Confirmed with Link: Shattenkirk trade discussion Part II

[EastonBlues22]

Where do you get Spooner from out of Armstrong's comments? He said that he was offered a 1st rounder that was later than theirs, but that's the extent to what he said was offered. He then said the market was worse at the draft last year than a couple of days ago. To me, it seems like only #29 was offered.

GM's don't name players from other teams that were involved when talking about failed trade talks. It would be incredibly poor form.

Frankly, I think it's silly to assume that only a 1st was offered for a full year of Shattenkirk. That's obviously less than market value for him as a deadline rental, and the team would be getting a full year of him. Makes zero sense to me to take that at face value.

 

[EastonBlues22]

The St.Louis Post-Dispatch reported today that the Blues were prepared to offer Shattenkirk an eight-year deal, but he wasn't interested in playing behind Pietrangelo and Parayko.

If that is true, then Shattenkirk didn't leave the Blues with many options. He wouldn't re-up with us, and he wouldn't sign with the teams that Armstrong pitched deals with, so what we had to offer was a rental.

We got the usual return for a rental.

Would love to know how the Blues planned to fit an 8 year deal for Shattenkirk into their budget. What were they going to offer, $5 million per?

 

[Celtic Note]

GM's don't name players from other teams that were involved when talking about failed trade talks. It would be incredibly poor form.

Frankly, I think it's silly to assume that only a 1st was offered for a full year of Shattenkirk. That's obviously less than market value for him as a deadline rental, and the team would be getting a full year of him. Makes zero sense to me to take that at face value.

If Armstrong couldn't get more than a 1st offered at the draft, then that is entirely on him. Shattenkirk with a year left for a low first is well below any sort of reasonable return.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I dont think we can make that argumwnt either because from what I've read Trent Frederick wasn't viewed in high regards till this season. The 20-31 pick could turn into a much more valuable pick too. Doubtful but we also landed Fabbri and Barbashev late too. I wouldn't try to bank on that pick becoming pivotal in this trade though. For me its simply Armstrong basically admtted this team doesn't have it and would rather get futures instead of nothing.


It sounds like they went into these negotiations wanting Sanford. So I guess its simply a wait and see.

I'm just pointing out the quality of player that was immediately available at that pick. Seems rather premature to me to simply assume that the same sort of quality will be available in 2017 whenever the Washington pick falls.

Maybe it will and maybe it won't. I rather doubt it, personally.

 

[tfriede2]

GM's don't name players from other teams that were involved when talking about failed trade talks. It would be incredibly poor form.

Frankly, I think it's silly to assume that only a 1st was offered for a full year of Shattenkirk. That's obviously less than market value for him as a deadline rental, and the team would be getting a full year of him. Makes zero sense to me to take that at face value.

I know and understand that, but there was no indication from Armstrong that a player was offered on top of the 1st.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Would love to know how the Blues planned to fit an 8 year deal for Shattenkirk into their budget. What were they going to offer, $5 million per?

Probably offered 6 million, and it would've been before Allen and Steen extended, so it would've changed everything going forward. Who knows what the numbers would've looked like if he extended.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I know and understand that, but there was no indication from Armstrong that a player was offered on top of the 1st.

The word out of the Bruins camp, and pretty much all the talking heads at the time, was that there was a player on top of the pick.

We have it from a vetted Bruins insider that they offered Eriksson+Koko+1st at the previous trade deadline when the Blues wanted a "hockey trade," which the Blues turned down. They went from that value to only a late 1st in the span of a few months? Doubt it.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The word out of the Bruins camp, and pretty much all the talking heads at the time, was that there was a player on top of the pick.

We have it from a vetted Bruins insider that they offered Eriksson+Koko+1st at the previous trade deadline when the Blues wanted a "hockey trade," which the Blues turned down. They went from that value to only a late 1st in the span of a few months? Doubt it.

Still doesn't mean they offered Spooner, so I don't think we should assume they did.

What we could've received at the draft last year was about the same as what we received now. Both picks won't be that desirable, as we know in last year's draft, there wasn't another player that we had a 1st round grade on after Thompson. Keeping Shattenkirk and hoping for either another cup run or for the market to improve was a good decision. You can definitely make the argument that the market slightly improved depending on how you view Sanford.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Probably offered 6 million, and it would've been before Allen and Steen extended, so it would've changed everything going forward. Who knows what the numbers would've looked like if he extended.

Regardless of whether it was possible to make the numbers work under the cap, I don't see how they could have tied up approximately 25% of their cap in three RHD long-term and realistically filled out a competitive roster elsewhere.

It kind of boggles my mind that they even realistically considered it, unless the plan was to bridge Parayko and then deal Shattenkirk a few years later. That might have worked, but Shattenkirk's agent would have to have been pretty dumb to not see that as the likely course of action if he re-upped.

The writing has been on the wall that Shattenkirk's time here was limited ever since Parayko emerged. This shouldn't have been a surprise to Armstrong.

 

[Dbrownss]

I'm just pointing out the quality of player that was immediately available at that pick. Seems rather premature to me to simply assume that the same sort of quality will be available in 2017 whenever the Washington pick falls.

Maybe it will and maybe it won't. I rather doubt it, personally.

I get that but my argument is that "quality" of player wasnt known at the time of the pick. Similar to Thompson. This board almost universally hated that pick...turns out our scouts know more then we do.

If the Blues were high on Trent Frederick, then they probably would have made the deal, but they passed on him to draft TT.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Regardless of whether it was possible to make the numbers work under the cap, I don't see how they could have tied up approximately 25% of their cap in three RHD long-term and realistically filled out a competitive roster elsewhere.

It kind of boggles my mind that they even realistically considered it, unless the plan was to bridge Parayko and then deal Shattenkirk a few years later. That might have worked, but Shattenkirk's agent would have to have been pretty dumb to not see that as the likely course of action if he re-upped.

The writing has been on the wall that Shattenkirk's time here was limited ever since Parayko emerged. This shouldn't have been a surprise to Armstrong.

Obviously wouldn't have been ideal, but it would've been the best option at the time asset management wise. It would've ensured maintained the highest possible value, with the possibility of making a move later if it still doesn't work out. Shattenkirk with a NTC and a fair extension is still worth more than a pure rental even if he only gives a few teams that he'd accept a trade to.

All these arguments just proves that Army was in a no-win situation. A sign and trade proved possible, but the teams that wanted him, either didn't offer Shatty enough or he wasn't interested. Rental value proved not enough for most fans. And trading him prior to last year's draft would've only been realistic if significant value was returned, we know deals fell through, but we don't know which sides ultimately pulled out in these scenarios.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Still doesn't mean they offered Spooner, so I don't think we should assume they did.

What we could've received at the draft last year was about the same as what we received now. Both picks won't be that desirable, as we know in last year's draft, there wasn't another player that we had a 1st round grade on after Thompson. Keeping Shattenkirk and hoping for either another cup run or for the market to improve was a good decision. You can definitely make the argument that the market slightly improved depending on how you view Sanford.

This is all Dom had to say about Spooner and a pick. He sure didn't shoot it down outright, as he has with other offers that were way off base. He discussed it as a real possibility. Given all the smoke around that package from various sources, I'm fairly comfortable thinking it was at least discussed. To each their own.

Shattenkirk will NOT cost #14 and Spooner (or Vatrano for that matter).

This so called "bidding war" with the other known team known to be interested - Edmonton - would look like this:

If Boston offered #14 and Spooner that means Edmonton would have to offer at minimum #4 and that's not happening. The Blues wouldn't even ask for #4 because they know it's not going to happen.

And the Bruins would know that and start with #29. The closest Edmonton has to that is #32. Then you add. If the Bruins add Spooner to #29 then the Oilers would have to add Draisaitl. Yakupov makes too much money for what the Blues are trying to do.

Both Spooner and Draisaitl are RFA after next season, and which one they would be able to afford would play a roll.

And forget about having to outbid Edmonton because of RNH or Eberle. St Louis can not afford to add in their $6 million cap hits for the next 3 years.

Bidding war with Edmonton? I say bring it on.

FYI: I was told last night there have been zero discussions with Philly. (another team that was rumored).

 

[bleedblue1223]

This is all Dom had to say about Spooner and a pick. He sure didn't shoot it down outright, as he has with other offers that were way off base. He discussed it as a real possibility. Given all the smoke around that package from various sources, I'm fairly comfortable thinking it was at least discussed. To each their own.

He didn't shoot it down, but he also implied that they'd never have to put Spooner on the table because Draisaitl was as unrealistic as the 4th was.

Regardless, Spooner doesn't even look like a center in the pros at this point.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Obviously wouldn't have been ideal, but it would've been the best option at the time asset management wise. It would've ensured maintained the highest possible value, with the possibility of making a move later if it still doesn't work out. Shattenkirk with a NTC and a fair extension is still worth more than a pure rental even if he only gives a few teams that he'd accept a trade to.

All these arguments just proves that Army was in a no-win situation. A sign and trade proved possible, but the teams that wanted him, either didn't offer Shatty enough or he wasn't interested. Rental value proved not enough for most fans. And trading him prior to last year's draft would've only been realistic if significant value was returned, we know deals fell through, but we don't know which sides ultimately pulled out in these scenarios.

Yeah, he was in a no-win situation that he crafted for himself by handing Shattenkirk the contract that created this mess. He doesn't get a pass on that from me.

Getting (poor, IMO) rental value out of a player of Shattenkirk's quality and age is objectively a pretty terrible end result. At the end of the day, Armstrong made all the decisions that brought us to this point. It's not a bright spot on his resume.

 

[EastonBlues22]

He didn't shoot it down, but he also implied that they'd never have to put Spooner on the table because Draisaitl was as unrealistic as the 4th was.

Regardless, Spooner doesn't even look like a center in the pros at this point.

Dom is a member of the Bruins organization, not the Edmonton one. Anything he says about Edmonton is complete speculation. We don't know what Edmonton threw out there at the Blues (besides Hall), but I think it's pretty clear that the 29th OA and Spooner were sure being discussed as possibilities from the Bruins end.

Was a firm offer made at the end of the day? I don't know. I do think Armstrong was pretty clearly disappointed by the deadline market for Shattenkirk, which means he misjudged it, and if he thought the offers made at the deadline would be better than what he received at the draft, then he was wrong.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, he was in a no-win situation that he crafted for himself by handing Shattenkirk the contract that created this mess. He doesn't get a pass on that from me.

Getting (poor, IMO) rental value out of a player of Shattenkirk's quality and age is objectively a pretty terrible end result. At the end of the day, Armstrong made all the decisions that brought us to this point. It's not a bright spot on his resume.

I'm not saying it is, just trying to provide some context. It does take 2 sides for a contract, Shattenkirk's side was probably insistent on the 4 year term, so he could maximize his own return on his next contract.

While I would've preferred that we moved him earlier to maximize our own return, I understand why Army did what he did. I wouldn't have done it that way, but it's reasonable why he did it that way. We were a legitimate contender for years, and Army's biggest mistake during that time wasn't that he didn't move Shattenkirk, it was that he didn't strongly go after our obvious holes. He should've kept Shattenkirk during those years and found a way to acquire a Spezza or a Seguin or a Carter, etc. That would've been a difference maker to our offense.

Army should still carry the bulk of the blame, but for me it's more about not being aggressive enough when he should've been. Windows aren't open forever in the cap era, and they are only open a long time when you either have elite players are each critical era or you have legitimate generational players. We don't have either of those.

 

[Dbrownss]

Regardless of whether it was possible to make the numbers work under the cap, I don't see how they could have tied up approximately 25% of their cap in three RHD long-term and realistically filled out a competitive roster elsewhere.

It kind of boggles my mind that they even realistically considered it, unless the plan was to bridge Parayko and then deal Shattenkirk a few years later. That might have worked, but Shattenkirk's agent would have to have been pretty dumb to not see that as the likely course of action if he re-upped.

The writing has been on the wall that Shattenkirk's time here was limited ever since Parayko emerged. This shouldn't have been a surprise to Armstrong.

This is something I figured awhile ago when there was talk about extending before hitting UFA. As soon as he inked that deal, Armstrong would have already had future plans to move him. He's simply not the caliber of defensemen Pietrangelo is or what Parayko looks to be.

Evidence suggests Armstrong did realize this before Parayko played pro hockey. There just wasn't a deal that warranted making the trade (if the Blues were the ones who didn't commit. I mentioned Hertl+1st for Shattenkirk+Oshie. After thinking about it...even with the Hertl hype, that would have been a brutal trade. Armstrong must have felt Hertl was a 1c.

It sounds like Armstrong was always negotiating from a weak side with a high value asset. High interest but small numbers of bidders.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Dom is a member of the Bruins organization, not the Edmonton one. Anything he says about Edmonton is complete speculation. We don't know what Edmonton threw out there at the Blues (besides Hall), but I think it's pretty clear that the 29th OA and Spooner were sure being discussed as possibilities from the Bruins end.

Was a firm offer made at the end of the day? I don't know. I do think Armstrong was pretty clearly disappointed by the deadline market for Shattenkirk, which means he misjudged it, and if he thought the offers made at the deadline would be better than what he received at the draft, then he was wrong.

He said they wouldn't have been any worse, and from I can tell, that is correct. The value that we received is roughly the same as we would've received from Boston IMO, 1st+conditional 2nd+Sanford is about the same as 29th+Spooner. I'd rather take a chance on Sanford than have Spooner.

 

[EastonBlues22]

He said they wouldn't have been any worse, and from I can tell, that is correct. The value that we received is roughly the same as we would've received from Boston IMO, 1st+conditional 2nd+Sanford is about the same as 29th+Spooner. I'd rather take a chance on Sanford than have Spooner.

Disagree. I don't think the 2017 first has as much value as the 2016 first did, and I don't think Sanford has anywhere near the value that Spooner did at the draft.

What's your justification for a guy with 3 NHL points having the same value as a guy that just put up 49 points? Size? Contract status? Sanford definitely isn't ahead of the curve when it comes to traditional prospect development for top 6 quality players, so I don't think the age difference means much at all. I'd easily rather have Spooner, and I don't even like Spooner all that much. Even if you prefer Sanford over Spooner, I don't think there's much of a case for them having equivalent value.

Conditionals are almost always tied onto premium pending UFAs in case they re-sign. Pretty much any deal with Shattenkirk would have likely had one. Most actually have a conditional 1st, not a 2nd.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Disagree. I don't think the 2017 first has as much value as the 2016 first did, and I don't think Sanford has anywhere near the value that Spooner did at the draft.

What's your justification for a guy with 3 NHL points having the same value as a guy that just put up 49 points? Size? Contract status? Sanford definitely isn't ahead of the curve when it comes to traditional prospect development for top 6 quality players, so I don't think the age difference means much at all. I'd easily rather have Spooner, and I don't even like Spooner all that much. Even if you prefer Sanford over Spooner, I don't think there's much of a case for them having equivalent value.

Conditionals are almost always tied onto premium pending UFAs in case they re-sign. Pretty much any deal with Shattenkirk would have likely had one. Most actually have a conditional 1st, not a 2nd.

The 29th pick in 2016 would've left us with a player with a 2nd round grade. Less than ideal, I think we'd both agree on that. The 2017 draft might be a little better, but at worst, I think we'll end up with someone that we'd rank similarly to last year. The main knock on this draft is lack of high quality talent, that doesn't mean there isn't depth or guys you can find that are more of off-the-board picks that turn out well. The picks IMO are similar, but I'm mostly looking at it the way Army did when he passed on the 29th. If you are getting what you'd think was a 2nd round player, then the best decision is to pass and wait for something better.

For Sanford, everything I've read about him seems positive and that he passed other prospects internally for the Caps. He earned his way past Vrana and Barber. He has size, can work in tight spaces, and other positive attributes. I think it's worth seeing what he has. I think the upside in Sanford is higher for us than what Spooner's would be for us, so I'd rather take the chance for him.

If you told me we could have 29th+Spooner or 1st+Sanford+conditional 2nd, but if I pass on the 29th+Spooner, there is a chance at Hall or Drouin or one of the sign and trades, then I'd wait too. Any loss in value is insignificant, and there was real potential in a much higher return.

 

[EastonBlues22]

The 29th pick in 2016 would've left us with a player with a 2nd round grade. Less than ideal, I think we'd both agree on that. The 2017 draft might be a little better, but at worst, I think we'll end up with someone that we'd rank similarly to last year. The main knock on this draft is lack of high quality talent, that doesn't mean there isn't depth or guys you can find that are more of off-the-board picks that turn out well. The picks IMO are similar, but I'm mostly looking at it the way Army did when he passed on the 29th. If you are getting what you'd think was a 2nd round player, then the best decision is to pass and wait for something better.

For Sanford, everything I've read about him seems positive and that he passed other prospects internally for the Caps. He earned his way past Vrana and Barber. He has size, can work in tight spaces, and other positive attributes. I think it's worth seeing what he has. I think the upside in Sanford is higher for us than what Spooner's would be for us, so I'd rather take the chance for him.

If you told me we could have 29th+Spooner or 1st+Sanford+conditional 2nd, but if I pass on the 29th+Spooner, there is a chance at Hall or Drouin or one of the sign and trades, then I'd wait too. Any loss in value is insignificant, and there was real potential in a much higher return.

Guess time will tell on the pick. I'll be surprised if the 2017 pick turns out better than the 2016 one.

Sanford earned his way past other their other (weak group of) forward prospects for what's essentially a 4th line role. Barber isn't really much of a prospect, and Vrana certainly isn't a bottom 6 player.

Caps fans generally considered Sanford their 8th best prospect a few weeks ago, and their 4th best forward prospect. He was their biggest forward prospect, though, so there's that. We have no choice but to see what he has at this point, but my expectations for him are certainly a lot lower than some others here.

 

[TruBlu]

It just seems like no one was ever going to be happy with the result. If he'd walked, people would have been spewing fire. Then, DA makes a trade and that isn't good enough, so the argument becomes he could have gotten a better return at the draft last year. Then, when those are disputed, it becomes DA should never have given him the deal that he gave him to let him reach free agency. I'm not giving him a complete pass, but we all act like this stuff happens in a vacuum. The GM has to worry about 50 different roster players and is at the whim of other GM's as to what they will accept or give. Shatty's term and money most likely had to be what it was to make the cap work at the time. Add to that the uncertainty of whether the cap will raise and it being an expansion year. I'm not exactly happy with the return, but I'm not going to blast it all that much either. Look around the league. There was not much we could do outside of what was done. Shatty was intent on free agency and that is as simple as it gets. He exercised his right and DA did what he could to get the best return available.

 

[bleedblue1223]

We have no choice but to see what he has at this point, but my expectations for him are certainly a lot lower than some others here.

I'm just waiting to set my expectations until I see him play live. Reports seem promising, but judging from those he can end up landing anywhere from a solid 2nd line center, to Berglund, or to just another Jaskin type. We'll just have to wait and see. From reports it does seem that he has a lot of attributes that fit what we typically look for, and I'm not just talking about size. They say he has good vision, does the little things, can work in tight spaces, and plays at both ends of the ice.

 

[EastonBlues22]

It just seems like no one was ever going to be happy with the result. If he'd walked, people would have been spewing fire. Then, DA makes a trade and that isn't good enough, so the argument becomes he could have gotten a better return at the draft last year. Then, when those are disputed, it becomes DA should never have given him the deal that he gave him to let him reach free agency. I'm not giving him a complete pass, but we all act like this stuff happens in a vacuum. The GM has to worry about 50 different roster players and is at the whim of other GM's as to what they will accept or give. Shatty's term and money most likely had to be what it was to make the cap work at the time. Add to that the uncertainty of whether the cap will raise and it being an expansion year. I'm not exactly happy with the return, but I'm not going to blast it all that much either. Look around the league. There was not much we could do outside of what was done. Shatty was intent on free agency and that is as simple as it gets. He exercised his right and DA did what he could to get the best return available.

The Blues had this on their cap in 2013-14:

Derek Roy $4.0M signed the preceding offseason (immediately before the 13-14 season)
Leopold $2.25M signed the preceding offseason
Morrow $1.5M signed the preceding offseason
Maxim Lapierre $1.1M signed the preceding offseason
Steve Ott $2.95M last year of a 4 year deal

If Armstrong couldn't find room in the budget for a higher cap hit for Shattenkirk, he wasn't trying very hard.

 

[bleedblue1223]

People shouldn't dismiss the idea that Shattenkirk only wanted a 4 year term on his contract. If you were a player or an agent that wanted to maximize your earning potential, you'd do the same thing that Shattenkirk did.