St. Louis Blues: 5 Players the Blues Should Move To Keep Kevin Shattenkirk

1 of 7

Jan 13, 2015; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Blues defenseman Kevin Shattenkirk (22) handles the puck against the Edmonton Oilers during the first period at Scottrade Center. Mandatory Credit: Jeff Curry-USA TODAY Sports /

The St. Louis Blues have plenty of decisions to make with the trade deadline approaching. The biggest one is whether to deal away Kevin Shattenkirk at his peak value or stand pat on the defenseman going into the summer while the team makes a run at the cup.

Shattenkirk has already proven himself to be one of the best defensemen in the league. He may even be among the elite. If not for injuries, he would definitely be in the mix for Norris Trophy consideration.

Unfortunately for the Blues, that means a big payday is coming. Now Shattenkirk is still under contract through the 2016-17 season, but many assume the Blues will not be able to afford him. So, that means huge decisions are on the table for GM Doug Armstrong.

Does he try to trade Shattenkirk now and risk spoiling a potential Stanley Cup team? Does he wait until the summer and hope more suitors line up? Do the Blues keep him until his contract runs out and risk getting nothing? The team might be unable to draw interest, afterall. Or do they make enough moves to get the wiggle room needed to keep Shattenkirk on the payroll?

All are viable options with benefits and drawbacks. However, losing a player of his caliber doesn’t come off as the smart decision. Therefor, here are the top five players that could be moved in order to keep ShatDueces.

Next: The Captain

David Backes

Might as well start this list off with a bang. However, if you believe the rhetoric coming from the team and the player, a trade of David Backes or even not signing him to a new deal seems unlikely.

Backes is also in that category of player where not everyone would be horribly upset if he was no longer on the team, but nobody wants to see him in another uniform. That is especially true if the uniform was a rival like the Chicago Blackhawks or Nashville Predators.

Cons of a trade/not re-signing:

Backes will almost certainly be cheaper to keep. While almost every player thinks they should get an increase from their last deal, $4.5 million is about what Backes is worth. You might even be able to talk him into taking a home-town discount with the incentive to help finish what he started.

The captain has only known the St. Louis Blues as his professional team and he has been the backbone of the core of the franchise for most of the last decade. Backes is also incredibly involved in the community, which would make his departure even harder to swallow.

Backes also has a no-trade clause in his contract, so any deal has to be run by the player. This makes not re-signing more of the option especially given the Blues’ injury woes in 2015-16.

Pros of a trade/not re-signing:

Backes is 31. While he is still productive, he is essentially a third line player when the Blues’ roster is fully healthy. Despite being a power forward, Backes only averages approximately 10 points more per season than Shattenkirk so it is not impossible to replace his offense.

Backes currently has a $4.5 million hit, which is the same as Shattenkirk’s current deal, so that would give a lot of room to increase Shattenkirk’s salary.

Next: Gunnarsson

Carl Gunnarsson

Carl Gunnarsson falls into a similar category as Backes in that he’s a free agent after this season, though there wouldn’t be as many tears at Gunny’s departure. Gunnarsson has been a steady defenseman since being acquired from the Toronto Maple Leafs before the 2014-15 season for Roman Polak.

Cons of a trade/not re-signing:

Like Backes, Gunnarsson would certainly be cheaper than Shattenkirk to keep. Obviously the point of this piece is pointing out players that could/should go to keep him, but it bares repeating that roster spots do cost money and the more flexibility available the better. While Gunnarsson hasn’t been a fan favorite, he hasn’t deserved the leftover Barrett Jackman hate he’s received.

He’s been a steady performer with decent puck moving skills and a bit of a veteran presence that can help alongside the young defenders he’s been paired with. Moving him means you almost assure yourself of going with three young blueliners next season. Also, if you let him walk then you get nothing in return, other than the money freed up.

Pros of a trade/not re-signing:

Either letting Gunnarsson walk or making a deal saves the Blues around $3 million. While that isn’t a huge chunk, it should be enough to give a decent raise if Shattenkirk is comfortable here.

Gunnarsson isn’t a point producer. He’s only averaged in the teens per season his whole career, which are numbers the younger players could certainly put up. Colton Parayko, as a rookie, already has more points this year than Gunnarsson has ever put on the sheet.

Gunnarsson is also 29. That’s not young, but still at the age where teams would be interested. If you could get a decent forward prospect or even someone who can play right now and ease the burden put on the roster due to injuries, it might be worth it.

Next: Bergy

Patrik Berglund

Patrik Berglund has been a bit of an enigma his entire career. He’s got size, strength and speed (to an extent). However, he fits the stereo type that is sometimes given to Swedish players that he’s just not tough enough. Skill to boot, but shrinks from the fight. Whether that’s fair or not does not matter. It is the perception and perception is reality in these cases.

Cons of a trade/not re-signing:

Berglund worked hard in the offseason before 2015-16 but was set back with an injury. Since returning, he’s finally looked like the player so many thought he could be. While not putting up Jaden Schwartz like numbers coming off an injury, Berglund (as of writing this article) has 5 goals, 4 assists, 2 powerplay goals and 3 game winning goals in 22 games.

It would be typical St. Louis luck to deal an inconsistent performer away only to see them finally hit their stride. When Berglund is on his game, he’s nearly impossible to get off the puck and has shown sniping abilities. Like Backes, Berglund has also only ever played for the Blues. In today’s landscape, it would be nice to see some players stay in one place in their careers.

Also, again, Berglund would be cheaper to keep as there surely would not be much of a raise on his current deal.

Pros of a trade/not re-signing:

Berglund is 27 so he’s got peak value in terms of projected future left in the NHL. He also has a $3.7 million hit on the Blues, which would provide a decent bump in salary if most of it is moved into a Shattenkirk deal.

Berglund is under contract for the same length of time as Shattenkirk, i.e. his deal runs out in the summer of 2017 so you have the freedom of waiting until the summer and still moving him if that is the path the team chooses. While Berglund has shown great form returning from injury, at 27, he probably is what he is.

There is always that chance he could still be a consistent top 6 forward or even a top line player, but at this point it is unlikely. Chances are, he will always be an up-and-down type. We know the consistency and talent level of Shattenkirk, while Berglund remains a bit of a mystery in his eighth NHL season.

Next: Big Bouw

Jay Bouwmeester

Now we come to the 500 lbs gorilla in the room. Nobody was happier about the Blues manning up and signing Jay Bouwmeester to a deal than me. He was clearly a top two defender, had some great speed and much needed puck handling ability (something lacking at the time). He also brought a quiet leadership, just sort of showing guys how it’s done and how to be a professional.

Unfortunately, things have soured a bit for Bouw. Sustaining any injury can be a blow, but Bouwmeester had never been injured in his NHL career until a head injury kept him out in 2014-15. He hasn’t quite been the same since. While he’s still a very good player, it would be a smarter move to keep Shattenkirk in the long run. That move would take a master stroke by Armstrong though.

Cons of a trade:

The cons for Bouwmeester are almost all contract related as opposed to something the Blues would surely lack without him. He’s 32 and still has three years left on his five year deal. However, in terms of skill, the Blues would lose a good player. Perhaps he isn’t still what fans thought he would be, but he’s still reasonably quick and savvy.

Couple the age, time left and $5.4 million in annual salary and you’ve got a contract that would be almost impossible to move though.

Pros of a trade:

As mentioned, Bouwmeester is 32 and makes $5.4 million. If Armstrong pulled off the miracle of dropping that contract, then you get to keep a player who is younger and almost certainly would want that big of a contract or likely higher.

Also, though Bouwmeester is a good player, he has been inconsistent. He’s only had 30 or more points once in his time in St. Louis. Even outside of that, he’s bounced around from the mid-20’s to 40’s in terms of point production with his injury season as the only one scoring in the teens.

Again, moving that contract is the sticking point but a healthy Shattenkirk trumps a healthy Bouwmeester at this point in their careers.

Next: The Unthinkable?

Alex Pietrangelo

I apologize for the slightly clickbait tease and picture. I’m talking about Alex Pietrangelo. Nobody in their right mind could, with a straight face, ponder trading Vladimir Tarasenko – even for someone as talented on the backside as Shattenkirk.

Back on point though, would it really make sense to trade Pietrangelo? The Blues just gave him a huge contract. He’s wrapped up until the summer of 2020 and will earn between $6.5 and 7.5 million per year with an annual cap hit of $6.5 million. Depending on what Shattenkirk is looking for, you might save money or you might spend more. Tough to say since there hasn’t been too much information on how much of a raise Shattenkirk thinks he should get.

Cons of a trade:

Pietrangelo was one of the most touted defensive prospects this team has had in recent memory. The team was high on him even before he had a breakout performance in the Junior World Championship.

Petro is also a year younger than Shattenkirk, so giving up on him might sting a little given the fact he’s come up with the team and reached a very high level. Pietrangelo eats up a lot of minutes and could be the next team captain if David Backes isn’t brought back or if Pietrangelo is still on the team when Backes retires.

In addition, given his high salary, there are only so many teams that could take on his contract. On top of that, there is almost no way you get fair value in return if your goal is to create enough space to keep Shattenkirk.

Pros of a trade:

Although Pietrangelo does average a few points more per season (injury seasons not withstanding), Shattenkirk’s powerplay numbers are better. He gets more assists and more goals on the man-advantage per season. In addition, the Blues powerplay has been nonexistent without Shattenkirk while taking Pietrangelo off the powerplay unit doesn’t seem to affect it much one way or the other.

The last little bit where Pietrangelo has been injured has also shown that Shattenkirk and Bouwmeester make a pretty good pair. Until the 6-3 drubbing by San Jose, where basically everyone had a bad shift or two or three, the Blues defense had looked fairly solid sans Pietrangelo.

Granted, the team was flying and it’s been a relatively small sample size, but it’s enough to at least ponder pulling the trigger if you think the deal makes sense all the way around. If you could get a decent forward for relatively cheap, that would allow more than enough in the difference to sign Shattenkirk to a long-term deal.

Next: Is It Worth It?

Dec 31, 2015; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Blues defenseman Kevin Shattenkirk (22) skates with the puck in the game against the Minnesota Wild during the third period at Scottrade Center. The Minnesota Wild defeat the St. Louis Blues 3-1. Mandatory Credit: Jasen Vinlove-USA TODAY Sports /

Are any or all of these deals too much?

That’s the big question for all fans and certainly for Doug Armstrong (or maybe someone else if big changes occur, but that’s another article). Personally, I think any of these deals would be justified although the Pietrangelo one would be tough to understand given the fact that you could not get fair value in return.

If you could not deal Bouwmeester or Pietrangelo, then you also have to ask yourself if it makes sense for three of your four highest paid players to be defensemen. That one might be tougher to explain to a fanbase that has been clamoring for more scoring for years. Tarasenko can’t do it on his own and there are forwards that will want raises soon.

In the end, although the Blues don’t have as much depth in the minors at forward as they do defense, I think the best option is to not re-sign either Backes or Berglund. Granted, you get nothing in return if you let them walk, but you’re not picking up salary either and surely the $4.5 million that Backes is getting or the $3.7 million spent on Berglund would be enough to satisfy Shattenkirk.