Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Rangers Sign Kevin Shattenkirk: (4 years x $6.65M)

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Absolutely amazing deal. Just wow...

With this signing, along with reupping Smith, the Rangers have revamped the right side of the defense in just one offseason.

Also, lol at those (mainly PB) that claim he's a terrible defender. He may not be a great defensive player by any means, but to say he's awful is simply untrue.
 
Have not read the whole thread, has anyone considered the idea that the 4 year deal was done with the end of the CBA in mind allowing player and team to do a new deal under whatever new CBA rules are put into place?
 
pld459666 said:
Have not read the whole thread, has anyone considered the idea that the 4 year deal was done with the end of the CBA in mind allowing player and team to do a new deal under whatever new CBA rules are put into place?
Click to expand...

Was thinking the same thing when I remembered Smith signed for 4 years too.

Some other UFAs today signed for 4 years too.
 
pld459666 said:
Have not read the whole thread, has anyone considered the idea that the 4 year deal was done with the end of the CBA in mind allowing player and team to do a new deal under whatever new CBA rules are put into place?
Click to expand...

Yes. Shattenkirk has a CBA-protection clause in his contract. The last year has 2m in salary and 2m as a signing bonus. That way he gets the 2m even if there is a full lock-out.
 
Rangerfan4life90 said:
Absolutely amazing deal. Just wow...

With this signing, along with reupping Smith, the Rangers have revamped the right side of the defense in just one offseason.

Also, lol at those (mainly PB) that claim he's a terrible defender. He may not be a great defensive player by any means, but to say he's awful is simply untrue.
Click to expand...

the thing is, when these offensive defenders have the puck, they're not required to play defense. i know that sounds stupid but it's these guys keeping the pressure on at the offensive end that keeps them out of harms way most of the time. girardi and staal for example are probably better playing defense but they are *always* playing defense. whereas shattenkirk and hopefully deangelo arent playing defense, so to speak, so often.
 
Alright guys. Today is the first day of my vacation and probably the last day I'll be able to post on the boards (likely out of cell and wifi range) until the 12th.

I'll say that I both love and don't love this. I mean, what's not to love about the term? And I really do like Shattenkirk a lot. I think he gets a bad rap because people think that a first pairing D is the same as a #1, forgetting you can be a first pairing D and be a #2.

The only thing I worry about here is the lack of space for the youngsters. How can we have Bear Gloves and DeAngelo both in the lineup at the same time? Of course, there will be injuries.

I also just want to give a little credit to RB and Larry Brooks, who had never been saying the Rangers weren't interested in Shattenkirk so much as the Rangers weren't interested in him at the term we all thought he would get. Well, they held firm and didn't give him that term, backing up their insight.
 
ponytrekker said:
Just more evidence that Brooks is irrelevant, The Post is Irrelevant. #Fakenews
Click to expand...

Truth be told, especially in hockey, newspaper reporters are a bit of a dying breed.

Sports reporting, perhaps more than other beat, has evolved the last two decades. Most things are online, and Twitter breaks news faster than most reporters can report it.
 
Tawnos said:
Alright guys. Today is the first day of my vacation and probably the last day I'll be able to post on the boards (likely out of cell and wifi range) until the 12th.

I'll say that I both love and don't love this. I mean, what's not to love about the term? And I really do like Shattenkirk a lot. I think he gets a bad rap because people think that a first pairing D is the same as a #1, forgetting you can be a first pairing D and be a #2.

The only thing I worry about here is the lack of space for the youngsters. How can we have Bear Gloves and DeAngelo both in the lineup at the same time? Of course, there will be injuries.

I also just want to give a little credit to RB and Larry Brooks, who had never been saying the Rangers weren't interested in Shattenkirk so much as the Rangers weren't interested in him at the term we all thought he would get. Well, they held firm and didn't give him that term, backing up their insight.
Click to expand...

I say DeAngelo could be the 3rd pair d-man on the right side, or maybe even 2nd pair.

Bear can still win the 3rd pair job on the left side. If that happens, then something will have to give with Staal.
 
Rangerfan4life90 said:
I say DeAngelo could be the 3rd pair d-man on the right side, or maybe even 2nd pair.

Bear can still win the 3rd pair job on the left side. If that happens, then something will have to give with Staal.
Click to expand...

Personally, I like having the competition. I mean if everyone looks good, that's the kind of problem you want to have, really.
 
Tawnos said:
I like having the competition too. I just wanted 2 spots up for grabs.
Click to expand...

Off-season isn't over yet.

Holden and Staal are definitely players with interest. There's a market for D-men with Vegas picking 9 for free. Teams need to fill those voids.

Holden at 1.65m is definitely a player that can be traded for a 3rd. A solid 3rd pair D-man at a cheap salary. With Staal we always come back to that NMC but I've said this a few times today:

If Girardi gets a 6m deal over 2 years, there has to be a market for Staal as well.
 
We have a really good mix of competition for the lower pairings and kids that will help Hartford a lot. The top 4 is rounded out really nicely with McDonagh, Shattenkirk, Skjei, and Smith, and the bottom pairing should have Deangelo and one of Staal/Holden/Bereglazov. I'd opt for Holden at the moment until I see what Bereglazov looks like against NHL competition, but in reality I think it'll be Staal.

I'm still a bit worried about the PK, and it'll be interesting to see how we adapt to it. However, I do like how we've really turned it over to having guys that can move the puck and skate. The key now is to switch the gameplan up to focus more on structure and puck control because it'd be a waste to just have these guys sending hail mary stretch passes all game. We've seen AV use this type of system briefly, and I'm hoping he'll bring it back. It's how you win in today's game, and now we finally have the horses to do it.
 
KOVALEV022473 said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

Give or take a few million if the contract was front-loaded, 4 years at 7 million is 28m. He got 26.5m with us.

Just because the total of the other contract was 49m, doesn't mean he gave up 23m because he will get to negotiate for another contract in 4 years. It's not as if he will retire at age 32 and miss out on 23 million.
 
Amazing Kreiderman said:
Give or take a few million if the contract was front-loaded, 4 years at 7 million is 28m. He got 26.5m with us.

Just because the total of the other contract was 49m, doesn't mean he gave up 23m because he will get to negotiate for another contract in 4 years. It's not as if he will retire at age 32 and miss out on 23 million.
Click to expand...

He's not getting $7m after this contract is up. Likely, he gave up around $10-12m when all is said and done. If the 7/49 were true which I don't think it is.
 
Amazing Kreiderman said:
Give or take a few million if the contract was front-loaded, 4 years at 7 million is 28m. He got 26.5m with us.

Just because the total of the other contract was 49m, doesn't mean he gave up 23m because he will get to negotiate for another contract in 4 years. It's not as if he will retire at age 32 and miss out on 23 million.
Click to expand...

I guess, but that contract was guaranteed. Whereas, if during this four year deal he miraculously falls of a cliff, he might not even get a contact. Especially with the current trajectory of the league.
 
Tawnos said:
Alright guys. Today is the first day of my vacation and probably the last day I'll be able to post on the boards (likely out of cell and wifi range) until the 12th.

I'll say that I both love and don't love this. I mean, what's not to love about the term? And I really do like Shattenkirk a lot. I think he gets a bad rap because people think that a first pairing D is the same as a #1, forgetting you can be a first pairing D and be a #2.

The only thing I worry about here is the lack of space for the youngsters. How can we have Bear Gloves and DeAngelo both in the lineup at the same time? Of course, there will be injuries.

I also just want to give a little credit to RB and Larry Brooks, who had never been saying the Rangers weren't interested in Shattenkirk so much as the Rangers weren't interested in him at the term we all thought he would get. Well, they held firm and didn't give him that term, backing up their insight.
Click to expand...

Bear Gloves and DeAngelo aren't seeing regular time as long as AV is the coach anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom