Tim Vezina Thomas
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2009
- 11,342
- 629
Proposal: STL - BOS, Shattenkirk, Pastrnak
- Thread starter Beninnola
- Start date
- Status
Majorityof1
Registered User
I was unsure about the sheltering because it seemed weird. Like you say, it impossible to get sheltered when paired with Bergeron. It was just the impression I got, and stuck out because it was odd. So I just checked the stats. 5v5 Bergeron has 26.2% defensive zone face-offs v. 38.6% offensive this year. That is a stark departure from his norm. In the past 8 years he's never been below 32.2% defensive zone starts with several seasons above 35%. He may be still getting the top lines though. I don't know a good site for mid-season QoC stats. The GF/60 numbers of his opponents (when not against him) is the lowest its been in his career though. That's not dispositive, but telling. Backes is getting heavier defensive zone starts. He and Krejci are above 35% each. So they seem to be doing more of the lifting to help take the load off of the Bergeron line. I know you don't like advanced stats, but they somewhat support what I saw.
As for the stamina/fatigue, it may not happen. It's just a common thing for rookies as they aren't used to the long season. Pastrnak only played 50-something games last year, so this could be his first 80 game season (knock on wood he stays healthy). Carrying extra muscle also tends to adversely effect ones stamina, especially when it is gained rapidly and you aren't used to it. In time, he can grow accustomed to both, as he is still very young. But this year, that is a lot of new stresses and I wouldn't be surprised if he hits a bit of a wall. Time will tell.
wintersej
Registered User
The usage of the Bergeron line has been fascinating this year. Normally buried in the defensive zone, the fact that his line is the Bruins best scoring line (with Marchand and Pasta) has lead to bizzaro land faceoff numbers. QoC is kind of a garbage in/garbage out stat, though. If first liners play first liners they average a Corsi For % of 50%. If 4th liners play 4th liners, they average a Corsi For % of 50%. That doesn't mean they all played the same QoC, though.
In the case of Chara you are wrong.
http://www.espn.com/boston/nhl/news/story?id=5665335
Because the deal takes Chara past the 40-year-old age threshold -- he will turn 41 three months before the deal expires on June 30, 2018 -- the "Ilya Kovalchuk rule," amended in the collective bargaining agreement last month, applies.
The cap hit on Chara's contract will be $6.917 million in the first six years of the deal and $4 million in the final season under the new rule signed by the NHL and NHLPA last month, according to ESPN.com's Pierre LeBrun.
Both Chiarelli and Chara acknowledged that the deal might have been done earlier if not for the Kovalchuk rule.
"Certainly it was something that we looked at when you go into the longer term you see how that ruling will impact your negotiations," Chiarelli said. "But this is a seven-year deal; it's a long time and we're happy to have Z for that long."
Last edited:
wintersej
Registered User
BruinsFan1990
Registered User
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
Just IMO - but the Rangers were getting 1.5 years of Yandle, and the Yotes retained 50% of his contract. If the Blues move Shattenkirk in a deadline rental deal - he'll get a premium deadline return (1st + good prospect), but IMO the Yandle deal isn't a comparable at all.
BruinLVGA
Next: CZ SP-01 Tactical!
In the last 6 seasons, only 6 defenseman have hit the 60 point mark. Half of those players also have a Norris. The other 3 are Letang, Burns, and Josi.
That's actually scored points, not stats based on an assumed (but very unlikely) pace. But keep trying to trash Shattenkirk....
In the past 20 seasons:
- players who got at least 58 goals: 3 players (4 seasons. Bure with 2 of them)
- seasons by defensemen with at least 55 points (fits perfectly my "close to 60 points" you quoted): 95 (ninety-five) seasons... I ain't going to count the players, if you have the time you do it.
In the past 10 seasons, same parameters as above:
- 2 players (in a season each)
- 54 (fifty-four) seasons
In the past 5 seasons, same exercise:
- 1 player
- 19 (nineteen) seasons
Now tell me again how being on pace for 58 goals and being on pace for a 60ish points season for a defenseman are things that have more or less the same degree of difficulty (because this is what you are inferring).
Oh wait, forgot the emoji...
PS: pace is what it is. An indication of performance over a certain amount of time/games. It is interesting that you laugh about talking about pace for goals, then talk about 60 points or thereabouts for defensemen' PACE for Shattenkirk. And say it is "scored points": when did Shattenkirk ever get even in the same zip code as 60 points?
And if you are talking about seasons that happened, instead... See above. Scoring 58 goals happens once in a blue moon (5 years on average), defensemen getting to near 60 points happens EVERY YEAR, by MULTIPLE PLAYERS. Any way you spin it, it comes out against you anyway.
And to be frank, I don't care about Shattenkirk. Therefore I have no need to try and trash him. What he does is excellently covered for us by Krug anyway and most likely for a lot less money. You keep your pipe dream that Shattenkirk would get you Pastrnak. It ain't gonna happen.
Last edited:
TK 421
Barbashev eats babies pass it on
- Sep 12, 2007
- 6,621
- 6,465
Pastrnak is a huge piece at forward for the Bruins so obviously no way would they part with him.
In any case as a Blues fan I would rather target centers as the primary return for Shattenkirk. Prospect center + pick or younger center with a few seasons of NHL experience but yet to truly breakout seem like reasonable targets. If we end up with purely futures at the deadline I'm fine with that too. The only scenario that would **** me off would be keeping him for a PO run that likely wouldn't result in a Cup Win anyway. He'll be a huge trade chip at the deadline and it would be criminal of Doug Armstrong to pass on taking advantage of the dumb GM' s who overpay in futures every year for defensemen way less valuable than Shattenkirk.
In any case as a Blues fan I would rather target centers as the primary return for Shattenkirk. Prospect center + pick or younger center with a few seasons of NHL experience but yet to truly breakout seem like reasonable targets. If we end up with purely futures at the deadline I'm fine with that too. The only scenario that would **** me off would be keeping him for a PO run that likely wouldn't result in a Cup Win anyway. He'll be a huge trade chip at the deadline and it would be criminal of Doug Armstrong to pass on taking advantage of the dumb GM' s who overpay in futures every year for defensemen way less valuable than Shattenkirk.
Hictor Vedman*
Unregistered Hedman
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,919
- 16,366
Cap hits don't just drop.
Yes, they do, just google the 40 age rule. For a player that is 40+, their salary becomes their cap hit.
wintersej
Registered User
Cap hits don't just drop.
I love it when a mocking asshat post like this one backfires on the person.
Sheriff Bert
Blash is Trash
Good point, I forgot about the salary retention.
I guess what I was getting at there was that a defender is worth a lot more from precedent. So the original offer wouldn't cut it unless the Blues were stuck at the deadline.
Jorah Marshmont
Long may he reign
- May 10, 2012
- 4,706
- 3,140
Tim Vezina Thomas
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2009
- 11,342
- 629
I really enjoy when people say "the cap hit drops to $4mm for Chara" because I know some uninformed poster will mock that poster about it.
I always just
I always just
I really enjoy when people say "the cap hit drops to $4mm for Chara" because I know some uninformed poster will mock that poster about it.
I always just
It gets those posters every time.
Cap hits don't just drop.
Probably won't see you again in this thread.
After informing multiple posters about the "age 40 rule", you still couldn't help but be completely ignorant to the fact. Nice job
In the past 20 seasons:
- players who got at least 58 goals: 3 players (4 seasons. Bure with 2 of them)
- seasons by defensemen with at least 55 points (fits perfectly my "close to 60 points" you quoted): 95 (ninety-five) seasons... I ain't going to count the players, if you have the time you do it.
In the past 10 seasons, same parameters as above:
- 2 players (in a season each)
- 54 (fifty-four) seasons
In the past 5 seasons, same exercise:
- 1 player
- 19 (nineteen) seasons
Now tell me again how being on pace for 58 goals and being on pace for a 60ish points season for a defenseman are things that have more or less the same degree of difficulty (because this is what you are inferring).
Oh wait, forgot the emoji...
PS: pace is what it is. An indication of performance over a certain amount of time/games. It is interesting that you laugh about talking about pace for goals, then talk about 60 points or thereabouts for defensemen' PACE for Shattenkirk. And say it is "scored points": when did Shattenkirk ever get even in the same zip code as 60 points?
And if you are talking about seasons that happened, instead... See above. Scoring 58 goals happens once in a blue moon (5 years on average), defensemen getting to near 60 points happens EVERY YEAR, by MULTIPLE PLAYERS. Any way you spin it, it comes out against you anyway.
And to be frank, I don't care about Shattenkirk. Therefore I have no need to try and trash him. What he does is excellently covered for us by Krug anyway and most likely for a lot less money. You keep your pipe dream that Shattenkirk would get you Pastrnak. It ain't gonna happen.
You're changing your argument now though. Shattenkirk is on pace for 60 points. Not 55. So I have no idea why you are posting numbers for players with 55 point averages, other than to make your argument look better. That would be the equivalent of me stating that 58 goal pace is really only about 50 goals, and then pointing out that there have been 4 players (6 total seasons) of a player scoring 50 goals over the last 6 years, which is comparable to the 60 point defenseman narrative.
Never did I once say that I expected to get Pastrnak for Shattenkirk. I simply said that your response of Krug for Tarasenko is much further off than the Shattenkirk for Pasrtnak idea. Which so far you have done nothing to disprove this so.....
wintersej
Registered User
Well, we can say that Pasta has been better than Tarasenko was at this age. And we can also say that Tarasenko has a much bigger contract. And we can say that Shattenkirk is a pending UFA, while Krug is signed long term. And yada yada, which I have no interest in.
It's impossible for exactly do the "X for Y is the same as N for Q trade" argument, but I think the point is correctly made that Boston fans are rightfully as incredulous about the OP as Blues fans would be if it was Krug for Tarasenko. Pastrnak is our Tarasenko. Krug may not be equal to Shattenkirk, but I'd wager he has more trade value right now across the league due to contract security.
BruinLVGA
Next: CZ SP-01 Tactical!
I am not changing a darn thing: in MY post you quoted & disputed, I clearly mentioned "because a significant number of D get close to (or surpass) 60 points". Emphasis on "close to". And to further expand on that 55 points: in my book that number of points fits perfectly a definition of "close to 60 points".
That is EXACTLY the statement that you are disputing because you actually made a point to BOLD it. Dispute MY statement, don't change the goal posts to fit your narrative best.
And in ANY darn case, the concept doesn't change one tiny bit even if you use 60 points. The FACT is still that someone scoring 58 goals is a MUCH rarer event than a defenseman putting up 60 points. How you can dispute this, astonishes me.
Ah. I have done nothing eh? Let me REPEAT it: offensive D, outstanding PP QB, good for 40-45 points (Krug, Shattenkirk) for the current best player of the other team (Pastrnak, Tarasenko). And there's a few other things about these 4 players (age... contracts... contract expectations... ppg in relation to Pastrnak/Tarasenko, etc etc. But FFS, this might get even more tiring, so I will politely decline to research more things about similarities, OK?).
I will not repeat this another time, make a note of it.
Last edited:
BruinLVGA
Next: CZ SP-01 Tactical!
Thank you. Exactly my line of thinking.
PS: ...and Krug is younger than Shattenkirk, Pastrnak than Tarasenko... Tarasenko wasn't even in the NHL at 20...
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,919
- 16,366
Don't overly complicate comparisons, Pasta is your Fabbri, and we wouldn't trade Fabbri for Shattenkirk if we were in your situation. It's as simple as that, and the vast majority of Blues fans agree with it.
Evocable Manager
Registered User
- Status
