Proposal: Nj - STL

[hawksrule]

Please show your work as to how you came up with that answer.

Just the eye test. I really like your other top dmen, and I think colt will be great, but shattenkirk gets far too much hf love, imo.

 

[Ranksu]

Wait a minute, I thought Berglund can fill Sobotka's hole?

 

[LetsGoBooze]

I think the deal needs to start with McLeod +, the plus is debatable but McLeod checks one big box in what we are looking for in a return for Shatty.

 

[Dbrownss]

Just the eye test. I really like your other top dmen, and I think colt will be great, but shattenkirk gets far too much hf love, imo.

He's like any dman that puts up points. That's what attracts people. Imo he's top pairing capable but needs a stud LHD. He's a 2/3 guy I guess.

 

[kimzey59]

The shutdown part of their game is one of the only style differences. Spooner has a big edge offensively, but their general style is pretty similar. Smaller, speedier centers that are good on the puck.

The point is, if Sobotka doesn't come, we need to add a center with speed. We have Stastny and Berglund who can handle the harder minutes as a center, Steen if needed. We've already said we are going to be changing our style in a major way, and it will be one that incorporates puck hounds and speed, and that's where Spooner comes in.

This may not be the right place to hash out this subject; but I disagree strongly with the part in blue because of the part in red.

Unless we fundamentally restructure our forecheck(which Hitch/Yeo have given no indication of doing), the center will be the high man in the attack. You want defense, possession and ideally some finishing ability from that role(Berglund, coincidentally is probably the center best suited to that system on our team). Your "speed and puck hounds" will be the role of the wingers. See the set used with Upshall-Brodziak-Reaves; the rest of the team may not have their size/physical play, but they can duplicate the formation and tenacity.

If you're targeting a center in a Shattenkirk trade, you either target a potential "legit #1" type guy(a Zacha/Strome type guy) or you target a possession/finisher type who you can teach the defensive aspects to. A pure speed guy like Spooner serves absolutely no purpose in a "puck hound" system. He is a rush based attack type player.

If you want speed, target a RW.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Wait a minute, I thought Berglund can fill Sobotka's hole?

I don't think you can sa stuff like that on here.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

Wait a minute, I thought Berglund can fill Sobotka's hole?

 

[bleedblue1223]

This may not be the right place to hash out this subject; but I disagree strongly with the part in blue because of the part in red.

Unless we fundamentally restructure our forecheck(which Hitch/Yeo have given no indication of doing), the center will be the high man in the attack. You want defense, possession and ideally some finishing ability from that role(Berglund, coincidentally is probably the center best suited to that system on our team). Your "speed and puck hounds" will be the role of the wingers. See the set used with Upshall-Brodziak-Reaves; the rest of the team may not have their size/physical play, but they can duplicate the formation and tenacity.

If you're targeting a center in a Shattenkirk trade, you either target a potential "legit #1" type guy(a Zacha/Strome type guy) or you target a possession/finisher type who you can teach the defensive aspects to. A pure speed guy like Spooner serves absolutely no purpose in a "puck hound" system. He is a rush based attack type player.

If you want speed, target a RW.

Calling Spooner a pure speed guy is disingenuous to him. A pure speed guy would be more like a Helm. Spooner is good on the puck and has playmaking ability. Having Lehtera and Berglund as our 2nd and 3rd line centers makes us very inflexible, which has caused us problems in the past. Have a different style center, that still fits what we want to do will allow Hitch greater freedom in mixing and matching lines.

One of the major problems we have is when we have slower wingers combined with slower centers. Jaskin is likely never going to truly work on a line with Lehtera or Berglund, but we was successful with Stasnty, but they really shouldn't ever be on the same line unless Jaskin performs at a top 6 level.

 

[Sinner]

updated a 2nd proposal in OP

To Nj:
Shattenkirk


To STL:
McLoed
2017 2nd, turns into a 2017 1st on the condition Shattenkirk re-signs with Nj.

?

 

[Lateralous]

updated a 2nd proposal in OP

To Nj:
Shattenkirk


To STL:
McLoed
2017 2nd, turns into a 2017 1st on the condition Shattenkirk re-signs with NJ.

?

As a Devils fan I would probably do this as long as that conditional pick was protected from being Top 10. NJ still needs to protect themselves in case of Schneider getting injured like Price last year given that the Devils are equally dependent on elite goaltending.

 

[Brooklyndevil]

McLeod and a 2nd is more than fair. Devils taking all the risks. Shero isn't giving up another first.

 

[Evestay]

updated a 2nd proposal in OP

To Nj:
Shattenkirk


To STL:
McLoed
2017 2nd, turns into a 2017 1st on the condition Shattenkirk re-signs with Nj.

?

I think the Blues should take this and get this saga over with already!

 

[High n Wide]

McLeod and a 2nd is more than fair. Devils taking all the risks. Shero isn't giving up another first.

What risks are the Devils taking in that proposal? Armstrong has been allowing teams to talk with Shattenkirk regarding an extension, after agreeing on the framework of a trade. If he wasn't willing to extend then the trade gets nixed - see Taylor Hall to STL.

There is no risk for the Devils in that deal, unless you want to argue how well Shattenkirk would mesh with the Devils, which is an inherit risk in any trade. The Blues would be trading a consistent, proven RH PMD for a prospect and a pick - I don't exactly see how the Devils assume any, let alone all the risk in that deal.

 

[Spektre]

updated a 2nd proposal in OP

To Nj:
Shattenkirk


To STL:
McLoed
2017 2nd, turns into a 2017 1st on the condition Shattenkirk re-signs with Nj.

?

Done deal good luck Shattenkirk.

 

[Brooklyndevil]

What risks are the Devils taking in that proposal? Armstrong has been allowing teams to talk with Shattenkirk regarding an extension, after agreeing on the framework of a trade. If he wasn't willing to extend then the trade gets nixed - see Taylor Hall to STL.

There is no risk for the Devils in that deal, unless you want to argue how well Shattenkirk would mesh with the Devils, which is an inherit risk in any trade. The Blues would be trading a consistent, proven RH PMD for a prospect and a pick - I don't exactly see how the Devils assume any, let alone all the risk in that deal.[/QUOT

Fine. Shero isn't overpaying. Lose him for nothing, what do I care.

 

[Spektre]

Fine. Shero isn't overpaying. Lose him for nothing, what do I care.

It doesn't seem as though he's arguing against the trade, just the point that there doesn't appear to be risk involved from NJ's perspective.

If the deal was Shattenkirk for McCleod + pick NJ knows what they're getting in Shattenkirk. The Blues have an idea what they get in McCleod + but there in lies at least a small risk because they don't necessarily know how McCleod will do in the NHL.

 

[High n Wide]

Fine. Shero isn't overpaying. Lose him for nothing, what do I care.

This isn't even vaguely related to what I said. I didn't say anything about value or the Devils overpaying or anything so I'm very confused about what you're so ambiguously hostile about.

Your post commented on how the Devils were taking all the risk and I simply questioned that thought. Still do, in fact.

 

[High n Wide]

It doesn't seem as though he's arguing against the trade, just the point that there doesn't appear to be risk involved from NJ's perspective.

If the deal was Shattenkirk for McCleod + pick NJ knows what they're getting in Shattenkirk. The Blues have an idea what they get in McCleod + but there in lies at least a small risk because they don't necessarily know how McCleod will do in the NHL.

Beat me to it. Thank you, this was exactly what I was saying.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

To Nj:
Shattenkirk


To STL:
McLoed
2017 2nd, turns into a 2017 1st on the condition Shattenkirk re-signs with Nj.

Done and done. I would give out top-5 protection on your pick as well, as im sure you will have no problem re-signing Shatty.

 

[Ranksu]

Still makes my head hurt that we speaking these kind of returns. Shattenkirk is one the best offensive RH dmen who is currently hitting his prime and we are taking some unproven prospect + 1st round pick. If Shattery gets traded, he'll most likely re-sign there too.

**** you Doug Armstrong for propably ****ed up with this valuable asset too.

 

[MissouriMook]

updated a 2nd proposal in OP

To Nj:
Shattenkirk


To STL:
McLoed
2017 2nd, turns into a 2017 1st on the condition Shattenkirk re-signs with Nj.

?

This seems like a reasonable offer, but I am probably higher than most on McLeod. I would expect that the 2017 conditional 1st would be lottery protected, but I think a further condition would have to be that if the 1st is deferred to 2018 it would have to be unprotected in 2018, and trigger an additional pick to the Blues in 2017 like the Avs 3rd.

 

[Dbrownss]

I wouldn't be ecstatic with McLeod+....but if Devil fans aren't upset about it, then I'd take it.

 

[John Pedro]

I'd do McLeod + for Shattenkirk as long as he signs an extension before the start of the season.