St. Louis Blues: Kevin Shattenkirk Returning Makes No Sense

A former St. Louis Blues defenseman is suddenly and unexpectedly on the market. Even so, it makes no sense for either side to form a reunion.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Just a few short years after seemingly getting everything he ever wanted – returning to New York and a big, fat pay day – former St. Louis Blues defender Kevin Shattenkirk is out on the street and looking for work.

Ok, that last part was more for effect. There is no way he’s literally on the street since he’s a millionaire.

However, once the New York Rangers bought him out, the immediate question asked by Blues fans was whether he might return. Even notable members of the Blues alumni were pondering the thought.

The idea that Jamie Rivers presents is not a bad one. Shattenkirk was an offensive player that helped out the Blues power play while he was in St. Louis.

However, that alone is not worth bringing him back. In fact, his impact on the power play is somewhat overstated.

More from Editorials

• St. Louis Blues Need Kasperi Kapanen To Be On Best Behavior
• Hayes’ Debut And Other Bold Predictions for the St. Louis Blues
• St. Louis Blues Captaincy Is Suddenly A Huge Problem For 2023-24
• St. Louis Blues National Games Cause More Problems Than They’re Worth
• St. Louis Blues Brayden Schenn Has To Be An Impact Player In 2023-24

Shattenkirk, himself, puts up really good special teams numbers, or did with the Blues anyway. He regularly scored more than half his goals and almost half his points on the man advantage.

However, as a team, his impact was not the difference maker you might expect. In Shattenirk’s final two years (one full year and 75% of another), the Blues scored 51 and 50 power play goals in 2015-16 and 2016-17.  They had percentages of 21.52% and 21.28%.

As bad as we all perceived the team’s power play in 2018-19, the Blues scored 50 goals and had a percentage of 21.10%. I’m no math whiz, but 0.4% difference does not seem like enough to me to justify the expense.

Some will point out the horrendous numbers of 2017-18, the immediate season after Shattenkirk left (38 G, 15.45%). It would appear that had as much, or more, to do with Mike Yeo as opposed to Shattenkirk’s absence.

On the flip side, Shattenkirk proved to be a rather unreliable defender during his time with the Blues and elsewhere. He has been a minus-defender the last four seasons.

If you prefer more analytical numbers, his defensive point shares are in the 1’s the last four seasons after a career high of 6.1 and 4.3 in random years with the Blues. His possession quality numbers have been a mixed bag, at best, as well.

Then, there is the financial issue. There is no number that would make financial sense for both the Blues and Shattenkirk that would allow both the return of Shattenkirk and the re-signing of Joel Edmundson and Ivan Barbashev.

I’ve discussed how that very reason is the reason Pat Maroon is out the door. If that is the case, why would the Blues turn around and look into a player that would cost even more than Maroon?

An interesting article by The Hockey News discusses five possible destinations for Shattenkirk. In each instance, his signing with that particular team involves a huge pay cut.

I find it hard to believe he would accept going from a $6.65 million player to anything under $3 million. However, given how late in the summer this buyout has occurred, he may have no choice if he wants to play.

Even at that price, the Blues would have no chance of signing him if the intention is to keep their current RFA’s. There is not enough money.

The only way to sign Shattenkirk would be to give up on Edmundson. Edmundson did have a rough 2018-19, but if he can reign in the turnover numbers, his defensive play is light years above Shattenkirk’s.

The Blues won the Stanley Cup based mainly on their defensive play. Gaining a handful of goals per season while opening up a defensive gap is not a sound strategy.

If Doug Armstrong came out and announced the signing of Shattenkirk tomorrow, he has earned the trust. However, in that moment, I would believe it to be a large mistake until proven otherwise.