Jeremy Rutherford of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch conducted his weekly chat and understandably touched on several trade-related topics. It’s well worth a full read but here are the highlights.
- The Blues dealt goaltender Brian Elliott this past summer under the belief that Jake Allen was ready to be a full-time starter. It made sense in theory as the former second-round draft pick won 26 of his 44 starts and posted a GAA of 2.35 with a S% of 0.920. Unfortunately, Allen has struggled as the #1, allowing nearly 0.50 goals-per-60 more than he did in 2015-16 and stopping fewer than nine of every 10 shots on net. Rutherford feels that while Allen is certainly to blame for the soft goals he has allowed at times this season, the team in front of him simply isn’t good enough this year.
- Because of Allen’s struggles, some have suggested the team should look to acquire a proven starter with Ben Bishop’s name surfacing as one possibility. In fact, one reader speculated on a possible Kevin Shattenkirk-for-Bishop swap since on the surface it addresses issues each team has. Rutherford pours cold water on that hypothetical scenario, however, citing uncertainty regarding whether Tampa Bay will be a buyer, seller or choose to stand pat at the deadline. Additionally, he questions whether the Lightning would be willing to pay a hefty price for a rental, assuming they remain either on the outside looking in or on the fringes of a playoff berth. It should also be noted that with several key RFA’s to re-sign next summer, it’s not likely that the Lightning would target a pending UFA with any notion of extending him beyond his current term, further diminishing the possibility GM Steve Yzerman engages the Blues in discussions for Shattenkirk.
- Speaking of Shattenkirk, Rutherford calculates the potential returns the Blues can expect if moving the skilled blue liner both as a rental and a sign-and-trade scenario where the acquiring team is allowed to negotiate an extension with the player. As a rental the scribe feels he can net the Blues a “pretty good prospect.” Even as part of a sign-and-trade, Rutherford is unsure whether the Blues would be able to attract offers including more than a “good player.” He reasons that teams would simply prefer to wait until Shattenkirk hits free agency as opposed to sacrificing valuable assets now. Either way, Shattenkirk is going to get paid and it might behoove teams to wait until the summer to make their move. Based on what significant rental players have cost acquiring teams in the past, Rutherford might be undervaluing Shattenkirk. Last year Carolina received a prospect and two draft choices for a couple months of Eric Staal. Winnipeg dealt Andrew Ladd and received a prospect (Marko Dano) and a first-round pick in return. Teams will pay steep prices for premium rentals. The real question, in my estimation at least, is whether St. Louis would be willing to move Shattenkirk for futures or if they will insist on receiving an NHL or NHL-ready contributor. If they have designs on competing for a Stanley Cup in the near future it’s more likely they’d prefer someone who can step in and play right away.
- Lastly, readers wanted to know why the Blues couldn’t find a trade partner for defenseman Brad Hunt rather than losing him for nothing on waivers. The undersized Hunt has been excellent in the AHL, netting 29 points in 23 games for the Chicago Wolves but as Rutherford points out, he has yet to see any game action since joining Nashville. Hunt also spent three years in the Edmonton organization, a team lacking NHL-quality defenders, yet saw nothing more than a cup of coffee with the Oilers. Could Hunt be an example of a player overlooked? Perhaps, but more likely he is what they refer to in baseball circles as a “4A” player; too good for the minors but not quite good enough to secure a permanent role in the big leagues.