St. Louis Blues Are Apparently Short-Sighted And Vindictive

The St. Louis Blues made a decision they thought was better for their long-term future. Apparently some executive in the NHL does not share that appraisal.

The St. Louis Blues made a tough decision by letting Alex Pietrangelo walk away. They did the best they could to replace that by signing Torey Krug.

The two men are different players, even though they play the same position. One is a more well-rounded player with size, while the other is more of an offensive force with speed and tenacity.

Regardless, things have played out. However, the dissent is apparently not something just for fans.

While perusing the internet, I found an NESN article discussing a rather upset individual. Apparently, an anonymous executive told Craig Custance he doesn’t think too highly of the Blues move in this instance.

In fact, the phrase used to describe the swap was short-sighted and vindictive. I’m not quite sure how that applies other than to simply throw shade.

Everyone is allowed their opinion, but really?

How is this move short-sighted? Krug is a year younger than Pietrangelo, has less miles on his odometer and has shown more production through the same time period in their careers.

This executive seemed to go with the idea that signing any player in their late-20’s or even early 30’s was risky. He claimed both Pietrangelo and Krug are “starting to inch closer to the cliff.”

So, if both players are inching toward a cliff, what is wrong with saving $2.3 million per season? What is with this odd idea that the Blues should have just given Pietrangelo every foolish demand he wanted just to please him?

Pietrangelo is a very good player, but suddenly the discussion is shifting toward him being an all-time player. That is somewhat of a stretch.

Regardless, the idea this is vindictive seems strange. Granted, we do not know how much Doug Armstrong knew about Pietrangelo’s true intentions and when, but vindictive means the Blues showed a strong and unreasonable desire for revenge.

If they signed Krug before Pietrangelo had made his decision, how did the team show any desire for revenge? Pietrangelo wanted to be wined and dined, so to speak, and took three days to decide.

The Blues did not feel it in their best interest to wait and made a prudent decision.

If we are throwing shade, I have to wonder if this supposedly anonymous executive works for the Boston Bruins. Why else would he/she seem so bothered by the fact the Blues picked up a player?

Could it be that the Blues took their player while the Bruins dragged their heels? Maybe it is sour grapes.

Or, maybe it’s an executive for the Buffalo Sabres who is still butthurt that they basically got fleeced in the Ryan O’Reilly trade. Perhaps this person is just mad that Armstrong made another solid deal and kept them from having a shot at Krug.

Either way, both accusations are ridiculous. The Blues were thinking long term by not handcuffing themselves from giving other players raises. That’s not short-sighted.

Next: NHL hopes to start by January 1

The Blues made their move first, so revenge did not really have anything to do with it. I guess you could argue that letting Pietrangelo walk was revenge for him not accepting a hometown discount, but that’s a stretch.

We’ll see how it all plays out. For me, this reeks of sour grapes on the part of this executive.