Colenucklehead Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Wonder what the odds are that Vancouver could move Edler to the blues for Shattenkirk? I get the impression that STL is looking to avoid a big contract, Edler is 5 mil for 2 more season...might be up the blues alley? Obviously the nucks would have to add on our side, pick or prospect of some kind, maybe a conditional pick hinging on us signing Shatt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Edler won't waive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 If i'm putting Shattenkirk on the table, i'm asking for a star forward in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bissurnette Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 They have a log jam on the backend I don't see them asking for a Dman back, they're trying to create room on the blue line. Like TOML said, they probably would be expecting some big time help up front because their scoring hasn't been up to snuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 At a minimum we'd have to offer Vrbata, a top forward prospect (Shinkaruk, Boesser, McCann, Baertschi) and a 1st if he re-signs with us. The price will be very, very high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 1 hour ago, TOMapleLaughs said: If i'm putting Shattenkirk on the table, i'm asking for a star forward in return. Shattenkirk plus for Stamkos would make such an interesting trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 59 minutes ago, meh_wassup said: They have a log jam on the backend I don't see them asking for a Dman back, they're trying to create room on the blue line. Like TOML said, they probably would be expecting some big time help up front because their scoring hasn't been up to snuff. This. Plus if we get Shattenkirk...we'd want to pair him with Edler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Canucks should have a ton of money to spend in the 2017 UFA period when Shattenkirk is a UFA. They'll lose Miller, Burrows and Higgins filling those roles with younger cheaper assets like Shinkaruk, Gaunce, Grenier and some cheap UFA backup. I'd rather trade Edler for picks and prospects and just sign Shattenkirk in 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Shattenkirk and Edler aren't even close to equal value. We'd have to add a lot to make that deal work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 2 hours ago, TOMapleLaughs said: If i'm putting Shattenkirk on the table, i'm asking for a star forward in return. STL is dealing from a position of weakness. Since when does the weaker party get to set the terms? They can ask for the moon but no GM in their right mind is going to come to the table with a bounty of riches to help STL out of their cap woes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Edler the new Garrison of trade deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Just now, RonMexico said: STL is dealing from a position of weakness. Since when does the weaker party get to set the terms? They can ask for the moon but no GM in their right mind is going to come to the table with a bounty of riches to help STL out of their cap woes. Weak, but not powerless. There's always a team looking for a defenseman like this and they could always just wait until the draft if no helpful deal is there now. That being said, I'm not St. Louis. Good franchise overall, but some of their big moves have been head-scratchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, TOMapleLaughs said: Weak, but not powerless. There's always a team looking for a defenseman like this and they could always just wait until the draft if no helpful deal is there now. That being said, I'm not St. Louis. Good franchise overall, but some of their big moves have been head-scratchers. With the essential demise of trades getting closer and closer, in terms of volume, I think we are going to see many more teams wait for players to come available through free agency. Why give up inexpensive young potential stars for expensive older players? I know Shattenkirk isn't exactly a greybeard at 26, but he is going to command a healthy increase in pay. So if a GM is to acquire him it will cost young assets and then on top of that, a significant chunk of cap space. Why give up the assets? Let some other GM be the sucker who gives up picks, prospects or possibly roster players and then breaks the bank open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 50 minutes ago, RonMexico said: With the essential demise of trades getting closer and closer, in terms of volume, I think we are going to see many more teams wait for players to come available through free agency. Why give up inexpensive young potential stars for expensive older players? I know Shattenkirk isn't exactly a greybeard at 26, but he is going to command a healthy increase in pay. So if a GM is to acquire him it will cost young assets and then on top of that, a significant chunk of cap space. Why give up the assets? Let some other GM be the sucker who gives up picks, prospects or possibly roster players and then breaks the bank open. I'm not saying I think the Canucks should do this but...you give up assets because "Shattenkirks" don't frequently make it to UFA for one. Most either sign with their existing team or get traded and sign with the new one. Also, if you're a contender and he's the guy you want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 2 hours ago, J.R. said: This. Plus if we get Shattenkirk...we'd want to pair him with Edler Great point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 1 hour ago, J.R. said: I'm not saying I think the Canucks should do this but...you give up assets because "Shattenkirks" don't frequently make it to UFA for one. Most either sign with their existing team or get traded and sign with the new one. Also, if you're a contender and he's the guy you want... What I was saying was I think that in the coming years with the salary cap as it is, Shattenkirk may be the type of player that hits free agency. With the already shrinking trade market thanks to the value placed on cheap young talent, GMs may have to make hard decisions to let FAs walk. We see it often in other sports like how David Price left the Jays and they had nothing but lost hope to show for it. Or like in football where stars are often traded for a 4th-7th round picks and that's it. Teams are built through free agency and drafting. The NHL is almost at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 If St Louis really needed scoring & to clear cap > they should trade Backes! Shatty is too good and should be re-signed IMO. Any stud RHD who can do all of anchoring the back end, score and move the puck is waay more important to any play off run. They also have Berglund who is not a horrible drop off in calibre as a big centre. And scope to bring back Sobotka as a much faster 2 way pivot, perhaps even after the KHL season ends? Last they have a good collection of prospects from which they can leverage a scorer via trade. Its just not the card I would play anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.