Rumor: Shattenkirk for Krejci?

[Greek_physique]

It's a tough spot for sure, but that's the place this team finds itself.

I'm a Krejci guy, but other than Rask - who can you move?

Are they better with Shatenkirk with Bergeron Backes, Spooner and Nash at center?

or staying pat with whats missed the playoffs the last 2 seasons?

If they move krecji, they'd have more money to make another deal for a center.

IMO, I'd say they are worse.

Backes / Spooner (as much as I like him as a player) don't have enough offensive power to succeed as a top 2 center.

The reason we all loved the Backes signing (with the exception of it being 1 year too long) is that it gives us a solid 3rd line center that can also play the wing when needed.

I still feel like we can acquire a top 4 dman without losing DK as the team has enough cap space / prospects to get it done.

 

[Seidenbergy]

About the same response I got when I suggested that the Bruins trade Lucic.

Maybe from a vocal minority. Most here were fine with trading Looch. Trading Bergy? Good luck finding ANY support for that one.

 

[Therick67]

IMO, I'd say they are worse.

Backes / Spooner (as much as I like him as a player) don't have enough offensive power to succeed as a top 2 center.

The reason we all loved the Backes signing (with the exception of it being 1 year too long) is that it gives us a solid 3rd line center that can also play the wing when needed.

I still feel like we can acquire a top 4 dman without losing DK as the team has enough cap space / prospects to get it done.

I'd think if they did move Krejci, another move for a C would be necessary.

At this point, it feels like this teams future is dependent on these prospects. Do we trust them to trade away the right ones and keep the right ones?

 

[kdog82]

If you get Berglund (C,LW) in the deal eases the blow a bit as Spooner/Berglund can alter playing center and left wing.

The Blues would probably need to include a guy like Berglund to make the deal work $ wise.

Shattenkirk + Berglund

for

Krejci + Arnesson (or comparable prospect) + Edm 2nd 2017

 

[Greek_physique]

I'd think if they did move Krejci, another move for a C would be necessary.

At this point, it feels like this teams future is dependent on these prospects. Do we trust them to trade away the right ones and keep the right ones?

And which center would be available? Most effective top 2 centers on most teams aren't available today.

Every teams future is dependent on prospects; some pan out and some don't. If you have a strong nucleus but also get back a good player that is in his mid 20's, it doesn't hurt that much.

 

[BruinDust]

That can be said about anyone though.

Fact remains, even a 80% healthy DK is still arguably our most creative offensive player. He does stuff in the neutral zone that looks so effortless and can create anything himself.

Again, you take him away and I 100% believe Bergeron's line would suffer...not only that, but if Bergeron gets hurt we'd be screwed with Spooner/Backes.

Not really, some players are simply better at battling through injuries and it's less noticeable. With Krejci it is fairly noticeable when he's playing hurt. Give him credit he goes out there many nights banged up, but it's still a concern.

But otherwise I agree. I think this Shattenkirk for Krejci stuff is bogus. I have no desire to move him for Shattenkirk. He's a critical piece of this team, and adding Backes, whether he's playing RW with Krejci, or as a center complimenting 37/46, I expect him with less defensive responsibility, better match-ups, and a repaired hip, we will see a very good Krejci this coming season.

But you can't blame posters for being concerned about his injury history, despite the fact he historically hasn't missed many games. And like it or not, his age/injury history/contract do reduce his trade value, not by a massive amount but reduced none-the-less.

 

[chizzler]

If this deal happens, I'm returning the keys to the person who feeds me my Blues information

I don't know if it's true or not. IMO, I wouldn't touch Krejci with a ten foot pole. Guy has a huge contract, has had surgery in both hips( with one he's recovering from), and disappears for weeks at at a time and is slow. I have a hard time believing this.

 

[Therick67]

And which center would be available? Most effective top 2 centers on most teams aren't available today.

Every teams future is dependent on prospects; some pan out and some don't. If you have a strong nucleus but also get back a good player that is in his mid 20's, it doesn't hurt that much.

I don't know, but if Sweeney is considering this move - I'm sure he knows.

I don't see how they can land a top defensmen without giving up something off the roster and not giving up some of it's top prospects.

 

[C77]

Maybe from a vocal minority. Most here were fine with trading Looch. Trading Bergy? Good luck finding ANY support for that one.

I don't want to hijack the thread with this specific discussion.

I will say that it is important to keep in mind that the last two years the Bruins have been about dead average. Each year 8 out of 16 teams in the East have gotten into the playoffs, and the Bruins were not among them. Given the ages of the core players on this team, Chara 39, Krejci 30, Bergeron 31, it is unlikely that this situation is going to improve in the short term. Other teams are getting notably better and the Bruins have thus far made only a lateral move (Eriksson for Backes). It is important to move assets while they still have value.

Given the overall situation of the Bruins, I do not see a point in addressing short-term needs at the expense of long-term success. I suppose if it can be done cheaply you do something as a GM to create interest in the team. Otherwise this team should be prioritizing 3 or 4 years down the line and I fail to see how acquiring Shattenkirk addresses that. What is Shattenkirk plays poorly for Boston? Given the mediocrity of the team in general it is certainly plausible. Are the Bruins still essentially forced to re-sign him because they have no one else ready? Or what happens if the Bruins immediately extend him to major term and dollars before seeing him play here and he plays poorly?

 

[bp13]

I don't know if it's true or not. IMO, I wouldn't touch Krejci with a ten foot pole. Guy has a huge contract, has had surgery in both hips( with one he's recovering from), and disappears for weeks at at a time and is slow. I have a hard time believing this.

I think you're focusing on his negatives and ignoring his talent and his importance to this team. And he'd be a top 3 forward on that Blues team.

But more importantly, can't we apply the same negative lens to Shattenkirk? Not great in his own end. He was demoted to 3rd pair in the playoffs after looking rough for several games. Despite this, he's looking for a long-term deal at or north of $6.5M per year, which is only $750K less than Krejci. After StL got eliminated there were folks on this site, after watching Shattenkirk, claiming they wouldn't give up Spooner and the SJ pick. Now we don't think Krejci is enough? I'd trade 3 Ryan Spooners for David Krejci.

 

[Therick67]

I don't want to hijack the thread with this specific discussion.

I will say that it is important to keep in mind that the last two years the Bruins have been about dead average. Each year 8 out of 16 teams in the East have gotten into the playoffs, and the Bruins were not among them. Given the ages of the core players on this team, Chara 39, Krejci 30, Bergeron 31, it is unlikely that this situation is going to improve in the short term. Other teams are getting notably better and the Bruins have thus far made only a lateral move (Eriksson for Backes). It is important to move assets while they still have value.

Given the overall situation of the Bruins, I do not see a point in addressing short-term needs at the expense of long-term success. I suppose if it can be done cheaply you do something as a GM to create interest in the team. Otherwise this team should be prioritizing 3 or 4 years down the line and I fail to see how acquiring Shattenkirk addresses that. What is Shattenkirk plays poorly for Boston? Given the mediocrity of the team in general it is certainly plausible. Are the Bruins still essentially forced to re-sign him because they have no one else ready? Or what happens if the Bruins immediately extend him to major term and dollars before seeing him play here and he plays poorly?

This team is in a tough spot. It also depends on what the Owner wants. As painful as the last 2 years have been, this year could be worse.

I sure hope these prospects are as good as the talk surrounding them, because if they aren't....

 

[Fonzerelli]

I don't want to hijack the thread with this specific discussion.

I will say that it is important to keep in mind that the last two years the Bruins have been about dead average. Each year 8 out of 16 teams in the East have gotten into the playoffs, and the Bruins were not among them. Given the ages of the core players on this team, Chara 39, Krejci 30, Bergeron 31, it is unlikely that this situation is going to improve in the short term. Other teams are getting notably better and the Bruins have thus far made only a lateral move (Eriksson for Backes). It is important to move assets while they still have value.

Given the overall situation of the Bruins, I do not see a point in addressing short-term needs at the expense of long-term success. I suppose if it can be done cheaply you do something as a GM to create interest in the team. Otherwise this team should be prioritizing 3 or 4 years down the line and I fail to see how acquiring Shattenkirk addresses that. What is Shattenkirk plays poorly for Boston? Given the mediocrity of the team in general it is certainly plausible. Are the Bruins still essentially forced to re-sign him because they have no one else ready? Or what happens if the Bruins immediately extend him to major term and dollars before seeing him play here and he plays poorly?

We've seen Shattenkirk perform extremely well for 5 years in a row now and as a defenseman he is just coming into his prime years. Defensemen typically peak at ages 28-30 so he should be a pretty prized player, if not today, then for sure next July 1

 

[C77]

This team is in a tough spot. It also depends on what the Owner wants. As painful as the last 2 years have been, this year could be worse.

I sure hope these prospects are as good as the talk surrounding them, because if they aren't....

I sincerely hope that the ownership stays out of the hockey operations and that the rhetoric about making the playoffs every year is for public consumption and to set expectations.

I like a good deal of the B's prospects, I think McAvoy could be a stud d-man considering what he did at such a young age last year. But even if a good number of them pan out they aren't going to be in their primes for another 3-4 years.

 

[Gordoff]

Blockbuster definitely

Krejci + Spooner + McQuaid + 2nd for Shattenkirk + Gunnarsson + Berglund

Well, something big needs to be done and soon. They can't afford yet another year of a playoff DNQ

Yah the Blues are up against cap and are going to take 5 years of DK at $7.25 coming off hip surgery and at 31. Hilarious

So true!

Lehtara was never part of the deal early in the year.

Some people take fantasy as reality and get it stuck in their heads that it's fact.

Krecji isn't without risk either. He's on a big deal and has had some injuries. I think he's worth more than Shattenkirk, but we absolutely need more skill on the blue line.

Yup, and the defensive rebuild NEEDS to start at some point. I like using futures if they can afford it. St. Louis can acquiring assets for the future ala Chicago so that they have a deeper pool waiting (not sure if that's what they already have) but in the West and in the NHL in general you need to have that depth.

I don't think this would be a bad trade but I'd look to make an alternative one. I do like the idea of getting out of one of the big contracts that the Bruins have up front (either Krejci or Bergeron) before those players start to decline.

However, one issue is that Krejci is coming off an injury. When could this trade actually happen?

Another issue for me is that while Shattenkirk would definitely be an upgrade on the right side, I'm not sure I want to commit a major contract to him going forward, (along the lines of $7 million annually?) and the deal based around Krejci + Shattenkirk doesn't make sense without the assurance of a Shattenkirk extension. I don't think he's the kind of difference maker that warrants that kind of contract.

I'm much more favorable to the idea of acquiring Trouba even with the idea that you have to overpay and then immediately give him a large contract. Trouba to me will be a much more solid player that steers the outcome of games in his team's favor whereas Shattenkirk I think is more dependent on the quality of the team around him and gives me the "trick or treat" impression.

I want a guy that this team can build around for the future to eventually complement the defensemen that the Bruins drafted in the last two years.

Agreed: Trouba is more in line with what they need and possibly has a higher ceiling?

I like Shattenkirk more than many here but I still don`t do this deal and it isn`t because I don`t think he`d (Shattenkirk) wouldn`t improve the D but more about the B`s would be losing the versatility of Backes.

Having DK in the lineup allows for a relief of DK/Bergy to do all the heavy lifting up the middle as they can slide DB into the C role from time to time for Spoons if he`s struggling, maybe move him up on DK`s wing etc... Moving DK essentially leaves the B`s with the same potential issue up front in the middle.

Nor do I have any worries about DK`s NMC/NTC whichever it is, we`ve seen countless players moved with either. They are simply designed to give the player more control over his situation, less about a player finishing his career in a particular city

IF they were to trade Krejci, regardless of what St. Louis wants I would want Pietrangelo or Parajako (sp) even if it had to include a 2nd next year along with Krejci and/or Zboril.

If you get Berglund (C,LW) in the deal eases the blow a bit as Spooner/Berglund can alter playing center and left wing.

The Blues would probably need to include a guy like Berglund to make the deal work $ wise.

Shattenkirk + Berglund

for

Krejci + Arnesson (or comparable prospect) + Edm 2nd 2017

I believe that the B's can't trade that pick because it's compensation for Chia leaving

 

[Gordoff]

and I`m not so sure last season wasn`t the first where we see the play of JB start declining

Yes but IMO he'd STILL be a top 3 on the Bruins blueline and better than just about anyone they have (except maybe Krug). I would love to have him back if the Isles kept some salary.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I don't know if it's true or not. IMO, I wouldn't touch Krejci with a ten foot pole. Guy has a huge contract, has had surgery in both hips( with one he's recovering from), and disappears for weeks at at a time and is slow. I have a hard time believing this.

Krejci isn't "slow", he plays a slower pace. When he wants to he can play very fast as well.

 

[Gordoff]

Krejci isn't "slow", he plays a slower pace. When he wants to he can play very fast as well.

Yes when surrounded by competent, talented wings he can control the actual speed/pace of the game.

 

[Bmessy]

The Islanders took a gamble on players with upside. They dealt for Boychuk (a #4 at the time) and Leddy (a 5-6) who Quenneville wouldn't trust in the playoffs with any more ice time than he absolutely had to.

For me, the jury is still out on lLeddy.

If you watched Johnny Boychuk dominate on the 2nd pair I think it was easy to tell he was capable of being a #2 dman.

Anywho, look for teams with D depth and cap problems and maybe there's a top 4 dman to be had. Right now we need a #2 and #3 dman and in 2 years after Chara leaves will will need a #1, #2, and #3. I can't wait till Rask throws a milk crate-esque fit after dealing with another porous defense this season

 

[C77]

We've seen Shattenkirk perform extremely well for 5 years in a row now and as a defenseman he is just coming into his prime years. Defensemen typically peak at ages 28-30 so he should be a pretty prized player, if not today, then for sure next July 1

It's clear he would be an upgrade, but I'm not giving a major UFA contract to a guy that I don't consider an all-around defenseman. If you could sign him for $5.5 million a year, then by all means do it, but when you get to the $7 million AAV area I'm not interested.

 

[wintersej]

EDIT: these are KRUGs numbers, not Shattenkirk's... posted in wrong thread

From 2013-2016. All per 60 minute states are minimum 3000 minutes. Please explain how this guy could possibly be a #4.

5 on 5
Minutes: 3672 (52nd in NHL amongst D)... his TOI per game this last season was 38th in the league. Thats #2D TOI.
Offensive Zone Start%: 38.8 (3rd)
Corsi %: 53.0% (20th)
Points: 60 (20th)
Goals: 19 (10th)
P/60: 0.98 (18th)
G/60: 0.31 (11th)
Goals Allowed/60: 1.83 (8th)

All Situations
Minutes: 4661 (61st)
Points: 124 (20th)
Goals: 30 (20th)
P/60: 1.60 (12th)
G/60: 0.39 (21st)

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

the problem with Shattenkirk isn't that he's a number 4 (IMO he's a 2/3 guy). The problem is that he's a 2/3 guy who's going to get number 1 money.

 

[Jean_Jacket41]

Is Krejci traded yet?

 

[Fenian24]

not arguing simply asking, any names for RW`s you might be thinking of ?

Sharp and Stafford can play RW, Oshie but it would have to be a bigger deal. Not a great FA class next year. Really drives home how much Marchand will make if he goes UFA

 

[Gordoff]

the problem with Shattenkirk isn't that he's a number 4 (IMO he's a 2/3 guy). The problem is that he's a 2/3 guy who's going to get number 1 money.

Is 7 million per really #1 money? I just don't know.
PK Subban is at $9 million per and Shea Weber at $7.8 ....

 

[BruinDust]

the problem with Shattenkirk isn't that he's a number 4 (IMO he's a 2/3 guy). The problem is that he's a 2/3 guy who's going to get number 1 money.

What is #1 money?

Because Doughty and Karlsson (the two best in the game IMO) get 7 and 6.5 respectively.

Re-sign both of those guys today and both easily match the 9.0 Subban gets.

So if Shattenkirk on most teams is a No.2, is 6.5-7.0 million in today's marketplace No.1 money or No.2 money. I'd say it's No.2 money.

Mike Green and Johnny Boychuk get 6.0 AAV, and neither of them are No.2s IMO.

You have to take in consideration they contracts for most No.1 guys were signed some time ago in a different marketplace and those numbers no longer apply. Subban's deal raised the bar for D-men, same as Toews/Kane raised the bar for top end forwards. Not to mention a salary cap that has climbed 9.0 million since 2013.