Rumor: Shattenkirk for Krejci?

[BruinLVGA]

Silly me. I forgot that points are the only way to measure players.

In no particular order:

Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Giroux, Thornton, Kopitar, Sedin, Backstrom, Seguin, McDavid, Bergeron, Getzlaf, Taveras, Stamkos

That's 14 Centers that I would say are inarguable better players at the position than Krecji.

Then you have the next level of guys like Spezza, Galchenyuk, Couture, Carter, Stepan, Nugent-Hopkins, Barkov, Schiefele, Johansen, T Johnson, Duchene, ROR, Eichel, Kesler, Turris, and Monahan. I would take at least half of that list over Krecji for various reasons and I probably missed a couple of really glaring names.

So, yeah, like I said - he is probably in the 20-25 range unless all you want to look at is box scores and not actually, you know, watch players play.

I thought that players ought to be judged chiefly on their performance, silly me. Points production being probably the #1 in importance for a forward. It's not ice dancing, you know: scoring more goals than the opponent wins games. Instead it must be intangibles for the win, I guess. Mkay...

Top 15 in points produced (with the centers at position 10 through 14 with the same points or ONE more point, with Krejci playing 5-10 games LESS...) + top 10 for ppg (9th) + top 10 for assists (7th) for centers... elite passer with great hockey IQ... able to dictate the pace of the game... proven playoffs performer who lead the entire league in points TWICE... in his prime now.
I guess that all those 20-25 + "glaring names" omitted must be achieving this all the time?

And please stop saying "inarguable" / "inarguably" when expressing your personal opinion unsupported by any fact. I brought my reasons why I think that Krejci is a #1C: numbers support this. You bring a list of names and say you prefer them, and bam! it's fact. It doesn't work like that. Be serious.

 

[major major]

I agree that Krejci is about the 20th to 25th best center.

And I agree that it's reasonable to trade a center in that range for a 20th to 25th best D.

But I don't think Shattenkirk is actually at that level. He's not someone you want in an all-around D role. I think being behind Pietro was a great role for him - and he really helped tip the scales for the Blues. But you ask him to do Pietro's job and it's a different story. The Bruins already have a guy for the offensive role in Krug (not saying Krug = Shatty). Now they need someone who can play shutdown or all-around.

 

[nmbr_24]

Silly me. I forgot that points are the only way to measure players.

In no particular order:

Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Giroux, Thornton, Kopitar, Sedin, Backstrom, Seguin, McDavid, Bergeron, Getzlaf, Taveras, Stamkos

That's 14 Centers that I would say are inarguable better players at the position than Krecji.

Then you have the next level of guys like Spezza, Galchenyuk, Couture, Carter, Stepan, Nugent-Hopkins, Barkov, Schiefele, Johansen, T Johnson, Duchene, ROR, Eichel, Kesler, Turris, and Monahan. I would take at least half of that list over Krecji for various reasons and I probably missed a couple of really glaring names.

So, yeah, like I said - he is probably in the 20-25 range unless all you want to look at is box scores and not actually, you know, watch players play.

Krejci is a very good defensive player as well, far better than at least half of that list so if he is better defensively and he scores as many points what else does he have to do to be equal to those players?

I think you are just underrating Krejci, no two ways about it.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Krejci is a very good defensive player as well, far better than at least half of that list so if he is better defensively and he scores as many points what else does he have to do to be equal to those players?

I think you are just underrating Krejci, no two ways about it.

Be a St. Louis player...

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Be a St. Louis player...

Spot on. If this trade were made he'd miraculously become an elite #1 center it appears.

There is no argument to be made that he is not a #1 center. Age, contract, injury history -- none of those are a true factor when judging Krejci's talent.

 

[tfriede2]

Spot on. If this trade were made he'd miraculously become an elite #1 center it appears.

There is no argument to be made that he is not a #1 center. Age, contract, injury history -- none of those are a true factor when judging Krejci's talent.

Just like when the Blues signed Stastny, he miraculously became an elite #1 center...oh wait.

I agree that Krejci is a #1 center, but in a mold similar to Stastny.

 

[Spektre]

Why is there a debate on whether Krejci is a #1 C? He'd instantly be the Blues best center. Krejci is easily in the top 15 centers in the league. How is that not a #1 center?

A deal between Krejci & Shattenkirk would have to include other parts. There would have to be more salary going to Boston. Krejci would have to approve the deal. With that many intangibles the easier deal would be Spooner and a pick.

 

[Whitsmith803]

Be a St. Louis player...

The problem is the Cap Hit/Age/ and injury problems

Blues don't want to go down that route

 

[Speed Shooter]

Why is there a debate on whether Krejci is a #1 C? He'd instantly be the Blues best center. Krejci is easily in the top 15 centers in the league. How is that not a #1 center?

A deal between Krejci & Shattenkirk would have to include other parts. There would have to be more salary going to Boston. Krejci would have to approve the deal. With that many intangibles the easier deal would be Spooner and a pick.

Agreed. STL is at 49 contracts. Sobotka return puts them at 50-contract max and just about depletes cap room.

Spooner & prospect & pick for Shattenkitk & throw-in (Rattie? Other?) solves $$ and gives ST bit of breather for roster squeeze/flexibility with an extra open slot.

 

[Dbrownss]

Spooner and a pick? "Where did I put my torch"?

 

[MissouriMook]

I thought that players ought to be judged chiefly on their performance, silly me. Points production being probably the #1 in importance for a forward. It's not ice dancing, you know: scoring more goals than the opponent wins games. Instead it must be intangibles for the win, I guess. Mkay...

Top 15 in points produced (with the centers at position 10 through 14 with the same points or ONE more point, with Krejci playing 5-10 games LESS...) + top 10 for ppg (9th) + top 10 for assists (7th) for centers... elite passer with great hockey IQ... able to dictate the pace of the game... proven playoffs performer who lead the entire league in points TWICE... in his prime now.
I guess that all those 20-25 + "glaring names" omitted must be achieving this all the time?

And please stop saying "inarguable" / "inarguably" when expressing your personal opinion unsupported by any fact. I brought my reasons why I think that Krejci is a #1C: numbers support this. You bring a list of names and say you prefer them, and bam! it's fact. It doesn't work like that. Be serious.

Thanks for doing me a favor and highlighting the only part of my post that you actually read. Where I come from, when someone says the words "I would say..." that is pretty much the same thing as "here comes my opinion." You've obviously made it clear that you understand the difference between opinion and fact, so let's just shut this part of your argument down right now.

So, you still seem hell bent on making this a numbers argument, but there are so many other factors that are involved in evaluating players and what they contribute. With a player like Krecji and his situation, it is obviously a lot easier to put up the numbers he does when he has a guy like Bergeron doing the heavy lifting as far as matching up against the other team's best players. So, my question to you is, based on the players' entire bodies of work, who on my list of 14 players that are "in my opinion" inarguably better than Krecji, would you say Krecji is better than?

Then you get into market place dynamics (because we are talking about a trade proposal) with things like age, health, and contracts. While a player may be one thing today, what do you expect him to be tomorrow? What do you have to pay for a given level of performance versus what you can get for the same money from another player at that position? Well run teams pay players for what they believe they will do, not what they have already done, whether that is in terms of contracts, assets to acquire or both.

I stand by my position that Krecji is probably in the 20-25 range at his position today, which in my mind make him a #1C. But this argument all started over someone's assertion that Shattenkirk is only a #2/#3 on D because he is only in the Top 20-25 of defensemen in the NHL, that you had to be in the Top 10-15 to be considered a #1. My whole point all along has been that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the 20th best C is a #1 but that the 20th best D is only a #2/#3 and survive with any credibility. I know that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Krecji is Top 10-15 in the league because "look at the numbers" and my challenge to you is that if you asked 1,000 random fans to rank the top 50 centers in the league right now, Krecji would finish in the 20s because there is more to the job than putting up points and evaluating performance by using no context with your data.

 

[KirkOut]

Thanks for doing me a favor and highlighting the only part of my post that you actually read. Where I come from, when someone says the words "I would say..." that is pretty much the same thing as "here comes my opinion." You've obviously made it clear that you understand the difference between opinion and fact, so let's just shut this part of your argument down right now.

So, you still seem hell bent on making this a numbers argument, but there are so many other factors that are involved in evaluating players and what they contribute. With a player like Krecji and his situation, it is obviously a lot easier to put up the numbers he does when he has a guy like Bergeron doing the heavy lifting as far as matching up against the other team's best players. So, my question to you is, based on the players' entire bodies of work, who on my list of 14 players that are "in my opinion" inarguably better than Krecji, would you say Krecji is better than?

Then you get into market place dynamics (because we are talking about a trade proposal) with things like age, health, and contracts. While a player may be one thing today, what do you expect him to be tomorrow? What do you have to pay for a given level of performance versus what you can get for the same money from another player at that position? Well run teams pay players for what they believe they will do, not what they have already done, whether that is in terms of contracts, assets to acquire or both.

I stand by my position that Krecji is probably in the 20-25 range at his position today, which in my mind make him a #1C. But this argument all started over someone's assertion that Shattenkirk is only a #2/#3 on D because he is only in the Top 20-25 of defensemen in the NHL, that you had to be in the Top 10-15 to be considered a #1. My whole point all along has been that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the 20th best C is a #1 but that the 20th best D is only a #2/#3 and survive with any credibility. I know that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that Krecji is Top 10-15 in the league because "look at the numbers" and my challenge to you is that if you asked 1,000 random fans to rank the top 50 centers in the league right now, Krecji would finish in the 20s because there is more to the job than putting up points and evaluating performance by using no context with your data.

Good post MissouriMook. It's like basic logic is getting in the way of people making rational posts. If Bruins fans don't want to give up Krejci for Shattenkirk, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. But there's a way to express that opinion without putting some ridiculous spin on the two players' relative value.

 

[Majorityof1]

Be a St. Louis player...

I love it when someone who is over-rating their player accuses the other team's fans of over-rating their players.

"You don't see my team's player to be as good as the players you mentioned. Never mind the fact that all those players are on completely different teams, you only value Blues players as being good. Let's ignore the fact that you gave a reasoned explanation for why you thought so and the fact that the players involved weren't on your team, it is pure bias for your team. There is no reason for me to argue how my team's player is better than the guys you mentioned. He just is, cause he's my team's player, and YOU are biased."

 

[stl76]

Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Giroux, Thornton, Kopitar, Sedin, Backstrom, Seguin, McDavid, Bergeron, Getzlaf, Taveras, Stamkos

That's 14 Centers that I would say are inarguable better players at the position than Krecji.

Krejci is a very good defensive player as well, far better than at least half of that list so if he is better defensively and he scores as many points what else does he have to do to be equal to those players?

I think you are just underrating Krejci, no two ways about it.

I am curious which players on that list you think Krejci is better than defensively.

Bergeron, Kopitar, and Toews are pretty clearly better defensively. Crosby, Sedin, Backstrom, Getzlaf, and Thornton are all also better defensively IMO but there is room for debate here between reasonable hockey fans. That leaves Giroux, Malkin, Seguin, McDavid, Taveras, and Stamkos from the list provided by MissouriMook. Krejci may be better than these centers defensively, but their offensive production is a tier above what Krejci brings.

If your point is that Krejci is far better defensively and scores as much as half that list then I think you are mistaken.

 

[reffree]

Silly me. I forgot that points are the only way to measure players.

In no particular order:

Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Giroux, Thornton, Kopitar, Sedin, Backstrom, Seguin, McDavid, Bergeron, Getzlaf, Taveras, Stamkos

That's 14 Centers that I would say are inarguable better players at the position than Krecji.

Then you have the next level of guys like Spezza, Galchenyuk, Couture, Carter, Stepan, Nugent-Hopkins, Barkov, Schiefele, Johansen, T Johnson, Duchene, ROR, Eichel, Kesler, Turris, and Monahan. I would take at least half of that list over Krecji for various reasons and I probably missed a couple of really glaring names.

So, yeah, like I said - he is probably in the 20-25 range unless all you want to look at is box scores and not actually, you know, watch players play.

If we were talking about a Tyler Seguin then you would be right, but we are talking about David Krejci, the guy score alot of pts, that's true, but he is also a Conn Smythe nominee and a Selke nominee, so what's the point?

You're telling pts aren't everything, wich I'm totally fine with, then you take guys, with worst number, worst defensive ability and worst playoff resume and say they are better? Better at what exactly? At looking good?

For all the praise Bergeron get ( and he deserve it make no mistake), Krejci is still the #1 center on the Bruins in ice time, yep Julien the defensive minded coach play him more than Bergeron. Also again and again, the Bruins have shown they do better without Bergeron than they do without Krejci. Krejci is criminaly underreted.

 

[BruinsNeedaRussian]

Crosby is better defensively? Turris is better overall?

How many people here have seen Krejci play?

 

[finchster]

Krejci is very good offensively, defensively he really isn't on the same tier as great defensive centers in the league. David Krejci was never a Selke nominee, 6th was the highest he finished then 12th based on his high plus minus. When people speak about Krejci's two way game, he is merely above average defensively.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Thanks for doing me a favor and highlighting the only part of my post that you actually read. 1. Where I come from, when someone says the words "I would say..." that is pretty much the same thing as "here comes my opinion." You've obviously made it clear that you understand the difference between opinion and fact, so let's just shut this part of your argument down right now.

So, you still seem hell bent on making this a numbers argument, but there are so many other factors that are involved in evaluating players and what they contribute. With a player like Krecji and his situation, it is obviously a lot easier to put up the numbers he does when he has a guy like Bergeron doing the heavy lifting as far as matching up against the other team's best players. 2. So, my question to you is, based on the players' entire bodies of work, who on my list of 14 players that are "in my opinion" inarguably better than Krecji, would you say Krecji is better than?

3. Then you get into market place dynamics (because we are talking about a trade proposal) with things like age, health, and contracts. While a player may be one thing today, what do you expect him to be tomorrow? What do you have to pay for a given level of performance versus what you can get for the same money from another player at that position? Well run teams pay players for what they believe they will do, not what they have already done, whether that is in terms of contracts, assets to acquire or both.

I stand by my position that Krecji is probably in the 20-25 range at his position today, which in my mind make him a #1C. But this argument all started over someone's assertion that Shattenkirk is only a #2/#3 on D because he is only in the Top 20-25 of defensemen in the NHL, that you had to be in the Top 10-15 to be considered a #1. My whole point all along has been that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the 20th best C is a #1 but that the 20th best D is only a #2/#3 and survive with any credibility. I know that wasn't your argument. 4. Your argument was that Krecji is Top 10-15 in the league because "look at the numbers" and my challenge to you is that if you asked 1,000 random fans to rank the top 50 centers in the league right now, Krecji would finish in the 20s because there is more to the job than putting up points and evaluating performance by using no context with your data.

1. Where I come from, the little problem with that is when you present your "opinion" and then proceed to flavor it every time with "inarguable" / "inarguably".
An opinion ceases to be an opinion when one says that it's inarguable. That immediately transforms it from a subjective, debatable idea to an immovable... fact. Makes sense?

2. So, I guess you are inferring that Krejci only plays against 4th lines? Oh my...
To answer your question... Krejci is better than any center he outperformed. He is worse than any center that outperformed him. Very straightforward and pragmatic. Want the names? Do like I did & go research it.

3. BS. You said he is a 20-25 center, maybe worse. As in evaluating how good he is as a center. Don't try to wiggle your way out by cooking up some instant flavor to add to this, it isn't going to happen.

4. Yes, that's my argument. Yes I brought numbers that support that. You didn't invalidate my numbers, brought no facts to prove your theory that Krejci is a 20-25/30-or-worse center but for a very vague "Bergeron plays the toughest match ups, Krejci plays vs lesser opponents. Must be why he gets his stats" (<-- again, I think this is what you are inferring).
Now, on top of bringing no facts whatsoever, you go to the route of "But a 1000 random fans would agree with me". Problem 1: you don't know that they would agree with you. Problem 2: the opinion of 1000 fans or 1 billion fans anyway matters absolutely zero vs numbers. If you tell me you don't like players like Krejci vs players X, Y or Z because of personal reasons... Hey I am totally fine with it. But when you say that Krejci is a 20-25-30-or-worse center, you gotta prove it. Something that so far you haven't even gotten remotely close to.

1. I love it when someone who is over-rating their player accuses the other team's fans of over-rating their players.

"You don't see my team's player to be as good as the players you mentioned. Never mind the fact that all those players are on completely different teams, you only value Blues players as being good. 2. Let's ignore the fact that you gave a reasoned explanation for why you thought so and the fact that the players involved weren't on your team, it is pure bias for your team. There is no reason for me to argue how my team's player is better than the guys you mentioned. He just is, cause he's my team's player, and YOU are biased."

1. Krejci = 15th overall in points (1 point from 10th overall, with 5-10 less games played) + 9th overall in ppg + 7th overall for assists for centers = top 10-15 center = "over-rating" to you?

Go ahead, do explain why.

2. Here's the "reasoned explanation" by that poster you are referring to:... "but, but I like them other centers better"... "but, but ask a 1000 folks here who they like better"... "but, but Bergeron has the toughest match ups, that's why Krejci has top 10-15 stats for centers".

Come on, you can do way better than this.

 

[Dbrownss]

FFS....can we get back to what deal both sides are ok with? As I've said....Krecji isn't my idea target due to age and contract but he's still an excellent acquisition.

So.....to get back on track, Shattenkirk(+) for Krejci

What's the plus Boston? If you don't like the trade, and your just going to say "no deal here" then don't bother posting.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Why is there a debate on whether Krejci is a #1 C? He'd instantly be the Blues best center. Krejci is easily in the top 15 centers in the league. How is that not a #1 center?

A deal between Krejci & Shattenkirk would have to include other parts. There would have to be more salary going to Boston. Krejci would have to approve the deal. With that many intangibles the easier deal would be Spooner and a pick.

A glimmer of hope from St Louis, not all is lost. Thank you.

 

[reffree]

Krejci is very good offensively, defensively he really isn't on the same tier as great defensive centers in the league. David Krejci was never a Selke nominee, 6th was the highest he finished then 12th based on his high plus minus. When people speak about Krejci's two way game, he is merely above average defensively.

By nominee I wasn't saying top 3, so my bad for the confusion. 6th and 12th is to me pretty good even if you don't agree. Krejci as never been a fan favorite in Boston for only god know the reason, but Julien trust him defensively, he for years was the center Julien put on the ice with one minute to play with a one goal lead, a big reason why Lucic could score all those empty net goals. That would be pretty stupid to play Krejci in those circonstance when you have a guy name Patrice Bergeron sitting on the bench if Krejci wasn't really good defensively too.

Here before the " Julien is dumb, I know better than him" crowd come.

 

[BruinLVGA]

2015-16 Centers' points per game (players with at least 70 games... Aka those who played a full-ish season):
1. Crosby 1.06
2. Seguin 1.01
3. Thornton 1.00
4. Pavelski 0.95
5. Kutznetsov 0.94
6. Backstrom 0.93
7. Kopitar 0.91
8. Tavares 0.90
9. David "I hope I crack the top 25-30 for centers + ouch I need hip surgery" Krejci 0.88
10... EVERYBODY ELSE.

And a few others that had shortened seasons would have probably gotten a better ppg than Krejci. Namely: McDavid (45 games, 1.07 ppg), Malkin (52 games, 1.02). Barkov, maybe (0.89 ppg over 66 games).

 

[KirkOut]

2015-16 Centers' points per game (players with at least 70 games... Aka those who played a full-ish season):
1. Crosby 1.06
2. Seguin 1.01
3. Thornton 1.00
4. Pavelski 0.95
5. Kutznetsov 0.94
6. Backstrom 0.93
7. Kopitar 0.91
8. Tavares 0.90
9. David "I hope I crack the top 25-30 for centers + ouch I need hip surgery" Krejci 0.88
10... EVERYBODY ELSE.

And a few others that had shortened seasons would have probably gotten a better ppg than Krejci. Namely: McDavid (45 games, 1.07 ppg), Malkin (52 games, 1.02). Barkov, maybe (0.89 ppg over 66 games).

I think the reason why there is disagreement is because you appear to be using a 1 season sample and other people appear to be using more than just last season to form their opinions. For example Claude Giroux finished with a lower ppg than Krejci last season but I don't see any argument for Krejci being better than Giroux.

 

[TK 421]

I would be thrilled with a Shattenkirk/ Krejci base for a deal. So what would the other pieces be to make it work?

 

[bluetuned]

Krejci is barely a 50% possession player despite Bergeron getting the toughest assignments. He's basically a flip of the coin at the faceoff dot, he does not get the most penalty kill time on his own team, he was merely a +4 despite pacing for 70 points, he has a negative takeaway/giveaway ratio. He has major health and injury concerns, etc. The non-Bostonians here could all go on about this.

He's a first line C on plenty of teams (the Blues included), but if you're being realistic and looking beyond pure points there are a lot of reasons why he's a notch or two below the best guys in the league.

The same sort of criticisms that keep Shattenkirk from being a "legit #1" apply to Krejci at his position. That's all we're saying.