Shattenkirk

[HisNoodliness]

I think this is a really interesting proposition if you can negotiate with Shatty beforehand. Even if you can't. Its not often a (relative) contender is deep in RHDs and is looking to add veteran goalies and forwards at that expense. Likewise, its not often a should-be rebuilder is looking to add an expensive UFA but also has non-future pieces to play with.

What is STL willing to do here? Detroit? Edmonton? Contenders?

I could see something like this:

To Contender: Vanek @ 50%, 4th round pick
To DET: Contender's 1st rounder

To DET: Shattenkirk re-signed, STL's 2nd round pick, Carter Hutton
To STL: RNH, Howard @ 40%, Sproul
To EDM: Green @ $1M, Contender's 1st round pick, Jurco

Or whatever. Point being, this wouldn't be your typical deadline acquisition.

I'd rather just keep the contender's first for Vanek and move Green for another first. Shattenkirk is really expensive and will be well into his downswing by the time we're good again. The time to make this kind of move was two seasons ago. Now it's too late and we're better off accepting a bad team and rebuilding through the draft.

 

[Run the Jewels]

I'd rather just keep the contender's first for Vanek and move Green for another first. Shattenkirk is really expensive and will be well into his downswing by the time we're good again. The time to make this kind of move was two seasons ago. Now it's too late and we're better off accepting a bad team and rebuilding through the draft.

I agree the only reason to get Shattenkirk is to get marginally better and have one elite player on your roster. It doesn't really move the needle in terms of making us more competitive to where we have more than a snowball's chance in hell of going on a playoff run.

The time to make the move was to acquire Bouwmeester. He was exactly what we needed and you can now see that our window wasn't quite closed at the time he was traded. At this point we simply don't have the horses or coaching to become a good hockey team. Holland has painted us into the corner we're in right now and it's not going to change anytime soon.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I'd rather just keep the contender's first for Vanek and move Green for another first. Shattenkirk is really expensive and will be well into his downswing by the time we're good again. The time to make this kind of move was two seasons ago. Now it's too late and we're better off accepting a bad team and rebuilding through the draft.

I don't understand this.

No. The time to make the move is whenever a good piece is available. I feel like we're going to be a "bad" team (I really don't even think we are that terrible most of the time) regardless of whether we make the move or not. So if we can make a move that checks off a box to us being a better team, I don't understand not even countenancing the possibility. Even if they traded for Shattenkirk at the deadline, he maybe adds one win that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

I do not agree with putting all of our eggs in the "suck till we get enough picks not to" basket.

Everyone poo-poos the "get in and anything can happen" adage because it was what, about 11% of underdogs that win... but propose a building strategy where we rely on a certain percent chance to get a lottery pick that has a certain percent chance of being an elite piece.

How about they take charge and try to make their team better without hoping and praying that the ping pong falls a certain way or their card gets drawn out of the deck a certain way?

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I agree the only reason to get Shattenkirk is to get marginally better and have one elite player on your roster. It doesn't really move the needle in terms of making us more competitive to where we have more than a snowball's chance in hell of going on a playoff run.

The time to make the move was to acquire Bouwmeester. He was exactly what we needed and you can now see that our window wasn't quite closed at the time he was traded. At this point we simply don't have the horses or coaching to become a good hockey team. Holland has painted us into the corner we're in right now and it's not going to change anytime soon.

We will be a bubble team with or without him. We will likely get into the lotto even with him. I'm for nabbing one "elite" piece and going from there than getting a 2% better chance at an elite piece in the draft.

 

[Run the Jewels]

We will be a bubble team with or without him. We will likely get into the lotto even with him. I'm for nabbing one "elite" piece and going from there than getting a 2% better chance at an elite piece in the draft.

Yeah I have been on board with trading for a defenseman for quite some time. The problem is we have so many awful contracts it's going to be tough to sign him to a new deal. Next season we have 9 forwards, 6 dmen and 2 goalies under contract and sit at $68.35 million of a $73 million salary cap. This is according to cap friendly. That's before we qualify Tatar and Atanasiou. You know they are going to qualify Ouellet. They will likely qualify Jensen. All that does is eat up more cap space.

Shattenkirk is going to want north of $6 million per year and someone absolutely, without question will offer him much more than that. I get that we hope people will take our awful contracts off our hands but you typically need to sweeten the pot to make that palatable. We lost out on Chychrun - if you believe he's going to be a good defenseman - to get Phoenix to take Datsyuk's cap hit.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Yeah I have been on board with trading for a defenseman for quite some time. The problem is we have so many awful contracts it's going to be tough to sign him to a new deal. Next season we have 9 forwards, 6 dmen and 2 goalies under contract and sit at $68.35 million of a $73 million salary cap. This is according to cap friendly. That's before we qualify Tatar and Atanasiou. You know they are going to qualify Ouellet. They will likely qualify Jensen. All that does is eat up more cap space.

Shattenkirk is going to want north of $6 million per year and someone absolutely, without question will offer him much more than that. I get that we hope people will take our awful contracts off our hands but you typically need to sweeten the pot to make that palatable. We lost out on Chychrun - if you believe he's going to be a good defenseman - to get Phoenix to take Datsyuk's cap hit.

And got Cholowski. We dropped four spots in the draft not out of it entirely. Also got Hronek too.

Also, you want to sell Green at the deadline for a 1st? That's $6M off the cap which can go right to Shatty. Of course you would want to keep them both, but if you can swap 1 year of Green @ 6 for 5-7 of Shattenkirk at 6.5 or so... I'd be willing to do that all day. Money-wise, it's easy to find the cap room.

Now, it just comes down to the value to send back.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Cap Friendly is going to over report Detroit's cap number next year because it will include Franzen on it (isn't he supposed to essentially come off the books by not playing a game this year?) it does not take into account who might get claimed (because it can't know), and it's got 3 goalies on it.

Detroit's cap number will be at least 4.5 mil less and as much as 10 mil less if Howard gets claimed... and that assumes no other players will retire or mysteriously decide to play in Sweden to end their careers.

 

[Shaman464]

I don't understand this.

No. The time to make the move is whenever a good piece is available. I feel like we're going to be a "bad" team (I really don't even think we are that terrible most of the time) regardless of whether we make the move or not. So if we can make a move that checks off a box to us being a better team, I don't understand not even countenancing the possibility. Even if they traded for Shattenkirk at the deadline, he maybe adds one win that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

I do not agree with putting all of our eggs in the "suck till we get enough picks not to" basket.

Everyone poo-poos the "get in and anything can happen" adage because it was what, about 11% of underdogs that win... but propose a building strategy where we rely on a certain percent chance to get a lottery pick that has a certain percent chance of being an elite piece.

How about they take charge and try to make their team better without hoping and praying that the ping pong falls a certain way or their card gets drawn out of the deck a certain way?

The reason why trading for him is a **** idea is that you can't spend your way to a cup anymore. The team is not one Shattenkirk away from contending, and the team is already terribly top heavy when it comes to salary allocation. Why give up major assets for another huge contract, when any assets given up for that player are likely to be more valuable long term? The current NHL proves that giving up draft picks and prospects as a bubble team is not a good idea (see Toronto RE: Kessel, imagine how the leafs would look with Dougie Hamilton and Tyler Seguin with Matthews).

If this team is going to make a major move they need to trade for players under 25. This team has some hard years ahead, and pissing away money, assets, and years on players who will be closer to retirement than their prime is not smart.

 

[Run the Jewels]

And got Cholowski. We dropped four spots in the draft not out of it entirely. Also got Hronek too.

Also, you want to sell Green at the deadline for a 1st? That's $6M off the cap which can go right to Shatty. Of course you would want to keep them both, but if you can swap 1 year of Green @ 6 for 5-7 of Shattenkirk at 6.5 or so... I'd be willing to do that all day. Money-wise, it's easy to find the cap room.

Now, it just comes down to the value to send back.

Green has a NTC. So you need to get him to waive it to trade him. That doesn't sound like something Country Club Kenny would have any interest in doing. The point with Chychrun is you missed out on a guy who could play THIS YEAR and contribute to our awful defense. But you had to pass on him to get rid of Datsyuk's contract. People don't take those off your hands for free.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

The reason why trading for him is a **** idea is that you can't spend your way to a cup anymore. The team is not one Shattenkirk away from contending, and the team is already terribly top heavy when it comes to salary allocation. Why give up major assets for another huge contract, when any assets given up for that player are likely to be more valuable long term? The current NHL proves that giving up draft picks and prospects as a bubble team is not a good idea (see Toronto RE: Kessel, imagine how the leafs would look with Dougie Hamilton and Tyler Seguin with Matthews).

If this team is going to make a major move they need to trade for players under 25. This team has some hard years ahead, and pissing away money, assets, and years on players who will be closer to retirement than their prime is not smart.

Toronto wouldn't be close to Matthews if they kept those guys. What the hell are you talking about?

And no, they're really not terribly top heavy. That's the "problem" with Detroit. It's not that they have too many big dollar deals. It's that the medium deals are a million too much for a year or two longer than is worthy.

Any "major assets" you're giving up will include one of those high dollar value contracts that you're talking about.

This is just what bothers me. Everyone loses their mind when Holland doesn't make trades like he's an idiot for not being able to pull the trigger. But when it comes time to actually think about a deal, it's always "oh don't trade that guy that has value. Oh, don't trade that guy!"

Like I said, you swap Green for a 1st like people want to and boom, you're in the exact same boat on "top heavy deals" if you give Shatty even 7/49 or something like that.

 

[SirloinUB]

I think this is a really interesting proposition if you can negotiate with Shatty beforehand. Even if you can't. Its not often a (relative) contender is deep in RHDs and is looking to add veteran goalies and forwards at that expense. Likewise, its not often a should-be rebuilder is looking to add an expensive UFA but also has non-future pieces to play with.

What is STL willing to do here? Detroit? Edmonton? Contenders?

I could see something like this:

To Contender: Vanek @ 50%, 4th round pick
To DET: Contender's 1st rounder

To DET: Shattenkirk re-signed, STL's 2nd round pick, Carter Hutton
To STL: RNH, Howard @ 40%, Sproul
To EDM: Green @ $1M, Contender's 1st round pick, Jurco

Or whatever. Point being, this wouldn't be your typical deadline acquisition.

I'm all for a move of this sort. In one summer the wings could land a potential 1C (top 10 pick) and #2 Dman. Whether you want to retool or rebuild, this would be a huge boost of talent and help the team long term.

Cap Friendly is going to over report Detroit's cap number next year because it will include Franzen on it (isn't he supposed to essentially come off the books by not playing a game this year?)

As I understand it, Franzen would qualify for SOIR. The idea is that they would no longer have to do the pre-season salary dance as he can go on IR before the season actually starts. Through the off season they could spend right up to the Salary Cap + Franzen's contract and still be cap compliant for opening day.

 

[jkutswings]

I don't understand this.

No. The time to make the move is whenever a good piece is available. I feel like we're going to be a "bad" team (I really don't even think we are that terrible most of the time) regardless of whether we make the move or not. So if we can make a move that checks off a box to us being a better team, I don't understand not even countenancing the possibility. Even if they traded for Shattenkirk at the deadline, he maybe adds one win that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

I do not agree with putting all of our eggs in the "suck till we get enough picks not to" basket.

Everyone poo-poos the "get in and anything can happen" adage because it was what, about 11% of underdogs that win... but propose a building strategy where we rely on a certain percent chance to get a lottery pick that has a certain percent chance of being an elite piece.

How about they take charge and try to make their team better without hoping and praying that the ping pong falls a certain way or their card gets drawn out of the deck a certain way?

If the front office had been doing exactly that for the last 5 years, the franchise might not be in this mess.

Time to pay the piper.

 

[Hammettf2b]

How much more would a team have to pay if a sign and trade (only way I see him coming to Detroit) were in the works? Say the going rate for a Shatty rental is a 1st and prospect. How much more than that, if at all, would it cost for a sign and trade? I would think it wouldn't be much more seeing as the only way he gets traded to teams that only want him if he is extended so the leverage is not with the Blues.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

How much more would a team have to pay if a sign and trade (only way I see him coming to Detroit) were in the works? Say the going rate for a Shatty rental is a 1st and prospect. How much more than that, if at all, would it cost for a sign and trade? I would think it wouldn't be much more seeing as the only way he gets traded to teams that only want him if he is extended so the leverage is not with the Blues.

Extended Shattenkirk will return more. And I think pure rental Shattenkirk draws less. Pure rental would be more of a 1st plus a B prospect. Or a weaker pick and better prospect.

I'd say something around Nyquist, AA, 1st would be pretty close to value for extended Shatty (ignoring need). Basically top 6 forward, prospect with good upside and a 1st.

 

[Retire91]

I'd rather just keep the contender's first for Vanek and move Green for another first. Shattenkirk is really expensive and will be well into his downswing by the time we're good again. The time to make this kind of move was two seasons ago. Now it's too late and we're better off accepting a bad team and rebuilding through the draft.

I feel the same way. We need a D that can or has the potential to anchor our "#1" D slot and is at the age to grow with the Larkin Mantha generation. Shattenkirk is around that age and is really really good but he is already in his prime earning years and although he is also good enough to be our best D but he is not the #1 D on any given team. This team needs a Subban, Webber, Keith, Karlson. Not someone that will just do. The best way to make that happen is the draft. I would rather we set our sights on Timothy Liljegren

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Shattenkirk for free as a free agent would be great

But trading a top ten pick or Larkin or Martha for a player who will not change rhe course of this team is where fans are saying no way

This team with shatty but minus Larkin would have exactly zero points more than they do right now. Don't fool yourself into believing otherwisw

Shatty is not "1 of the pieces you need to win" he is a guy you add when you already have the necessary two or three young pieces you need to win.

Forget about him......

 

[Run the Jewels]

Toronto wouldn't be close to Matthews if they kept those guys. What the hell are you talking about?

And no, they're really not terribly top heavy. That's the "problem" with Detroit. It's not that they have too many big dollar deals. It's that the medium deals are a million too much for a year or two longer than is worthy.

Any "major assets" you're giving up will include one of those high dollar value contracts that you're talking about.

This is just what bothers me. Everyone loses their mind when Holland doesn't make trades like he's an idiot for not being able to pull the trigger. But when it comes time to actually think about a deal, it's always "oh don't trade that guy that has value. Oh, don't trade that guy!"

Like I said, you swap Green for a 1st like people want to and boom, you're in the exact same boat on "top heavy deals" if you give Shatty even 7/49 or something like that.

Toronto also has $20 million in cap space even if the cap stays at $73 million. That's the benefit of having cheap, elite talent.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

If the front office had been doing exactly that for the last 5 years, the franchise might not be in this mess.

Time to pay the piper.

Yes... by trading an asset they don't want to trade... not by signing off on five years of suckage.

If nobody has elite potential, like I've heard, why are you jealously hoarding? I just don't want people to look back and say "oh man, we should have traded for Shattenkirk" when Mantha is here and puttering to 15-20 goal seasons.

 

[Retire91]

If Holland makes this kind of trade it needs to be a flat out win for the organization. Like Shattenkirk for Jurco and a Second with a chance to re-sign him. If it takes manatha to get him here then yes I agree with you mantha is not guaranteed elite. However trading mantha ways guarantees an elite vacancy at wing. Holland can not fix this team by simply trading one problem for another. He needs to create a surplus of elite talent from his moves and that is either winning trades or getting hits in the draft.

I do not trust Holland to win trades, its been ages since he has made an effective trade. The higher up in the draft the less skill it takes to get elite talent so the high draft pick is the only faith I have in this organization.

 

[jkutswings]

Yes... by trading an asset they don't want to trade... not by signing off on five years of suckage.

If nobody has elite potential, like I've heard, why are you jealously hoarding? I just don't want people to look back and say "oh man, we should have traded for Shattenkirk" when Mantha is here and puttering to 15-20 goal seasons.

I think Mantha will be a regular 30+ goal scorer.

But even if I didn't, I'm fully on board the tank train, I think it will take a long time, and I'm not convinced Shats will ever be a 1A guy, so why would I want to improve short-term, at the expense of the draft, if I also don't think Detroit can rebuild enough to win it all while Shats is here?

This is a mess that will take 5-10 years to fix. Nothanks to short cuts that I don't think will work.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

I think Mantha will be a regular 30+ goal scorer.

But even if I didn't, I'm fully on board the tank train, I think it will take a long time, and I'm not convinced Shats will ever be a 1A guy, so why would I want to improve short-term, at the expense of the draft, if I also don't think Detroit can rebuild enough to win it all while Shats is here?

This is a mess that will take 5-10 years to fix. Nothanks to short cuts that I don't think will work.

See, I don't see it as a shortcut. I see it as, I have a chance at a guy who right this second is a pretty good 2/exceptional 3.

He would easily be our best defenseman... and since he wouldn't be got for free... we'd lose something on the scoring side, enough so that we'd still be on the outside looking in, even with landing a top defenseman. So the way I see it, the Wings keep doing what they're doing and try to tank and likely get a pick from 8-15, because they'll never let themselves get so bad as to be a top 3 pick or swing a risky deal for a guy like Shattenkirk and pick 10-18.

This is being obstinate about a tank more so than improving your team. I'm saying you bring in Shatty and have him for 7 years. Since he's 28, he's not likely to start declining until maybe year 6 or 7 of the deal.

 

[Retire91]

So sell the farm to get a great number 2 defenseman because he will be our best defenseman so we can continue along the bubble team path. No thanks.

It would probably work out better than the Quincey trade and certainly more refreshing than the Pahnuef dialog but still no thanks. No need to trade what is potentially the future just to stay good/mediocre now. This team has no legit core, Shats is someone you add to a core he doesn't create one.

 

[jkutswings]

I don't want to be better. I want to go the Shanahan route to say, "great or bust".

I already stopped regularly watching the games 3.5 years ago, because I thought the product was mediocre and doomed to continued mediocrity. I have no problem with waiting another several years, if I think they finally have a plan I can believe in, and start to see some exciting pieces arriving because of it.

Obviously you have different interests and priorities, and that's fine. But we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Basically, the way I see it, if you're taking 6 or 7 years to be good again... you're doing a **** job of a rebuild. You're throwing out the baby with the bath water. You're saying everything I currently have sucks which is just patently false.

 

[jkutswings]

Basically, the way I see it, if you're taking 6 or 7 years to be good again... you're doing a **** job of a rebuild. You're throwing out the baby with the bath water. You're saying everything I currently have sucks which is just patently false.

Since the cap, the average time from an elite player getting drafted to winning a Cup is 6 years. It takes time. Especially since Detroit needs two top pair defensemen, each of which, if drafted, will need plenty of time to make the team, improve, and reach the point of really clicking.

Even with Shattenkirk, they need multiple other pieces, which take time to assemble and then reach their potential. I don't see more than 1-2 useful years from Shats if they sign him now, and I'd rather get the core first.

EDIT: But other than Mantha, and honorable mention to Larkin and possibly AA, I do think that most of their roster sucks.