Proposal: NYR/EDM

[slg1963]

Shattenkirk , Gilmore ,26th ,30th for Klefbom ,10th . Rangers get a defenseman back and a high pick , Edm get a PP quarterback they are seeking , another young defenseman and 2 first round picks .

Click to read more...

 

[doomscroll]

Not good at all for Edmonton. Gilmour is essentially a throwaway asset, and Shattenkirk does not have more value than Klefbom, being that the latter is signed for an additional two years for $2.5 million less AAV on top of being four years younger. Both had injury issues this season, but I would put money on the 24-year-old bouncing back to a more effectively level.

A package of 26 and 30 OA doesn’t break into the top-ten by any means

 

[Taytro]

Stahp. This is awful for Edmonton.

 

[bernmeister]

Rangers not trading Shatty for at least another year if at all.
Gets a do over due to knee injury
took less to come to NYC

no Shat, no for this deal even theoretically possible to consider

 

[One Winged Angel]

I don't like this deal from a Ranger perspective. I don't think it does anything for them. I'm not that high on Klefbom, I don't really care about the salary differential between him and Shattenkirk right now and I don't care to move down a pick and give up 2 1st rounders in the process.

This deal isn't appealing at all, to me.

 

[slg1963]

I don't like this deal from a Ranger perspective. I don't think it does anything for them. I'm not that high on Klefbom, I don't really care about the salary differential between him and Shattenkirk right now and I don't care to move down a pick and give up 2 1st rounders in the process.

This deal isn't appealing at all, to me.

We are not moving down a pick , we keep our 9th . And by the way i`m not that high on Shatts.

 

[Vancouver Canucks]

I think Edmonton gives up too much there.

 

[Spirit of 67]

This is just brutal for Edmonton.

 

[One Winged Angel]

We are not moving down a pick , we keep our 9th . And by the way i`m not that high on Shatts.

Thought I saw the 9th in there, my apologies, it's early.

I still don't see any reason to do this. Even if you're not high on Shattenkirk, Klefbom isn't a difference maker and I'm not throwing multiple 1sts at a time where we need them to move up to 10 and get a guy who isn't a world beater.

If they want to surrender a pick and move up to get Hughes, if necessary then by all means, I'm for it.

 

[joestevens29]

I wouldn't be shocked to see PC looking at a deal similar to that. I think shatty is the kind of guy we are looking for and Klef seems to be someone we'd move.

With that being said, 10 team NTC. Willing to bet most Canadian teams are on that list.

 

[Ragdoll]

Oh hell nah, this does nothing for Edmonton. I’d rather bank on Klefbom bouncing back and getting a good player at 10. Adding salary for a player who is older and not even a great deal better. Nope! I think that package could fetch a way better defenceman.

 

[hockeyguy1967]

Oilers are not selling low of Klefbom after the season he had the year before. He was injured all last year and went for surgery at the end of the year that went well.

 

[TGWL]

I don't really think this trade works out.

Lets say Shatty + 26 or 30th gets us #10. You can argue that Shatty by himself is worth the #10 but I think teams are aware of his struggles in his own end. I think Shatty has more value than people want to admit, not being signed long that long also benefits him compared to having 6 years left, but Klef is worth more than the #26 alone, or the 3oth alone. Gilmore is a waste in this package, no real value added on in favor of the Rangers, or for the Oilers.

 

[oXo Cube]

Shattenkirk already refused a trade to Edmonton in the past.

 

[Cup or Bust]

If the Oilers want an offensive d-man that is bad defensively, I would rather the Oilers just keep Klefbom who is younger and cheaper.

 

[hockeyguy1967]

If the Oilers want an offensive d-man that is bad defensively, I would rather the Oilers just keep Klefbom who is younger and cheaper.

Klefbom is not bad defensively (Well this last year he was bad in general) are you thinking of Gardner or Reily?

 

[Klaus3154]

Brutal for Edmonton but I won’t discuss that for now.

I keep seeing proposals for this “#30oa” pick which seems bizarre considering we don’t know what that pick will be. If TB loses tonight that pick will be #28, Winnipeg had more points so they will get #29 with the Stanley Cups finalist getting 30 and 31. If TB goes to finals and loses the pick is 30 and if they win it is 31. These positions makes a huge difference in evaluating this pick. Can we please just hold off on trade proposals with this pick involved till we know what number it is?

 

[ManofSteel55]

Shattenkirk turned us down before, we don't want him now.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Brutal for Edmonton but I won’t discuss that for now.

I keep seeing proposals for this “#30oa” pick which seems bizarre considering we don’t know what that pick will be. If TB loses tonight that pick will be #28, Winnipeg had more points so they will get #29 with the Stanley Cups finalist getting 30 and 31. If TB goes to finals and loses the pick is 30 and if they win it is 31. These positions makes a huge difference in evaluating this pick. Can we please just hold off on trade proposals with this pick involved till we know what number it is?

While that's a very good point, I think the Rangers shouldn't be trading picks unless it's to move up from the 9th spot for someone that they have their eyes on.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Shattenkirk turned us down before, we don't want him now.

Agreed that was one of the first things I thought of with this. I doubt Shattenkirk would waive for Edmonton, if they are on his list.

Doesn't make sense for either team, to be honest.

 

[Jumptheshark]

could have sworn that Hall was offered for Shattenkirk only to be told he had no interest in signing in Edmonton--do not see how things have changed

shattenkirk wanted the east coast

 

[Klaus3154]

While that's a very good point, I think the Rangers shouldn't be trading picks unless it's to move up from the 9th spot for someone that they have their eyes on.

Couldn’t agree with you more. I am even hesitant about moving up. I wouldn’t mind utilizing all 3 picks and see what happens. Teams sound like they want a king’s ransom to move up. While that is understandable on their end, I don’t think it is in the Rangers best interest. Maybe if packaging one or both of their 2nd round picks to move up a couple of spots (if available) but I want them to have 3 picks in the 1st.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Couldn’t agree with you more. I am even hesitant about moving up. I wouldn’t mind utilizing all 3 picks and see what happens. Teams sound like they want a king’s ransom to move up. While that is understandable on their end, I don’t think it is in the Rangers best interest. Maybe if packaging one or both of their 2nd round picks to move up a couple of spots (if available) but I want them to have 3 picks in the 1st.

Bang on, couldn't agree more with that. It's just a matter of what it would actually take to move up.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Bad for the Oil, I'd do it as Rags

 

[thadd]

Edmonton trades goal scoring d-man with questionable injury history and 10th overall for an older, higher paid d-man with a questionable injury history that's going to score less goals and a few more points and 2 late 1sts.

Yeah... thanks but no thanks.
Take the draft picks out and it makes sense.
Rangers yet younger and the Oilers get the depth they need on the right side.
It's a gamble for both teams and I'm not sure Shattenkirk is the guy for Edmonton.