We'll be getting underway momentarily ...
OK, just a forewarning or friendly reminder, I won't be taking any Patrik Berglund questions today. Kidding, let's get chattin ...
Well, you my friend know how to get it started on the right foot. It has been a great chat so far, don't you think?
We're going to be getting into Berglund and Shattenkirk a lot over the next 56 minutes, 32 seconds, so we'll keep the answers short and touch on a lot of aspects of their situations. As far as Berglund, I get the frustration I've read from some fans. He's been here nine years, he is what he is, the Blues haven't won anything with him, he's the last of that old core group still here and now he's going to be here another five years ... I understand and I won't debate that. I will say the Blues are thin at center, the market is expected to be thin at center this summer and he's coming relatively cheap at $3.85. My main contention with Berglund is this: If you play him at third-line center, which the Blues have done, that's fine. In the past, they've played him higher and he hasn't been effective. So if this is the plan moving forward, which you'd have to assume it is, then I don't think it's a bad deal. I don't think there are too many others who ARE AVAILABLE that would have come this cheap.
On Shattenkirk, I think he wants to see what is out there. I don't think he wants to get locked into a deal now and then kick himself on July 1 when the money would be flying for him. Honestly, it's probably a smart move. The Tampa deal looks and sounds like a nice one. With the tax situation in Florida, it's more like $6.5 million. Is he going to get that elsewhere for seven years and is he going to find a team as good as Tampa? (They're down now without Stamkos, but they're still good). He may. But it certainly looks like he wants to find out.
I understand the logic. Let me ask one new question and let me ask one I've asked before. First the new one: If Kevin Shattenkirk agrees to the Tampa deal (which was a possibility), and the Blues got Jonathan Drouin, would Army have been accused of handcuffing himself? Now the new question: If the Blues wind up trading him as a rental, and Armstrong gets a first-rounder and an A- prospect, did he handcuff himself? I understand that holding onto Shattenkirk probably wasn't ideal, but the Blues have been working on deals that didn't go through. Whether Shattenkirk vetoed them last summer or last month, what were the Blues to do? Rushing would have not helped. If Shattenkirk wasn't going to sign a long-term deal with anybody, it wasn't going to happen. And now if another team buckles at the deadline and they get a good rental package, that was the best you were going to do.
We'll have to wait until Armstrong talks tomorrow. I believe that there's a chance the Blues might keep him. They're only moving him if they get the pick and a solid prospect. Obviously there's a game Sunday and they don't know if the right offer is going to come along until Wednesday. I wouldn't anticipate the Blues holding him out, though. This is a team trying to make the playoffs and they certainly need him in the lineup, as long as he's their property.
This must be in reference to the chat.
It's been approved by the Alderman. There was a lawsuit filed, but it overlooked the fact that Scottrade Center is an existing building and therefore the suit lacked any merit and was pulled back. Anything can happen, but it looks like everything is a go.
Well there are only a few possibilities and I don't think that Bishop was involved. The talks would've been around the time Allen was struggling and the Bishop rumors were hot, but I'm not buying that he was part of the deal. I don't have the info on any credible source, but the Blues have been after Drouin for sometime, so I would have to believe he was targeted ... Shattenkirk didn't veto the trade; he vetoed the contract offer, which nixed the trade.
Sorry for delay, just got the breakdown of Berglund's contract. Here it is: $4.7 million, $4.7 million, $4.5 million, $2.9 million and $2.45 million. He has a partial no-trade clause, as Pierre LeBrun reported.
They might get a third-line player in the deal, but that's not going to be the heart of a package for Shattenkirk. There would have to be a first-round pick and a top prospect involved, or they're likely not going to do the deal. I personally think that's the way to go. Stranger things have happened, as teams can make the playoffs and get hot. The Blues are in a tough spot because which potentially playoff-bound team in recent memory has traded a name like Shattenkirk before the deadline? But as I've mentioned, I think the Blues have some holes, they have the Fabbri injury, the goaltending isn't proven in the playoffs, etc. They have some prospects in the system, but not a lot and you can really add a couple by dealing Shattenkirk. Yeah, they may not turn into strong NHL players, but you increase your odds with a first rounder and a top prospect. And you're not guaranteed to make the playoffs even if you keep Shattenkirk. That's just me.
If the Flames re-sign Elliott, the Blues get a third-round pick in 2018.
There are certainly agendas and motives and that's why stuff gets leaked in sports, government, big business, etc. I wouldn't tell anybody who believes the timing of the Shattenkirk report of fishy that they're wrong. But there's so much going on behind the scenes that would either take hours to explain to people or I flat-out can't report. I bet I spent six hours on the phone yesterday to be in position to publish the Shattenkirk story and the actual writing took an hour.
We can only hope. Seriously, I haven't heard his name around the rink and haven't asked the Blues about him. Even though it will probably give me hives, I guess I'll have to ask at some point if there's any interest in trying to bring him back. See, just by typing that I'm getting bumps on my arms and legs.
Still a possibility, but the people I spoke to yesterday thought that idea was diminishing.
What is everybody's take on this? I am of the belief that more fans would be upset if Shattenkirk doesn't get traded. I know there are some that want to keep him and improve the chances of making the playoffs, but I sense more believe the correct move is to trade him. Give me a few short, honest response on this and I'll post a few.
I know you're asking from a curiosity standpoint and I'll answer your question. But before I do, let's understand that that's not going to happen. I wouldn't bet my Jay McClement rookie card on it, but I don't think it will. Anyway, if the Blues wanted to re-sign Shattenkirk, I think it would take 7-8 years at $6.5 million or even more and would have to include a no-movement, etc. Not going to happen.
Nobody told me this, but I think they've been talking for a bit. Week or months, I don't know. But in my conversations, it seemed like there's been mutual interest for a while. That doesn't mean that teams didn't call about Berglund. I'm sure they did and I'm sure the Blues listened, but it seems like the Blues' intentions all along were to keep him.
Nixed, veto, decline, turned down, whatever you want to use. The Blues had a deal pending Shattenkirk's approval on the long-term deal. If he approves, the deal goes through. It's his prerogative, but if he doesn't agree, then the deal falls through. Nix, veto, decline, whatever.
That could be, and if he went to the NY Rangers, he might be able to be that with McDonagh.
I don't know that it has to be a huge return, but I think the 1st rounder and a top prospect are essential. If not, the Blues will keep him and roll the dice on a playoff run. While I believe they should trade Shattenkirk, it makes no sense trading him for a 2nd rounder or a C prospect. Those players may never see the NHL.