Unless you think the Blues' offer of eight-by-eight with a partial no trade and signing bonus was fake or something, the Faulk extension doesn't have much to do with the Pietrangelo situation.
If Pietrangelo takes that deal, which was more money over the life of the contract than he got with Vegas, then the Blues would have had to go about making room for that contract.
Faulk might have even become one of the players who got shipped out.
If Pietrangelo let the Faulk extension happening before his distort his view of the Blues offer to him, I think that's more on him than the Blues.
The Blues didn't make some lowball offer here that was the result of the Faulk extension.
That's not what happened.
The full no movement clauses can turn into a mouse and cookie situation. Give one, and you're expected to give another. And another. Armstrong was willing to compromise by offering a partial, a rare thing. Pietrangelo was not. Both parties seemed to be interested in protection at the back end of the deal. The Blues were willing to offer some but not complete. Pietrangelo didn't agree until he had full protection from Vegas. That could speak to a lack of trust between Pietrangelo and Armstrong, and that's probably a wise move on Pietrangelo's part. If he did not play well toward the end of his contract, Armstrong might find a way to offload him or minimize the damage. The Knights can no longer do that. They gave up that flexibility, and could end up paying for it later. Literally.