Value of: Extended Shattenkirk

[westc2]

If Shatty could learn how to play on the left side at even strength he would already be extended with the Blues. Maybe they'll work on that more this season and they to get rid of Bouwmeester's contract to make room for Shatty's raise.

Side note, Tarasenko will be pretty upset if Shattenkirk leaves.

 

[bluetuned]

If Shatty could learn how to play on the left side at even strength he would already be extended with the Blues. Maybe they'll work on that more this season and they to get rid of Bouwmeester's contract to make room for Shatty's raise.

Side note, Tarasenko will be pretty upset if Shattenkirk leaves.

Shattenkirk has been very subpar when playing on the left side. If somebody is going to make the switch, it's going to be Parayko. He's still developing and crazy athletic. He'd have a much easier time switching than Shattenkirk did IMO.

If Parayko could do that successfully this year, I'd definitely try to jettison Bouwmeester's contract either in a trade or the expansion draft and retain Shattenkirk. His powerplay significance for the Blues can't really be diminished. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[stl76]

You can't say that with the cap and all. Also look at Barrie's contract.

Pretty sure Barrie and the Avs were looking at Shattenkirk's current contract when they signed their deal. Their deal really has no bearing on Shattenkirk's next contract IMO. Except that Shattenkirk's next contract may set the bar for Barrie's next one.

At this point I think the most likely scenario is that Shatty stays with the Blues for this season and walks after another playoff run. Maybe the Blues can flip his rights for a mid round pick next offseason. There is an outside possibility that an extension is still worked out but I think Shatty will easily price his way out of StL after this year. He pretty much has already.

My prediction: Shatty plays his ass off this year, has a career year in terms of point production, and cashes in BIG TIME on his next contract.

 

[bluetuned]

You can't say that with the cap and all. Also look at Barrie's contract.

Barrie's contract which only covers 1 UFA year? How is that comparable exactly?

If Barrie signed an 8 year deal that covered the 6 or 7 UFA years that Shattenkirk's deal will cover, the AAV would have been considerably higher.

 

[TGWL]

If you can sign him. Just keep him.

 

[bleedblue1223]

If you can sign him. Just keep him.

Having Petro, Parayko, and Shattenkirk all on the right is very poor cap management.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I would say that while the original details proposed in the original post wasn't realistic (no way would Shatty agree to an extension without knowing which team he'd be getting traded to AND if he signed that extension with the Blues, the NTC he got with them wouldn't necessarily transfer with him to his new team. It would be up to his new team on if they'd honor the clause...and it would be disadvantageous for the team to do so so they probably wouldn't - see Subban to NSH) BUT the general premise remains - what is an extended Shatty worth to your team? The Blues get X and your team gets Shatty, with the premise being that he'd agree to sign an extension with your team upon completion of the trade. Add pluses to either side as desired.

A DET fan offered a good proposal. Any others?

 

[go4hockey]

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.

Yep cause you guys have unlimited cap and every hockey player wants to be a Ranger.

 

[snipes]

I still think the Blues would/could get the best return that suits their needs if Shatty would be willing to go to Edmonton.

 

[Eric Sachs]

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."

I think the premise of the OP is faulty but a way to basically get the value of an extended Shattenkirk in a trade would be to allow teams to talk to his agent.

If the new team and the agent can come to an agreement, then a trade would be made and a contract subsequently signed.

You won't see a sign and trade but allowing teams to talk to a player's agent is fairly common.

 

[ichabod13]

Let's say the Blues and the player agree to a "Petro money" extension of 7 years at $6.5M AAV, and that extension has a limited no-trade clause.....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.

thats not possible. any existing contract cannot be modified. so they cant add the limited trade clause too his current contract.

 

[mouser]

If Shattenkirk signs an extension with the Blues it will include a retroactive NMC/NTC that starts immediately.

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

This whole thread OP makes it sound like Shattenkirk is a caliber of player that is a rarity.

Very good offensive dmen that are good but not great defensively arent exactly unicorns

Find yourself a Duncan Keith, Drew Doughty, Shea Weber, PK Subban then yea you found a unicorn of that caliber

Karlsson is a unicorn in the sense that his offense is pretty much the best since Leetch. He has also been MUCH improved defensively over the years but still not quite norris caliber on that side of the puck, but his offensive excellence is just too much too ignore especially since his offensive ability takes so much pressure off his defensive game with possession

Problem is Shattenkirk isnt a #1 dman but will get paid handsomely as one. Most teams wont have the luxury of a Pietrangelo as a no.1 on the team and a Bouwmeester as a #3 right behind him as well as an up and comer in Parayko on the team, all while playing in a hitchcock system most of his career to improve his defensive tendencies

 

[ichabod13]

If Shattenkirk signs an extension with the Blues it will include a retroactive NMC/NTC that starts immediately.

that is not allowed. here is the exact wording from the CBA between the NHL and the NHLPA........

"Player contracts will not be renegotiated (upward or downward) during their term."

so you cannot add a clause to an existing contract.

 

[bluetuned]

If Shattenkirk signs an extension with the Blues it will include a retroactive NMC/NTC that starts immediately.

that is not allowed. here is the exact wording from the CBA between the NHL and the NHLPA........

"Player contracts will not be renegotiated (upward or downward) during their term."

so you cannot add a clause to an existing contract.

Actually you can add them to your current season when signing an extension. You can't change anything about the money or term of the existing contract, but you can add trade restrictions. Gunnarsson did this when he signed his extension this Spring.

Now that being said, this is irrelevant to Shattenkirk. You can't get a NTC/NMC until you've reached UFA status, which won't happen for him until next summer anyway.

 

[TT1]

any team who trades for Shattenkirk will already have an extension in place

 

[tony d]

Can't see a team trading much for Shattenkirk without Shattenkirk getting an extension first.

 

[tburns21]

it also needs to be remembered that the team that Shattenkirk is being traded too needs to honour the NTC/NMC. they have the option on this when the player comes over. see PK Subban and Nashville

http://thehockeywriters.com/predators-wont-honour-p-k-subbans-no-movement-clause/

 

[MissouriMook]

it also needs to be remembered that the team that Shattenkirk is being traded too needs to honour the NTC/NMC. they have the option on this when the player comes over. see PK Subban and Nashville

http://thehockeywriters.com/predators-wont-honour-p-k-subbans-no-movement-clause/

That generally depends on how the clause is written. From my understanding, they are not using boilerplate language in these clauses. With the Subban contract, apparently the language was absent or vague, giving Nashville the option to continue to honor it or decline. One could simply add language that waiving the clause once does not void the clause, or that the clause survives after being traded to a team on his OK list.

 

[Off Sides]

Actually you can add them to your current season when signing an extension. You can't change anything about the money or term of the existing contract, but you can add trade restrictions. Gunnarsson did this when he signed his extension this Spring.

Now that being said, this is irrelevant to Shattenkirk. You can't get a NTC/NMC until you've reached UFA status, which won't happen for him until next summer anyway.

I believe, and I am not totally sure,

Shattenkirk meets all the criteria for Group III UFA currently, so if he signs an extension a clause can be added/modified to his current (remaining) contract in the process.

Subban however at the time of the trade did not meet the requirements for group III, so his clause could not have taken effect yet, so Nashville received the option to honor it or not.

 

[bluetuned]

I believe, and I am not totally sure,

Shattenkirk meets all the criteria for Group III UFA currently, so if he signs an extension a clause can be added/modified to his current (remaining) contract in the process.

Subban however at the time of the trade did not meet the requirements for group III, so his clause could not have taken effect yet, so Nashville received the option to honor it or not.

Ah you are correct. For some reason I had it in my head that he would not have been UFA eligible yet this coming season (contract aside).

 

[kingdok]

It's just not in the best interest for Shattenkirk to sign an extension with the Blues if he is to be traded. The team that would trade for him is more likely to give him what he wants, being $$$, term and clauses. If he doesn't get it, he'll be more then happy to hit the UFA market

 

[Eric Sachs]

it also needs to be remembered that the team that Shattenkirk is being traded too needs to honour the NTC/NMC. they have the option on this when the player comes over. see PK Subban and Nashville

http://thehockeywriters.com/predators-wont-honour-p-k-subbans-no-movement-clause/

needs to be remembered this is absolutely not true

 

[wintersej]

I think the premise of the OP is faulty but a way to basically get the value of an extended Shattenkirk in a trade would be to allow teams to talk to his agent.

If the new team and the agent can come to an agreement, then a trade would be made and a contract subsequently signed.

You won't see a sign and trade but allowing teams to talk to a player's agent is fairly common.

Sure, but I think every thread so far has been under that assumption. Not one is offering rental rates of a 1st and a meh prospect.

 

[STL fan in MN]

You guys realize that the CBA is on the Internet and you can search it fairly easily, right? All of this stuff is covered in Article 11.8 in the CBA.

11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.

(a) The SPC of any Player who is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent under Article 10.1(a) may contain a no-Trade or a no-move clause. SPCs containing a no-Trade or a no-move clause may be entered into prior to the time that the Player is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent so long as the SPC containing the no-Trade or no-move clause extends through and does not become effective until the time that the Player qualifies for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency. If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

(b) A no-Trade clause or a no-move clause that is negotiated as part of an extension of an SPC entered into pursuant to Section 50.5(f) may become effective immediately upon registration of, but prior to the effective date of, such SPC extension, provided: (i) the Player would otherwise have been eligible as of the immediately preceding July 1 prior to signing the SPC extension to have a no-Trade or no-move clause pursuant to Section 11.8; and (ii) the Club and the Player, who are parties to such SPC extension, agree that the no-Trade or no-move clause is effective immediately upon execution of the SPC extension (or at some later date agreed to by the Club and the Player) and evidence such agreement in writing in the SPC.

(c) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement. Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of electing to be placed on Waivers. The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twenty- four (24) hour period. If the Player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected.