Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Even with Retention, "No Interest" in Shattenkirk or Smith on Trade Market


Phil

Recommended Posts

Freddie Claesson is a perfectly passable defender. He's not going to QB your PP and get you 35 points.

 

Shattenkirk for all his flaws, will. If you deploy him like a great balding American MA Bergeron, you'll be fine with him at 4M

There is absolutely 0 teams who would want Shatty at $4m who don't already have a PP QB. That is the point. He's, presumably, the third option for the PP on this team.

 

That's how he's been deployed for 3 years now. You can't get an easier usage than him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't necessarily buy into the idea that we need equal righty and lefty dmen, nor do I believe in the idea that a guy can't switch to the other side. I get that it might take a minute to adjust, but I think that's all it is, an adjustment. We've seen guys do it all the time.

 

And, yes, if Shatty is gone next season, that means we're only looking at one season of guys playing their offside.

 

The issue isn't handedness. It's comfort. Like asking a career RW to play the left side. Everything is off. Angles, passing lanes, coverage routes, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue isn't handedness. It's comfort. Like asking a career RW to play the left side. Everything is off. Angles, passing lanes, coverage routes, etc.

 

I understand that, but I don't think that's really that big a deal. Someone can get used to other side quite quickly, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. The fuck he is.

 

1/4 the price. 1/100th the production. Shattenkirk is to Claesson as an affordable sports car is to a scooter. Just because they both have wheels doesn't make them comparable.

Fine, then he's the same quality as Pionk. 30-something points and an absolute black hole in the defensive zone. Shatty doesn't produce at 5v5, and his PP production doesn't outweigh the fact that he's abysmal defensively.

 

There's a tipping point to where production doesn't overcome horrible defensive play for a defenseman. It's the same exact conversation as Adam Clendening and to a lesser extent John Gilmour. If Shatty was putting up 60 points, fine. But he's not. He's going to give you ~15 5v5 points per year and come nowhere near to beiing strong enough defensively to make that a net positive for your team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm telling you guys, I just have a weird feeling with Shatty this year. He's finally 100% and I think he's gonna have one heck of a rebound season with Kakko and Kravvy out there. His experience is going to be a very welcome addition as well.

 

I'll even make a prediction and say:

 

68 Games played

11 Goals

31 assists

42 Points

-4

 

You have a ton of confidence in two rookies that haven?t played a NHL game yet. I mean I?m excited about the future but we need to dial it back a bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, then he's the same quality as Pionk. 30-something points and an absolute black hole in the defensive zone.

 

Yeah, maybe from a bar stool. The math says otherwise.

 

Last three years:

 

Shattenkirk — 0.85 P/60, 50 CF%, 2.49 CF% Rel, 47 GF%, 1.64 xGF +/-

Pionk — 0.57 P/60, 43.5 CF%, -4.1 CF% Rel, 42% GF%, -16.28 xGF +/-

 

Josh is right. It's a shame we'll never get to play his "count the seconds before you spot Pionk on the ice after a blown defensive assignment and goal against" game again.

 

Shatty doesn't produce at 5v5, and his PP production doesn't outweigh the fact that he's abysmal defensively.

 

There's a tipping point to where production doesn't overcome horrible defensive play for a defenseman. It's the same exact conversation as Adam Clendening and to a lesser extent John Gilmour. If Shatty was putting up 60 points, fine. But he's not. He's going to give you ~15 5v5 points per year and come nowhere near to beiing strong enough defensively to make that a net positive for your team.

 

See above. Also, over the last three years, Shattenkirk has 61 ES points — tied with Justin Faulk. He's ahead of Chara, Weber, Theodore, Montour, Klefbom, McAvoy, and Sergachev on that front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, maybe from a bar stool. The math says otherwise.

 

Last three years:

 

Shattenkirk — 0.85 P/60, 50 CF%, 2.49 CF% Rel, 47 GF%, 1.64 xGF +/-

Pionk — 0.57 P/60, 43.5 CF%, -4.1 CF% Rel, 42% GF%, -16.28 xGF +/-

 

Josh is right. It's a shame we'll never get to play his "count the seconds before you spot Pionk on the ice after a blown defensive assignment and goal against" game again.

 

 

 

See above. Also, over the last three years, Shattenkirk has 61 ES points — tied with Justin Faulk. He's ahead of Chara, Weber, Theodore, Montour, Klefbom, McAvoy, and Sergachev on that front.

Deployment. Shatty's numbers would have also been awful if given heavy DZS and matched up against top pairs. It's not a fair comparison. His numbers are dreadful given the matchups and deployment he gets.

 

You act like Shatty doesn't have glaring defensive deficiencies lmao. The guy maybe knows where to be, but he's such a piss poor athlete it doesn't matter - but it's not like he doesn't blow assignments as well.

 

Ok fine, 20 5v5 points. Doesn't change anything. Two of those guys, Montour and Sergachev, have the same problem, but are not 30-something. The others....defend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deployment. Shatty's numbers would have also been awful if given heavy DZS and matched up against top pairs. It's not a fair comparison. His numbers are dreadful given the matchups and deployment he gets.

 

This is an unfalsifiable argument. We have no way to test it.

 

You act like Shatty doesn't have glaring defensive deficiencies lmao. The guy maybe knows where to be, but he's such a piss poor athlete it doesn't matter - but it's not like he doesn't blow assignments as well.

 

He does. I just don't believe they line up with your hyperbole.

 

Ok fine, 20 5v5 points. Doesn't change anything. Two of those guys, Montour and Sergachev, have the same problem, but are not 30-something. The others....defend.

 

You're moving the goal posts here. Your original claim was that he doesn't produce at even strength, which is incorrect. He does, relative to Faulk, and ahead of the above list. You're adding caveats after the fact to sidestep this.

 

I would love to move Shattenkirk, too. You know this. I just wrote a whole article on it. But we need to be realistic about who he is. This narrative you've crafted that paints him like a leper strains credulity at every turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an unfalsifiable argument. We have no way to test it.

 

 

 

He does. I just don't believe they line up with your hyperbole.

 

 

 

You're moving the goal posts here. Your original claim was that he doesn't produce at even strength, which is incorrect. He does, relative to Faulk, and ahead of the above list. You're adding caveats after the fact to sidestep this.

 

I would love to move Shattenkirk, too. You know this. I just wrote a whole article on it. But we need to be realistic about who he is. This narrative you've crafted that paints him like a leper strains credulity at every turn.

Fine, but we all know it's true lol.

 

Then stop ignoring them. They are the reason there is "no interest"

 

Nope. I said he gives around 15 points - and it's not enough to compensate for his defensive flaws.

 

He is a leper. There is no interest in him. I am being realistic. He's a gifted puck mover who is dreadful defensively and no longer has the legs to a) compensate for defensive deficiencies or b) drive play, even on the PP. As such, there is absolutely 0 market for him. I dont' know what other narrative there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deployment. Shatty's numbers would have also been awful if given heavy DZS and matched up against top pairs. It's not a fair comparison. His numbers are dreadful given the matchups and deployment he gets.

 

You act like Shatty doesn't have glaring defensive deficiencies lmao. The guy maybe knows where to be, but he's such a piss poor athlete it doesn't matter - but it's not like he doesn't blow assignments as well.

 

Ok fine, 20 5v5 points. Doesn't change anything. Two of those guys, Montour and Sergachev, have the same problem, but are not 30-something. The others....defend.

 

I mean, sure, but giving your ppqb and offensive specialist a ton of DZS is like driving a Corvette in DC during rush hour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then stop ignoring them. They are the reason there is "no interest"

 

I'm not. Again, I just wrote about this. I'm not linking to it (so you can't claim I'm doing this for clicks), but this is what I said in it:

 

"Two years into that four-year ticket, he’s now on the wrong side of 30. He’s also entering the third year of a years-long rebuild he surely didn’t sign up for with two surgically repaired knees that have further limited his effectiveness on the ice in an NHL atmosphere that puts a premium on not just talent, but speed."

 

I'm saying, or alluding to, the same things you are. Just with much less exaggeration.

 

Nope. I said he gives around 15 points - and it's not enough to compensate for his defensive flaws.

 

He is a leper. There is no interest in him. I am being realistic. He's a gifted puck mover who is dreadful defensively and no longer has the legs to a) compensate for defensive deficiencies or b) drive play, even on the PP. As such, there is absolutely 0 market for him. I dont' know what other narrative there is.

 

It's not your synopsis I disagree with, it's the hyperbole — comparing him to significantly worse players like Pionk, or journeymen who probably couldn't put up the same points Shattenkirk does in reality by playing him in a video game like Claesson, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not. Again, I just wrote about this. I'm not linking to it (so you can't claim I'm doing this for clicks), but this is what I said in it:

 

"Two years into that four-year ticket, he’s now on the wrong side of 30. He’s also entering the third year of a years-long rebuild he surely didn’t sign up for with two surgically repaired knees that have further limited his effectiveness on the ice in an NHL atmosphere that puts a premium on not just talent, but speed."

 

I'm saying, or alluding to, the same things you are. Just with much less exaggeration.

 

 

 

It's not your synopsis I disagree with, it's the hyperbole — comparing him to significantly worse players like Pionk, or journeymen who probably couldn't put up the same points Shattenkirk does in reality by playing him in a video game like Claesson, etc.

I'm not exaggerating in saying that he's as bad as Pionk. Claesson is better, because he can defend. If your only qualifier is points, then yea, Shatty is better.

 

You say it's hyperbole or exaggeration because you don't agree. I think Shatty is that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, sure, but giving your ppqb and offensive specialist a ton of DZS is like driving a Corvette in DC during rush hour

I never said they should deploy him otherwise. But it's disingenuous to compare his possession stats to someone who is used in a completely different role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not exaggerating in saying that he's as bad as Pionk. Claesson is better, because he can defend. If your only qualifier is points, then yea, Shatty is better.

 

You say it's hyperbole or exaggeration because you don't agree. I think Shatty is that bad.

 

No, I say it's hyperbole because the math doesn't support your description. If he were as bad as you characterize, his numbers would look significantly worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said they should deploy him otherwise. But it's disingenuous to compare his possession stats to someone who is used in a completely different role.

 

Then don't compare him to someone who is used in a completely different role. You were the one who brought up both Claesson and Pionk, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone is definitely going to take this guy off the Rangers hands. Let's hope for some kind of resurgence as well as some other team having a fall out with a player who has a not so great contract.

 

There's a hockey trade to be made out there for Shattenkirks services.

 

And I don't get why everyone hates on Myers. Guy produces and is gigantic. I hope he stays out of our division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that, but I don't think that's really that big a deal. Someone can get used to other side quite quickly, IMO.
That's just ... Untrue. Del Zotto, for example, can't play the right.

 

Some players also have a physically easier time turning to one side, due to many factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a ton of confidence in two rookies that haven’t played a NHL game yet. I mean I’m excited about the future but we need to dial it back a bit

 

Oh no doubt these guys are going to need time to grow into it, but they're good! I do have a lot of confidence in them. They skate well, show the talent, and brought along over time, should be staples in our lineup for many years to come.

 

I also don't expect Shattenkirk to totally shit the bed again this year. The guy can play...we've seen it...just NOT here! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smith screwed himself by allowing himself to get out of shape following his wedding and had to be demoted to Hartford as a wake-up call...only he's still groggy! Shatty? An unfortunate set of circumstances of him coming to a team that went into re-build mode. If we stabilize a bit and somehow manage to get more PP opportunities, he may redeem himself here and make a go of it. I'm 50-50 on this thought.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...