Rumor: Rumors and Proposals | Why You Heff to Sign Vatanen?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cloned

Begging for Bega
Aug 25, 2003
79,409
65,320
If there was any chance that Shattenkirk was open to Edmonton... the media would be all over it. It's an obvious fit.

I'm sure there is a reason no one is talking about it. It's not gonna happen.

LeBrun did say the Oilers called about him.
 

s7ark

RIP
Jul 3, 2003
27,579
174
100% we should, especially cause if hartnell comes it means he waived his NMC and we dont have to protect him

Probably already addressed, but if a player waives his NMC it's still in effect. It doesn't nullify it.



I think its a risk you take. Boston nearly got him *supposedly* for Eriksson + pick and took back a bad Blues contract

So if you could get Shattenkirk, unsigned, for Pouliot + 3rd and take on Reaves. You do it

Sure if they can get him for that, but if it's going to cost RNH or Eberle or something then that is too high a price to pay for 1 yr of Shattenkirk. Probably less because they'd have to trade him at the deadline.
 

nullmeatbag

Registered User
Jun 16, 2009
414
0
Looks like some of the realistic options on D include Shattenkirk, Campbell, and Fowler.

If we could get an unsigned Shattenkirk for a combination of lesser assets (i.e., Pouliout, Yakupov, 2nd) and somehow replace Fayne with Campbell, I'd be stoked.
 

KeithIsActuallyBad

You thrust your pelvis, huh!
Apr 12, 2010
72,579
31,611
Calgary
If you are taking a risk, you want upside. RNH for a signed Shattenkirk is roughly around FV. So I 100% agree with quoted post that it is unnecessary risk. If you are getting Shattenkirk unsigned its for a discount

Given that the Leafs have already locked up Andersen not even an hour after he was traded there's lots of talking room.

No, you don't. Not if you're not sure he'll re-sign. 60 games of Shattenkirk, what he'd bring at next year's deadline, and no RNH is worse off than we were before.

Staying the course is not the answer either. Oilers have to get better and if Shattenkirk is on the table you go after him.

A team that has done jack **** for 10 years should hardly be worried about being somehow worse than they already are.
 

Tarus

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
9,429
4,517
Edmonton
I don't dislike RNH but why do we have a death grip on him? If he gets you Shattenkirk you take the risk.

I do dislike RNH, and I absolutely would not do that deal.

RNH has the status and reputation around the league to get something better than a player one year away from UFA status, especially when that player has a lot of rumors suggesting that signing in the eastern conference is a priority for him.
 

Jimmi McJenkins

Sometimes miracles
Jan 12, 2006
75,604
35,381
Alberta
Staying the course is not the answer either. Oilers have to get better and if Shattenkirk is on the table you go after him.

A team that has done jack **** for 10 years should hardly be worried about being somehow worse than they already are.

So giving up Nuge is for Shattenkirk is ok, even if he walks away (needs to be traded at the deadline) because it might make the better next year and you're frustrated?

Because that's dumb, frankly. If they were able to bring him in re-signed for atleast 4 years, that trade might make some sense. Nuge for an unsigned Shattenkirk is terrible and will very likely blow up for the team.
 

BowDangles

Registered User
May 2, 2010
2,906
33
Edmonton
If there was any chance that Shattenkirk was open to Edmonton... the media would be all over it. It's an obvious fit.

I'm sure there is a reason no one is talking about it. It's not gonna happen.

Lebrun mentioned Edmonton has called St Louis about Shattenkirk recently on a radio hit.
I believe that's where all this Shattenkirk talk is coming from...
 

gordonhught

Registered User
Feb 18, 2009
14,300
13,209
So giving up Nuge is for Shattenkirk is ok, even if he walks away (needs to be traded at the deadline) because it might make the better next year and you're frustrated?

Because that's dumb, frankly. If they were able to bring him in re-signed for atleast 4 years, that trade might make some sense. Nuge for an unsigned Shattenkirk is terrible and will very likely blow up for the team.

Cloned thinks it is a good idea.
 

KeithIsActuallyBad

You thrust your pelvis, huh!
Apr 12, 2010
72,579
31,611
Calgary
I do dislike RNH, and I absolutely would not do that deal.

RNH has the status and reputation around the league to get something better than a player one year away from UFA status, especially when that player has a lot of rumors suggesting that signing in the eastern conference is a priority for him.

That's why you add in other pieces. Deals aren't always player for player.

So giving up Nuge is for Shattenkirk is ok, even if he walks away (needs to be traded at the deadline) because it might make the better next year and you're frustrated?

Because that's dumb, frankly. If they were able to bring him in re-signed for atleast 4 years, that trade might make some sense. Nuge for an unsigned Shattenkirk is terrible and will very likely blow up for the team.

Playing it safe is a very large part of the reason the Oilers are were they have been for the past decade. RNH is a good player but that's so far all he really is, a good player. We already seem to have our hearts set on Drai/McD as our top 2 centers, so why is letting RNH go painful?

It's amusing that people are worried about it blowing up in our faces when all it really cost us was a decent second line center.
 

Aceboogie

Registered User
Aug 25, 2012
32,649
3,896
As for Hartnell rumor. Id do some deal around him and either 3rd OR Jones (or both) and our 4th overall. Honestly having him as a NMC means like Pouliot or Maroon at worst is exposed. Considering Hartnell is probably equal to Maroon for next 2 years or so, I wouldnt say thats a bad move. Considering wed pick up a great asset in the process

Basically our summer could be solved in 1 trade

The base being: 3rd + Jones + Hartnell + something for 4th + RNH

Oilers get top pairing RD, Puljujarvi and get a vet PWF
 

ChaoticOrange

Registered User
Jun 29, 2008
50,581
29,245
Edmonton
Given that the Leafs have already locked up Andersen not even an hour after he was traded there's lots of talking room.



Staying the course is not the answer either. Oilers have to get better and if Shattenkirk is on the table you go after him.

A team that has done jack **** for 10 years should hardly be worried about being somehow worse than they already are.

Yes, you should, because being bad with plenty of high value movable pieces is immensely preferable to being bad without those pieces.

What does Shattenkirk bring back at the deadline if we can't sign him? A low 1st + B prospect + conditional picks? Are you comfortable moving RNH for trash?
 

KeithIsActuallyBad

You thrust your pelvis, huh!
Apr 12, 2010
72,579
31,611
Calgary
Yes, you should, because being bad with plenty of high value movable pieces is immensely preferable to being bad without those pieces.

What does Shattenkirk bring back at the deadline if we can't sign him? A low 1st + B prospect + conditional picks? Are you comfortable moving RNH for trash?

Defensemen have a lot more draw when it comes to trades than beat up centers. If it doesn't work out then oh well. We lost RNH, big whoop.
 

Jet Walters

Registered User
May 15, 2013
7,433
3,179
Yes, you should, because being bad with plenty of high value movable pieces is immensely preferable to being bad without those pieces.

What does Shattenkirk bring back at the deadline if we can't sign him? A low 1st + B prospect + conditional picks? Are you comfortable moving RNH for trash?

I think Boston wants Shattenkirk badly and Chia is just driving up the price for his good buddies Sweeney and Neally. A little payback for the Hamilton ordeal last year.
 

Bauer83

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
577
0
Even more happy with the Talbot deal and signing now seeing the numbers for Andersen. Still good for the leafs, but we got good bang for the buck on Talbot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad