Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXVIII

[True Blue]

WPG will take the best offer available from the team Trouba agrees upon. They have a ****ty hand to play

He will absolutely not be available to the lowest offer. The Jets are playing for the Cup. If they move all of their chips to the center of the table, Trouba goes nowhere.

 

[duhmetreE]

Strome, Shattenkirk @ 50, a prospect and a 2nd?

 

[duhmetreE]

He will absolutely not be available to the lowest offer. The Jets are playing for the Cup. If they move all of their chips to the center of the table, Trouba goes nowhere.

?

 

[True Blue]

Shattenkirk is not an anchor, the dislike for him is ridiculous around here.

He is a 3rd pairing PP specialist coming off an major injury. For such a role to be paid what he is being paid, with NTC/NMC, an anchor is exactly what he is.

 

[True Blue]

?

The thought that he may be available for Shattenkirk or another low ball.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Shattenkirk is not an anchor, the dislike for him is ridiculous around here.

It is, but there are a ton of red flags that would worry me if I were a team with any interest in acquiring him.

 

[duhmetreE]

Shattenkirk is not an anchor, the dislike for him is ridiculous around here.

That's debatable. I see him as an anchor for this specific team. He doesn't PK or offer stability and he's blocking younger players.

Ideally, we'd have ADA get PP1 time and a RHD who could pair against top lines.

In reality, we have Shattenkirk getting PP1 time and being sheltered, giving Pionk the 'shutdown' role.

 

[Edge]

I know it's been said many times, many ways, and by many different people, but we're stuck with Shattenkirk until his contract expires, or until the TDL before it expires.

I know some people really resist that statement. I know it's not what anyone wants to hear. I know we can get into a million conversations about talking in absolutes and how we don't know things, etc. etc. etc.

But teams are not lining up to add declining defenseman, with injury concerns, and conditioning concerns, and decreased production, with two years left on his contract.

Guys, Kevin Shattenkirk is an offensive defenseman who scored as many goals at Adam McQuaid did this past season...in twice as many games.

Right now that trade value, even at a 50% discount, is not appealing to teams. Not unless you take an anchor back.

We love the thought of trading our anchors. But they're anchors for a reason --- aka they are very, very difficult to move.

It's one thing to make a shopping list of offseason strategies and have a check box that says, "move anchors and shitty contracts."

It's quite another to actually be able to move them.

 

[Edge]

Crazy the consensus about Lundqvist being done. Media and fans alike. I'm of the opposite opinion; that he's no longer capable (as few NHL goalies ever are) of playing 70 games a season — which he was pacing for up until the All-Star game (which he was named to, as at that point, our best player, and the only reason for our ridiculous 9-1-1 run) but still is a very good starter. Georgiev had a great second half. But the kid played 33 games this year, and for the better part of the first half, the roles were reversed — Georgiev was in the minors to stay warm since he couldn't be trusted to win a game.

Maybe it'd be more convenient for the Franchise if Lundqvist really did look cooked, retired at the end of his contract, and that on the flip side Georgiev and Shesty were as obviously the real deal as they've been declared. Still, it's sad to see so many older goalies getting immense respect around the league, proving themselves with stretches no more impressive than the 35 games (more than Georgiev's full season total) Lundqvist played before the All-Star weekend. Meanwhile, even Rangers fans are ready to toss him aside, likely because all those games he single-handedly won or kept close, were actually frustratingly counter to our tanking hopes at the time.

Done, no.

But it could become a challenging logistical situation very quickly.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Crazy the consensus about Lundqvist being done. Media and fans alike. I'm of the opposite opinion; that he's no longer capable (as few NHL goalies ever are) of playing 70 games a season — which he was pacing for up until the All-Star game (which he was named to, as at that point, our best player, and the only reason for our ridiculous 9-1-1 run) but still is a very good starter. Georgiev had a great second half. But the kid played 33 games this year, and for the better part of the first half, the roles were reversed — Georgiev was in the minors to stay warm since he couldn't be trusted to win a game.

Maybe it'd be more convenient for the Franchise if Lundqvist really did look cooked, retired at the end of his contract, and that on the flip side Georgiev and Shesty were as obviously the real deal as they've been declared. Still, it's sad to see so many older goalies getting immense respect around the league, proving themselves with stretches no more impressive than the 35 games (more than Georgiev's full season total) Lundqvist played before the All-Star weekend. Meanwhile, even Rangers fans are ready to toss him aside, likely because all those games he single-handedly won or kept close, were actually frustratingly counter to our tanking hopes at the time.

I'm with you. Lundqvist isn't done. He's not 2012, carry team on his back all season Lundqvist anymore, but I think he is still good enough to be a difference maker on a good team. There's still gas left in the tank. Recency bias is in major effect right now with how people are looking at him. They see he struggled from February on and Georgie played well in that time period so the assumption is this is the new normal and Hank is done.

I disagree, I see a guy who was clearly struggling entirely because of the mental side of everything, not like he's broken down or anything. Literally a few weeks earlier he was top 10 in SV% in the league and Georgie was giving up multiple muffins every game. Total role reversal. Truth is that it's tough on Lundqvist having teammates traded and the team bottoming out two seasons in a row.

I think a nice summer of training, clear mind that Lundqvist will again be good to start next season. If the defense can be even slightly better and the team wins a few more of those OT games and can stay in the playoff hunt longer, I would expect him to have a much better overall season next year.

The assumption that Hank is done and now a back up level goalie is being made far too hastily in my opinion.

 

[duhmetreE]

I know it's been said many times, many ways, and by many different people, but we're stuck with Shattenkirk until his contract expires, or until the TDL before it expires.

I know some people really resist that statement. I know it's not what anyone wants to hear. I know we can get into a million conversations about talking in absolutes and how we don't know things, etc. etc. etc.

But teams are not lining up to add declining defenseman, with injury concerns, and conditioning concerns, and decreased production, with two years left on his contract.

Guys, Kevin Shattenkirk is an offensive defenseman who scored as many goals at Adam McQuaid did this past season...in twice as many games.

Right now that trade value, even at a 50% discount, is not appealing to teams. Not unless you take an anchor back.

We love the thought of trading our anchors. But they're anchors for a reason --- aka they are very, very difficult to move.

It's one thing to make a shopping list of offseason strategies and have a check box that says, "move anchors and ****ty contracts."

It's quite another to actually be able to move them.

That's fine as long as he's not playing/blocking players. Give him the Smith treatment.

I still think some team would take him at $3.3M.

 

[True Blue]

Guys, Kevin Shattenkirk is an offensive defenseman who scored as many goals at Adam McQuaid did this past season...in twice as many games.

Edge, can you please stop mudding the playing field? Shattenkirk is an offensive wizard who was held back by Quinn, who hates skilled players. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars.... Haters are just going to unjustifiably hate on Shattenkirk.

 

[True Blue]

The assumption that Hank is done and now a back up level goalie is being made far too hastily in my opinion.

Absolutely no one is stating that.

 

[Edge]

That's fine as long as he's not playing/blocking players. Give him the Smith treatment.

I still think some team would take him at $3.3M.

For the latter part, I think a team might have some interest at the TDL if this were the final year of his contact. That's a fairly low-risk proposition.

But with two years, I really think we're looking at long odds. At least when it comes to him being considered part of a package for better talent.

I think the best you might be able to find is a player on a similar contract, which would be more of a lateral move, with the intention of freeing up a space on the right side for someone.

 

[True Blue]

I still think some team would take him at $3.3M.

What team is paying that for a third pairing defenseman that does not play a lick of defense and is not allowed on the ice when the opposition's top forwards are on the ice?

 

[duhmetreE]

For the latter part, I think a team might have some interest at the TDL if this were the final year of his contact. That's a fairly low-risk proposition.

But with two years, I really think we're looking at long odds. At least when it comes to him being considered part of a package for better talent.

I think the best you might be able to find is a player on a similar contract, which would be more of a lateral move, with the intention of freeing up a space on the right side for someone.

I'm fine with a lateral move. I'd take an bottom6 player who can PK.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Edge, can you please stop mudding the playing field? Shattenkirk is an offensive wizard who was held back by Quinn, who hates skilled players. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars.... Haters are just going to unjustifiably hate on Shattenkirk.

He had a bad year on the PP and he shot less than 1% at 5v5, do you really think that's the true Kevin Shattenkirk? No one has said that he had a great season or that he was held back by anyone. He was also 3rd on the team in relxG% and 1st in relCF%. To call him an anchor is insane and not true. Is he a good fit for the team with ADA/Fox? coming along? Perhaps not but he's not Staal or Pionk-esque.

 

[duhmetreE]

What team is paying that for a third pairing defenseman that does not play a lick of defense and is not allowed on the ice when the opposition's top forwards are on the ice?

A team that thinks he could help the PP. Doesn't mean he will.

LOL what about a Shattenkirk for Stepan trade?

Nashville, allegedly, wants to move on from Subban,. Their PP was bad.

Vegas is a possibility.

 

[Edge]

He had a bad year on the PP and he shot less than 1% at 5v5, do you really think that's the true Kevin Shattenkirk? No one has said that he had a great season or that he was held back by anyone. He was also 3rd on the team in relxG% and 1st in relCF%. To call him an anchor is insane and not true. Is he a good fit for the team with ADA/Fox? coming along? Perhaps not but he's not Staal or Pionk-esque.

I think people would be a little less concerned if it wasn't a down year, coming off a down year, while looking a step slower following major surgery, as he enters his 30s.

When the concerns you have for a player start looking more like a list than an aside, there's probably good reason to be worried.

 

[E-Train]

Is he a good fit for the team with ADA/Fox? coming along? Perhaps not but he's not Staal or Pionk-esque.

I’d say that’s a fair statement. No reason to move him yet unless Fox is acquired prior to going UFA.

 

[True Blue]

To call him an anchor is insane and not true. Is he a good fit for the team with ADA/Fox? coming along? Perhaps not but he's not Staal or Pionk-esque.

I called him a third pairing defenseman, who is a PP specialist and doesn't play a lick of defense. In addition, he needs to be shielded from the opposition's top forwards. In addition to that, he has serious injury history. In addition to those, he is being paid over $6m, with NTC/NMC.

Call in an anchor or call it a chained cinder block or call it whatever you want, unfortunately for us all reality starts to scream out at some point.

 

[True Blue]

A team that thinks he could help the PP. Doesn't mean he will.

You can fool some of the people some of the time.......

 

[Thirty One]

I know it's been said many times, many ways, and by many different people, but we're stuck with Shattenkirk until his contract expires, or until the TDL before it expires.

I think the day after his July 1, 2020 bonus is the day he becomes moveable. $2M in real dollars owed and NTC goes down to 8 teams.

 

[Michal]

Crazy the consensus about Lundqvist being done. Media and fans alike. I'm of the opposite opinion; that he's no longer capable (as few NHL goalies ever are) of playing 70 games a season — which he was pacing for up until the All-Star game (which he was named to, as at that point, our best player, and the only reason for our ridiculous 9-1-1 run) but still is a very good starter. Georgiev had a great second half. But the kid played 33 games this year, and for the better part of the first half, the roles were reversed — Georgiev was in the minors to stay warm since he couldn't be trusted to win a game.

Maybe it'd be more convenient for the Franchise if Lundqvist really did look cooked, retired at the end of his contract, and that on the flip side Georgiev and Shesty were as obviously the real deal as they've been declared. Still, it's sad to see so many older goalies getting immense respect around the league, proving themselves with stretches no more impressive than the 35 games (more than Georgiev's full season total) Lundqvist played before the All-Star weekend. Meanwhile, even Rangers fans are ready to toss him aside, likely because all those games he single-handedly won or kept close, were actually frustratingly counter to our tanking hopes at the time.

I don't think Lundvist is done. On the contrary I think he can win the cup with a very good team. I think it would be great for him to get a chance to compete in conference and maybe Stanley Cup finals at the end of his career. But the truth is we don't need him so much now (because we are not going to compete for playoffs for at leat two years) and maybe he would prefer to be in a better team as well.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Absolutely no one is stating that.

That's just not true. Numerous people in this thread and on twitter are saying this. Not saying it's the popular opinion, but it definitely has more support than it deserves. I've seen tons of people say he's not even an NHL level goalie anymore. The hyperbole is insane.

Veteran player struggled mentally after second straight season of team bottoming out after trade deadline. Doesn't have to be any more than that. He's past his prime, but still a good goalie. Personally I need to see more than 2 bad months under these types of circumstances before I'm ready to make any judgement about him that goes beyond slump/hot streak type stuff.

Everyone wants to rush him out the door, why? It's becoming more and more common to deploy two goalies closer to equal number in starts than it ever was before. The days of your starter playing 70 of 82 are gone. Platooning goalies and having a good pair is more important than ever before.

We're going to trade or force Hank to retire because of two bad months (in a rebuilding year where we wanted to lose anyway) when he could be a solid half of a platoon for another few years? Why? Georgiev or Shesterkin are both good kids with good potential, but they could both fail to reach it. I'm sorry, I'm not willing to get rid of the living legend, who was among the tops in the league statistically through December this very season, when he definitely has gas left in the tank just because he's older and we have two promising kids pushing. The impetus is on them to win the other spot in the tandem.