Buffalo Rick Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Trade rumors are that Shattenkirk will be moved. The Blues have not lost since firing Hitchcock and have been posting shutouts as both goalies have been good. I still believe they are a team that can win the Cup or at least get there to face the Capitals. The Wild will be tough also. i really think that is your Western final. Blues and Wild. The Blues have been red hot since Hitchcok was let go. A 6-0 demolishment of Ottawa included, and yet they are saying Shattenkirk is going to be moved. I would expect a very good return for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notfondajane Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 On 2/13/2017 at 9:55 AM, Hockey Junkie said: Trade rumors are that Shattenkirk will be moved. The Blues have not lost since firing Hitchcock and have been posting shutouts as both goalies have been good. I still believe they are a team that can win the Cup or at least get there to face the Capitals. The Wild will be tough also. i really think that is your Western final. Blues and Wild. The Blues have been red hot since Hitchcok was let go. A 6-0 demolishment of Ottawa included, and yet they are saying Shattenkirk is going to be moved. I would expect a very good return for him? Didn't the Pens beat the Blues 4-1 under Mike Yeo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted February 24, 2017 Author Share Posted February 24, 2017 32 minutes ago, notfondajane said: Didn't the Pens beat the Blues 4-1 under Mike Yeo? I believe St Louis beat them in Pittsburgh last meeting. They did lose in Buffalo last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 On 2/13/2017 at 9:55 AM, Hockey Junkie said: Trade rumors are that Shattenkirk will be moved. The Blues have not lost since firing Hitchcock and have been posting shutouts as both goalies have been good. I still believe they are a team that can win the Cup or at least get there to face the Capitals. The Wild will be tough also. i really think that is your Western final. Blues and Wild. The Blues have been red hot since Hitchcok was let go. A 6-0 demolishment of Ottawa included, and yet they are saying Shattenkirk is going to be moved. I would expect a very good return for him? It looks as if he wants to test the FA market as apparently he has nixed 3 possible trade scenarios thus far to the Oilers, Coyotes and now Tampa Bay. Thus it surely appears as if he's not signing a trade and extension now. The Blues then will have to decide if he is better on their team for the remainder of the season and Playoffs or getting the price of a rental player elsewhere. Because they won't be getting as much for him as they'd like. My guess is he will sign with the Rangers in the summer once they move some players to make cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 27 minutes ago, hf101 said: It looks as if he wants to test the FA market as apparently he has nixed 3 possible trade scenarios thus far to the Oilers, Coyotes and now Tampa Bay. Thus it surely appears as if he's not signing a trade and extension now. The Blues then will have to decide if he is better on their team for the remainder of the season and Playoffs or getting the price of a rental player elsewhere. Because they won't be getting as much for him as they'd like. My guess is he will sign with the Rangers in the summer once they move some players to make cap space. I hope he doesn't come to Toronto. Whenever I see players scrapping trades like that and saying he won't play in Canada, it pisses me off. The guy seems like a primadonna, and I don't think he's as good as he thinks he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 1 minute ago, WordsOfWisdom said: I hope he doesn't come to Toronto. Whenever I see players scrapping trades like that and saying he won't play in Canada, it pisses me off. The guy seems like a primadonna, and I don't think he's as good as he thinks he is. I hear ya, but he is from NY. Other Canadians have done the same. How about when the Flyers gave up a pick to Nashville to coax Dan Hamhuis to play in Philly, but he had no intentions to play anywhere other than Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 3 hours ago, hf101 said: I hear ya, but he is from NY. Other Canadians have done the same. How about when the Flyers gave up a pick to Nashville to coax Dan Hamhuis to play in Philly, but he had no intentions to play anywhere other than Vancouver. I really think the NHL should push to make city or team-specific no-trade clauses illegal. It's OKAY for a player to have a no-trade clause, but I think it oversteps the boundaries of what is good business in the NHL and their 30 brands for a player to selectively exclude locations. I think it's a black mark on the league. The attitude fans want to see (whether real or illusion) is that a player would be thrilled to play on any team in the NHL. When players start acting as agents and removing locations, it's not only hard on their team to trade them, but it creates the view that they're too good for the league and fans should be happy if they show up at all. That's not the right mentality for players to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said: I really think the NHL should push to make city or team-specific no-trade clauses illegal. It's OKAY for a player to have a no-trade clause, but I think it oversteps the boundaries of what is good business in the NHL and their 30 brands for a player to selectively exclude locations. I think it's a black mark on the league. The attitude fans want to see (whether real or illusion) is that a player would be thrilled to play on any team in the NHL. When players start acting as agents and removing locations, it's not only hard on their team to trade them, but it creates the view that they're too good for the league and fans should be happy if they show up at all. That's not the right mentality for players to have. Yeah I get what you are saying, but... the key here with Shattenkirk is he has earned the right to become a free agent in July where he can choose to play where he wants. What kid doesn't dream of playing for his favorite team someday? The Blues want to get something for him as he doesn't plan to return to St Louis with a new deal. They can get the most value in a deal if they trade him now with him choosing to sign an extension with the new team. But he has nixed 3 potential deals now mainly because he want's to choose the deal he wants for basically the rest of his career. I can't blame him for that as these are the benefits of becoming a free agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, hf101 said: Yeah I get what you are saying, but... the key here with Shattenkirk is he has earned the right to become a free agent in July where he can choose to play where he wants. What kid doesn't dream of playing for his favorite team someday? The Blues want to get something for him as he doesn't plan to return to St Louis with a new deal. They can get the most value in a deal if they trade him now with him choosing to sign an extension with the new team. But he has nixed 3 potential deals now mainly because he want's to choose the deal he wants for basically the rest of his career. I can't blame him for that as these are the benefits of becoming a free agent. Ah. That's a different story though. A free agent can select their location during the off-season, but that's not the same as a no-trade clause with selective teams. The way this should work is as follows: A player with a no-trade clause can't be traded anywhere (unless the player waives it). If a player waives their no-trade clause, then they can be traded anywhere. A player without a no-trade clause can be traded anywhere. During the off-season, a free agent can decide where they will play and which offer they will accept. Shattenkirk is not a free agent right now. He is under contract. Therefore, he should be forced to play wherever the Blues trade him to. After his current contract expires and he becomes a free agent, then he can decide where to go next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said: A free agent can select their location during the off-season, but that's not the same as a no-trade clause with selective teams. correct. But Shattenkirk doesn't have a NTC or a modified NTC. The Blues can trade him to any team they like. But they have to weigh in the value of Shattenkirk playing for them the rest of the season vs sending him to another team. If because he won't sign an extension with another team they aren't going to get that much in return. If he were to sign an extension the Blues can get high draft picks and or prospects in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 7 hours ago, hf101 said: correct. But Shattenkirk doesn't have a NTC or a modified NTC. The Blues can trade him to any team they like. But they have to weigh in the value of Shattenkirk playing for them the rest of the season vs sending him to another team. If because he won't sign an extension with another team they aren't going to get that much in return. If he were to sign an extension the Blues can get high draft picks and or prospects in return. That becomes another issue too. Should players be negotiating their next contract with a new team while they're still under contract with an existing team? I say no. The trade at the deadline should be made with the understanding that his contract expires in the summer and each team will be bidding for his services at that time. This is why players never truly hit free agency any more. When you acquire someone like Shattenpants at the deadline, it should be viewed as a rental and you shouldn't be giving up much to acquire someone like that for a one-time playoff run. During the off-season, the only thing you should be giving up for a free agent is money. Somehow the system has become so restrictive that nobody can make trades any more. There's always a catch. Plus, this notion of "losing a free agent for nothing" has become popular in recent years. Losing a pending free agent "for nothing" should simply mean that you have the cash to acquire someone else in the summer to replace them, and if players actually hit free agency in large numbers like they used to, it would be easy to get past this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notfondajane Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 17 hours ago, Hockey Junkie said: I believe St Louis beat them in Pittsburgh last meeting. They did lose in Buffalo last week. January 24 Blues 3 Pens 0, February 4 Pens 4 Blues 1! Just curious on when Mike Yeo was hired?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.