Toggle sidebar

Eklund Rumor: Rangers to trade for Shattenkirk?

As soon as I saw Gorton's post trade quotes when he said "This can allow us to take on a bigger contract" I immediately figured he would be targeting Shattenkirk.

something around Nash or Kreider.
 
I think this prediction he may actually technically get right.... but then again majority of us knew that Shattenkirk to NYR has always been one of the most likely destinations

Kreider will be heading to St Louis
 
If they trade for him one of Girardi or Staal MUST be traded/more likely bought out before the expansion draft, to be able to resign Shattenkirk and keep him. I'd offer him 6.75x7.
Shatty in NY needs to happen, a guy like him fits like a glove in every aspect, so I wouldn't mind to trade for him now to make sure it happens, even if we could acquire him for free in one year. But they have to follow the right steps.
 
NateB19 said:
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklu...kirk-e4--Best-1-ever--Buzzcast-at-130/1/78237

Says yesterday's trade was a precursor for a trade with St. Louis for Shattenkirk...thoughts?
Click to expand...

Regardless of my thoughts on Eklund as a source, to me this just seems like he is putting obvious pieces together.

We lost Yandle. We have an abundance of bottom 6 C's in our system and Hayes doesn't need to be stuck on the third line.

Hayes + for Shattenkirk would be my guess.

Eric Sachs said:
Right..

The poster is saying that if St. Louis would have accepted Zibby for Shattenkirk, he'd have preferred that deal over Brassard.
Click to expand...

Ah. Misunderstood.
 
Gardner McKay said:
Regardless of my thoughts on Eklund as a source, to me this just seems like he is putting obvious pieces together.

We lost Yandle. We have an abundance of bottom 6 C's in our system and Hayes doesn't need to be stuck on the third line.

Hayes + for Shattenkirk would be my guess.
Click to expand...

Is the + worth more than Hayes? We have no interest in him and it looks like he is a winger long-term. He sucks at faceoffs, and his production is lacking.
 
Gardner McKay said:
Regardless of my thoughts on Eklund as a source, to me this just seems like he is putting obvious pieces together.

We lost Yandle. We have an abundance of bottom 6 C's in our system and Hayes doesn't need to be stuck on the third line.

Hayes + for Shattenkirk would be my guess.



Ah. Misunderstood.
Click to expand...


Maybe for an unextended Shattenkirk.. but sounds like St. Louis wants to trade him to a team with an agreement in place to maximize value. In that case, I can't see Hayes cutting it as the major piece.
 
Gardner McKay said:
Regardless of my thoughts on Eklund as a source, to me this just seems like he is putting obvious pieces together.

We lost Yandle. We have an abundance of bottom 6 C's in our system and Hayes doesn't need to be stuck on the third line.

Hayes + for Shattenkirk would be my guess.
Click to expand...

Missing a few pluses....
 
bleedblue1223 said:
Is the + worth more than Hayes? We have no interest in him and it looks like he is a winger long-term. He sucks at faceoffs, and his production is lacking.
Click to expand...

ya Id be extremely mad for Blues if the main player coming back is Hayes... its gotta be a lot better than Hayes +.... unless like you say if the + is actually better than Hayes
 
bleedblue1223 said:
Is the + worth more than Hayes? We have no interest in him and it looks like he is a winger long-term. He sucks at faceoffs, and his production is lacking.
Click to expand...

Shattenkirk has 1 year left and is going to be after a monster deal. I think you are getting ahead of yourself if you expect a tremendous return. Hayes is young, big, skilled and will be a top 6 player. Our entire team had a down year. He was no exception.
 
What are Blues fans thinking a extended Shattenkirk return from NYR would be? Kreider and????

For some reason id be thrilled for Blues fans if they acquired Kreider
 
Eric Sachs said:
Maybe for an unextended Shattenkirk.. but sounds like St. Louis wants to trade him to a team with an agreement in place to maximize value. In that case, I can't see Hayes cutting it as the major piece.
Click to expand...

Of course that is what St. Louis wants. Doesn't mean they will get it. I am strictly talking about for Shattenkirk as is. No extension. I don't think Hayes with a + would be bad value.
 
Shattenkirk to the Rangers is something that has been rumored/discussed/speculated on all summer long. Be interesting to see if this has any legs or is Eklund picking up scraps from earlier in the summer.
 
caley said:
Shattenkirk to the Rangers is something that has been rumored/discussed/speculated on all summer long. Be interesting to see if this has any legs or is Eklund picking up scraps from earlier in the summer.
Click to expand...

I think Eklund is taking Gortons quote from yesterday and running with what has already been speculated.
 
Gardner McKay said:
Of course that is what St. Louis wants. Doesn't mean they will get it. I am strictly talking about for Shattenkirk as is. No extension. I don't think Hayes with a + would be bad value.
Click to expand...

For an unextended Shatty, I think that is fair. I think the + would be around a 2nd/3rd in value.

I just don't see them trading him without an extension in place and as long as Shatty is open to it, I think that can happen. Otherwise, they may just opt to keep him for another run.. I don't think gaining a Hayes is as pivotal to them as it may be for other teams so not sure that persuades them to not risk him walking.
 
Stop talking about an extended Shattenkirk. If you resign him you'll for sure keep him.
For a trade he has rental value, the extension would be our thing and it's irrelevant for the trade value.
 
Blues wont be trading Shattenkirk unless there is an extension in place. Army would be out of his mind trading him away without that extension cause the return would be significantly smaller. He knows what hes doing.... he will maximize this and end up getting a huge return
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom