All Bruins trade rumors/proposals: 16/17 Part IX
- Thread starter TP
- Start date
- Status
patty59
***************
bruinmann77
Registered User
DKH
Worst Poster/Awful Takes
- Feb 27, 2002
- 76,671
- 57,728
DrJustice
Registered User
I think part of it has to do with the agents and the bushiness side of things. Agents see a better fit for more sponsorship, more exposure for their client being in a big-time market (aka more money for the agent)
From the player perspective, perhaps some of the younger guys (K.Hayes, Vesey) they also want to experience life in the big city, with all the night life and such.
bruinmann77
Registered User
Greek_physique
Caron - Legit SNIPER
goalieman40
Registered User
I think for Shattenkirk it's also that they're his hometown team. So like how we always think New England guys, or more specifically Mass guys, want to play for Boston, he was a NYR guy. Think Chris Drury. Grew up in CT, NY fan, college in Boston, but ultimately wanted to be in NY.
A signed Shattenkirk would be a great addition to the B's, Sweeney has to explore this.
patty59
***************
BruinsPortugal
Registered User
New York Cirty
And hopefully they let him go there. Stay the course and see where it leads. Next year the picture will be much clearer.
Absurdity
light switch connoisseur
- Jul 6, 2012
- 11,398
- 8,037
Bruins need a LD more than a RD. Shattenkirk is a 2nd-pairing defenseman where he could be a first-pairing defenseman with the right LD partner which the Bruins will not have unless they trade for one or sign. Committing 7 years at $6M for a 28 year old defenseman reeks of problems down the road. He would probably also want some sort of NMC or NTC since he only wants to play with the Rangers or Bruins. I think the Bruins should stay away from Shattenkirk. He's not a need with the RD depth the Bruins have coming up.
Iceage
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2013
- 663
- 157
BruinsPortugal
Registered User
Exactly. What they need is a relacement for Chara long term. No need to worry about the right side.
patty59
***************
Not sure how you come to this conclusion with out assuming that all these guys get better, which is no certainty.
Shattenkirk is just an "older" Dougie Hamilton, who BTW now has 39 points in 60 games with a +3.
Any idea who Tampa was willing to give up for him? According to McKenzie, he has turned down 3 trades since last summer yet no names have been leaked??
Any idea who Tampa was willing to give up for him? According to McKenzie, he has turned down 3 trades since last summer yet no names have been leaked??
It has to depend on the cost to get him and the cost to sign him to an extension.
BruinsFanMike82
Registered User
patty59
***************
Obviously, but we know what the contract is going to look like or close to it anyways.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 11,004
- 15,412
So just out of curiosity how many more years do they stay the course? Not trying to be a jerk but there always seem to be a certain number of the same teams "rebuilding". Edmonton comes to mind, tons of great prospects, Yakapov was loved by many on this Bruins board as an example. They are finally turning the corner after adding a heavy veteran presence this year.
This doesn't mean I have a desire to overpay in a trade or cap money for a very good third D/Power play specialist in Shattenkirk but stay the course doesn't always work. Some of the can't miss kids are already missing, Danton Hienen looks to me to be a AHL/NHL tweener, with expansion he may have a long career as a bottom 6 forward but I don't envision him as an impact player, more like a guy who was drafted in the third or fourth round with a lot of holes in his game.
For the right price and right contract Shattenkirk should be brought in, he is going to get paid (see Keith Yandle), I have more faith in an established NHL regular than Zboril or Lauzon being projected as a number 3 D, and both of those players project as the type of D I like more than Shattenkirk, physical , gritty players one with a bit of a mean streak the other a good old school nasty defenseman in Lauzon.
Mpasta
Registered User
- Oct 6, 2008
- 5,804
- 722
We aren't contenders with Shattenkirk so why trade away players/picks when he is available in the offseason.
He knows which team he wants to go to. He probably wants around $7m a year.
Most people don't want to trade Carlo for Landeskog but would have no problem with Carlo being on the 3rd pairing for the next 7 years?
He knows which team he wants to go to. He probably wants around $7m a year.
Most people don't want to trade Carlo for Landeskog but would have no problem with Carlo being on the 3rd pairing for the next 7 years?
Roll 4 Lines
Pastafarian!
- Jun 14, 2010
- 11,004
- 15,412
You don't make the move unless he signs, then you don't run the risk of losing him, if he is a D Sweeney wants to build around. Same reason teams give up picks for negotiating rights and you may make the playoffs and get valuable playoff experience for Carlo, Pastrnak, Spooner, Chelarik and Vatrano.
I trade Carlo for Landeskog all day, every day.
patty59
***************
You're right, you can't just keep wasting years waiting for a prospect to hopefully pan out. We have some damn good players getting older and we keep missing the playoffs. To build a great team it has to be through trades, drafting and signings.
- Status
