceable, in time. Edmonton won a Cup without Gretzky, Detroit won several without Howe, Pittsburgh won without Lemieux, Chicago won without Mikita, Montreal won without LaFleur, etc.

Do you not realize how ridiculous your post is?

Sure, the Oilers won without Gretzky, but they replaced his production with Klima and Joe Murphy. The Wings won with HOFers like Federov, Hull, Shanahan, Haskell. The Penguins replaced Lemieux with Sidney Crosby. It matters who the replacements are.

[dhsux]

We fans went through a tough period.

Losing Petro was, imo, far more on Petro than DA who held a company line that brought this team a CUP.

Cid anyone?

McDavid anyone?

These are GREAT players that want greatness more than tax deductions.

It's over, it's past....what's done is done.........just soooo effing glad we have Parayko going forward.

Those talking about that trade off it's like W-T-F.