Confirmed with Link: Shattenkirk trade discussion Part II

[EastonBlues22]

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.

It's highly unusual for players to absolutely demand (much less receive) a contract that chews up zero UFA years on their last RFA contract. What's the incentive for Armstrong to sign him to a multi-year deal in that case?

Tell Shattenkirk's camp if that's his desire, you'll simply sign him to a series of one year deals until he hits UFA, and if he gets hurt somewhere in there, tough ****.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's highly unusual for players to absolutely demand (much less receive) a contract that chews up zero UFA years on their last RFA contract. What's the incentive for Armstrong to sign him to a multi-year deal in that case?

Tell Shattenkirk's camp if that's his desire, you'll simply sign him to a series of one year deals until he hits UFA, and if he gets hurt somewhere in there, tough ****.

You want to create a positive business relationship with him, and it seemed to work, except Shattenkirk wanted a bigger role, and that didn't make sense for us. What you would've preferred also isn't realistic. How many times has a GM ever given a series of 1 year deals until UFA? That just doesn't happen either.

The incentive for Army was that we did have Shattenkirk signed at a great price for 4 years. We got a great return from Shattenkirk during those 4 years. There's not much Army could've done if he wanted to hit free agency at an earlier age.

Army still wanted to compete during that time, and we were contenders, so it makes sense that Army wasn't going to trade him. If Army forced his hand on Shatty, then it would've devolved into a Johansen type situation IMO. It's anyone's guess as to how that would've played out and if Army could've received good value if he traded Shattenkirk after the 12/13 season or 13/14 season.

 

[EastonBlues22]

You want to create a positive business relationship with him, and it seemed to work, except Shattenkirk wanted a bigger role, and that didn't make sense for us. What you would've preferred also isn't realistic. How many times has a GM ever given a series of 1 year deals until UFA? That just doesn't happen either.

The incentive for Army was that we did have Shattenkirk signed at a great price for 4 years. We got a great return from Shattenkirk during those 4 years. There's not much Army could've done if he wanted to hit free agency at an earlier age.

Army still wanted to compete during that time, and we were contenders, so it makes sense that Army wasn't going to trade him. If Army forced his hand on Shatty, then it would've devolved into a Johansen type situation IMO. It's anyone's guess as to how that would've played out and if Army could've received good value if he traded Shattenkirk after the 12/13 season or 13/14 season.

A positive business relationship to what end? He's already made it clear he has no interest in staying beyond his RFA years.

Yes, what I proposed doesn't happen much either, because that's the leverage that GMs have over players in this situation and players would almost always rather have financial security than hitting UFA a year or two earlier. It makes sense for both parties, which is why it almost always happens. Allowing Shattenkirk to sign a multi-year deal that takes him right up to UFA only makes sense for one party...Shattenkirk's. If you set that precedent, then what's to stop all your other RFAs from asking for exactly the same thing? Being nice?

RFA years are cost-controlled years. That's why bridge deals always look dirt cheap compared to what a player's "worth." Even if things go to arbitration multiple times, it's very doubtful that Shattenkirk makes more than the $17 million he received over that span...and he certainly wouldn't receive so much that it hurt the Blues in any significant way.

There's the (unlikely) threat of an offer sheet, but it's doubtful anyone offers a contract that doesn't also chew up some UFA years (especially since it's costing them a decent amount in picks to make it happen). The Blues can match or not at their leisure should one happen.

Say what you want about the Johansen situation, but it's pretty easy to argue that mess turned out a lot better for Columbus than what we did turned out for us. It's a lot easier to find that hockey trade when you're peddling a young talented player with a minimum of 4 years of team control left.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Say what you want about the Johansen situation, but it's pretty easy to argue that mess turned out a lot better for Columbus than what we did turned out for us. It's a lot easier to find that hockey trade when you're peddling a young talented player with a minimum of 4 years of team control left.

For sure, but the point is, Columbus was a struggling team, so it's much easier to trade an important piece like that when you are a struggling team. Trading Shattenkirk, and not properly replacing him with a similar level guy would've significantly hurt our chances at contending.

Getting 4 years out of him while we were contending was not a bad decision. It's all what if's at the end of the day. It takes 2 to sign a contract, and you can't ignore the fact that we received great value from Shattenkirk during his contract. If we moved him, even at good value and failed to replace him, we wouldn't have done much contending.

I just hope Army makes some improvements because I don't like what he's done to you.

I think we both agree that Army has made multiple mistakes throughout the process. Some mistakes we agree on, others we don't. I don't really want to keep this going because I really don't like trying to defend someone who I think should be fired.

 

[EastonBlues22]

For sure, but the point is, Columbus was a struggling team, so it's much easier to trade an important piece like that when you are a struggling team. Trading Shattenkirk, and not properly replacing him with a similar level guy would've significantly hurt our chances at contending.

Getting 4 years out of him while we were contending was not a bad decision. It's all what if's at the end of the day. It takes 2 to sign a contract, and you can't ignore the fact that we received great value from Shattenkirk during his contract. If we moved him, even at good value and failed to replace him, we wouldn't have done much contending.

I just hope Army makes some improvements because I don't like what he's done to you.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

After having almost 24 hrs to reflect, I'm not as down on this trade as I was when I first heard of it. I have been reading about and watching footage of Sanford. He's not a bad prospect. He's big, plays all three F positions, skates well for his size, and is just about NHL ready. I will agree that DA put himself in a bad situation and ultimately, well, bungled it. In the end, however, a 1st and Sanford is better than keeping Shattenkirk for a playoff run and then letting him walk. DA salvaged what he could of a bad situation that he created himself.

Great attitude. Only two 1st round picks were even moved at the deadline this year and we got one of them in this deal. I'm happy we took this deal rather then keeping him and losing him for nothing. I still think we're only one more 25-30 goal scorer away from being right back in the mix at the top of the West, i just don't know how we're going to obtain that 'player' without losing a similar roster player in return. Time will tell, but as for now, i still think we have a competitive team just not to the level of the last 4-5 years.

LGB!

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

http://www.tsn.ca/must-see/video/must-see-baruchel-explains-confusing-shattenkirk-trade~1067581

Jay Baruchel explains the terms and conditions on the Shatty trade

 

[BadgersandBlues]

A nice write-up by TSN's more statistically "woke" analyst:

http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-capitals-land-prized-puck-mover-shattenkirk-1.683261

Couple of things to say here:

First off, I feel people are missing the point that we didn't look towards a pure futures trade until relatively late in the season. We were clearly NOT interested in a pure futures trade at the draft, which would have been the best time to ask for such a trade, or during the season until it became clear no one would offer Shattenkirk an extension he felt comfortable taking. DA still clearly thought we were a contender going into this year, which is hard to understand since he himself mentioned taking a step back to take two steps forward during the off-season. It seems that once again, he wasn't sure WTH he was doing in terms of a vision. Was this a retool year? If so, you take the best DEAL for Shatty at the draft, extracting maximum value whether it's futures or a combo of hockey trade/futures and go into this year giving Parayko a larger role, and potentially a new contract. If not, you try and figure out a way to replace the top 6 Center hole left by Backes leaving in UFA. DA did neither, and guess what? Here we are not contending and also getting a meh return on the top trade chip we've had in quite some time.

Second, the Shatty contract. The contract was brutal from the day it was signed, and not simply because of the comparable to Voynov. Shattenkirk was in the literal exact same position we are in with Parayko now. We had 3 years of team control left, and we signed him to a 4 year deal, only getting 1 year of UFA out of it. How many people here would accept us signing Parayko to a 4 year deal? Because that's exactly what we did with Shattenkirk. And if you think we couldn't have signed him longer due to money or term, that's just silly. How would it fly if DA said, "Well since we just signed Berglund to a new 5 year deal, we can only afford to get Parayko on a 4 year deal due to the AAV he wanted was too high for us to afford on a longer term contract." This place would melt down. Why are the Hawks so successful? Because they lock up their top talent and THEN worry about the filler. And if they find out they overpaid on filler, they dump it the second they can, even if it means giving up something else of value to do so.

The entire Shattenkirk situation was mismanaged as far back as 4 years ago. The contract was bad. The fact that DA couldn't make a choice between retool and contending for this year was bad. The fact that we didn't seem to know exactly what kind of contract demands Shatty would agree to so we could sign and trade him seems bad. I'm glad that Armstrong was asking for players like Hall and Drouin, but it should have been a pretty simply convo. This is what Shatty wants for a contract, if you're willing to meet that price, we can do business. If that's too rich for you, then it's not really worth our time continuing this line of conversation.

 

[Rollin4Lines*]

armless is a joke. the bLose org is a joke.

stillman is a chump. fish rots from the head and this blose fish is a decomposed sack of **** ..rudderless, visionless, followers, quitters and the list goes on

 

[Vladys Gumption]

A nice write-up by TSN's more statistically "woke" analyst:

http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-capitals-land-prized-puck-mover-shattenkirk-1.683261

Couple of things to say here:

First off, I feel people are missing the point that we didn't look towards a pure futures trade until relatively late in the season. We were clearly NOT interested in a pure futures trade at the draft, which would have been the best time to ask for such a trade, or during the season until it became clear no one would offer Shattenkirk an extension he felt comfortable taking. DA still clearly thought we were a contender going into this year, which is hard to understand since he himself mentioned taking a step back to take two steps forward during the off-season. It seems that once again, he wasn't sure WTH he was doing in terms of a vision. Was this a retool year? If so, you take the best DEAL for Shatty at the draft, extracting maximum value whether it's futures or a combo of hockey trade/futures and go into this year giving Parayko a larger role, and potentially a new contract. If not, you try and figure out a way to replace the top 6 Center hole left by Backes leaving in UFA. DA did neither, and guess what? Here we are not contending and also getting a meh return on the top trade chip we've had in quite some time.

Second, the Shatty contract. The contract was brutal from the day it was signed, and not simply because of the comparable to Voynov. Shattenkirk was in the literal exact same position we are in with Parayko now. We had 3 years of team control left, and we signed him to a 4 year deal, only getting 1 year of UFA out of it. How many people here would accept us signing Parayko to a 4 year deal? Because that's exactly what we did with Shattenkirk. And if you think we couldn't have signed him longer due to money or term, that's just silly. How would it fly if DA said, "Well since we just signed Berglund to a new 5 year deal, we can only afford to get Parayko on a 4 year deal due to the AAV he wanted was too high for us to afford on a longer term contract." This place would melt down. Why are the Hawks so successful? Because they lock up their top talent and THEN worry about the filler. And if they find out they overpaid on filler, they dump it the second they can, even if it means giving up something else of value to do so.

The entire Shattenkirk situation was mismanaged as far back as 4 years ago. The contract was bad. The fact that DA couldn't make a choice between retool and contending for this year was bad. The fact that we didn't seem to know exactly what kind of contract demands Shatty would agree to so we could sign and trade him seems bad. I'm glad that Armstrong was asking for players like Hall and Drouin, but it should have been a pretty simply convo. This is what Shatty wants for a contract, if you're willing to meet that price, we can do business. If that's too rich for you, then it's not really worth our time continuing this line of conversation.

We didn't even buy a a year of UFA. He only had thee years of service at the time. A three year deal would have kept him an RFA.

 

[shpongle falls]

The return for Shatty was pretty meh obviously but I'm glad we at least got a halfway decent prospect and a 1st out of it, even if its a late first. Gives us an opportunity to restock the prospect pool or have extra asset's for a trade/move up in the draft.
Ya it sucked to lose Copely but Husso is the future anyway.

 

[Blanick]

I am pretty sure Washington's perspective involved a seedy motel, a industrial sized bottle of lube and Armstrong's hairy gaping *******.

Yes I am still upset.

 

[shpongle falls]

I am pretty sure Washington's perspective involved a seedy motel, a industrial sized bottle of lube and Armstrong's hairy gaping *******.

Yes I am still upset.

Woah bro I didn't need that image in my head.

 

[AtNightWeFly]

I am pretty sure Washington's perspective involved a seedy motel, a industrial sized bottle of lube and Armstrong's hairy gaping *******.

Yes I am still upset.

*clutches pearls*

You guys are going to like Sanford. Caps liked him too and if they didn't have a stick up their butts to win win win now, he would've still been in DC. And who knows who you might pick up at the draft, we got Kuznetsov at #26.

LGB! Stay positive!

 

[Spear]

I am pretty sure Washington's perspective involved a seedy motel, a industrial sized bottle of lube and Armstrong's hairy gaping *******.

Yes I am still upset.

Nah... they went in dry.

 

[carter333167]

A nice write-up by TSN's more statistically "woke" analyst:

http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-capitals-land-prized-puck-mover-shattenkirk-1.683261

Couple of things to say here:

First off, I feel people are missing the point that we didn't look towards a pure futures trade until relatively late in the season. We were clearly NOT interested in a pure futures trade at the draft, which would have been the best time to ask for such a trade, or during the season until it became clear no one would offer Shattenkirk an extension he felt comfortable taking. DA still clearly thought we were a contender going into this year, which is hard to understand since he himself mentioned taking a step back to take two steps forward during the off-season. It seems that once again, he wasn't sure WTH he was doing in terms of a vision. Was this a retool year? If so, you take the best DEAL for Shatty at the draft, extracting maximum value whether it's futures or a combo of hockey trade/futures and go into this year giving Parayko a larger role, and potentially a new contract. If not, you try and figure out a way to replace the top 6 Center hole left by Backes leaving in UFA. DA did neither, and guess what? Here we are not contending and also getting a meh return on the top trade chip we've had in quite some time.

Second, the Shatty contract. The contract was brutal from the day it was signed, and not simply because of the comparable to Voynov. Shattenkirk was in the literal exact same position we are in with Parayko now. We had 3 years of team control left, and we signed him to a 4 year deal, only getting 1 year of UFA out of it. How many people here would accept us signing Parayko to a 4 year deal? Because that's exactly what we did with Shattenkirk. And if you think we couldn't have signed him longer due to money or term, that's just silly. How would it fly if DA said, "Well since we just signed Berglund to a new 5 year deal, we can only afford to get Parayko on a 4 year deal due to the AAV he wanted was too high for us to afford on a longer term contract." This place would melt down. Why are the Hawks so successful? Because they lock up their top talent and THEN worry about the filler. And if they find out they overpaid on filler, they dump it the second they can, even if it means giving up something else of value to do so.

The entire Shattenkirk situation was mismanaged as far back as 4 years ago. The contract was bad. The fact that DA couldn't make a choice between retool and contending for this year was bad. The fact that we didn't seem to know exactly what kind of contract demands Shatty would agree to so we could sign and trade him seems bad. I'm glad that Armstrong was asking for players like Hall and Drouin, but it should have been a pretty simply convo. This is what Shatty wants for a contract, if you're willing to meet that price, we can do business. If that's too rich for you, then it's not really worth our time continuing this line of conversation.

Completely agree...particularly with the analogy to the Parayko situation which is why I have been very worried that Armstrong may eff it up again by not signing him to as long a term as possible.

 

[Renard]

A nice write-up by TSN's more statistically "woke" analyst:

http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-capitals-land-prized-puck-mover-shattenkirk-1.683261

Couple of things to say here:

First off, I feel people are missing the point that we didn't look towards a pure futures trade until relatively late in the season. We were clearly NOT interested in a pure futures trade at the draft, which would have been the best time to ask for such a trade, or during the season until it became clear no one would offer Shattenkirk an extension he felt comfortable taking. DA still clearly thought we were a contender going into this year, which is hard to understand since he himself mentioned taking a step back to take two steps forward during the off-season. It seems that once again, he wasn't sure WTH he was doing in terms of a vision. Was this a retool year? If so, you take the best DEAL for Shatty at the draft, extracting maximum value whether it's futures or a combo of hockey trade/futures and go into this year giving Parayko a larger role, and potentially a new contract. If not, you try and figure out a way to replace the top 6 Center hole left by Backes leaving in UFA. DA did neither, and guess what? Here we are not contending and also getting a meh return on the top trade chip we've had in quite some time.

Second, the Shatty contract. The contract was brutal from the day it was signed, and not simply because of the comparable to Voynov. Shattenkirk was in the literal exact same position we are in with Parayko now. We had 3 years of team control left, and we signed him to a 4 year deal, only getting 1 year of UFA out of it. How many people here would accept us signing Parayko to a 4 year deal? Because that's exactly what we did with Shattenkirk. And if you think we couldn't have signed him longer due to money or term, that's just silly. How would it fly if DA said, "Well since we just signed Berglund to a new 5 year deal, we can only afford to get Parayko on a 4 year deal due to the AAV he wanted was too high for us to afford on a longer term contract." This place would melt down. Why are the Hawks so successful? Because they lock up their top talent and THEN worry about the filler. And if they find out they overpaid on filler, they dump it the second they can, even if it means giving up something else of value to do so.

The entire Shattenkirk situation was mismanaged as far back as 4 years ago. The contract was bad. The fact that DA couldn't make a choice between retool and contending for this year was bad. The fact that we didn't seem to know exactly what kind of contract demands Shatty would agree to so we could sign and trade him seems bad. I'm glad that Armstrong was asking for players like Hall and Drouin, but it should have been a pretty simply convo. This is what Shatty wants for a contract, if you're willing to meet that price, we can do business. If that's too rich for you, then it's not really worth our time continuing this line of conversation.

Baloney. It doesn't take a genius to known that Toews and Kane are your bread and butter, if you are Chicago's management. And it doesn't take a genius to know that Shattenkirk isn't a core player for the Blues. He's a nice player, very good on the power play, but not elite.

 

[David Dennison]

A nice write-up by TSN's more statistically "woke" analyst:

http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-capitals-land-prized-puck-mover-shattenkirk-1.683261

Couple of things to say here:

First off, I feel people are missing the point that we didn't look towards a pure futures trade until relatively late in the season. We were clearly NOT interested in a pure futures trade at the draft, which would have been the best time to ask for such a trade, or during the season until it became clear no one would offer Shattenkirk an extension he felt comfortable taking. DA still clearly thought we were a contender going into this year, which is hard to understand since he himself mentioned taking a step back to take two steps forward during the off-season. It seems that once again, he wasn't sure WTH he was doing in terms of a vision. Was this a retool year? If so, you take the best DEAL for Shatty at the draft, extracting maximum value whether it's futures or a combo of hockey trade/futures and go into this year giving Parayko a larger role, and potentially a new contract. If not, you try and figure out a way to replace the top 6 Center hole left by Backes leaving in UFA. DA did neither, and guess what? Here we are not contending and also getting a meh return on the top trade chip we've had in quite some time.

Second, the Shatty contract. The contract was brutal from the day it was signed, and not simply because of the comparable to Voynov. Shattenkirk was in the literal exact same position we are in with Parayko now. We had 3 years of team control left, and we signed him to a 4 year deal, only getting 1 year of UFA out of it. How many people here would accept us signing Parayko to a 4 year deal? Because that's exactly what we did with Shattenkirk. And if you think we couldn't have signed him longer due to money or term, that's just silly. How would it fly if DA said, "Well since we just signed Berglund to a new 5 year deal, we can only afford to get Parayko on a 4 year deal due to the AAV he wanted was too high for us to afford on a longer term contract." This place would melt down. Why are the Hawks so successful? Because they lock up their top talent and THEN worry about the filler. And if they find out they overpaid on filler, they dump it the second they can, even if it means giving up something else of value to do so.

The entire Shattenkirk situation was mismanaged as far back as 4 years ago. The contract was bad. The fact that DA couldn't make a choice between retool and contending for this year was bad. The fact that we didn't seem to know exactly what kind of contract demands Shatty would agree to so we could sign and trade him seems bad. I'm glad that Armstrong was asking for players like Hall and Drouin, but it should have been a pretty simply convo. This is what Shatty wants for a contract, if you're willing to meet that price, we can do business. If that's too rich for you, then it's not really worth our time continuing this line of conversation.

This is where you lose me. Shattenkirk didnt have to sign a damn thing he didnt want to, and from everything that has come out since the trade, Shattenkirk didnt want to continue playing behind Petro and Bouw (and now Parayko). And him wanting to go to the east coast has been a rumor for years, he has been waiting to get to free agency.

Should we have given him 2 years (would we even have gotten him for much less on a 2 year deal?) and probably have to pay more in years 3+ (and possibly having him walk for nothing after year 3)? Or should we have given him more years and have to pay him a higher AAV (at the opportunity cost of acquiring other players)? And how much more is your #3 guy (by TOI) worth?

 

[carter333167]

This is where you lose me. Shattenkirk didnt have to sign a damn thing he didnt want to, and from everything that has come out since the trade, Shattenkirk didnt want to continue playing behind Petro and Bouw (and now Parayko). And him wanting to go to the east coast has been a rumor for years, he has been waiting to get to free agency.

Should we have given him 2 years (would we even have gotten him for much less on a 2 year deal?) and probably have to pay more in years 3+ (and possibly having him walk for nothing after year 3)? Or should we have given him more years and have to pay him a higher AAV (at the opportunity cost of acquiring other players)? And how much more is your #3 guy (by TOI) worth?

Se Easton's post at the top of the page. If, in fact, Shatty did request a contract that only ate up one year of UFA, the team has leverage points as well: such as refusing to offer any multiple year deal...only give one year contracts and put the risk of injury entirely on the player (that would open a player's eyes). The player doesn't have all the leverage when there are multiple years of RFA remaining.

 

[David Dennison]

Se Easton's post at the top of the page. If, in fact, Shatty did request a contract that only ate up one year of UFA, the team has leverage points as well: such as refusing to offer any multiple year deal...only give one year contracts and put the risk of injury entirely on the player (that would open a player's eyes). The player doesn't have all the leverage when there are multiple years of RFA remaining.

Yeah, if you want to go to war with a quality player on your team. I didnt say he had leverage, I just said he didnt have to sign anything he didnt want to. The Blues did have the leverage and have gotten a bargain for the past 3.5 seasons.

My point was that neither a shorter nor longer deal would have made much more sense at the time. There are Armstrong contracts you can complain about, but this is not one.

 

[Ranksu]

I still can't believe how awful return we get from Shattenkirk.

This should cost Army job, next best valuable assets is to trade Schwartz, but that will leave a hole our top 6. 2-years get the deal done and this what he get. Even Burrows get significantly better return what Shattenkirk gived. There is no excuses.

Army need to push hard Lehterä and acquire from UFA market top 6 center. Who thinks he's capable of doing that? Maybe Lehterä, nah he can't trade him away without paying big time. There isn't top 6 center free market, only KHL, but I doubt Army is pushing hard KHL signing. ****** situation when you are empty for valuable assets and left from 3rd liners.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I still can't believe how awful return we get from Shattenkirk.

This should cost Army job, next best valuable assets is to trade Schwartz, but that will leave a hole our top 6. 2-years get the deal done and this what he get. Even Burrows get significantly better return what Shattenkirk gived. There is no excuses.

Army need to push hard Lehterä and acquire from UFA market top 6 center. Who thinks he's capable of doing that? Maybe Lehterä, nah he can't trade him away without paying big time. There isn't top 6 center free market, only KHL, but I doubt Army is pushing hard KHL signing. ****** situation when you are empty for valuable assets and left from 3rd liners.

What UFA center did you have in mind? I don't think there is anyone worthwhile this year. Thornton?

 

[PiggySmalls]

What UFA center did you have in mind? I don't think there is anyone worthwhile this year. Thornton?

I don't know who he can be thinking about because outside of 37 year old Jumbo Joe, there are Zero top 6 centers.

 

[TheDizee]

joe could always be used as a stopgap

 

[Ranksu]

Vadim Shipachyov and Vladimir Tkachyov.