Speculation: Shattenkirk

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

There is plenty of use in keeping Shattenkirk - he's one of the top scoring dmen in the league over the last three years, and at least one of those years had him as the top P/60 dman - better than Karlsson.

Acting like Shatty is somehow useless to the Blues is ridiculous. His value as a RH PMD, at age 27, has to be the highest of all available dmen, and is only less than that of a 1C or 1D.

Either we trade him for high value with an extension, or we keep him as a "rental" for another cup run and see what happens. We have a lot of cap coming off the books next year with Steen being UFA, so who knows - we might even re-sign him if we can get one of Parayko or Shatty to play the left side.

It has been rumored that Shatty would sign an extension with 6 or so teams - among them Detroit, Boston, and New York. There are plenty of teams looking for a dman like Shatty, and the only reason the Blues might not keep him is because we have TOO MANY top 30 RHD (I believe Parayko will cement himself as one this year).

 

[bluetuned]

There is plenty of use in keeping Shattenkirk - he's one of the top scoring dmen in the league over the last three years, and at least one of those years had him as the top P/60 dman - better than Karlsson.

Acting like Shatty is somehow useless to the Blues is ridiculous. His value as a RH PMD, at age 27, has to be the highest of all available dmen, and is only less than that of a 1C or 1D.

Either we trade him for high value with an extension, or we keep him as a "rental" for another cup run and see what happens. We have a lot of cap coming off the books next year with Steen being UFA, so who knows - we might even re-sign him if we can get one of Parayko or Shatty to play the left side.

It has been rumored that Shatty would sign an extension with 6 or so teams - among them Detroit, Boston, and New York. There are plenty of teams looking for a dman like Shatty, and the only reason the Blues might not keep him is because we have TOO MANY top 30 RHD (I believe Parayko will cement himself as one this year).

In my dream world the Blues could get Parayko to successfully shift over to the left side with Petro, bump JayBo down to the 2nd pairing, and re-sign Shattenkirk. Then if they were concerned about cash they could expose JayBo in the expansion draft. He is still a serviceable defenseman, but he's not good enough to warrant a spot on the top pairing anymore. And Gunnarsson and Edmundson are both cheaper, respectable 4-6 options anyway.

But getting a guy to successfully play the opposite side is easier said than done. If Shattenkirk could do it the Blues would have re-upped him already.

 

[Boxscore]

I could see Shatty ending up in Philly as they need a RH D could log big minutes and move the puck. The Flyers have a lot of LH D options that make less money and/or prospects. How about something around Del Zotto and Morin for Shattenkirk?

 

[Jerzey Devil]

We shouldn't trade him for nothing, but there isn't much use in keeping him.

If you took a poll right now and asked Devils fans if they are ok with the decision to let Zach Parise walk away as a UFA the results would be Yes by a very wide margin. We went to the finals with him that year. Personally I'm in the minority there and wish we would have gotten something for him. I'm in the very small minority in thinking we still could have made the finals that year even if Lou had traded him the summer before. Instead he signed him to a one year deal in the final year of his RFA contract taking him to unrestricted free agency and losing him for nothing.

But again, we went to the finals with him that year so it's not something I really care about. I just think we could have gotten some nice pieces, especially from Minnesota, if Lou had traded him instead of signing him to a one year deal.

I feel Blues fans are in a pretty similar situation except it seems Shattenkirk is being a little more honest about his intentions.

I should point out that losing Parise for nothing hurt the Devils more than Shattenkirk leaving St. Louis would. Their defense will be fine but NJ's offense went into a black hole especially when you add in Kovy leaving.

 

[Brendonhayden]

If you took a poll right now and asked Devils fans if they are ok with the decision to let Zach Parise walk away as a UFA the results would be Yes by a very wide margin. We went to the finals with him that year. Personally I'm in the minority there and wish we would have gotten something for him. I'm in the very small minority in thinking we still could have made the finals that year even if Lou had traded him the summer before. Instead he signed him to a one year deal in the final year of his RFA contract taking him to unrestricted free agency and losing him for nothing.

But again, we went to the finals with him that year so it's not something I really care about. I just think we could have gotten some nice pieces, especially from Minnesota, if Lou had traded him instead of signing him to a one year deal.

I feel Blues fans are in a pretty similar situation except it seems Shattenkirk is being a little more honest about his intentions.

I should point out that losing Parise for nothing hurt the Devils more than Shattenkirk leaving St. Louis would. Their defense will be fine but NJ's offense went into a black hole especially when you add in Kovy leaving.

Ur just saying that because you want him for free but the point you make about not making the final the blues could trade him for someone with a cap hit around his or even a million more than his we just can't afford to pay him 7 mill we would be a better team if we got a upgrade on the offensive side vs keeping shatty like had we trading him for hall we would be a much better team or even RNH imo or even if we got spooner or Pasternak they can replace his points and one of the toung Dman can eat his min up it would be a loss but could help us get further in the playoffs.

 

[Jerzey Devil]

Ur just saying that because you want him for free but the point you make about not making the final the blues could trade him for someone with a cap hit around his or even a million more than his we just can't afford to pay him 7 mill we would be a better team if we got a upgrade on the offensive side vs keeping shatty like had we trading him for hall we would be a much better team or even RNH imo or even if we got spooner or Pasternak they can replace his points and one of the toung Dman can eat his min up it would be a loss but could help us get further in the playoffs.

I didn't even make an offer though I hope Shero does.

But what you are saying about trading Shattenkirk now while he has value is exactly why I wanted Lou to trade Parise before the season even started. We could have gotten something pretty nice for him. One year to negotiate contract with him.

I think Blues fans are right in wanting top value for Shattenkirk but I wouldn't expect an extension in place before a trade. That would require someone to give up way too much. I think most GM's would probably just prefer to see if he hits free agency or not.

A deal for one year of Shattenkirk is more reasonable for a GM to consider.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Ur just saying that because you want him for free but the point you make about not making the final the blues could trade him for someone with a cap hit around his or even a million more than his we just can't afford to pay him 7 mill we would be a better team if we got a upgrade on the offensive side vs keeping shatty like had we trading him for hall we would be a much better team or even RNH imo or even if we got spooner or Pasternak they can replace his points and one of the toung Dman can eat his min up it would be a loss but could help us get further in the playoffs.

Punctuation, please.

 

[Brendonhayden]

I didn't even make an offer though I hope Shero does.

But what you are saying about trading Shattenkirk now while he has value is exactly why I wanted Lou to trade Parise before the season even started. We could have gotten something pretty nice for him. One year to negotiate contract with him.

I think Blues fans are right in wanting top value for Shattenkirk but I wouldn't expect an extension in place before a trade. That would require someone to give up way too much. I think most GM's would probably just prefer to see if he hits free agency or not.

A deal for one year of Shattenkirk is more reasonable for a GM to consider.

I would trade shatty for a less than what army wanted for him. I was also saying that most fans would rather have him in free agency but if he hits free agency he will most likley go to the Rangers if the blues can not sign him. I don't care if the value is top notch as long as it is decent don't know much about the Devils pieces but I would want something like Zacha would even do shattenkirk tage Thompson and our first next year for Zacha and your first next year or if that is to much coming our way then tage and shatty for Zacha. My point is that if a team wants him they are better to get him now or they can risk not getting him but also probably paying a little more in free agency.

 

[BA Carroll]

1. Regarding Shattenkirk's contract. I've heard for weeks how his "expiring contract" is diminishing his value. Hogwash. Players get traded in the last years of their contract all the time. Is the remaining term of his contract a consideration? Of course--especially as prospective bidders have to consider how they're going to fit that contract, or possibly a new contract, into their cap structure. But getting a full year of service from an excellent player on a reasonable contract is not a negative. For all that he is due a considerable raise after this contract expires, he'll be worth the salary he commands. Anybody trading for him already knows what he's likely to get next year--and if the Blues are sufficiently enticed by an offer, they will allow Kevin to speak to that suitor to see if an extension or a new deal can be agreed upon. Doug Armstrong is a straight shooter--it's both a strength and a weakness.

2. Regarding the expansion draft. This is a legitimate concern. A team flipping a young, cost-controlled top-6 forward, plus picks/prospects, for Kevin Shattenkirk is not going to let that investment be wasted. But you wouldn't be trading for him if he wasn't an upgrade over what you already have. So what if you have to expose another player to protect him? He's worth it.

3. As a Blues fan, the Rangers are really the only team with the pieces I would prefer in a trade. I've been arguing for weeks that the Blues need craft a deal built around Shattenkirk for Kreider. There are some pretty vocal Rangers fans who aren't keen on that idea, mostly for reasons related to my first two points above. As I've said, I think those concerns are over-stated--but I don't blame them for coveting their own player. I still think that would be a good hockey trade that would benefit both teams--and I have no doubt Shattenkirk would be more than happy to sign a long-term extension to remain a Ranger, probably cheaper than he would agree to elsewhere.

Other players/destinations that, if I were Doug Armstrong, I would be looking atas part of a trade involving Shattenkirk (not commenting on their availability or relative value):
-Brayden Schenn or Wayne Simmonds (PHI)
-Nick Bjugstad or Reilly Smith (FLA)
-Jonathan Drouin (TBL)
-Evgeny Kuznetsov, Andre Burakovsky (WSH)

 

[Rebuilt]

So, with Armstrong yesterday saying his core 6 pieces, and Shattenkirk not being among them, does he get trade this summer, or during the year, for someone that likely won't be retained long term.

to a team ANYWHERE in the NHL, KHL, SEL and any other league...........except the Edmonton Oilers.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Tripod]

I could see Shatty ending up in Philly as they need a RH D could log big minutes and move the puck. The Flyers have a lot of LH D options that make less money and/or prospects. How about something around Del Zotto and Morin for Shattenkirk?

Naw. Philly is ok with Ghost and Gudas on the right side.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

Florida would be interesting to me as a Blues fan. Love a deal around Bjugstad.

 

[Hictor Vedman*]

If Shattenkirk is a Blue this time next year, i'd be floored. I still think he ends up a Ranger unless a team like Boston or Philly steps up their offer now and trades for him, in which case he probably would re-sign.

Florida showed with Yandle it doesn't ****ing matter. You make the effort to acquire them and throw dollars at them, they'll eat it up and sign with you.

 

[Jerzey Devil]

Neither Florida or Philly really need Shattenkirk. Florida might even be too far for him. I think it's pretty limited to NYR, Bos, NJD, and NYI as far as who needs/might need him in his preferred area.

 

[Maurice of Orange]

I'd like to see Shatty in a flyers uniform, but most Flyers fans are not keen on Shattenkirk joining the Flyers via trade...
Flyers already have Ghost, Gudas and Streit playing the right side anyhow.

 

[PWJunior]

The Blues are in win now mode and having Shattenkirk next season jives with that desire. If he isn't traded before the season starts, he'll finish the season with them and then walk in UFA. There's no way a contending team trades him away at the TDL.

 

[Mr Positive]

The Blues are in win now mode and having Shattenkirk next season jives with that desire. If he isn't traded before the season starts, he'll finish the season with them and then walk in UFA. There's no way a contending team trades him away at the TDL.

that depends on the return. If Parayko makes Shattenkirk redundant, and someone offers a good center on a similar contract for Shattenkirk, then that is a good deadline deal.

 

[PWJunior]

that depends on the return. If Parayko makes Shattenkirk redundant, and someone offers a good center on a similar contract for Shattenkirk, then that is a good deadline deal.

Unless the Blues are having a crap season and are out of playoff contention, high end players like Shattenkirk don't get moved at the TDL. Contenders just do not sell, they likely add. Making a run at the Cup is far more important that worrying about trying to get value back on a pending UFA.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

I'd part with JVR+ in order to acquire Shattenkirk. Say we throw a prospect like Brown or Dermott.

 

[I am not exposed]

Florida would be interesting to me as a Blues fan. Love a deal around Bjugstad.

I can't see that happening now that we signed demers

 

[Bryanbryoil]

It's a damn shame that he likely wouldn't re-sign in Edmonton as he'd be a solid fit on our 2nd pairing.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

I can't see that happening now that we signed demers

Yeah you guys already have at least 4 NHL capable RHD and $4.5 million would be too much to pay Demers to anchor your 3rd pairing IMO.

 

[wintersej]

that depends on the return. If Parayko makes Shattenkirk redundant, and someone offers a good center on a similar contract for Shattenkirk, then that is a good deadline deal.

A hockey deal deadline deal is possible, but counting on that is horrible horrible management, they are rare. Best to trade him before July 1st or not at all. Now Armstrong will either lose him for nothing or for less.

 

[ghdi]

1. Regarding Shattenkirk's contract. I've heard for weeks how his "expiring contract" is diminishing his value. Hogwash. Players get traded in the last years of their contract all the time.

Of course they do, but how often is there surprise that the return was less than expected? I'd argue that's the norm. It's one thing if he has 3+ years left on his deal. We're talking about a guy due a significant raise who is rumored to want to go to a specific region of the country where he'll re-sign long term and is less than a year from UFA. It limits the landing spots and limits the return. Not every GM is Charelli-level desperate.

3. As a Blues fan, the Rangers are really the only team with the pieces I would prefer in a trade. I've been arguing for weeks that the Blues need craft a deal built around Shattenkirk for Kreider. There are some pretty vocal Rangers fans who aren't keen on that idea, mostly for reasons related to my first two points above. As I've said, I think those concerns are over-stated--but I don't blame them for coveting their own player. I still think that would be a good hockey trade that would benefit both teams--and I have no doubt Shattenkirk would be more than happy to sign a long-term extension to remain a Ranger, probably cheaper than he would agree to elsewhere.

The Rangers are in a serious bind in many ways. I absolutely agree with you that Shattenkirk would sign there in a heartbeat, but they're essentially clogged with long term contracts that are going to be exceptionally hard for them to move + they then would have to deal with giving Shattenkirk an extension. The Rangers let Yandle go only because they could not afford him. They're not in a position to trade for Shattenkirk right now. If anything, the Rangers need time to make a deal like that work. The Girardi, Staal, and Nash contracts are largely albatrosses right now that are preventing them from making significant moves. If Shattenkirk remains a Blue, that will increase his chances to go to the Rangers, because they'd have the time to clear the space but that also drives down the price the closer we get to July 1 2017. They're not giving up assets now w/ the risk of being in the same position in a year financially though.

Other players/destinations that, if I were Doug Armstrong, I would be looking atas part of a trade involving Shattenkirk (not commenting on their availability or relative value):
-Brayden Schenn or Wayne Simmonds (PHI)
-Nick Bjugstad or Reilly Smith (FLA)
-Jonathan Drouin (TBL)
-Evgeny Kuznetsov, Andre Burakovsky (WSH)

Oh, I will comment on their availability. I would argue that there is not one name on that list that St. Louis would be able to get for Shattenkirk as it stands. He will get a nice(r) return if traded today, but he's not going to get a piece like that when he can rule a place out if he desires. FL just got Yandle and went long term with Ekblad and signed Demers. TB just re-signed Hedman and Stamkos to massive deals and are in absolutely 0 position financially to give up a cost controlled key player for a guy due another huge raise + they still have a slew of guys that will be needing new contracts soon. Philly and WA would be possibilities but those players wouldnt be a part of the return for a guy a year from UFA, espc if those teams know the guy wants to come that direction. They can and will play hardball with that kind of leverage.

Shattenkirk's landing spots for long term are limited right now. Its going to affect the return in a big way. I will almost guarantee that if he's still a Blue come January, that whatever St. Louis does get back for him will be disappointing or basically nil (i.e. his rights are traded in the post-season).

 

[wintersej]

1. Regarding Shattenkirk's contract. I've heard for weeks how his "expiring contract" is diminishing his value. Hogwash. Players get traded in the last years of their contract all the time. Is the remaining term of his contract a consideration? Of course--especially as prospective bidders have to consider how they're going to fit that contract, or possibly a new contract, into their cap structure. But getting a full year of service from an excellent player on a reasonable contract is not a negative. For all that he is due a considerable raise after this contract expires, he'll be worth the salary he commands. Anybody trading for him already knows what he's likely to get next year--and if the Blues are sufficiently enticed by an offer, they will allow Kevin to speak to that suitor to see if an extension or a new deal can be agreed upon. Doug Armstrong is a straight shooter--it's both a strength and a weakness.

2. Regarding the expansion draft. This is a legitimate concern. A team flipping a young, cost-controlled top-6 forward, plus picks/prospects, for Kevin Shattenkirk is not going to let that investment be wasted. But you wouldn't be trading for him if he wasn't an upgrade over what you already have. So what if you have to expose another player to protect him? He's worth it.

3. As a Blues fan, the Rangers are really the only team with the pieces I would prefer in a trade. I've been arguing for weeks that the Blues need craft a deal built around Shattenkirk for Kreider. There are some pretty vocal Rangers fans who aren't keen on that idea, mostly for reasons related to my first two points above. As I've said, I think those concerns are over-stated--but I don't blame them for coveting their own player. I still think that would be a good hockey trade that would benefit both teams--and I have no doubt Shattenkirk would be more than happy to sign a long-term extension to remain a Ranger, probably cheaper than he would agree to elsewhere.

Other players/destinations that, if I were Doug Armstrong, I would be looking atas part of a trade involving Shattenkirk (not commenting on their availability or relative value):
-Brayden Schenn or Wayne Simmonds (PHI)
-Nick Bjugstad or Reilly Smith (FLA)
-Jonathan Drouin (TBL)
-Evgeny Kuznetsov, Andre Burakovsky (WSH)

This post typifies the unrealistic nature of Blues fans hopes and demands. It is not Shattenkirk's term that limits his trade value. It's Shattenkirk's term PLUS his limited list. If only a couple teams are on Shattenkirk's list AND have a need AND have cap space AND have cheap young assets that means fewer teams are bidding and its a buyers market. How that isn't obvious to people blows my mind. None of the names listed above will come back to STL in a trade. Philly isn't giving up young forwards with their defensive prospect pool and shallow forward pool in the NHL and at the prospect level. FLA ain't paying Demers to play 3rd pairing. Tampa can't afford it. Washingon wouldn't give up Kuz in a million years. STL is either getting something similar or less than the Yandle deal or self renting.