Rumor: Shattenkirk for Krejci?

[armani]

When you already have a #1 center and have two more centers that still give you great center depth its a no brainer, especially with the D in Boston right now.

Understood. This trade is kinda Hall-Larssonesque. Trading a better player for a good player to fill a need.

 

[Absurdity]

When you already have a #1 center and have two more centers that still give you great center depth its a no brainer, especially with the D in Boston right now.

Shattenkirk is a great offensive defenseman, but does he help the Bruins on the defensive side of things? In my opinion he doesn't. The Bruins don't need more offense from the back-end, they need a defenseman that can actually play defense, and Shattenkirk isn't the answer. As a Bruins fan, do you think Krug can return a #1C? Both Krug and Shattenkirk are very similar, and even I don't think Krug gets you anywhere near a #1C in return. Even if St. Louis adds a bit, I still wouldn't do it from a Boston perspective. I would rather add to Krejci to get the 1st-pairing defenseman the Bruins really need rather than fall short on trading a #1C for an average-defensively defenseman with very good offense.

 

[MissouriMook]

Shattenkirk has been great in the playoffs, he looked bad this year for 8 games or so. People have just been sticking to that as the one and only player he can ever be from now until retirement. His production in previous runs was over the top, he kept the Blues anemic offense at least salvageable, if Boston can utilize him there's no reason he can't give them a dangerous powerplay and strong puck possession. He's not an elite shutdown defender though, too bad Boston only has Backes and Bergeron to play in front of him in the meantime

Shattenkirk had an uncharacteristically up and down year even before the playoffs. I may be way off base here, but they kept moving him to the left side to try to get Parayko into the Top 4 mix and I believe it messed with his game, especially his positioning. To me, he always seemed at his worst on the left side and the first few games after being moved back to the right. I think if you put him on the right side and leave him alone he will shine again.

 

[Tim Vezina Thomas]

Shattenkirk is a great offensive defenseman, but does he help the Bruins on the defensive side of things? In my opinion he doesn't. The Bruins don't need more offense from the back-end, they need a defenseman that can actually play defense, and Shattenkirk isn't the answer. As a Bruins fan, do you think Krug can return a #1C? Both Krug and Shattenkirk are very similar, and even I don't think Krug gets you anywhere near a #1C in return. Even if St. Louis adds a bit, I still wouldn't do it from a Boston perspective. I would rather add to Krejci to get the 1st-pairing defenseman the Bruins really need rather than fall short on trading a #1C for an average-defensively defenseman with very good offense.

And which 1st pairing defenseman is available for Krejci right now that is better defensviely than Shattenkirk? Please let me know, I'm up for that.

Fact is Shattenkirk is on the market right now and he'd immediately be our best d man.

I wouldn't hesitate with this deal.

 

[BruinDust]

Shattenkirk had an uncharacteristically up and down year even before the playoffs. I may be way off base here, but they kept moving him to the left side to try to get Parayko into the Top 4 mix and I believe it messed with his game, especially his positioning. To me, he always seemed at his worst on the left side and the first few games after being moved back to the right. I think if you put him on the right side and leave him alone he will shine again.

I would agree with this.

I recall one game vs. Chicago (Game 6 I think) where Shattenkirk was on the left-side and he was a trainwreck, on the ice for 5 Chicago goals, and arguably at fault on at least 3 of them. He looked very uncomfortable on that side.

 

[BruinsBtn]

This deal would be a disaster for Boston.

 

[Absurdity]

And which 1st pairing defenseman is available for Krejci right now that is better defensviely than Shattenkirk? Please let me know, I'm up for that.

Fact is Shattenkirk is on the market right now and he'd immediately be our best d man.

I wouldn't hesitate with this deal.

The only defensemen we hear that are "available" are Shattenkirk, maybe a Minnesota defenseman, and maybe Tanev. I would rather trade for the latter 2 if they are available over Shattenkirk. With that said, I don't work for any NHL team or have any sources as to who is available, so who is to say those are the only available defensemen out there? Who knew Larsson was available? Subban? Weber? If Krejci's name is out there, who is to say a team that needs a #1C wouldn't make a defenseman on their team available for Krejci?

With that said, just because Shattenkirk is on the market right now does not mean the Bruins should automatically trade whatever they have for Shattenkirk. That is bad asset management. There could be defensemen available (down the road/now) that (could be/are better) than Shattenkirk. It would be nice to have that option to trade for that said defenseman rather than trading a #1C for an average-defensively defenseman locked in at 7x7 without any room to upgrade that roster spot as a result.

 

[wintersej]

Shattenkirk is a great offensive defenseman, but does he help the Bruins on the defensive side of things? In my opinion he doesn't. The Bruins don't need more offense from the back-end, they need a defenseman that can actually play defense, and Shattenkirk isn't the answer. As a Bruins fan, do you think Krug can return a #1C? Both Krug and Shattenkirk are very similar, and even I don't think Krug gets you anywhere near a #1C in return. Even if St. Louis adds a bit, I still wouldn't do it from a Boston perspective. I would rather add to Krejci to get the 1st-pairing defenseman the Bruins really need rather than fall short on trading a #1C for an average-defensively defenseman with very good offense.

The Bruins have plenty of guys who can play defense. They don't have guys who can move the puck out of the zone.

 

[Zippy316]

What would it take to make this work for both teams? I'm assuming STL needs to shed cap so they would likely include Berglund, but I would see a deal like this being much bigger like the Seguin deal was.

 

[Absurdity]

The Bruins have plenty of guys who can play defense. They don't have guys who can move the puck out of the zone.

Chara to some extent, Krug, Colin Miller, Morrow, and Liles could all move the puck out of their own zone. That doesn't include any young prospect like O'Gara, Carlo, or Grzelcyk, who are all capable of doing so, that could potentially make the team. The Bruins also brought in Cassidy to change the way the Bruins operate in their own zone.

If the only reason why the Bruins trade for Shattenkirk is because of his ability to move the puck out of his own zone, why not give Colin Miller a shot in a somewhat new defensive system under Cassidy in which Colin will be more comfortable in? Why trade Krejci to get that guy when the Bruins have plenty of defensemen capable of doing so already on the team?

 

[Frenzy31]

The only defensemen we hear that are "available" are Shattenkirk, maybe a Minnesota defenseman, and maybe Tanev. I would rather trade for the latter 2 if they are available over Shattenkirk. With that said, I don't work for any NHL team or have any sources as to who is available, so who is to say those are the only available defensemen out there? Who knew Larsson was available? Subban? Weber? If Krejci's name is out there, who is to say a team that needs a #1C wouldn't make a defenseman on their team available for Krejci?

With that said, just because Shattenkirk is on the market right now does not mean the Bruins should automatically trade whatever they have for Shattenkirk. That is bad asset management. There could be defensemen available (down the road/now) that (could be/are better) than Shattenkirk. It would be nice to have that option to trade for that said defenseman rather than trading a #1C for an average-defensively defenseman locked in at 7x7 without any room to upgrade that roster spot as a result.

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. It is so tough to find top pairing dmen because they are not usually made available. Hall was overpayment for Larsson, but Oilers made the deal because there was nothing else available to them.

Subban for Weber, well that is a D for D trade.

List the teams that have excess D that would be available in trade for DK and then see if they line up needs wise with Boston's excess - which is center. Then check on cap space.

There just aren't any. You list Tanev and likely Brodin/Spurgeon, but Shatty is better then all 3 offensively and just as good in the Dzone. Look, I know players get labelled as offensive - meaning they are not good in the dzone, but that really isn't the case with Shatty. He is solid in the dzone and can be physical when he wants to be.

What is interesting to me is Bucchi put DK's name out there. I would think there is something to this, simply because... he put his name out there instead of Boston is interested in Shatty - there is a specific return listed.

If there is nothing to this, then it is irresponsible journalism because there really is no need to mention DK at all in tweet. (Most solid reports will list the team and may even listed speculated return - but most stick with just the team).

 

[Frenzy31]

What would it take to make this work for both teams? I'm assuming STL needs to shed cap so they would likely include Berglund, but I would see a deal like this being much bigger like the Seguin deal was.

I think it would include Berglund from St. Louis and Miller from Boston. I know Boston fans will say - Berglund is a UFA, but I would call that working the cap. With Berglund coming off at the end of the year Boston could simply sign Shatty with that and not run into cap issues. Gives Boston's young centers time to develop.

Who knows? I just really don't want to fight about it.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Chara to some extent, Krug, Colin Miller, Morrow, and Liles could all move the puck out of their own zone. That doesn't include any young prospect like O'Gara, Carlo, or Grzelcyk, who are all capable of doing so, that could potentially make the team. The Bruins also brought in Cassidy to change the way the Bruins operate in their own zone.

If the only reason why the Bruins trade for Shattenkirk is because of his ability to move the puck out of his own zone, why not give Colin Miller a shot in a somewhat new defensive system under Cassidy in which Colin will be more comfortable in? Why trade Krejci to get that guy when the Bruins have plenty of defensemen capable of doing so already on the team?

If the Bruins had plenty of guys capable of doing what Shattenkirk can do, then they wouldn't be tied to him at all.

Clearly, that isn't the case.

 

[Burt Reynolds]

I think it would include Berglund from St. Louis and Miller from Boston. I know Boston fans will say - Berglund is a UFA, but I would call that working the cap. With Berglund coming off at the end of the year Boston could simply sign Shatty with that and not run into cap issues. Gives Boston's young centers time to develop.

Who knows? I just really don't want to fight about it.

I'd do McQuaid, as Miller was just resigned this offseason, so I doubt Sweeney and co would do that as it would sour his relationship with player agents.

 

[Frenzy31]

I'd do McQuaid, as Miller was just resigned this offseason, so I doubt Sweeney and co would do that as it would sour his relationship with player agents.

Colin or Kevin. I was thinking Colin, based on our previous interest back at the deadline.

 

[Kitchener Boy]

Shattenkirk is a great offensive defenseman, but does he help the Bruins on the defensive side of things? In my opinion he doesn't. The Bruins don't need more offense from the back-end, they need a defenseman that can actually play defense, and Shattenkirk isn't the answer. As a Bruins fan, do you think Krug can return a #1C? Both Krug and Shattenkirk are very similar, and even I don't think Krug gets you anywhere near a #1C in return. Even if St. Louis adds a bit, I still wouldn't do it from a Boston perspective. I would rather add to Krejci to get the 1st-pairing defenseman the Bruins really need rather than fall short on trading a #1C for an average-defensively defenseman with very good offense.

Couldn't agree more.
No thanks rather keep Krejci.

 

[tony d]

This deal would make sense for both teams but there would have to be some tweaks from both sides.

 

[Absurdity]

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. It is so tough to find top pairing dmen because they are not usually made available. Hall was overpayment for Larsson, but Oilers made the deal because there was nothing else available to them.

Subban for Weber, well that is a D for D trade.

List the teams that have excess D that would be available in trade for DK and then see if they line up needs wise with Boston's excess - which is center. Then check on cap space.

There just aren't any. You list Tanev and likely Brodin/Spurgeon, but Shatty is better then all 3 offensively and just as good in the Dzone. Look, I know players get labelled as offensive - meaning they are not good in the dzone, but that really isn't the case with Shatty. He is solid in the dzone and can be physical when he wants to be.

What is interesting to me is Bucchi put DK's name out there. I would think there is something to this, simply because... he put his name out there instead of Boston is interested in Shatty - there is a specific return listed.

If there is nothing to this, then it is irresponsible journalism because there really is no need to mention DK at all in tweet. (Most solid reports will list the team and may even listed speculated return - but most stick with just the team).

In my opinion, I just don't think the value is there for Boston to trade Krejci for Shattenkirk even if Shattenkirk is the best defenseman currently available on the market. In my opinion the Bruins are a worse team losing Krejci and adding Shattenkirk rather than keeping Krejci and letting the young defensemen they currently have develop. That may sound silly, but I just don't think that trade while subtracting Krejci is going to get the Bruins near a Stanley Cup this year or in a couple of years. In the next two years we will most likely see Chara retire, and it will leave Shattenkirk without that defensive anchor to pair him with that will cover his defensive inconsistencies. What the Bruins will have is a defenseman locked in for 5 more years at $7M that may be solid defensively, but won't be able to carry a 1st-pairing just like the Bruins most likely won't count on Krug to do so when Chara retires.

Other Bruins fans and our front office may see it differently, but I would rather have the defensemen we currently have in our system and in pros develop in that 2-year span rather than trying to hot-fix a problem for the short term.

If the Bruins had plenty of guys capable of doing what Shattenkirk can do, then they wouldn't be tied to him at all.

Clearly, that isn't the case.

The Bruins did a big no-no last season by punishing their young defensemen for making mistakes on defense. If the Bruins went in this year with guys like Morrow and Colin Miller having a full year of NHL-experience, they would be in a better situation right now. I don't disagree with the point that the Bruins should be adding a defenseman this offseason, but I don't think giving up Krejci for Shattenkirk is the right move. The Bruins were a top 5 team in offense last season. In my opinion, the Bruins need a mobile defensive defenseman not an offensive defenseman where defense isn't his strong suit.

The Bruins promoted Cassidy to help improve the fluidity out of their own zone. I had a conversation with a fellow Bruins fan about how the Bruins can succeed on defense, in regards to breaking out of their own zone, without adding a player that has that ability. If you would like, you can read that conversation in these two posts:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=120663027&postcount=273
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=120665155&postcount=276

 

[Brendonhayden]

I would really like this trade from blues pov mabye with lethera involved.

 

[Frenzy31]

In my opinion, I just don't think the value is there for Boston to trade Krejci for Shattenkirk even if Shattenkirk is the best defenseman currently available on the market. In my opinion the Bruins are a worse team losing Krejci and adding Shattenkirk rather than keeping Krejci and letting the young defensemen they currently have develop. That may sound silly, but I just don't think that trade while subtracting Krejci is going to get the Bruins near a Stanley Cup this year or in a couple of years. In the next two years we will most likely see Chara retire, and it will leave Shattenkirk without that defensive anchor to pair him with that will cover his defensive inconsistencies. What the Bruins will have is a defenseman locked in for 5 more years at $7M that may be solid defensively, but won't be able to carry a 1st-pairing just like the Bruins most likely won't count on Krug to do so when Chara retires.

Other Bruins fans and our front office may see it differently, but I would rather have the defensemen we currently have in our system and in pros develop in that 2-year span rather than trying to hot-fix a problem for the short term.

The Bruins did a big no-no last season by punishing their young defensemen for making mistakes on defense. If the Bruins went in this year with guys like Morrow and Colin Miller having a full year of NHL-experience, they would be in a better situation right now. I don't disagree with the point that the Bruins should be adding a defenseman this offseason, but I don't think giving up Krejci for Shattenkirk is the right move. The Bruins were a top 5 team in offense last season. In my opinion, the Bruins need a mobile defensive defenseman not an offensive defenseman where defense isn't his strong suit.

The Bruins promoted Cassidy to help improve the fluidity out of their own zone. I had a conversation with a fellow Bruins fan about how the Bruins can succeed on defense, in regards to breaking out of their own zone, without adding a player that has that ability. If you would like, you can read that conversation in these two posts:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=120663027&postcount=273
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=120665155&postcount=276

i get what you are saying. I think an older Chara and what amounts to the same team may be at best challenging for wild card. But I could be wrong.

 

[WalterSobchak]

That's not what was reported and it doesn't make sense either. Shattenkirk does not have a NTC or NMC, so it doesn't really matter where he will or won't sign. He has limited leverage.

perhaps but a Shatty for 1 year vs a Shatty that will resign long term is 2 vastly different returns in a trade.

 

[HuGo Sham]

This deal has to be contingent on Shatty resigning in Boston. The 3 C's boston has are a luxury and a lot of money tied up in that position...if they make this deal they better hope Backes doesn't decline quickly.

 

[BruinDust]

This deal has to be contingent on Shatty resigning in Boston. The 3 C's boston has are a luxury and a lot of money tied up in that position...if they make this deal they better hope Backes doesn't decline quickly.

No more of a luxury than Pittsburgh running Crosby/Malkin/Kessel on 3 separate lines.

Backes can and will be playing some RW as well.

Doesn't matter. This trade isn't happening. St.L can barely afford it under the cap as a one-for-one, can't afford it at all if they bring back Sobotka, and I can't see Boston taking additional money back given their cap needs for next season.

You can lock this one up now.

 

[Tim Vezina Thomas]

No more of a luxury than Pittsburgh running Crosby/Malkin/Kessel on 3 separate lines.

Backes can and will be playing some RW as well.

Doesn't matter. This trade isn't happening. St.L can barely afford it under the cap as a one-for-one, can't afford it at all if they bring back Sobotka, and I can't see Boston taking additional money back given their cap needs for next season.

You can lock this one up now.

Berglund has 1 year left on his deal. Including him could easily Make this deal Happen.

 

[BruinDust]

Berglund has 1 year left on his deal. Including him could easily Make this deal Happen.

So St. Louis are just going to toss him in then?

Shattenkirk + 1 year of Berglund for Krejci is terrible for Boston.