- Jul 4, 2014
- 8,064
- 8,675
Value of: Extended Shattenkirk
- Thread starter MissouriMook
- Start date
Vincenzo Arelliti
He Can't Play Center
Who's the last dman of Shattenkirk's caliber to be traded not named PK Subban (or Shea Webber)?
RHPMD that put up better P/60 than any dman (including Karlsson) in '14-'15 and has consistently been a top 5 P/60 dman in the last three years. He's only 26.5, has an AAV of 4.5 for this year, and is just now hitting his prime. he's a PP expert that can also play good, but not great defense.
RHPMD that put up better P/60 than any dman (including Karlsson) in '14-'15 and has consistently been a top 5 P/60 dman in the last three years. He's only 26.5, has an AAV of 4.5 for this year, and is just now hitting his prime. he's a PP expert that can also play good, but not great defense.
wintersej
Registered User
This thread ain't going to get a lot of activity.
The simple reason is this: Your preposition isn't possible.
If Armstrong traded off Shattenkirk like that after signing him to a long term deal while telling Shattenkirk they planned to keep him, no player would ever trust Armstrong again and he would never get another GM job.
Even less realistic is the idea that Shattenkirk would say "hey, I know you are going to trade me, but I really think you should decide where I would be traded to and spend the next 7 years of my life, so I'll sign a deal right now. I especially want to make sure my new team isn't as good as it could be because they will be giving up assets to get me."
The simple reason is this: Your preposition isn't possible.
If Armstrong traded off Shattenkirk like that after signing him to a long term deal while telling Shattenkirk they planned to keep him, no player would ever trust Armstrong again and he would never get another GM job.
Even less realistic is the idea that Shattenkirk would say "hey, I know you are going to trade me, but I really think you should decide where I would be traded to and spend the next 7 years of my life, so I'll sign a deal right now. I especially want to make sure my new team isn't as good as it could be because they will be giving up assets to get me."
This thread is stupid, he will be going to the Rangers sooner than later and will either play for the blues until the tdl or not again.
Maukkis
EZ4ENCE
- Mar 16, 2016
- 10,721
- 7,597
St. Louis offer Shattenkirk a long term deal. There are two options.
1) The deal has a very lenient no-trade clause, which is an instant sign of a sign and trade. There is no way Shattenkirk will sign that. He knows the situation.
2) The deal includes a NMC, in which case Shattenkirk would be in their long term plans. Could be possible, but if he isn't, this deal is not being offered either.
You can always think of team-friendly scenarios, but with Shattenkirk being an UFA, those will likely be daydreams. Same goes for those who think that he can be poached easily: not happening. We are talking about humans here. They are greedy and will do their best to secure their future, whether that's earning a boatload of money through playing hockey or managing a team well enough to keep their jobs.
1) The deal has a very lenient no-trade clause, which is an instant sign of a sign and trade. There is no way Shattenkirk will sign that. He knows the situation.
2) The deal includes a NMC, in which case Shattenkirk would be in their long term plans. Could be possible, but if he isn't, this deal is not being offered either.
You can always think of team-friendly scenarios, but with Shattenkirk being an UFA, those will likely be daydreams. Same goes for those who think that he can be poached easily: not happening. We are talking about humans here. They are greedy and will do their best to secure their future, whether that's earning a boatload of money through playing hockey or managing a team well enough to keep their jobs.
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
For an extended Shattenkirk to Detroit i would gladly offer.
Tatar/Nyquist+Svechnikov+Detroit's 2nd round pick.
This is pretty much the deal that i see on the Blues board.
Tatar/Nyquist+Svechnikov+Detroit's 2nd round pick.
This is pretty much the deal that i see on the Blues board.
Vincenzo Arelliti
He Can't Play Center
- Jul 4, 2014
- 8,064
- 8,675
Did you even read the post. You know, the parts where I said:
"this would obviously mean that the player signs the extension knowing that he is still being shopped"
and,
"extension has a limited no-trade clause (say 8 teams on his "yes" list) that kicks in for the last year of his current deal and the first year of his new deal, and a full NTC (not NMC) after that"
I admit the premise is unlikely, but if the player and his agent see it as a way for him to:
(a) get the exact money he has expressed that he desires,
(b) guarantee that he will continue to play for STL or one of the 8 teams he has chosen, and
(c) protected himself financially against the possibility of a career ending/altering injury during the 2016-17 season that could affect his future earning power
it may not be as ridiculous as you are suggesting.
I totally agree with the idea of Armstrong possibly signing Shattenkirk to a long term deal here in STL. If Armstrong can't get what he wants for Shatty in a trade, he will have to act fast and sign Shattenkirk to a long term deal in STL. Shattenkirk would get his no trade clause here in STL but he'd probably waive a deal to certain places like NY and Boston. I posted this possibility on another forum a couple weeks ago. Makes total sense. All Shattenkirk wants is his money. He likes STL, will stay in STL, but first and foremost he's looking for a long term monetary deal to his satisfaction. From Armstrong's perspective, he will have to regain control of the situation and regain his leverage on the Shattenkirk deal. And to do that, he will have to sign him. The longer this goes, the less leverage Armstrong has. If Armstrong can't work a deal out by the end of October then I expect the Blues to ink him to a new deal and revisit the whole situation all over again.
PG Canuck
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2010
- 63,606
- 25,637
PG Canuck
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2010
- 63,606
- 25,637
RangerBoy
Dolan sucks!!!
Larry Brooks has very good Rangers sources. Some people don't like him but he has very good Rangers sources. He has written on numerous occasions the Rangers are extremely unlikely and leery on meeting Shattenkirk's asking price for his contract. He wants major commitment and major dollars. 6,7,8 seasons at $6.5M to $7M per. That's a huge commitment. Factor in the additional season left on his current contract. The team will have Shattenkirk under contract until his mid-30's. Too long. The Rangers still have the two albatross contracts on D. They passed on re-signing Yandle. Staal and Girardi have to be protected in the expansion draft. Add McDonagh and that's the Rangers three D. Skjei is exempt. The Rangers will protect 7 forwards and 3 D.
WesMcCauley
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2015
- 8,616
- 2,600
Problem with signing Shatty is that Mcdonagh is up for a new contract in 2019. Staal`s contract is done in 2021 and Girardi`s in 2020.
Shatty 6,5
Staal 5,7
Girardi 5,5
Mcdonagh 7+ probably
Thats around 25 mill on 4 defensemen.........
No team will take Girardi even after the expansion. Staal could probably be traded after expansion with 1-2 mill retention. Our Cap is a complete mess because Girardi is barely a NHL player at best, Staal plays like a mediocre top 4 or solid bottom pair guy. And they make over 11 mill combined
Girardi has been a warrior for us during his career but from a whats best for the team standpoint, i wouldnt want him on the team for 1 mill. He is not a good player at all anymore.
If an extended Shatty was sat in the East, I have no doubts that EDM would have coughed up Hall to acquire him. He fulfills their needs way more then Larsson does.
pld459666
Registered User
BruinDust
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 25,513
- 24,748
I doubt Edmonton would of traded Hall for an extended Shattenkirk.
To big a difference in age (3 years), whereas Larsson was more age comparable.
People forget one of the big appeals of Larsson was his relatively bargain contract.
Apples to oranges.
Dbrownss
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2014
- 31,359
- 8,734
Odd because that's the opposite of what was said by our writer. Hall for Shattenkirk didn't happen because Shattenkirk wasn't overly interested in staying in Edmonton. Edmonton may have still done the deal without an extention but there were significant pluses and Stl wasn't willing to add
Got One Cup
Registered User
- Jun 3, 2008
- 4,102
- 1,284
I doubt he signs an extension or the Blues recieve enough to move him. I think we will keep him for another run then let him be on his way. He probably signs with whoever comes close to his contract demands that is around the area he wants. Boston or Ottawa imo. I think the Rangers have too much tied up in defense already.
I'm pretty sure EDM would have preferred taking on the better player and the one that fulfils the team's needs more then some guy that's younger. Larsson's contract is exactly what he should be getting paid right now. He's a questionable top pairing guy at this point in his career and is no cert to become a fully-fledged #1D. EDM took on a lot of risk in giving up Hall for him.
I'm sure EDM would have felt the loss of Hall a lot less if they had a consistent 45pt guy coming into replace him at the back instead of a guy that regularly produces no more then 20 pts.
