Jump to content
You are a guest user Click to join the site

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Kraken Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

BobbyClarkeFan16

Kevin Shattenkirk a target of the Flyers?

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, BobbyClarkeFan16 said:

 

Shatty won't block Sanheim or Morin next year. If anything, the acquisition of Shattenkirk would mean the Flyers can jettison Manning, Schultz, Streit and MDZ and you'd have something like this:

 

Provorov - Gudas

Morin - Gostisbehere

Sanheim - Shattenkirk

 

That's an incredible group of six that I think could be extremely successful and having two great mentors in Gudas and Shattenkirk. As well, as an opposing coach, you have to ask "who's the first pairing defenders" as any of those three pairs have top pairing upside. That's ridiculous and incredible depth.

 

I think the 3 bolded are gone regardless.  Why get rid of Manning?  He doesn't cost you much and he is perfect in a 5/6 D position.  Ghost is a RFA and will likely get a decent bridge contract.  If Provorov continues down his path he is going to eventually be owed a hefty increase.  You have to consider beyond next season.  I'd love to have Shattenkirk in O&B but not at the expense of being unable to lock up the homegrown D corps.  Also their defense as currently configured is currently near or leading the league in scoring by defense which is Shattenkirk's best trait.  If he comes in you can't round it off and say our D will score more.  He will just score more at the expense of our other Dmen.  To me you make moves to improve an area of weakness rather than loading up on a strength.

Edited by PhilsFanDrew
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BobbyClarkeFan16 said:

It's been reported that the St.Louis Blues have been scouting Flyers games for the past two months. If that's the case, I'm suspecting that it has to do with Kevin Shattenkirk. I posted on HF Boards what I would deal for Shattenkirk and it came to a consensus that any package would need to start with Brayden Schenn and then add in a piece like Robert Hagg and top it off with a first. If that's the case, would you do the deal?

 

 

If there's also a contract to go with Shattenkirk, I'm actually happy to trade Schenn for Shattenkirk, maybe even Schenn and Hagg, that just can't be the end of it.  If there's no contract, then forget the hell about it and trade Schenn later for something that will actually be around in a year.  

 

Hextall can only make such a trade if there is a big big move up front in the works or if he has a big name UFA that he knows he can get in July. 

 

I do think that a responsible guy with a good first pass like Shattenkirk will help stabilize our defense and enhance our offense.  You pull him in now, you don't have to worry about resigning MDZ or Streit... and while most of us aren't worried about resigning Streit, I do think his offense will be missed.  

 

In any event, say you have to give Shattenkirk 7 million for a few year deal.  Between Streit, MDZ and Schultz (all of whom wouldn't be necessary with the youth coming) you're saving 11.35 million or so, which leaves you with 4 million  to spend elsewhere.  If it's Schenn going in the deal, it leaves you with 9 million to spend elsewhere on replacing him.  

 

The problem I see is that I see absolutely NO ONE coming in the UFA pool who would really help us a ton.  I'd drop a few bucks for TJ Oshie, but he's not in any way shape or form the medicine this offense needs.  That kind of player is just hard to find. 

 

However, if you're willing to trade one of your blue chips, maybe you get yourself the guy you need.  And maybe trading for a career peak Shattenkirk makes trading a Sanheim or Morin less crazy than it sounds by itself.

 

What I will say is that outright, I don't like the idea.  I don't even like trading Hagg.  

However, when I look ahead and I see the Flyers as they are and the problems they're having, as the Defense gets better, the offense is just going to get older and the existing flaws are just going to be made more glaring.

 

So while I don't endorse this kind of a deal just yet, I will say that I think there is certainly more to it than a Clarkie/Homer "Win Now at all costs!" mentality.

 

Looking forward, if they're going to be good and win consistently in the next 5 years, something is going to need to be added to the top 6.  

 

Schenn has more than a few detractors from those who study the game and his overall play and frankly, they clearly don't know how best to use him or where he fits.  He's never going to be the guy they're currently missing, but he is valuable to the team.  The questions are:  If they trade him will the actually be able to find "the guy" they need AND Will the be able to make up for what losing Schenn costs them while finding that guy?

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, OccamsRazor said:

I'd rather use resources to get a guy who would fill a hole they have had awhile now.

 

I want a LW like Landeskog...let discuss a guy like him.

 

Flyers have Dmen prospect who will maybe given a shot next preseason...a long hard look then.

 

Flyers have no forward on the farm of Landeskog's caliber...

 

...my 2 cents.

 

I completely agree with two caveats:

 

-The Flyers D men prospects are assets as well.  The only real way at this point to get the kind of guy you're talking about might be trading one of them.  Acquiring Shattenkirk makes that a not insane idea.  

 

-It's not immediately apparent, but a solid D populated by guys like Provo, Shattenkirk, Sanheim, Morin, Gudas and even Ghost (who's two way has been more responsible lately) makes the scoring ability of guys like G, Jake, Simmer, Coots, and Raffl a lot better.   They don't need to cover as much (we won't need to lament as many goals being scored because Jake wasn't covering in front of the net well enough--something we should never need to complain about).  First passes are better and smarter more consistently, plus the young guys coming up are playing with one of the best in the game today.  Not a bad guy to learn from.  

 

I still think a deal like this has to have more to the plan than JUST this deal.  The will miss Schenn even though they still don't know what to do with him exactly.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with his signing, who are you suggesting they drop? It's likely they'll keep the young rookies that have been preforming well, we also have to wait and see if Morin and Sanheim are even worth the talk they're getting by throwing them into the fire of an NHL game. Unless Hextall works some magical deal that deals McDonald over like he did vinny I think it would hard to slot a slightly cheaper Kevin Shattenkirk under the hopes that he doesn't turn around and do the same thing Andrew has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the need to give something up to get something.

I don't think i like the idea of a huge blockbuster that sends Simmer to another team, simply because he is one of my current favorites.

 

I also don't know that I like the idea of trading Schenn.  The young fella produces, and his production has increased every year, in spite of the fact that the Flyers aren't sure where he fits.  So I wonder who replaces his scoring?  I don't see where there's another guy like Schenn in our system to replace his production.

Now #14 is a redundant asset and a good player,  he is a good two-way player, can play in all situations, makes players around him better...he would be a guy I would think about moving.   I can think of 2 dudes one in LV (Laughton) and another coming from Putinsylvania that could play the 3C , one of whom has legit upside to 2C (Rubstov) .  So for me, trading Courturier and a minor league prospect hurts the "now" less than trading Schenn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I understand the need to give something up to get something.

I don't think i like the idea of a huge blockbuster that sends Simmer to another team, simply because he is one of my current favorites.

 

I also don't know that I like the idea of trading Schenn.  The young fella produces, and his production has increased every year, in spite of the fact that the Flyers aren't sure where he fits.  So I wonder who replaces his scoring?  I don't see where there's another guy like Schenn in our system to replace his production.

Now #14 is a redundant asset and a good player,  he is a good two-way player, can play in all situations, makes players around him better...he would be a guy I would think about moving.   I can think of 2 dudes one in LV (Laughton) and another coming from Putinsylvania that could play the 3C , one of whom has legit upside to 2C (Rubstov) .  So for me, trading Courturier and a minor league prospect hurts the "now" less than trading Schenn.

 

Just curious, why would you think about moving the "two way player" that "can play in all situations"  and "makes the players around him better" before moving the guy they "aren't sure where he fits"?

 

Especially when if you take away Schenn's PP numbers (because Coots doesn't play the PP), Coots is outscoring him in thirteen fewer games.

 

The only place Schenn really fits is on the PP.  I shudder trading him too.  He's on pace for a 56 point season which is a decent amount.  However, as you said, They can't figure out how to use him.  Maybe getting a superior asset that makes the team better is a better way to use him?

 

I don't know.  I would have hoped his game and his role would have settled, but he seems to just be fairly undisciplined in his adherence to the system 5 on 5.  That's kind of important for this team.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

 

Ah nice looks like someone cleaned up the garbage around here.

 

Good point.

 

I guess the two way guy could have more value...maybe.

 

But are we talking about for Shatty or Landeskog?? I forget.

 

Fenuine questions!  Curious about his opinion.  Not trolling or trashing I promise.  I want no enemies here :)

 

i cant figure why we'd trade Schenn for Landeskog. 

 

Am am I missing something that should be more apparent?  Gabe just a natural wing the reason?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2017 at 2:13 PM, BobbyClarkeFan16 said:

 

Shatty won't block Sanheim or Morin next year. If anything, the acquisition of Shattenkirk would mean the Flyers can jettison Manning, Schultz, Streit and MDZ and you'd have something like this:

 

Provorov - Gudas

Morin - Gostisbehere

Sanheim - Shattenkirk

 

That's an incredible group of six that I think could be extremely successful and having two great mentors in Gudas and Shattenkirk. As well, as an opposing coach, you have to ask "who's the first pairing defenders" as any of those three pairs have top pairing upside. That's ridiculous and incredible depth.

I think this is a great "stir that stirs the drink" point.  The concern is of course that we're too thin up front to optimize benefit from it during the appropriate time frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the option really an additional defense men though? What are you proposing they do with MacDonald? Continue to pay him and send him down or is there an ideal trade like they did with Vinny where they can shed 50% of his contract without having to use a buy out? Morin and Sanheim have been waiting for 4 and 3 years now for their first NHL game, are they really ready to bank on them and shed guys like MDZ all for another nearly 5 million dollar a year defense men?

 

I feel like they'd be better off searching for a good winger than creating a defense men, the constant problem seems to be lack of offense. They're consistently trying to play from behind against a lot of teams they should be playing from in front of.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, terp said:

I think this is a great "stir that stirs the drink" point.  The concern is of course that we're too thin up front to optimize benefit from it during the appropriate time frame.

I'm don't exactly buy that we are too thin up front. 

 

I think a big part of our up front problem is irresponsible/ ineffective play on D requiring top 6 guys to contantly skate the full le goth of the ice several times a shift. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think Shattenkirk will improve the skating and overall play of the defense, I am not willing to part with Schenn for him. On the other hand, if we have to give up a Hagg or some other prospect + for Landeskog, I do that deal. Landeskog is the kind of hard skating power forward with puck skills that we need to stick on the left side of G and Jake.  He creates space for those two to operate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FD19372 said:

While I think Shattenkirk will improve the skating and overall play of the defense, I am not willing to part with Schenn for him. On the other hand, if we have to give up a Hagg or some other prospect + for Landeskog, I do that deal. Landeskog is the kind of hard skating power forward with puck skills that we need to stick on the left side of G and Jake.  He creates space for those two to operate.

All do respect when I type this but.... If you are unwilling to part with Schenn for Shattenkirk then why would you think Avs fans would be okay parting with Landeskog for Hagg and "some other prospect" ?

 

Hagg is still an unproven yet decent potential prospect and the way you typed "some other prospect" you made it sound like it was an add in throw away piece like some 7th round minor league scrub for a proven Landeskog...

Edited by Philly29
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Philly29 said:

All do respect when I type this but.... If you are unwilling to part with Schenn for Shattenkirk then why would you think Avs fans would be okay parting with Landeskog for Hagg and "some other prospect" ?

 

Hagg is still an unproven yet decent potential prospect and the way you typed "some other prospect" you made it sound like it was an add in throw away piece like some 7th round minor league scrub for a proven Landeskog...

I said some Hagg, some other prospect +.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, FD19372 said:

I said some Hagg, some other prospect +.

Again why would you think that would be enough to land Landeskog???

 

A little vague no?

Edited by Philly29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@King Knut

 

I'm not sold on Landeskog personally.  I don't know whether his horrible season is because the team stinks or if the team stinks because of his (and some others') horrible season.   I'm inclined to think it's not specifically Landeskog, but who really knows? 

 

But this is addressed to you because of the "why Schenn?"  question. 

 

I'm just posting this link because the info (point of view?)  would make me tempted. 

 

Hidden Content

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Hidden Content

THIS^^^

Edited by Philly29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks. Not interested. Just stick with our defensive prospects and hope they develop into what we want 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 9:22 PM, PuckMeister said:

While we are dreaming, why not contact the Avs for Duchene and Landeskog for Mason, Schenn, McDonald, and Del Zotto.  We wind up with a center and LW, bring up Stolie the Goalie and Sanheim.  You could substitute Schultz or Streit then bring up Brennan. Just my dream. 

 

Like they say...Dream Big or go home ..... :smileyandcomputer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

@King Knut

 

I'm not sold on Landeskog personally.  I don't know whether his horrible season is because the team stinks or if the team stinks because of his (and some others') horrible season.   I'm inclined to think it's not specifically Landeskog, but who really knows? 

 

But this is addressed to you because of the "why Schenn?"  question. 

 

I'm just posting this link because the info (point of view?)  would make me tempted. 

 

Hidden Content

 

 

Yeah, I had seen that and saved the link but hadn't gotten back to read it yet.  Thanks for posting the link. 

 

That at makes me even more tempted as well.  I mean the PP is what's killing it.  He scores in the PP.  Now I'll just add that nonone's been scoring much on the PP since Streit went out which is in my mind another threading to go for shattenkirk since we don't really expect them to extend streit (though honestly if there's no blockbuster shatty trade I'd still be up for a year at a low rate for Streit.  Their pp has just suffered horribly without him).  

 

But yeah, I see your point.   I don't know... I'm kinda liking the idea of this deal.  It all depends on what shatty wants and if he'll sign st the time of the trade. 

 

If he doesnt, there's no way in hell I'd do it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, King Knut said:

 

Yeah, I had seen that and saved the link but hadn't gotten back to read it yet.  Thanks for posting the link. 

 

That at makes me even more tempted as well.  I mean the PP is what's killing it.  He scores in the PP.  Now I'll just add that nonone's been scoring much on the PP since Streit went out which is in my mind another threading to go for shattenkirk since we don't really expect them to extend streit (though honestly if there's no blockbuster shatty trade I'd still be up for a year at a low rate for Streit.  Their pp has just suffered horribly without him).  

 

But yeah, I see your point.   I don't know... I'm kinda liking the idea of this deal.  It all depends on what shatty wants and if he'll sign st the time of the trade. 

 

If he doesnt, there's no way in hell I'd do it.  

Yeah, I'm completely with you here...including the not being sure, the caveats and all.

 

I don't trade Schenn willy-nilly, but he could be a movable piece that could be attractive enough to another team to get you the dman or even the scoring winger.    

 

As for Streit, yeah the PP has definitely struggled without him.  Color me a little surprised.  Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but I am.   Part of it is I guess coming in I -- maybe unreasonably -- expected a bit more production out of Ghost.  No, this isn't a "Trade Ghost!"  and it's probably typical second year stuff.   It's probably also because anything would pale next to the incredible year last year.   But he hasn't produced the same and Provorov isn't quite ready for that role.

 

I'd like to use Streit as a trade piece at the deadline, but if they were to keep him on a 1-year at a lower rate I wouldn't be opposed either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RJ8812 said:

No thanks. Not interested. Just stick with our defensive prospects and hope they develop into what we want 

 

Its counterintuitive, but the poor defense is I think a major part of our scoring problems.   Bringing these kids up now isn't going to help the porous defens for a couple of years.  

 

these kids are our biggest asset.  Trading one may the the only way to get the sniper LW this team has been missing for a decade and a half. 

 

Acquiring shattenkirk enables the trading of one of the kids in exchange for a goal scorer.  Also gives the remaining kids someone special to play beside and learn from. 

 

It goes against the big contract fears I have, but I'm tempted.  

 

Schenn is having trouble and I just can't figure out a way to acquire more on offense that doesn't involve a strategy of getting lucky with a grabber type acquisition. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like Shatt, but I'd be very apprehensive about trading one of our dmen prospects for him. I'm not sure he's a game changer who would make PHI an instant contender. If he were, then I'd look at it differently. As it stands, he's in line for a substantial contract with whoever he signs next. Given the glut of incoming blue line talent, I'd be worried if that contract came from PHI.

 

I have a feeling he'll be getting 7mil or more with this next signing, and he'll be looking for decent term as well. I'm not sure Hex wants to lock a guy up for that price over 5-6 years or whatever. Not when someone like Sanheim is projected to be a similar style player. It's a projection of course, but even if he doesn't pan out, there's also Myers. Hell, Gost provides the same style already. He's having a down year, but there's no reason to believe he won't bounce back next year.

 

Don't get me wrong, Shatt is good. I just think PHI already has that element. We have the most pts coming from dmen of any team this year. I don't see Shatt as filling a gap on this team right now. If anything, he would just contribute to a potential logjam of offensive dmen mid-way through his contract.

 

I do get the frustration. I just don't think Shatt is the answer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, King Knut said:

Just curious, why would you think about moving the "two way player" that "can play in all situations"  and "makes the players around him better" before moving the guy they "aren't sure where he fits"?

 

Especially when if you take away Schenn's PP numbers (because Coots doesn't play the PP), Coots is outscoring him in thirteen fewer games.

 

This is a great point, and the blog post @ruxpin posted muddies my thoughts about this further.

I think in large part my thinking about trading Couturier vs Schenn had to do with how the team played in #14's absence. 

 

The Broadstreet article really reinforced thoughts I have had about Schenn's lines though. Frequently Schenn's units are the line that gets hemmed into the d-zone and chases the play. It is a thing I've  noticed for years but was always willing to spread the blame among his linemates especially when he's with Simmer. Now Simmer's taking PK duty so the deficiencies of the Schenn lines...are probably not because of Wayne's defensive acumen. The article pinpoints the neutral zone as where !0 isn't great, and because of that his 5 v 5 numbers blow so badly he's bringing the whole team down. 

 

I think it would be interesting to see Schenn used as the article says in a bottom 6 role and see what happens, I also think that Hakstol has done that with him from time to time and I've seen people criticizing the move. !0 is a conundrum he does a lot of things "okay" but excels at nothing, he does have a nose for scoring though and for whatever reason I value guys like that. All Chris Carter ever did was catch touchdowns.  Schenn scores goals. After the article though I think I'd be fine with trading him for a win/win return.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Schenn, MacDonald (we retain say 50% of salary), and a 3rd since we have Boston's 3rd round pick from the Rinaldo trade (this still cracks me up).  The Blues don't WANT to trade Shattenkirk as they are a playoff team, but it makes sense longterm.  The Blues get an NHL caliber dman (and he is just that, just paid entirely too much), an upgrade at the offense, and a draft pick.

 

As I type this I realize the cap numbers wouldn't work... Blues would be $2.11 million over the cap DOH!  

 

A Schenn + prospects/picks for Shattenkirk would only leave them with $.388 left, yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

This is a great point, and the blog post @ruxpin posted muddies my thoughts about this further.

I think in large part my thinking about trading Couturier vs Schenn had to do with how the team played in #14's absence. 

 

The Broadstreet article really reinforced thoughts I have had about Schenn's lines though. Frequently Schenn's units are the line that gets hemmed into the d-zone and chases the play. It is a thing I've  noticed for years but was always willing to spread the blame among his linemates especially when he's with Simmer. Now Simmer's taking PK duty so the deficiencies of the Schenn lines...are probably not because of Wayne's defensive acumen. The article pinpoints the neutral zone as where !0 isn't great, and because of that his 5 v 5 numbers blow so badly he's bringing the whole team down. 

 

I think it would be interesting to see Schenn used as the article says in a bottom 6 role and see what happens, I also think that Hakstol has done that with him from time to time and I've seen people criticizing the move. !0 is a conundrum he does a lot of things "okay" but excels at nothing, he does have a nose for scoring though and for whatever reason I value guys like that. All Chris Carter ever did was catch touchdowns.  Schenn scores goals. After the article though I think I'd be fine with trading him for a win/win return.

 

I think this is well stated.  

I'm really warming to the idea of trading him, but I keep coming back to the top six conundrum.  If they trade him, there needs to be another deal on the horizon to A) replace his scoring and B) do i with a guy who has the potential to be a better 5 on 5 guy among the top 6.

 

In my mind, that enables Raffl to fall back to the third line (where his skill set makes the most sense IMHO) and hopefully enhance the overall play of all three top lines in the process.  Meanwhile,  Shattenkirk's addition to the Defense and Sanheim/Brennan/Morin/Hagg (whoever's left)  joining the team next year... I don't know.  I kinda like it.  

 

The question is, how much would Shattenkirk want to sign for and who could we get for that top 6 role?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 7
      Post
      I'd rather use resources to get a guy who would fill a hole they have had awhile now.   I want a LW like Landeskog...let discuss a guy like him.   Flyers have Dmen prospect who will maybe given a shot next preseason...a long hard look then.   Flyers have no forward on the farm of Landeskog's caliber...   ...my 2 cents.
    • 7
      Post
      Ummm. Actually he was.  We just didn't like him.  But he was a pretty good player and a half decent two way center.   Our hatred on these boards always confused me.  We'd kill for a 2C like him now.   
    • 7
      Post
      But we don't. The first line was the most productive it's been when he was on the LW with Simmonds on the right. In fact, Simmonds was on a tear at the beginning of the season this year when that was the layout, but Giroux struggled and so did Schenn coming off his suspension. So Hakstol broke it up (after what, 5 games?) and has since insisted on playing Schenn at C where he has shown himself to be less adept than at wing. And now we're back to looking for a top line LW to play with Giroux, and
    • 6
      Post
      I'm not doing Steen.   He's on the downswing and the slope is steep.  He's 20 minutes from breaking down.  No way I include Simmonds in a deal involving Steen.   And I don't include him at all, actually.
    • 4
      Post
      We did have a Schenn problem, but we traded it.   Nicely said.
    • 4
      Post
      Are we talking about the party with Temple girls, the seduction of Hartnell's wife or the conjecture of illicit drug use?  Which urban legends are you referring to?    

Game Room 1

    You don't have permission to chat.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...