Eklund Rumor: Rangers to trade for Shattenkirk?

[bleedblue1223]

I don't know who you are referring to in this post. What I have been saying is there is no point in the Rangers paying extra to have him signed since we know he wants to play here. We pay a rental price, for a guy with 1 year left and re-sign him on our own.

I have never bought into the UFA argument. You are correct. Just because he may want to play here doesn't mean he would sign here if we wait it out. Thats why I am saying trade for him now and re-sign him ourselves. Its foolish for us to pay extra for him to be extended.

The thing is, a team like Boston might want that risk eliminated and have an extension in place, and they pay more to have it. They pay more to be able to talk to the agent before a deal is finalized. All it takes is one team to do that, and the price goes up.

All of the Shattenkirk reports had that same thing in common. Agree to a price with Army and then talk to the agent for an extension.

 

[Trxjw]

5th worst of forwards with at least 100 faceoffs, and a career 36.2%. He was also a winger in college, so kind of optimistic to think he can be a full-time NHL center.

Again, he already IS ready playing center. Being bad on draws the first couple years isn't going to stop that. No idea where you're going with this.

 

[KPower]

Eklund is the best in the business, he's rarely wrong.

 

[bluetuned]

For Rangers fans, remember that the Blues are under no obligation to trade Shattenkirk. It's not like he requested a trade. If you insist on only offering rental prices then the Blues will just keep him and try and make another Cup run with him. OR they can look to any other team in the league who might want him for just the year to make a run. There are other options who can likely offer better rental packages.

Once he gets to UFA, all bets are off. He might sign with the Rangers, or he might suddenly have a bunch of offers from all over and decide to go elsewhere.

That's why you trade for him now if you really want him (granted I know some of you don't),\ and you do it with an extension in place. Yes, the cost is higher, but you're getting him at a great price this year, and you're guaranteeing you get him before he gets to test free agency, and before he's getting offers thrown at him from every direction.

 

[GAGLine]

Can someone please explain to me why some Rangers fans think they should get Shatty at rental prices even if he comes extended?

If you trade him anywhere but to the Rangers, he's a 1 year rental. The fact that he'd be willing to re-sign with the Rangers doesn't mean we are going to pay extra for him.

If you want extra, re-sign him yourselves and then trade him.

 

[GAGLine]

For Rangers fans, remember that the Blues are under no obligation to trade Shattenkirk.

And the Rangers aren't desperate to trade for him.

Keep him and when he walks as a UFA, we'll sign him then.

 

[Gardner McKay]

For Rangers fans, remember that the Blues are under no obligation to trade Shattenkirk. It's not like he requested a trade. If you insist on only offering rental prices then the Blues will just keep him and try and make another Cup run with him. OR they can look to any other team in the league who might want him for just the year to make a run. There are other options who can likely offer better rental packages.

Once he gets to UFA, all bets are off. He might sign with the Rangers, or he might suddenly have a bunch of offers from all over and decide to go elsewhere.

That's why you trade for him now if you really want him (granted I know some of you don't),\ and you do it with an extension in place. Yes, the cost is higher, but you're getting him at a great price this year, and you're guaranteeing you get him before he gets to test free agency, and before he's getting offers thrown at him from every direction.

That is a very real possibility.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

If you trade him anywhere but to the Rangers, he's a 1 year rental. The fact that he'd be willing to re-sign with the Rangers doesn't mean we are going to pay extra for him.

If you want extra, re-sign him yourselves and then trade him.

boston is in hot pursuit of him too.. not just the Rangers that want him and its not just the Rangers that he wants to go to

Isnt Boston his #1 choice? or is that not accurate?... honestly cant remember but I thought that was the case

Heck isn't NJ on his list of teams to go to?... there are a few options for him to sign as a UFA if it came to that... But it wont come to that

 

[bleedblue1223]

If you trade him anywhere but to the Rangers, he's a 1 year rental. The fact that he'd be willing to re-sign with the Rangers doesn't mean we are going to pay extra for him.

If you want extra, re-sign him yourselves and then trade him.

I'm gonna laugh when he doesn't sign with the Rangers. I'm sure the Rangers are very high on his list, maybe even #1, but his list is quite a bit bigger than that. It's been known that he'd prefer to stay in St. Louis and that there were teams from the West that he'd resign with.

 

[bluetuned]

If you trade him anywhere but to the Rangers, he's a 1 year rental. The fact that he'd be willing to re-sign with the Rangers doesn't mean we are going to pay extra for him.

If you want extra, re-sign him yourselves and then trade him.

I must have missed the part where Shattenkirk has made it clear that he will only sign with the Rangers, and not any other team in the league that might throw a giant offer his way.

That's why teams that want him, where he is willing to extend, might rather make a move now. There have been just as many rumblings about Boston as the Rangers.

 

[Gardner McKay]

I'm gonna laugh when he doesn't sign with the Rangers. I'm sure the Rangers are very high on his list, maybe even #1, but his list is quite a bit bigger than that. It's been known that he'd prefer to stay in St. Louis and that there were teams from the West that he'd resign with.

Again, there is a high chance that happens. I have never understood the mentality of assuming you can just sign a guy as a UFA. I have seen people for years say the same thing about so many potential big name UFA's. I can't recall a scenario where it worked out (other than Richards to the NYR ironically enough). I think it is a very foolish assumption to make.

Still. If I am the Rangers I offer up the price for a rental and work on an extension later. I think it will be detrimental to our team in the long term to trade an exorbitant amount to get a 28 year old signed to a long term deal prior to trading for him. There is a possibility that it happens but I just think it would be very foolish on our part if it does.

 

[RangerGuru]

Again, there is a high chance that happens. I have never understood the mentality of assuming you can just sign a guy as a UFA. I have seen people for years say the same thing about so many potential big name UFA's. I can't recall a scenario where it worked out (other than Richards to the NYR ironically enough). I think it is a very foolish assumption to make.

Still. If I am the Rangers I offer up the price for a rental and work on an extension later. I think it will be detrimental to our team in the long term to trade an exorbitant amount to get a 28 year old signed to a long term deal prior to trading for him. There is a possibility that it happens but I just think it would be very foolish on our part if it does.

This all day. No point in giving young assets for a 1 year rental. If he goes somewhere else, so be it, we will keep the few young assets we have

 

[bleedblue1223]

Again, there is a high chance that happens. I have never understood the mentality of assuming you can just sign a guy as a UFA. I have seen people for years say the same thing about so many potential big name UFA's. I can't recall a scenario where it worked out (other than Richards to the NYR ironically enough). I think it is a very foolish assumption to make.

Still. If I am the Rangers I offer up the price for a rental and work on an extension later. I think it will be detrimental to our team in the long term to trade an exorbitant amount to get a 28 year old signed to a long term deal prior to trading for him. There is a possibility that it happens but I just think it would be very foolish on our part if it does.

That makes total sense for the Rangers. Shattenkirk won't be the difference of a Cup for you guys, so you can wait Army out. If price falls to a top rental price, 1st+good prospect+, then it would be worth going for him. If a team like Boston or Detroit up the price, then it's probably not worth going after him.

The Rangers rumors never made much sense in reality. It's why these threads are always disasters because there is no obvious trade that can be generally agreed on. The moveable pieces on either side don't make much sense.

 

[zar]

Scenario 1
Prior to the trade, Shattenkirk negotiates an extension with trade targeted team and the Blues get a very handsome return.

Scenario 2
St. Louis perspective
Trade targeted team is not able to negotiate an extension or not provided the opportunity, so the trade targeted team offers significantly less than in Scenario 1. Since St. Louis is a likely strong Cup contender, they just keep Shattenkirk for a Cup run and lose him for nothing as an UFA.

NYR perspective
As a team that Shattenkirk is highly interested in playing for, NYR offers the Blues significantly less than in Scenario 1, as they are not prepared to offer key assets for something they feel there is a high probability to land for free in the off season. Blues reject. NYR do not get Shattenkirk for this season but land him as a UFA in 2017, without losing key assets AND not having to protect him in the Expansion Draft. You can't underestimate the impact of the looming Expansion Draft on these deeper teams.
Note: There is risk here that the Blues work out a deal with another team and Shattenkirk signs an extension there, but because that list of teams appears short, the risk is lower.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

Again, there is a high chance that happens. I have never understood the mentality of assuming you can just sign a guy as a UFA. I have seen people for years say the same thing about so many potential big name UFA's. I can't recall a scenario where it worked out (other than Richards to the NYR ironically enough). I think it is a very foolish assumption to make.

Still. If I am the Rangers I offer up the price for a rental and work on an extension later. I think it will be detrimental to our team in the long term to trade an exorbitant amount to get a 28 year old signed to a long term deal prior to trading for him. There is a possibility that it happens but I just think it would be very foolish on our part if it does.

Ya that's why Gorton will have a huge decision... offer up a "rental" package and not end up getting him and see him go to Boston or whoever, or give up more and actually acquire him. It all depends if management feels acquiring Shatty and losing key pieces is a better idea than not acquiring him and looking elsewhere for a puck mover.

Honestly for me, I don't even really like Shattenkirk on NYR. Id much rather see a bit of a rebuild instead... unless ofcourse they are really going hard for it and take advantage of these last real good years of

I can more likely envision Shatty to Boston or Detroit

 

[hirawl]

That's very much a possibility for them to trade Shattenkirk. It's a Rangers type of move.

But with their top centres being Stepan and Zibanejad, I can confidently state that neither one of those two is going to go the other way. They just can't afford to trade away from the position of absolute weakness.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Scenario 1
Prior to the trade, Shattenkirk negotiates an extension with trade targeted team and the Blues get a very handsome return.

Scenario 2
St. Louis perspective
Trade targeted team is not able to negotiate an extension or not provided the opportunity, so the trade targeted team offers significantly less than in Scenario 1. Since St. Louis is a likely strong Cup contender, they just keep Shattenkirk for a Cup run and lose him for nothing as an UFA.

NYR perspective
As a team that Shattenkirk is highly interested in playing for, NYR offers the Blues significantly less than in Scenario 1, as they are not prepared to offer key assets for something they feel there is a high probability to land for free in the off season. Blues reject. NYR do not get Shattenkirk for this season but land him as a UFA in 2017, without losing key assets AND not having to protect him in the Expansion Draft. You can't underestimate the impact of the looming Expansion Draft on these deeper teams.
Note: There is risk here that the Blues work out a deal with another team and Shattenkirk signs an extension there, but because that list of teams appears short, the risk is lower.

List appears short? This is a false narrative on HF. This list is bigger than most think, and it was already reported that Shatty was open to other teams in the West. It's not true that he only wants to sign with teams near his hometown.

 

[GAGLine]

I'm gonna laugh when he doesn't sign with the Rangers. I'm sure the Rangers are very high on his list, maybe even #1, but his list is quite a bit bigger than that. It's been known that he'd prefer to stay in St. Louis and that there were teams from the West that he'd resign with.

If he doesn't, he doesn't. He's currently signed for 1 more year. If there's another team out there that is willing to pay a higher price and Shatty is willing to sign with that team, more power to them.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

List appears short? This is a false narrative on HF. This list is bigger than most think, and it was already reported that Shatty was open to other teams in the West. It's not true that he only wants to sign with teams near his hometown.

If Shattenkirks list involves West teams too, IMO Army is going to cash in huge on a return. The more teams interested, the better it is for STL

 

[Eric Sachs]

If you trade him anywhere but to the Rangers, he's a 1 year rental. The fact that he'd be willing to re-sign with the Rangers doesn't mean we are going to pay extra for him.

If you want extra, re-sign him yourselves and then trade him.

Pumped to see Stamkos vs. Shattenkirk in the Garden when Toronto is in town!!

 

[GAGLine]

Again, there is a high chance that happens. I have never understood the mentality of assuming you can just sign a guy as a UFA.

We may not be able to. That doesn't mean I'm willing to pay a premium in both assets and cap dollars to ensure we get him.

If he signs somewhere else, so be it.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Ya that's why Gorton will have a huge decision... offer up a "rental" package and not end up getting him and see him go to Boston or whoever, or give up more and actually acquire him. It all depends if management feels acquiring Shatty and losing key pieces is a better idea than not acquiring him and looking elsewhere for a puck mover.

You say this as if it is 100% certain. It is as certain as me assuming we will get Shattenkirk for a rental price.

Not sure why people tend to always speak in absolutes when these situations are anything but that. They are filled with tons of grey area.

There is a very realistic chance we don't end up with Shattenkirk. I wouldn't be upset either. If you all are right and the price is as high as you say, then I want no part of it because we don't have assets for that move to be a net positive for us. Other teams do. If I am right, and the price is closer to Hayes + Klein or something, it would be beneficial to us to make that trade. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. Problem is, I don't even know what the middle would be in this scenario.

 

[Eric Sachs]

We may not be able to. That doesn't mean I'm willing to pay a premium in both assets and cap dollars to ensure we get him.

If he signs somewhere else, so be it.

This is more reasonable and I agree with this. Saying he's a 1 year rental anywhere but NYR is a little too much, though.

I get the concept that for NYR, it's worth the risk to wait it out and try to get him for free. The thing is... it's still absolutely a risk. That means he may in fact sign elsewhere before NYR even has a shot (which you seemed to have discounted in your previous post).

 

[PitchDoug]

Can someone please explain to me why some Rangers fans think they should get Shatty at rental prices even if he comes extended?

If he comes extended, then you've got a player locked up for 6-8 years. That's not a rental. If the argument is, that he'd just sign with the Rangers anyway in a year as a UFA, that's assuming that he would 1. make it to UFA (he could easily be traded somewhere else and decide to re-sign with that team) and 2. If he does reach UFA, that he'd 100% sign with the Rangers. While I'm sure the Rangers are on his short list, it's far from a guarantee.

The price would be higher for an extended Shatty because it would negate a ton of risk for the Rangers - they'd absolutely have their guy and would have him locked up longterm. Not to mention you'd have him for helping your team this season...something that's not available with the "try to sign him as a UFA" option. For all of those reasons, an extended Shatty should absolutely cost more than a non-extended Shatty.

If Army was willing to trade Shatty as a rental, why even bother with the Rangers? They don't exactly have great assets that could help the Blues outside of Zibanejad and McDonaugh. They're just not great trade partners IMO. If Army was willing to trade Shatty as a rental he would've been traded by now. The reason why it's taking so long is because Army is trying to maximize value by trading Shatty to a team he'll sign an extension with.

I don't know who you are referring to in this post. What I have been saying is there is no point in the Rangers paying extra to have him signed since we know he wants to play here. We pay a rental price, for a guy with 1 year left and re-sign him on our own.

I have never bought into the UFA argument. You are correct. Just because he may want to play here doesn't mean he would sign here if we wait it out. Thats why I am saying trade for him now and re-sign him ourselves. Its foolish for us to pay extra for him to be extended.

This is getting circular. So why would the Blues trade Shatty to NYR at a rental price? The Blues can get rental value from a lot of different teams. If I'm trading Shattenkirk and I know that NYR view him as an easy extension and (partial) solution to their D core for 6-8 years, I'm not handing him over for a rental price. If ALL the Blues can get is rental value for Shattenkirk (which obviously they are working to trade for much more), then Shatty won't be a Ranger.

 

[Alluckks]

I guess the point is that even though the Blues may very well trade him to someone else and get more value, if Shattenkirk is traded to the Rangers I would expect it to be for the price of a 1 year Shattenkirk rather than an extended one.