Then trade for one! Yes it's costs to get a trade but it is what it is. Before I get yelled at for going off topic I'll stop talking shatenkirk.
Still think jagr would be better and have more trade value
Let me get this straight...
So we shouldn't sign a big-ticket free agent because it doesn't match our organizational timeline. Instead, you think we should play the kids, see what we have, and go from there.
But now, instead of signing a premiere player at his position, you're advocating a trade for one? Do you not realize such a trade would almost certainly cost those very kids you want to play so much? Why do you not find it more advantageous to sign a player for just cash, rather than gutting our young depth in a trade?
Shattenkirk is a Ranger, so this is all moot. Your approach has been fallacious from the start, though, and I'm just trying to understand your logic. Because I don't get it at all.