Toggle sidebar

Rumor: Shattenkirk for Krejci?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mad Brills*
  • Start date Start date
Kitchener Boy said:
Yes but Krejci married a Boston girl and has a home there and a baby now.
He's happy can't see it.
Click to expand...

The Bruins just acquired a guy who dedicated a huge part of his life to living in St. Louis because it was better for his career. Also being born somewhere doesn't mean your life is always going to be about staying there or finding a way to come back home.
 
HighNote said:
We know that Krejci has a NMC, but we don't know if he'd waive it or not. Anyone who says "he won't," or "he will," is just guessing.
Click to expand...

I was responding to the fact that someone said that there was no point in discussing a real barrier to any Krejci for Shattenkirk swap. Sure, we dont know if Krejci would waive, but it certainly merits discussion. God knows there arent any other pointless discussions going on in the trade rumors forum....I will go back to my troll hole now.
 
Kitchener Boy said:
You added the "no point discussing it"

You can discuss it all you want.
Click to expand...

Yes...the no trade clause. Not the swap. I'm not even a fan of the trade, and while the NTC is a hurdle, us fans have no real insight as to what Krecji would do.
 
oStealthKiller said:
The market has changed. Das be the price rn. When enough teams scoff at it it'll return to normal
Click to expand...

Not exactly true, the situations are completely different. Both teams need defence help badly but Edm had to blow the socks off of NJ to get Larsson because he was an integral part of the future plans for NJ. I dont think that's the case with STL as they have 2 superior RHD ahead of him and he wants to get paid like a top pairing guy.
 
bearcountry17 said:
Not exactly true, the situations are completely different. Both teams need defence help badly but Edm had to blow the socks off of NJ to get Larsson because he was an integral part of the future plans for NJ. I dont think that's the case with STL as they have 2 superior RHD ahead of him and he wants to get paid like a top pairing guy.
Click to expand...

You'd think so, but why hasn't he been moved? I think Armstrong is trying to take advantage of what the market is right now, but him and other gms doing this will ultimately result in a return to normal because like u said, situations are different for different teams and few if any will pay what is required at this juncture
 
PatriceBergeronFan said:
A #1 center for a #3 defenseman isn't a good deal -- as desperate as Boston is for non-bottom pairing defensemen.
Click to expand...

You can't call Krejci a #1 when you've also got Bergeron, and then turn around and call Shattenkirk a #3 because the Blues have Petro. Shattenkirk would be a first pairing defender on quite a few teams, just like Krejci would be a #1 C on a lot of teams.
 
bluetuned said:
You can't call Krejci a #1 when you've also got Bergeron, and then turn around and call Shattenkirk a #3 because the Blues have Petro. Shattenkirk would be a first pairing defender on quite a few teams, just like Krejci would be a #1 C on a lot of teams.
Click to expand...

Teams can have two #1C. If Krejci is not a #1C by performance, then :help:
 
BruinLVGA said:
Chiarelli overpayment for Larsson =/= current market value.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

That was the price for Larsson, a player the Devils had no intention or requirement to move as he was signed to a cap-friendly long-term deal. That deal was the definition of "ever player is technically available for the right price".

I don't see that deal having any baring on the market value for other RD like Shattenkirk with different circumstances.
 
BruinDust said:
Bruins didn't bring in Backes just to deal Krejci.

He was brought in to compliment Krejci and Bergeron.

I don't believe this rumor for one second.

The media has been spit-balling Krejci being available ever since Backes was signed. Completely ignoring the fact that Backes can play RW, and Boston signed him to give them a formidable two-way three-headed monster up the middle, on a team and coach that puts significant defensive responsibility on their centers.
Click to expand...

You are right about the 3 headed-monster, you guys look great down the middle. But you have a lot of good centers, but could'nt you role with Bergeron, Backe, Spooner and maybe get some help on d by trading away Krejci?
 
KirkOut said:
please explain Shattenkirk=#3 defenseman
Click to expand...

At even strength, he is 44th in points per minute over the past 3 seasons. 60th in total points (due to his time out). Lets say he is "solid but not spectacular" defensively. I think its unfair to call him a number 3. He is a number 2 with elite power play skills. But, calling him a #1 is just as inaccurate as calling him a #3. Krejci is a #1 by any metric.
 
wintersej said:
At even strength, he is 44th in points per minute over the past 3 seasons. 60th in total points (due to his time out). Lets say he is "solid but not spectacular" defensively. I think its unfair to call him a number 3. He is a number 2 with elite power play skills. But, calling him a #1 is just as inaccurate as calling him a #3. Krejci is a #1 by any metric.
Click to expand...

Luckily PP points count too in hockey. He's one of the best in that aspect of the game. He's a low end #1, or a high end #2.
 
Shattenkirk is a top 20/30 defenseman. Krejci is a top 20/30 center. Spin it however you want, but Shattenkirk would become your best defenseman as Krejci would become our best center.
 
KirkOut said:
Luckily PP points count too in hockey. He's one of the best in that aspect of the game. He's a low end #1, or a high end #2.
Click to expand...

#1? IMO thats reaching.

Definite top pair, but #1 typically needs to be great defensively too and I wouldnt call Shatty great.

Ideally he wouldn't be on your first PK unit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom