Rumor: Rangers Pursuing Shattenkirk

[Ori]

If they make that trade, they are a clueless organization with absolutely no idea of the concept of asset management. Just sign him as a UFA.

Yeah true I quote this as it is written in stone.
We don`t need another Yandle situation all over again if u are a Ranger fan, and want this team to be best as possible next season and compete for the cup.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Regarding Nash, who despite an off-the-charts bad 2015-16 has been the Rangers’ best forward by a considerable margin over his four seasons in New York: The Post has been told the Blues are not interested in dealing for No. 61, even if the 32-year-old winger is one of the St. Louis coach Ken Hitchcock’s all-time favorite players.

That should put an end to the hypothetical Nash-for-Kevin Shattenkirk scenario that has been floating about cyberspace. Shattenkirk is a top-four right-handed defenseman the Rangers normally would covet, but, as previously reported in this space, management is leery about the cost of a contract extension for the 27-year-old whose deal for $4.25 million per expires at the end of the next season and who then would be eligible to hit the open market.

With former Ranger Keith Yandle having signed a seven-year deal worth $6.35 million per with the no-tax state Panthers on Thursday morning, Shattenkirk likely would be in line for a seven-year deal worth at least $7 million per, though one well-connected individual said the New Rochelle native might be willing to give the Blueshirts a hometown discount.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/23/rangers-slow-playing-rick-nash-trade-chris-kreider-extension/

Who ya gonna believe, Leonard... or Brooks?

This is 100% coming from STL.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I find it both hilarious and baffling that this is where the team draws the line in the sand...

Like this top tier defenseman, who is in his prime, wants to play for the Rangers, at the position they are most desperate for this exact type of player, and they say "nope, not willing to give him a big contract"

Like seriously?

 

[The Gloaming]

I find it both hilarious and baffling that this is where the team draws the line in the sand...

Like this top tier defenseman, who is in his prime, wants to play for the Rangers, at the position they are most desperate for this exact type of player, and they say "nope, not willing to give him a big contract"

Like seriously?

If Shatty was a #homegrown #warrior he would be signing an 8x8 contract with a full NMC right about now.

 

[defjux41]

All the replies of "why trade for him now when you can sign him in a year" need to realize there's a better chance than not he gets moved and signs an extension wherever he gets moved to. There's no guarantee he gets to free agency.

 

[Leetch3]

I'm sorry, it just does NOT make sense that this is actually true.

1) You had Yandle, whom you could have brought back for ~$6.5MM AAV, and you let him walk.
2) Now, you're going to go burn an asset to get almost the same player? (Right-handed, a bit better defensively, but come on - essentially much the same player?)
3) Who will need the EXACT SAME deal that Yandle got, if not more, in only a year's time?

Why, because you LIKE burning assets?

I maintain that Leonard is getting this from STL sources looking to drive up Shatty's price. Especially since everything we hear is that Gorton has his whole braintrust on lockdown.

i agree about not giving up assets (that we don't have). but yandle and shattenkirk are completely different scenarios. yandle would have cost us close to $7 mil after factoring in taxes and unless someone switch to the right side or staal got traded, he would be our 3rd pair LD...shattenkirk would be our #1 RD

justifying paying that money to a 3rd pair guy and to a 1st pair guy are different universes...i believe 100% that if yandle played the right side we would have found a way to clear the cap space and kept him

 

[Irishguy42]

Brooks says the Blues aren't interested in Nash, and the Rangers aren't interested in Shattenkirk.

I doubt Leonards source overrules what Brooks has. It might, but it's a stretch.

I would love Shattenkirk on the team, but I don't think it'll happen.

 

[SouthernRanger]

I really do wonder if 27/28 is the kind of "youth injection" the Rangers are apparently under mandate to get. I keep thinking much younger so they are cost controlled and the FO can try grow these guys into another cup window in the next few years.

Shatty is the kind of guy I go for when I am that one piece away, like Yandle was...woof.

 

[MacTruck27]

Brooks says the Blues aren't interested in Nash, and the Rangers aren't interested in Shattenkirk.

I doubt Leonards source overrules what Brooks has. It might, but it's a stretch.

I would love Shattenkirk on the team, but I don't think it'll happen.

as much as I dislike Brooks, I think he is way more plugged in than Leonard. I also think that if you read the rest of that article it means that we have to buy out Girardi ASAP and also trade Staal. I think it makes a lot more sense trying to aquire Shattenkirk or someone like him after we have done that.

 

[JanErixon20]

Pursue him next offseason, when it doesn't cost you a 1st + Klein and than some.

If they make that trade, they are a clueless organization with absolutely no idea of the concept of asset management. Just sign him as a UFA.

How do you know he'll make it to UFA next summer?

 

[eco's bones]

How do you know he'll make it to UFA next summer?

I would not even bother to trade for Shattenkirk now without having an agreement with him in place to sign a contract.

 

[Ail]

All the replies of "why trade for him now when you can sign him in a year" need to realize there's a better chance than not he gets moved and signs an extension wherever he gets moved to. There's no guarantee he gets to free agency.

Of course not, but I take that gamble. If he wasn't a big Rangers fan I'd be more inclined to consider giving up the assets to secure him.

Also for those comparing this to Yandle I don't think it applies, he's younger and the Rangers *should* be competitive again while Shattenkirk is still a good defensemen. I would sign him next year unless the Rangers are going full rebuild which I sincerely doubt.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Of course not, but I take that gamble. If he wasn't a big Rangers fan I'd be more inclined to consider giving up the assets to secure him.

Also for those comparing this to Yandle I don't think it applies, he's younger and the Rangers *should* be competitive again while Shattenkirk is still a good defensemen. I would sign him next year unless the Rangers are going full rebuild which I sincerely doubt.

When I think of the Yandle comparison...I think of how he was used and how that ultimately contributed to a lack of desire to sign him.

I mean yes, Shatty should be "less blocked" than Yandle due to the left/right dynamic of the NYR d.

But if he has a few adventures in the dzone and AV rolls McD-Klein, Staal-G, and Skjei-Shatty, would that really be that surprising? Would the luster of resigning in NY be dulled a bit?

I love the guy but it is way too risky for an asset starved franchise to deal more assets again.

 

[JanErixon20]

I would not even bother to trade for Shattenkirk now without having an agreement with him in place to sign a contract.

I can't disagree.

 

[haveandare]

I'd like to get him. I think/hope/pray AV won't last the year so maybe he'd be utilized correctly at some point, in which case he'd be a great asset.

 

[DanielBrassard]

If we are trading Nash, Stepan, etc. We could turn a couple of assets into Shattenkirk.

 

[New York RKY]

I don't think that people realize that this would be nothing like the Yandle situation.

St. Louis has given permission to any team that they stike a deal with to talk extension with Shattenkirk. Any time that acquires him won't only be for this year.

I'm not for or against this deal, it depends on the cost but it's not like if a trade happens we can just sign him in the offseason.

 

[Ghost of jas]

http://nypost.com/2016/06/23/rangers-slow-playing-rick-nash-trade-chris-kreider-extension/

Who ya gonna believe, Leonard... or Brooks?

This is 100% coming from STL.

Brooks is the Ranger mouthpiece, so his info is likely an attempt to bring down the cost. Leonard's info is likely a Blues source.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Brooks is the Ranger mouthpiece, so his info is likely an attempt to bring down the cost. Leonard's info is likely a Blues source.

Agreed. I would even say it's likely that Brooks' info is an attempt to bring down the cost / make their position known in print.

If they weren't interested at all - why feel the need to leak any comment? Just go about your business.

I have no doubt there is real interest in Shattenkirk. If Nash is truly out you are probably looking at Kreider/Hayes which makes me gag, but I could see it.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Brooks is the Ranger mouthpiece, so his info is likely an attempt to bring down the cost. Leonard's info is likely a Blues source.

Leonard has no sources..

 

[Ghost of jas]

Agreed. I would even say it's likely that Brooks' info is an attempt to bring down the cost / make their position known in print.

If they weren't interested at all - why feel the need to leak any comment? Just go about your business.

I have no doubt there is real interest in Shattenkirk. If Nash is truly out you are probably looking at Kreider/Hayes which makes me gag, but I could see it.

I wouldn't have a problem with Rangers pursuing Shattenkirk if the prior deals of Nash, Stepan/Brassard, and perhaps Staal and Klein brought back enough overflow assets that such a deal wouldn't strip away too much depth. Plus, the Rangers would have to have a window to sigh him. I think adding Shattenkirk into a group that includes McD and Skjei and perhaps McIlrath could be a quality top 4 in a year or two.

 

[Killem Dafoe]

All this talk about 27 being too old is making me seriously depressed this morning. lol

I would be down for Shatty. He's what we need in a defenseman and we're going to be upgrading that area anyway. I think we're trying to dangle some young forwards for a young D with potential (Dumba? would be a good example).

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I wouldn't have a problem with Rangers pursuing Shattenkirk if the prior deals of Nash, Stepan/Brassard, and perhaps Staal and Klein brought back enough overflow assets that such a deal wouldn't strip away too much depth. Plus, the Rangers would have to have a window to sigh him. I think adding Shattenkirk into a group that includes McD and Skjei and perhaps McIlrath could be a quality top 4 in a year or two.

Sure. As always, everything depends on context.

But as for the Brooks article, it need not NECESSARILY be them trying to bring the price down. It could also be Brooks simply doing follow up reporting:

"Gorts, I've heard a rumor you're after Shattenkirk, is it true?"

"Larry, we just let Yandle go, why would we be after Shatty?"

I'm not saying definitively that there haven't been talks to get him, just offering another possible scenario.

 

[Miller Time NYR]

How do you know he'll make it to UFA next summer?

Nobody knows if he will or won't but imo this team is not in a position to ensure he doesn't by trading for and signing him now. Boston offered a 1st and the Blues declined, what do we have to offer on top of a first which is clearly the starting point?

 

[Tawnos]

All this talk about 27 being too old is making me seriously depressed this morning. lol

I would be down for Shatty. He's what we need in a defenseman and we're going to be upgrading that area anyway. I think we're trying to dangle some young forwards for a young D with potential (Dumba? would be a good example).

I think the interpretation that he's too old at 27 is missing what most posters are saying. If you sign Shattenkirk to a 7 year extension, he will be in his 30s for all but 1.5 years of that particular contract. It's a legitimate concern, although I think they'd be fine.