Speculation: Shattenkirk & Fowler?
- Thread starter McPhatty00
- Start date
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,940
- 16,394
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 34,202
- 12,334
I don't think there is any urgent need to move either one on either team's part.
McPhatty00
Registered User
McPhatty00
Registered User
There's no way Fowler would be moved at the deadline. He'll either be moved this off-season or the next one. The only way he'd be traded at the deadline would be is if the Ducks were way behind in the playoff race. I could see us regressing, but since the Pacific is weak, I don't see us being that far out of it, so no way will they move a core piece like Fowler midseason.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,940
- 16,394
And he would've received Hall because of it if Shattenkirk was willing to sign with Edmonton, but he didn't want to be there.
Shattenkirk is either moved at a high price now, as the top rental at the deadline, or we keep him as our "rental" for a playoff run.
McPhatty00
Registered User
And neither will get it.
Both guys will end up moving for less than what was expected almost certainly. Fowler will get traded for less. Shattenkirk will walk or have his rights moved.
Depends on whether Bieksa will waive, but even if he doesn't I can't imagine them going at 'drastically reduced rates'. Is the need for defensemen going to suddenly disappear? I don't think it will.
McPhatty00
Registered User
McDonald19
Registered User
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,940
- 16,394
McPhatty00
Registered User
McPhatty00
Registered User
When is the deadline for players to have to be eligible? Is it not an option to trade him before that happens?
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,940
- 16,394
And what's the point of your OP? You are asking a question if their GM will purposely hold on to them, just to trade them at a lower rate. If that was their plan, they'd just accept the value now.
Shattenkirk walking just means that whatever was offered to the Blues wasn't worth downgrading their team this year. There's nothing wrong with that.
Fowler will get traded for less than what? I actually think Fowler will be traded for much more than people think, but I also think many Duck fans, including myself, will be upset because the deal won't make us better now.
Life is tough. To Anaheim, Fowler is worth more than that. In the East, he apparently isn't. I'd rather he leave through expansion and help our team in one last season than bring back a door prize.
Was that confirmed? Maybe GMBM didn't want to move Fowler for the 1st. I don't think we know for sure.
Confirmed, no? Dregger and Freidman speculated that Buffalo and Montreal didn't want to give up their top 10 picks. No reason to discuss that here though. Will just turn into a "Fowler is a #4 defenseman" thread.
I could see Shattenkirk staying in St. Louis more than Fowler in Anaheim.
I think the ducks are so deep with d prospects they would be best to trade him for a Perron replacement.
I think the ducks are so deep with d prospects they would be best to trade him for a Perron replacement.
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 34,202
- 12,334
I think Shattenkirk is too expensive for St.Louis to keep and doesn't work as Pietrangelo and Parayko can easily handle the top 2 RD slots.
They could maybe trade Shattenkirk for a talented LD to balance things out. Given the budget of St.Louis etc though, I don't see it working out there.
Fowler may stay in Anaheim but they have to figure out how to get rid of Stoner.
