[Signing] Lightning sign Shattenkirk (1yr, $1.75 mil)

[Rando]

This thread and debate is.. interesting. I have no idea how some of you have such a massive book on each individual player in the NHL, how they were used over their career and how the should be used in the future. The definiteness of the statements is shocking.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Let's not forget Shattenkirk got bought out from a $6M per year contract. What does Stone have to do with Shattenkirk?

Shattenkirk is a better player than Stone.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

CHL got owned by GranteedEV this thread. That’s a spankin

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Basing your opinions entirely on charts is bad enough, but then being a complete ass hat about it when others disagree with you, is what really sets you apart.

Shattenkirk used to get top pairing minutes because he put up points, and because (as a result) he got tons of PP time. But he could NEVER play defense. And his inability to play defense eventually caught up with him and his ice time was adjusted.

He is what he is: a purely offensive defenseman who is a defensive liability. And he was always thus, though for a while, his coaches no doubt assumed/hoped that the rest of his game would catch up. It never did.

Similar to TJ Brodie!

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

That is because he the point man on his team's top power play unit. Which doesn't have any correlation to what pairing a player belongs on at 5v5.

Here is how the 5v5 TOI bared out:

18:49 - Pietrangelo
18:04 - Jay Bouwmeester
16:13 - Colton Parayko (and remember, he was a rookie in 2015-16 and a sophomore in 2016-17, not a highly rated prospect prior to that either)
16:02 - Kevin Shattenkirk
14:31 - Joel Edmonson
14:24 - Karl Gunnarsson

This places Shattenkirk, at best, as his team's #3 defenseman (the anchor of the second pair), and more realistically as a #4 defenseman overall (which is what I said). And he was the Capitals' #5 defenseman as well (unless you want to argue Orpik-Shattenkirk was a second or first pair).



You know as well as I do how flawed context stats like OZS% etc are, but it was pretty clear there was a (sensible) push to put Shattenkirk in more offensive situations while their actual top pair was in more of an actual top pair role.

And I never said Shattenkirk's offensive value was not ultra high-end. I said there's a difference between offense and overall impact.

Can't believe I'm the one needing to be arguing this, I'm one of the people on this board that values offense more than most. But offense from the relatively sheltered second pairing does not equate to top pairing quality.



A single team's depth is naturally not indicative of a player's overall value, and I am not arguing that Shattenkirk was a #5 more than he was a ~#4 (you latched on to the #5 comment, which was actually more about his tenure in Washington), but he's a player who never once played a top pairing role on his team. Arguing he was a top pairing D, when at best he was a #3 on STL, is asinine. And the fact that a rookie clearly showed more well-roundedness suited to that #3 role, suggests that he was a bit more one dimensional than a strong #3. i.e. a specialist.

So what is your analysis of the Penguins paying Malkin 9.5 M as a career #2 Centre when the Flames got their #2 C for 5.3 ?


You would also end up with the result that Dougie Hamilton is/was a #4/5 D-man that the Flames were playing on the top pairing.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Shattenkirk is a better player than Stone.

And neither one plays for the Flames. Seems odd to bring Stone up in a thread on Shattenkirk. Who was deemed not to be worth his contract after the big signing.