Shattenkirk wrote:When asked if he felt he was a top-pair player, Shattenkirk said, "I think I'm working towards it. I think there's a lot more room for me to grow."

GOD damn....8 million dollars and he is working on being a top pairing guy.


Link

See, i would say lou lamourillo (sp?) is the delusional one for offering him that contract AND clearing the cap space for it...

Ozzies09tc wrote:See, i would say lou lamourillo (sp?) is the delusional one for offering him that contract AND clearing the cap space for it...

Lou Lam is with the Maple Leafs

I really wish got a return for an $8mil player, but we got a return that actually warranted what we gave up.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:

Ozzies09tc wrote:See, i would say lou lamourillo (sp?) is the delusional one for offering him that contract AND clearing the cap space for it...

Lou Lam is with the Maple Leafs

:places dunce hat upon head:

Jeff gorton....wow am i behind times...

Cotton McKnight wrote:I really wish got a return for an $8mil player, but we got a return that actually warranted what we gave up.

I am not against Shatty. I am against a culture that will pay top money to a player who says he is working towards being a top player. I don't think his game is going to change significantly at this point, he is good at what he does, but he isn't going to become too much more than that now, and on the pro level.

I'm against Lou Lamoriello being the GM of the Rangers, Devils and Maple Leafs.

We should of gotten a better return for Shatty. That draft weekend in June/2016 was ideal. DA held out for a ransom and ended up working his butt off to salvage something at the trade deadline. Should of never went down like that but it did.

BillP wrote:We should of gotten a better return for Shatty. That draft weekend in June/2016 was ideal. DA held out for a ransom and ended up working his butt off to salvage something at the trade deadline. Should of never went down like that but it did.

If you were a GM, would you have given a ransom for a guy who will more than likely walk at the end of the season? The mere fact that Army would trade him should tell you that he wouldn't re-sign here, and that he's determined to hit the FA market. I don't think that anyone overpays, at that point in time, for someone like that.

Yes, Shattenkirk is delusional. The whole reason he didn't re-sign here was because he wanted to be payed and played as a top-pairing defenseman, but he's never shown that he actually has that ability at the NHL level. That's why we tried trading him and why we were largely unsuccessful doing so. Washington took a chance with little risk involved by trading Sanford and Copely, but that trade didn't work out for them because it didn't make them any more of a playoff threat. The Rangers are in for a rude awakening when their playoff season rolls around, that's when they will realize that his game regresses on the big stage. The reality is, Shattenkirk is a 2nd or 3rd pairing defensemen who serves as a power-play specialist, that's all he is and all he will ever be, even if he's "working on it".

Turk Sanderson wrote:

BillP wrote:We should of gotten a better return for Shatty. That draft weekend in June/2016 was ideal. DA held out for a ransom and ended up working his butt off to salvage something at the trade deadline. Should of never went down like that but it did.

If you were a GM, would you have given a ransom for a guy who will more than likely walk at the end of the season? The mere fact that Army would trade him should tell you that he wouldn't re-sign here, and that he's determined to hit the FA market. I don't think that anyone overpays, at that point in time, for someone like that.

Could of worked a deal with the Ranges and gotten one of their forwards. Could of worked a deal with Boston. Anybody who had gotten him would of had a year to ink him to a deal if they really wanted him. 6 months of Shattenkirk had more value to the other team than say 2 months which is what Washington got.

Hanging on to Shattenkirk like DA did made zero sense and shows how the guy lacks the initiative to take a team into a certain direction. I still believe the Blues could of made a return trip to the Conf Finals last year if the money was allocated properly last year. Shattenkirk had to go, it was inevitable. Made no sense to take it down to the trade deadline. The guy should of been dealt during the summer and you build your new Blues for another run. You don't waste money on Perron, you don't waste a draft pick and cap space on Yakupov, you don't resign Steen when you could of traded him for picks and you don't hold on to Shattenkirk like he did. Showed no vision on his part at all. And instead we heard him say last year the Hawks were still the creme of the crop and this just after the Blues knocked the Hawks out of the playoffs. I was a DA fan when he first started here but over the course of time I've seen his work and I'm not impressed but we're stuck with him.

Everyone pretty much knew Shattenkirk was going to be playing for the Rangers, including the Rangers. Why would they give up ANYTHING worth-while for him, that might have hurt them at all either in the playoff run last year OR going into the future? Even Shattenkirk wouldn't want the team he was going to to hamstring their future. Besides, they were doing pretty well as it was without him heading into the trade deadline, and are still young enough that they didn't need to jeopardize the future on a long shot. They could offer a DEEEEP prospect and/or later draft pick, or just wait till the off season.

Everyone else besides the Rangers knew that Shattenkirk wouldn't sign a long-term contract with them, so the only value they'd have seen in him was as a playoff rental, and Washington was willing to gamble at least SOMETHING that Shattenkirk could get them past the Penguins (turns out they were wrong). They still gave up a prospect who'd already played a few games in the NHL, a 1st round draft pick, and a conditional 2nd round draft pick for the shot. From the start, I figured that's the best we could get for him, unless he'd sign a reasonable long-term deal before the trade.

We got Schenn for Shatty essentially. Is there really a player out there you'd rather have right now? There isn't one for me that was available. Drouin isn't as advertised yet and Hall is another LW that while very good, can't play C and we'd be screwed without Schenn at C right now. I wasn't happy with Shatty's return at the time but it worked out better than we could have hoped.

The other thing to remember about hanging onto Shattenkirk until the deadline is the Blues got those 60 games of production from him. In what was a tight playoff race most of the year, that's not insignificant. With the pick acquired in the deal being the main piece part of the Schenn deal, I don't know how anybody could have a major problem with the way it worked out.

BillP wrote:

Turk Sanderson wrote:

BillP wrote:We should of gotten a better return for Shatty. That draft weekend in June/2016 was ideal. DA held out for a ransom and ended up working his butt off to salvage something at the trade deadline. Should of never went down like that but it did.

If you were a GM, would you have given a ransom for a guy who will more than likely walk at the end of the season? The mere fact that Army would trade him should tell you that he wouldn't re-sign here, and that he's determined to hit the FA market. I don't think that anyone overpays, at that point in time, for someone like that.

Could of worked a deal with the Ranges and gotten one of their forwards. Could of worked a deal with Boston. Anybody who had gotten him would of had a year to ink him to a deal if they really wanted him. 6 months of Shattenkirk had more value to the other team than say 2 months which is what Washington got.

Hanging on to Shattenkirk like DA did made zero sense and shows how the guy lacks the initiative to take a team into a certain direction. I still believe the Blues could of made a return trip to the Conf Finals last year if the money was allocated properly last year. Shattenkirk had to go, it was inevitable. Made no sense to take it down to the trade deadline. The guy should of been dealt during the summer and you build your new Blues for another run. You don't waste money on Perron, you don't waste a draft pick and cap space on Yakupov, you don't resign Steen when you could of traded him for picks and you don't hold on to Shattenkirk like he did. Showed no vision on his part at all. And instead we heard him say last year the Hawks were still the creme of the crop and this just after the Blues knocked the Hawks out of the playoffs. I was a DA fan when he first started here but over the course of time I've seen his work and I'm not impressed but we're stuck with him.

I love your delusional rants about DA. TY for the continued entertainment

Seriously, if you don't think that DA was shopping Shatty for the best deal, that is deluded. It was well known from spring of 2016 that Shatty was 99% going to be traded at some point and time, and that his team of preference for a long-term contract was the Rangers. As others have mentioned, it takes two to tango and make a deal. Would you honestly rather have had DA make a deal just to make a deal to get rid of Shatty? What we got was better than what most folks ever expected us to get with the knowledge of whom Shatty is as a player, and what his future contract requirements were. also, you keep bringing up these little AHL/tweener contracts that really don't mean anything. Sorry, but signing Bennett, Megan, MPS, or trading for Yaks did NOT set our team back. Even Perron was a win/win because we were able to lose him to the VGK and keep the rest of the core and use that money to resign CP.

Not trying to be a dick, but your continuous hating on DA is rather silly. He ain't perfect as a GM, but you will not find many GMs who manage a consistent playoff team in the NHL that has fewer 'bad contracts' than us in the NHL right now. The only ones I think of on the top of my head are Stevie Y with the Lightning and maybe Jim Rutherford of the Pens.

bradleygt89 wrote:

BillP wrote:

Turk Sanderson wrote: If you were a GM, would you have given a ransom for a guy who will more than likely walk at the end of the season? The mere fact that Army would trade him should tell you that he wouldn't re-sign here, and that he's determined to hit the FA market. I don't think that anyone overpays, at that point in time, for someone like that.

Could of worked a deal with the Ranges and gotten one of their forwards. Could of worked a deal with Boston. Anybody who had gotten him would of had a year to ink him to a deal if they really wanted him. 6 months of Shattenkirk had more value to the other team than say 2 months which is what Washington got.

Hanging on to Shattenkirk like DA did made zero sense and shows how the guy lacks the initiative to take a team into a certain direction. I still believe the Blues could of made a return trip to the Conf Finals last year if the money was allocated properly last year. Shattenkirk had to go, it was inevitable. Made no sense to take it down to the trade deadline. The guy should of been dealt during the summer and you build your new Blues for another run. You don't waste money on Perron, you don't waste a draft pick and cap space on Yakupov, you don't resign Steen when you could of traded him for picks and you don't hold on to Shattenkirk like he did. Showed no vision on his part at all. And instead we heard him say last year the Hawks were still the creme of the crop and this just after the Blues knocked the Hawks out of the playoffs. I was a DA fan when he first started here but over the course of time I've seen his work and I'm not impressed but we're stuck with him.

I love your delusional rants about DA. TY for the continued entertainment

Seriously, if you don't think that DA was shopping Shatty for the best deal, that is deluded. It was well known from spring of 2016 that Shatty was 99% going to be traded at some point and time, and that his team of preference for a long-term contract was the Rangers. As others have mentioned, it takes two to tango and make a deal. Would you honestly rather have had DA make a deal just to make a deal to get rid of Shatty? What we got was better than what most folks ever expected us to get with the knowledge of whom Shatty is as a player, and what his future contract requirements were. also, you keep bringing up these little AHL/tweener contracts that really don't mean anything. Sorry, but signing Bennett, Megan, MPS, or trading for Yaks did NOT set our team back. Even Perron was a win/win because we were able to lose him to the VGK and keep the rest of the core and use that money to resign CP.

Not trying to be a dick, but your continuous hating on DA is rather silly. He ain't perfect as a GM, but you will not find many GMs who manage a consistent playoff team in the NHL that has fewer 'bad contracts' than us in the NHL right now. The only ones I think of on the top of my head are Stevie Y with the Lightning and maybe Jim Rutherford of the Pens.

DA specifically said "Making a deal for the sake of making a deal is illogical to me" What else do you want? He is not a go getter. He screwed up last year IMO. Team should of gotten back to Conf Finals IMO. He allocated the money and took the wrong path IMO. If Hextall had 2 more brain cells and if there was no Vegas draft, this team is still saddled with Perron and Lehtera. If you want to look the other way and kiss Doug's behind, that's fine. But that's not me. I liked the guy when he made the Halak trade, I liked him when he made the Shattenkirk deal. Actually at the time I loved him, thought he was great. But since then I haven't been impressed with his work. Sure, he has some good points, and I've said that, but he's not the right Chef to cook us a Cup. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it

Making a deal for the sake of making a deal IS illogical. No deal should ever be made that isn't intended to improve the club. Trading shattenkirk for whatever the current best price is simply just to make the deal would have simply lessened the return (most likely).

It's also hilarious how you bash him for what you "think" he should have gotten for Shattenkirk earlier, and then just simply discount his good moves as lucky.

Beatoni12 wrote:Making a deal for the sake of making a deal IS illogical. No deal should ever be made that isn't intended to improve the club. Trading shattenkirk for whatever the current best price is simply just to make the deal would have simply lessened the return (most likely).

It's also hilarious how you bash him for what you "think" he should have gotten for Shattenkirk earlier, and then just simply discount his good moves as lucky.

And you don't think he could of done just as good or better than getting a 1st rd pick for Shattenkirk? Sanford is a depth guy and that's all he'll be and we had to give them Copley back to get him. Hard to believe people think Armstrong got the best possible deal here and that trading Shattenkirk back in June during draft weekend would of netted less. Unbelievable.

Dave's a mess wrote:The other thing to remember about hanging onto Shattenkirk until the deadline is the Blues got those 60 games of production from him. In what was a tight playoff race most of the year, that's not insignificant. With the pick acquired in the deal being the main piece part of the Schenn deal, I don't know how anybody could have a major problem with the way it worked out.

This. The asset management of Shattenkirk was pretty much perfect. We traded away a piece, still got into the playoffs, and used an asset we got in return for trading off 20ish games of a guy for a major piece of our current team. I did not like the return on the deal the day it happened...complained about it quite a bit here. However it worked out phenomenally. We traded Shattenkirk, Jori Lehtera, and a conditional 1st in 2019 for Brayden Schenn and Zach Sanford. 20 games or so of Shattenkirk, a cap dump in Lehtera, and a first in 2019. I'd take Schenn alone for that now, much less Sanford as well.

Getting the first in the Shattenkirk trade was a huge move for Armstrong. Maybe we could have gotten Vrana out of the Caps instead of getting a first and Sanford, but having their first gave us the ability to make the Schenn trade. We all use 20-20 vision of hindsight to criticize GMs, the same should apply for praise when their moves work out to perfection.

It is so appropriate that "delusional" is in the title of this thread .

Dave's a mess wrote:It is so appropriate that "delusional" is in the title of this thread .

BillP wrote:

bradleygt89 wrote:

BillP wrote:
Could of worked a deal with the Ranges and gotten one of their forwards. Could of worked a deal with Boston. Anybody who had gotten him would of had a year to ink him to a deal if they really wanted him. 6 months of Shattenkirk had more value to the other team than say 2 months which is what Washington got.

Hanging on to Shattenkirk like DA did made zero sense and shows how the guy lacks the initiative to take a team into a certain direction. I still believe the Blues could of made a return trip to the Conf Finals last year if the money was allocated properly last year. Shattenkirk had to go, it was inevitable. Made no sense to take it down to the trade deadline. The guy should of been dealt during the summer and you build your new Blues for another run. You don't waste money on Perron, you don't waste a draft pick and cap space on Yakupov, you don't resign Steen when you could of traded him for picks and you don't hold on to Shattenkirk like he did. Showed no vision on his part at all. And instead we heard him say last year the Hawks were still the creme of the crop and this just after the Blues knocked the Hawks out of the playoffs. I was a DA fan when he first started here but over the course of time I've seen his work and I'm not impressed but we're stuck with him.

I love your delusional rants about DA. TY for the continued entertainment

Seriously, if you don't think that DA was shopping Shatty for the best deal, that is deluded. It was well known from spring of 2016 that Shatty was 99% going to be traded at some point and time, and that his team of preference for a long-term contract was the Rangers. As others have mentioned, it takes two to tango and make a deal. Would you honestly rather have had DA make a deal just to make a deal to get rid of Shatty? What we got was better than what most folks ever expected us to get with the knowledge of whom Shatty is as a player, and what his future contract requirements were. also, you keep bringing up these little AHL/tweener contracts that really don't mean anything. Sorry, but signing Bennett, Megan, MPS, or trading for Yaks did NOT set our team back. Even Perron was a win/win because we were able to lose him to the VGK and keep the rest of the core and use that money to resign CP.

Not trying to be a dick, but your continuous hating on DA is rather silly. He ain't perfect as a GM, but you will not find many GMs who manage a consistent playoff team in the NHL that has fewer 'bad contracts' than us in the NHL right now. The only ones I think of on the top of my head are Stevie Y with the Lightning and maybe Jim Rutherford of the Pens.

DA specifically said "Making a deal for the sake of making a deal is illogical to me" What else do you want? He is not a go getter. He screwed up last year IMO. Team should of gotten back to Conf Finals IMO. He allocated the money and took the wrong path IMO. If Hextall had 2 more brain cells and if there was no Vegas draft, this team is still saddled with Perron and Lehtera. If you want to look the other way and kiss Doug's behind, that's fine. But that's not me. I liked the guy when he made the Halak trade, I liked him when he made the Shattenkirk deal. Actually at the time I loved him, thought he was great. But since then I haven't been impressed with his work. Sure, he has some good points, and I've said that, but he's not the right Chef to cook us a Cup. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it

Did DA also not show up to a autograph signing at Hardee's in the past? Just cannot understand, beyond it just being 'your opinion', your totally irrational displeasure with his management of a team that just continues to win. As others note, you totally discount what he does accomplish as 'lucky', while discrediting what he doesn't do. So even if he DID do what you wanted him to do, it wouldn't be doing enough doing to do you happy.

Let's face it, you don't like DA for something beyond his management style Billy. And that's OK. We all have those public figures in our lives that just make us boiling mad, even if it is based on illogical feelings, and missed autograph showings

BillP wrote:

Beatoni12 wrote:Making a deal for the sake of making a deal IS illogical. No deal should ever be made that isn't intended to improve the club. Trading shattenkirk for whatever the current best price is simply just to make the deal would have simply lessened the return (most likely).

It's also hilarious how you bash him for what you "think" he should have gotten for Shattenkirk earlier, and then just simply discount his good moves as lucky.

And you don't think he could of done just as good or better than getting a 1st rd pick for Shattenkirk? Sanford is a depth guy and that's all he'll be and we had to give them Copley back to get him. Hard to believe people think Armstrong got the best possible deal here and that trading Shattenkirk back in June during draft weekend would of netted less. Unbelievable.

Sanford shouldn’t be written off at all yet, so saying he got only a 1st for Shatty isn’t accurate. The fact is that nobody here can say he was offered anything better, other than the Hall deal he had in place, but Shatty wouldn’t agree to, so trying to trade Shatty to a limited number of teams greatly hampered him.

CaptSMRT wrote:

Cotton McKnight wrote:I really wish got a return for an $8mil player, but we got a return that actually warranted what we gave up.

I am not against Shatty. I am against a culture that will pay top money to a player who says he is working towards being a top player. I don't think his game is going to change significantly at this point, he is good at what he does, but he isn't going to become too much more than that now, and on the pro level.

He is not going to be a shut down Dman, and anyone who expects him to be as good as Karlsson needs to let me talk to them about selling them a bridge in China.

Cotton McKnight wrote:

CaptSMRT wrote:

Cotton McKnight wrote:I really wish got a return for an $8mil player, but we got a return that actually warranted what we gave up.

I am not against Shatty. I am against a culture that will pay top money to a player who says he is working towards being a top player. I don't think his game is going to change significantly at this point, he is good at what he does, but he isn't going to become too much more than that now, and on the pro level.

He is not going to be a shut down Dman, and anyone who expects him to be as good as Karlsson needs to let me talk to them about selling them a bridge in China.

I think Shattenkirk is probably not as good as Karlsson offensively, but a notch better defensively. But I don't get to watch Ottawa much, so it's hard to tell. Shatty has certainly been on better teams most of his career!