Confirmed with Link: Shattenkirk trade discussion Part II

[bluemandan]

again, another good move. you can bash the oshie trade all you want and that is more than fair, but getting something for players who are going to walk and bring back nothing is SMART.

I am THRILLED Shattenkirk is gone and I look forward to the Pens bouncing the Caps again and a Blues playoff push!

Better for the Blues if the Caps bounce the Pens.

 

[Majorityof1]

I can understand the confusion some people have. We wanted a first and a prospect and got a first and a prospect. Yet we are mad. How does that make sense? Given some time to process the trade, I wanted to lay out some reasons for the anger, some rational and some not.

Roller-coaster expectations - This whole ride with Shattenkirk has been a roller-coaster of expectations. We were all excited at the draft this year and heard rumors that RNH was offered but we were leveraging for Hall. Then Armstrong says he probably asked too much and nobody was close. Throughout the season we ebb and flow, never kniowng if we are a buyer or seller. Then we hear rumors of Shatty shutting down every trade except NYR who won't offer anything. Then there is rumors of a bidding war and Hanzal, Burrows, etc get a decent haul. So we wait with anticipation for the return. We are expecting either something amazing or something so bad that would have us burn down Scotttrade. We were not prepared for something totally dull and meh and don't know quite how to react to that, so let's burn down Scottstrade anyway.

Armstrong created the situation - This is a culmination of several (apparent) mistakes by Armstrong in this whole situation. It started with pinching pennies to sign Morrow and therefor offering Shattenkirk less term. Then we don't trade him as soon as Parayko emerged. Then he seemed to screw up trading him at the draft. If Shattenkirk had more term, or had been traded earlier, we would have gotten more than rental prices from him. And before anyone blames Shattenkirk, its not his fault. He is doing what's best for him, which is what all professional athletes do. Its Amrstrong's job to manage the team in such a way that he can handle those things. He cannot allow Shattenkirk to dictate terms.

Lack of identity - We need to get bigger...no faster..no bigger. Make up your mind. We have a coach that had success with speed in Minnessota and were going into a speedier direction. Then we re-sign Berglund to a big contract and target "meh" skating but tall Sanford.

We almost have enough third liners to field 4 3rd lines - We don't need another 3rd liner. That is Sanford's most likely outcome. He doesn't ooze Top 6 talent. Right now, we could run 3 3rd lines: Agostino - Barbashev - Paajarvi; Sanford - Berglund - Jaskin; Rattie - Lehtera - Yakupov; Upshall - Sobotka - Perron. Now some of those are bad for 3rd liners (Rattie/Yak), some may have a little more upside (Sanford/Barbs) and Perron is probably more a top 6 guy. But still, that is a lot of 3rd line talent to have. Yet we have holes in our top 6. Most notably at center, but also I'd prefer a true 2RW and drop Perron down to 3rd. We also have several bottom 6 prospects (Musil, Blias, MacEachern) who most likely top out at 3rd line, but again, few top 6 potential (Thompson and Kryou being a long shot). And let's not even talk about the LW depth chart.

WTF was Berglund deal - Given the above situation with 3rd liners, why did we re-sign Berglund for a decent cap hit for 5 years only to go after a 22 year old LW/C that plays a similar game. Sanford will be 27 when we are done with Berglund and ready for his own $4M deal. But what is his envisioned role until then? If Sanford becomes 3C, where does that leave Berglund?

Wrong prospect - While I have not scouted Sanford intensively, I had watched him and knew who he was before the trade. I have seen him play in a few games this year. I had considered and rejected him as a possibility when the Caps came out as a potential option. I don't see him as a center or RW in the NHL. He looked much more comfortable on the left. But more than that, he looks like a solid middle-6 guy with no true top 6 upside. As stated above, we need a top 6 infusion badly. I'd have much rather taken a 50-50 boom-bust top 6 C than a 100% definite bottom-6 winger. That's not a knock on Sanford, but just on team needs. I hope that the choice of Sanford was at the recommendation of Bill Armstrong and not pro scouting. If Bill liked him 4 years ago at his draft year, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. If our pro scouts liked him, he is most likely terrible.

Copley - The Copley thing is just the icing on the cake. He is only a UFA because we didn't play him enough. He is a Group VI UFA. It allows players to become UFAs at 25 if they do not play enough NHL games (28 for goalies). We never trusted him enough to play him at all in the NHL. Last season we signed Nillson to block him. This year we signed Hutton. If he had any organizational value, which the narrative on the Oshie trade indicates he did, we would have tried to play him enough to keep him as an RFA for one more contract. Either he was a worthless piece in the Oshie trade, or he had value and we wasted it. Either way, it sucks.

So this went longer than I anticipated. But in summary, I think most people are frustrated with the seeming lack of vision that Armstrong has demonstrated to put us in a position to have an absolute glut of 3rd line talent and very few top 6 prospects. We don't have the cap space or trade assets anymore to fill our big holes. We have lost several clear upper-tier players over the last couple of years (Oshie, Backes, Shattenkirk) and replaced them with middle of the road guys. So its difficult to watch the direction the team is heading (without knowing which direction that is).

 

[Bye Felicia]

This has been a really crummy year for StL sports and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better anytime soon.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Eh, its disappointing, but its the truth. What more could he do but hold out for good value. He's been ridiculed for having too high of expectations at the draft, and prior to now. Yet we have heard of multiple great deals (Hall, Drouin) that prove he was right to do so.

I really don't see what more he could have done to extract more value given the circumstances.

But its the circumstances that he is responsible for. He gave Shatty that shorter deal, leading to UFA at this time. I'm sure the original plan was to re-sign him now, but Parayko changed that. Its a nice problem to have, but it sucks that he didn't get Taylor Hall in exchange. Or Drouin.

He only wanted a hockey trade because the Blues were competitive when Shattenkirk still had term, but couldn't find a fit. Then he wanted the equivalent of a hockey trade, but needed Shattenkirk to agree to a sign-and-trade to make it happen since he was now a pending UFA. He put himself in a situation where he had no control over getting what he wanted, so are we surprised he didn't get it?

By the time he finally realized a futures return was all he was going to get, he had to settle for a pretty underwhelming one (relative to the asset going back the other way) because there were only a few interested parties left to deal with. If he had seriously explored trading Shattenkirk for futures earlier, he would certainly have ended up with a better return than what we received.

IMO, it's really, really hard to say that Armstrong did what he could to extract the most value from this situation. The most value would have been trading Shattenkirk for prospects/futures almost two years ago, and the next most probably dealing him at the draft for futures. He didn't want to do either because he fancied the team a contender and he didn't want to set the roster back. Last year I can buy that, but not at the draft. He couldn't make the hard call this offseason, and now the organization is paying the price for it (in multiple ways).

 

[Dbrownss]

He only wanted a hockey trade because the Blues were competitive when Shattenkirk still had term, but couldn't find a fit. Then he wanted the equivalent of a hockey trade, but needed Shattenkirk to agree to a sign-and-trade to make it happen since he was now a pending UFA. He put himself in a situation where he had no control over getting what he wanted, so are we surprised he didn't get it?

By the time he finally realized a futures return was all he was going to get, he had to settle for a pretty underwhelming one (relative to the asset going back the other way) because there were only a few interested parties left to deal with. If he had seriously explored trading Shattenkirk for futures earlier, he would certainly have ended up with a better return than what we received.

IMO, it's really, really hard to say that Armstrong did what he could to extract the most value from this situation. The most value would have been trading Shattenkirk for prospects/futures almost two years ago, and the next most probably dealing him at the draft for futures. He didn't want to do either because he fancied the team a contender and he didn't want to set the roster back. Last year I can buy that, but not at the draft. He couldn't make the hard call this offseason, and now the organization is paying the price for it (in multiple ways).

I'd say 2yrs of Shattenkirk for Larkin before he ever stepped on NHL ice is a pretty futures based trade.

 

[carter333167]

Armstrong butchering the Shatty situation (not trading him at the draft for the best available package) is bad enough, but I think the series of contracts he has handed out over the past two years will hamstring the organization even more than a failed return on Shatty. IMO, these contracts need to be unraveled via trades etc. in the offseason to re-mold the team and regain cap flexibility to meet the undeniable need to sign an elite forward.

 

[Chubbinz]

What were the better futures offers at the draft for Shatty?

 

[EastonBlues22]

I'd say 2yrs of Shattenkirk for Larkin before he ever stepped on NHL ice is a pretty futures based trade.

The only one who ever reported that was the Detroit Free Press, to the best of my knowledge.

Here's the quote, written this past June.

St. Louis has to decide what to do with defenseman Kevin Shattenkirk, but on first chatter the Blues wanted Larkin, which is a no-go. At 27, Shattenkirk has played 410 games, with 242 points, 119 of them during power plays. He’s got one year left at a cap hit of $4.25 million and would require a big contract to keep.

Everything I've ever seen about Larkin traces back to that quote, and to the best of my knowledge that's never been independently confirmed by anyone (any of the usual insiders, or even JR). It's just been repeated as fact.

Note that the quote comes out after Larkin's rookie season and in no way indicates that talks took place before his rookie year. It's also being reported by the Detroit newspaper, which usually means that it's getting whatever information the team decides to share (i.e. spin control). Why didn't this news break before? Why did it come out around the draft, and why was the DFP the only source that actually reported it?

It's not much of a stretch to think that Detroit knew they weren't getting Shattenkirk, and were trying to paint it in such a way that their fans would think that was the obvious move.

Suffice to say, I don't really believe that report.

 

[Dbrownss]

Armstrong butchering the Shatty situation (not trading him at the draft for the best available package) is bad enough, but I think the series of contracts he has handed out over the past two years will hamstring the organization even more than a failed return on Shatty. IMO, these contracts need to be unraveled via trades etc. in the offseason to re-mold the team and regain cap flexibility to meet the undeniable need to sign an elite forward.

The contracts are a big concern, no doubt about that. Lehtera is the one that absolutely has to go

 

[EastonBlues22]

What were the better futures offers at the draft for Shatty?

We don't know. Armstrong was still insisting on a hockey trade at that point.

 

[bleedblue1223]

We've just heard about Hertl+1st, and previously Drouin. Take those with the Larkin reports, and it's clear that youth was definitely a main ask for Army. Now he should be criticized for not pulling the trigger at a different time to maximize the return, but we shouldn't also put him at fault for failing to at least target the correct things.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Army said that teams dictated Shatty's value to him, which is about a damning indictment of Army as I can think of.

Then Caps say "screw you Blues" and get a different rental and Blues are stuck with Shatty for the rest of the year.

I'm sorry, if this is the best anyone would offer, I take it.

 

[Dbrownss]

The only one who ever reported that was the Detroit Free Press, to the best of my knowledge.

Here's the quote, written this past June.



Everything I've ever seen about Larkin traces back to that quote, and to the best of my knowledge that's never been independently confirmed by anyone (any of the usual insiders, or even JR). It's just been repeated as fact.

Note that the quote comes out after Larkin's rookie season and in no way indicates that talks took place before his rookie year. It's also being reported by the Detroit newspaper, which usually means that it's getting whatever information the team decides to share (i.e. spin control). Why didn't this news break before? Why did it come out around the draft, and why was the DFP the only source that actually reported it?

It's not much of a stretch to think that Detroit knew they weren't getting Shattenkirk, and were trying to paint it in such a way that their fans would think that was the obvious move.

Suffice to say, I don't really believe that report.

Next chat I'll ask JR. Its been addressed a few times before but as far as I can remember, he didn't deny it or confirm it.


On a side note, why would he trade Shattenkirk for anything but a hockey trade when he had term. Unless you were getting a sure fire blue chip prospect back? A pure futures trade (just picks) would be very risky....those picks could all be late.

 

[BangarangxRufio]

Then Caps say "screw you Blues" and get a different rental and Blues are stuck with Shatty for the rest of the year.

I'm sorry, if this is the best anyone would offer, I take it.

I hope the Caps turn around and sign and trade Shatty to the before 3pm tomorrow for Kapanen/First/2018 2nd...IDK if thats allowed, I just think its funny.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

So according to Armstrong today, both Tage Thompson and Zach Sanford are viewed as centers. That's different from what I've seen discussed here.

 

[BangarangxRufio]

So according to Armstrong today, both Tage Thompson and Zach Sanford are viewed as centers. That's different from what I've seen discussed here.

Yea, everything I've seen on here is TT will play a wing...interesting. Sanford i get, he is a Center that moved to wings for the Caps due to depth down the middle.

 

[Dbrownss]

We've just heard about Hertl+1st, and previously Drouin. Take those with the Larkin reports, and it's clear that youth was definitely a main ask for Army. Now he should be criticized for not pulling the trigger at a different time to maximize the return, but we shouldn't also put him at fault for failing to at least target the correct things.

Drouin is very curious.... idk why they would trade him now. Kid is always doing something. We dont know how close that contract came to being done. Shattenkirk could have out right rejected or it could have been 1m off or 1yr off. Just points to Armstrong not being out to lunch on his sign and trade.


So many scenerios but at the end of the day, Armstrong moved him for picks and a prospect. Something most figured wouldnt happen

 

[bleedblue1223]

So according to Armstrong today, both Tage Thompson and Zach Sanford are viewed as centers. That's different from what I've seen discussed here.

Good to know that is our internal plan. Lets see how they develop, would be huge if they both develop into centers.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Next chat I'll ask JR. Its been addressed a few times before but as far as I can remember, he didn't deny it or confirm it.


On a side note, why would he trade Shattenkirk for anything but a hockey trade when he had term. Unless you were getting a sure fire blue chip prospect back? A pure futures trade (just picks) would be very risky....those picks could all be late.

Chances are a Shattenkirk with term does warrant a blue chip prospect. I'm not going to complain about him not exploring that if he thought last year's team had a Cup run in them. That team was actually pretty decent.

At the draft was when he really dropped the ball on being open to a futures return, though. By the draft he knew this team wasn't retaining Backes, Brouwer, and that they were trading Elliott. A ton of teams could have used Shattenkirk coming into this year, and pretty much anyone with playoff aspirations (which is most teams during the offseason) would have been happy to add him to their roster. And it's not like rosters/budgets were set for teams at that point.

Not many of them would have given up a key roster player to make it happen, but I'm sure a good number would have given up prospects/picks. High need + high demand = high value. He could have basically named his price in terms of prospects/picks, and someone probably would have paid it. Maybe not a team's best prospect, but a pretty good one with a multiple guaranteed picks was certainly not out of the question. A first for this year's draft gathered then could have ended up a lottery pick instead of a strong bet to be in the bottom five. Wouldn't it be nice to have Detroit's 2018 first right about now?

 

[bleedblue1223]

Chances are a Shattenkirk with term does warrant a blue chip prospect. I'm not going to complain about him not exploring that if he thought last year's team had a Cup run in them. That team was actually pretty decent.

At the draft was when he really dropped the ball on being open to a futures return, though. By the draft he knew this team wasn't retaining Backes, Brouwer, and that they were trading Elliott. A ton of teams could have used Shattenkirk coming into this year, and pretty much anyone with playoff aspirations (which is most teams during the offseason) would have been happy to add him to their roster. And it's not like rosters/budgets were set for teams at that point.

Not many of them would have given up a key roster player to make it happen, but I'm sure a good number would have given up prospects/picks. High need + high demand = high value. He could have basically named his price in terms of prospects/picks, and someone probably would have paid it. Maybe not a team's best prospect, but a pretty good one with a multiple guaranteed picks was certainly not out of the question. A first for this year's draft gathered then could have ended up a lottery pick instead of a strong bet to be in the bottom five. Wouldn't it be nice to have Detroit's 2018 first right about now?

He said the best offer he got was a 1st later than ours, so that was Boston's 29th. Was it only that pick or was there something attached to it? I don't think you would've been happy with the futures package that we would've received at the draft.

 

[Dbrownss]

Chances are a Shattenkirk with term does warrant a blue chip prospect. I'm not going to complain about him not exploring that if he thought last year's team had a Cup run in them. That team was actually pretty decent.

At the draft was when he really dropped the ball on being open to a futures return, though. By the draft he knew this team wasn't retaining Backes, Brouwer, and that they were trading Elliott. A ton of teams could have used Shattenkirk coming into this year, and pretty much anyone with playoff aspirations (which is most teams during the offseason) would have been happy to add him to their roster. And it's not like rosters/budgets were set for teams at that point.

Not many of them would have given up a key roster player to make it happen, but I'm sure a good number would have given up prospects/picks. High need + high demand = high value. He could have basically named his price in terms of prospects/picks, and someone probably would have paid it. Maybe not a team's best prospect, but a pretty good one with a multiple guaranteed picks was certainly not out of the question. A first for this year's draft gathered then could have ended up a lottery pick instead of a strong bet to be in the bottom five. Wouldn't it be nice to have Detroit's 2018 first right about now?

Fair enough, but I wont live in fantasy land (not saying you are) but we heard about Boston's less then enthusiastic offer, and not much else.

 

[Majorityof1]

Good to know that is our internal plan. Lets see how they develop, would be huge if they both develop into centers.

We would be huge down the middle. Thompson-Berglund-Sanford. 3 centers all easily breaking 6 feet, but not so easily breaking 6 Assists

 

[EastonBlues22]

He said the best offer he got was a 1st later than ours, so that was Boston's 29th. Was it only that pick or was there something attached to it? I don't think you would've been happy with the futures package that we would've received at the draft.

Who said that? Armstrong? The rumor was a 1st + Spooner, if my memory serves me, with people arguing over which 1st it was. Spooner being the "hockey trade" part of that package. Dom never claimed that was a real offer, though, and he's in the know on pretty much everything involving Shattenkirk and the Bruins.

There was a rumor that he was asking for both BOS 1sts at one point, but I don't know if that was ever verified, either.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Who said that? Armstrong? The rumor was a 1st + Spooner, if my memory serves me, with people arguing over which 1st it was. Spooner being the "hockey trade" part of that package. Dom never claimed that was a real offer, though, and he's in the know on pretty much everything involving Shattenkirk and the Bruins.

There was a rumor that he was asking for both BOS 1sts at one point, but I don't know if that was ever verified, either.

It was in the STL Today recap of the presser. He didn't indicate if any prospect or player was attached. It's probably reasonable to assume it was the 29th+Spooner now that he confirmed the 1st was after ours. I'm totally fine with him passing on that deal. I'll take the chance on Sanford becoming better than Spooner.

I don't think the 14th was ever an option, but if it was, we should've made that deal. It doesn't sound like that pick was on the table.

 

[ILLSTL217]

This is us throwing in the towel for this season which I have no problem with especially with Fabbri out. My biggest gripe is that we are sending Shatty to a team that will be picking 27+ and no shot of not making the playoffs.

Try to get out of some contracts (Lehtera) for any picks. Get Parayko work on the PP to become our next #1 point man. Get some good odds in the draft and a top 10 pick to go grab that C that we need. Heck, maybe we'll get Nolan Patrick