Speculation: Kevin Shattenkirk for Rick Nash

[Mikos87]

Retaining on Staal has longevity, just take a higher % on Nash. Miller and Hayes are cost controlled next year.

If St. Louis goes with a Nash Staal package, the Rangers will eat some contracts in return.
Who would those players be?

 

[WTFMAN99]

This is the personal opinion of many Blues fans in fact so... cheers

This is the year through, I just know it

I try to see things from every fans point of view when I talk about this stuff, even though some fan bases may not see it in other threads.

The Shattenkirk-Krejci talk at least has some merit in the sense that St.Louis could cover up that #1C spot.

Although St.Louis needs to jettison a bit more money in the transaction...either way not wanting to pull it off topic.

I've given my 2 cents.

 

[nmbr_24]

obviously people have discussed this on here but weirdly enough ive come across 2 articles today suggesting it again. .....

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/r...ok-at-a-potential-nash-for-shattenkirk-trade/

During a July 29th live chat with his readers, Jeremy Rutherford of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch acknowledged the speculation of the Blues shipping Shattenkirk to the Rangers for left winger Rick Nash. He didn’t dismiss the possibility of this deal taking place.

Rutherford notes the Rangers need to replace departed D-man Keith Yandle. He also cites Nash’s ties with Blues coach Ken Hitchcock, and the winger’s skills and veteran experience could help the Blues.

Given Nash’s $7.8-million annual salary-cap hit over the next two seasons, Rutherford believes the Rangers would have to retain some salary. He also suggests other players would have to be involved to make the deal work....

This isn't a rumor.

I see I wan't the first to note this but the tag needs to be changed from rumor.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

This isn't a rumor.

I see I wan't the first to note this but the tag needs to be changed from rumor.

ya I touched on that situation... it says speculation there but I put it as a rumor due to the site called Rumor Roundup.

Unsure why it really matters. But if its actually bothering people and taking the focus away from the trade that is being potentially discussed, then ill change it

 

[One Winged Angel]

And half of the time rumors stem from speculation. Rumors are just hearsay. It's just a matter of semantics now.

It's not like some random poster started speculating it because Shattenkirk is from New Rochelle. There was acknowledgement from multiple writers that there was traction to this previously.

Not saying anything will happen, but why play semantics with it?

 

[KreiderHouseRules*]

what makes you say that?

I said "likely."

Is it not okay to say that anymore?

It is likely because by all accounts, STL can't afford to keep him, they already have the replacement for him, and NYR will likely be looking to add a RD next offseason after LIKELY buying out (or getting rid of any way possible) Dan Girardi.

NYR will have the space, the need, and it's the team he grew up rooting for. And they're not a bottom-feeder like TOR. That's why it's likely.

 

[nmbr_24]

ya I touched on that situation... it says speculation there but I put it as a rumor due to the site called Rumor Roundup.

Unsure why it really matters. But if its actually bothering people and taking the focus away from the trade that is being potentially discussed, then ill change it

It matters because a rumor is a rumor and speculation is speculation. A lot of people are not interested in speculation and avoid it but are interested in real rumors. There are different tags so that the people who want to avoid speculation are able to do that and so that it is easy to see real rumors when there actually are real rumors. I'm not going to call you fat joe when your name is skinny jimmy, it's kind of the same thing.

 

[nmbr_24]

And half of the time rumors stem from speculation. Rumors are just hearsay. It's just a matter of semantics now.

It's not like some random poster started speculating it because Shattenkirk is from New Rochelle. There was acknowledgement from multiple writers that there was traction to this previously.

Not saying anything will happen, but why play semantics with it?

It says speculation right in the article, it is not a rumor. Nobody said it's a rumor except here.

There are real rumors that get posted from time to time, some of us like to read those and not start reading about a rumor that in the first line says it is speculation. It's not the same thing. Nobody is saying don't post speculation, I just want to see it be accurately titled so I can decide if I want to bother with it and we all read the threads that say rumor because there is always more to it than speculation.

 

[PemIceKing]

It matters because a rumor is a rumor and speculation is speculation. A lot of people are not interested in speculation and avoid it but are interested in real rumors. There are different tags so that the people who want to avoid speculation are able to do that and so that it is easy to see real rumors when there actually are real rumors. I'm not going to call you fat joe when your name is skinny jimmy, it's kind of the same thing.

Like me.....just wasted a bunch of time reading this $?&@!

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

I changed it to speculation. Being labelled a "rumor" was strangely causing grief and derailing the thread. I really could care if its a speculation or rumor. I figured it was a rumor since its on many NHL rumor sites...but as I said I don't want the thread to derail like it was on verge the of.

Hopefully all are happy now!

Kinda seems like to me all rumors are speculation and speculation turns to rumors... it's kinda close to same thing IMO and both can be argued... similar to chicken and egg situation

 

[KreiderHouseRules*]

It matters because a rumor is a rumor and speculation is speculation. A lot of people are not interested in speculation and avoid it but are interested in real rumors. There are different tags so that the people who want to avoid speculation are able to do that and so that it is easy to see real rumors when there actually are real rumors. I'm not going to call you fat joe when your name is skinny jimmy, it's kind of the same thing.

Isn't there a grey area though?

Is anything Dreger or McKenzie report a "rumor?"

But if a friend of a friend leaks actual info but can't reveal their source, is it still just speculation?

Also, there are always more rumors than actual trades made.

There were no rumors about Brassard for Zibanejad.

To me, it doesn't really make a difference. Most of the stuff on here, whether it's rumor or speculation never happens. Not worth clinging to this stuff or putting much stock into either.

 

[KirkOut]

I try to see things from every fans point of view when I talk about this stuff, even though some fan bases may not see it in other threads.

The Shattenkirk-Krejci talk at least has some merit in the sense that St.Louis could cover up that #1C spot.

Although St.Louis needs to jettison a bit more money in the transaction...either way not wanting to pull it off topic.

I've given my 2 cents.

sorry I was actually agreeing with you in my own depressed Blues fan way.

 

[One Winged Angel]

It says speculation right in the article, it is not a rumor. Nobody said it's a rumor except here.

There are real rumors that get posted from time to time, some of us like to read those and not start reading about a rumor that in the first line says it is speculation. It's not the same thing. Nobody is saying don't post speculation, I just want to see it be accurately titled so I can decide if I want to bother with it and we all read the threads that say rumor because there is always more to it than speculation.

Except you missed the part where I mentioned that it previously was a rumor that had traction to it.

This isn't unfounded speculation made up by someone. There's some sort of truth to this. Both sides have acknowledged that there was discussion about Shattenkirk.

 

[ichabod13]

I said "likely."

Is it not okay to say that anymore?

It is likely because by all accounts, STL can't afford to keep him, they already have the replacement for him, and NYR will likely be looking to add a RD next offseason after LIKELY buying out (or getting rid of any way possible) Dan Girardi.

NYR will have the space, the need, and it's the team he grew up rooting for. And they're not a bottom-feeder like TOR. That's why it's likely.

well excuse the hell out of me for asking a question.........

just say some team ( pick any random team ) offers him 8 million a year for seven years, and manhattan offers 5 million for five years, who do you think he would "likely" sign with?

all players grow up rooting for a certain team, but very few actually get the chance to play for that team.

 

[HawkeyTalkMan]

This is so far beyond reasonable from St.Louis' perspective

Trading a high end offensive dman for a winger who is 5 years older with a cap hit about $3.5 more just makes little to zero sense

even with RSA, I highly doubt NYR are eating half on Nash for two years, which would make Shattenkirk virtually an $8.1 mil cap hit for them next year, give them less space for when Shattenkirk hits his UFA summer (another year retaining on Nash) which further likens the chance that Shattenkirk walks in FA due to limited cap and what he likely is going to ask in his biggest NHL contract opportunity

the monster glitch here is any RSA make on Nash directly hurts their chances to re-sign Shattenkirk in 1 years time

Not to mention that St. Louis is really the one losing out here by trading out a defensemen in his peak for a winger who has signs pointing to exiting his peak, cap aside. If you consider the fact that Nash even with RSA for Shattenkirk that NYR still need to add. Add in the fact that NYR would be shooting themselves in the foot by retaining money, little to no RSA Nash would require a likely big add from NYRs perspective which they are in no position to do. StL can also find better packages elsewhere, where they likely dont get a much older return for a prime dman

 

[Em etah Eh]

They'd need to add Staal (with retention) to balance it out.

Yes, Staal isn't worth his current contract and isn't a top pairing d-man anymore but he is still a top-4 and if NYR takes a haircut him and Nash are an OK return, assuming he can't be dealt for someone like Krejci

Nash is certainly closer to a 30 goal scorer than the 15 goal scorer he was last year.

Looking at the cap hits ($13.5M combined) NYR probably would need to retain some on Nash's deal too, as it will expire quicker they could retain more for the time being

Retain 1.8M on Nash and 1.2 on Staal. Effectively paying $7.25M for Shattenkirk in year 1, then let's say he signs $6.75M for 7-8 years, bear the extra cap burden for 1 year (on still retaining Nash's contract for an additional season) then you have an elite defenseman and PP QB locked up long term and are only dealing with a manageable 1.2M retention for another three years.

Of course, the question then becomes why does St.Louis trade Shattenkirk for that return.... if Nash returns to 30-30 form, it's a good deal. If Fabbri steps into a top-6 role sooner than later then the need for a center to replace Backes is moot. Stastny/Fabbri/Berglund/Lehtera/Sobotka (I suppose one would play wing, Berglund?) is a pretty good crop of centres.

Maybe some prospects or picks added to balance the deal? Or is Staal too much of a boat anchor even at $4.5M? Or is the return simply not good enough regardless of retention for either and/or both players?

EDIT: Was just thinking STL probably can't afford to add the extra $6M in cap this trade would add. Does STL have any cap dumps? I notice Blues fans don't seem to be very high on Lehtera, although from the stat line he seems decent (~40 point player). Would adding him + some kind of pick (2nd?) do anything? $4.7M cap hit

To balance what out? The fact that Shattenkirk makes 4.25 million next year and around 7ish long term? Marc Staal with a haircut is still ugly as sin for the blues. The blues would need to have a Girardi level contract to send back in order to have any interest in Staal in that proposed deal. Thankfully they don't have any of those.

 

[Tryamkin]

This.

People forget Nash scored 42 goals a season ago.

A bounce-back season re-ups his value and likely nets NYR a younger, potentially better package than pending-UFA Shattenkirk. And by all accounts, it's likely Shattenkirk signs in NYR after this season anyway.

Vrbata was an all-star and scored 63 pts a year ago, why didn't he get a 6x6 contract and why is he unsigned!?!

 

[glovesave_35]

People didn't forget. It doesn't fit their narrative.

You also can't fault them for noticing an extreme level of fluctuation in production.

 

[nmbr_24]

Except you missed the part where I mentioned that it previously was a rumor that had traction to it.

This isn't unfounded speculation made up by someone. There's some sort of truth to this. Both sides have acknowledged that there was discussion about Shattenkirk.

It's speculation in this article, the writer cannot be any more clear. He says it is speculation and so that is what the tag should be.

 

[nmbr_24]

I changed it to speculation. Being labelled a "rumor" was strangely causing grief and derailing the thread. I really could care if its a speculation or rumor. I figured it was a rumor since its on many NHL rumor sites...but as I said I don't want the thread to derail like it was on verge the of.

Hopefully all are happy now!

Kinda seems like to me all rumors are speculation and speculation turns to rumors... it's kinda close to same thing IMO and both can be argued... similar to chicken and egg situation

Thanks for changing it.

Not all rumors are speculation, I know it is hard to sort them all out but I just think that if we know it is speculation because the person who wrote the article says it is, then it definitely is speculation.

If Bob McKenzie or another reporter says he heard from a team source that a certain player is available, that is a rumor, if he says he thinks that it would make sense for a team to trade a player then it is speculation. Real rumors happen pretty infrequently, it's great that there is a rumor tag so we can all see when a legit rumor is out there.

 

[tony d]

Shattenkirk would be a good fit in New York, not sure Nash would be a fit or wanted in St.Louis.

 

[Off Sides]

It's just a bad idea for both teams.

The risk for both sides is way too high.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Shattenkirk would be a good fit in New York, not sure Nash would be a fit or wanted in St.Louis.

Well yeah Shattenkirk would pretty much be a good fit with the other 29 teams in the league as well.

 

[MarkMessyay11]

People didn't forget. It doesn't fit their narrative.

Yep. Most people get so hung up in their own opinion of Nash that they don't realize that he's actually a good hockey player. He does a lot more than just put pucks in the net...not saying it's a fair swap for him and Shattenkirk, but it's a lot closer than most people think just in terms of value.

 

[Off Sides]

Trading the two years left of Nash for one year of Shattenkirk does not really do anything for the Rangers.

I'm not convinced Shattenkirks next contract would make any sense for the Rangers. He'd be 28 when it started, it's likely north of 7M cap hit, and it's going to have clauses, work stoppage and buyout insurance built in.

For someone who is going to be a serious contender for the majority of years in that deal I could see it making sense, but the Rangers, no Nash, Brassard, Lundqvist aging, the pending whatever happens with Girardi, the pending re-signing of some of their current bridge players with UFA years bought. Expansion protection..

Rangers need to really evaluate their real chances of being a top end contender.