Blues extend Gunnarsson

[gaijin]

3 years, $8.7 million. Averages $2.9 mil a year.

Am I missing something? I mean, nothing against him, but that seems like a lot to pay for 7 points in 62 games.

[cprice12]

3 years, $8.7 million. Averages $2.9 mil a year.

Am I missing something? I mean, nothing against him, but that seems like a lot to pay for 7 points in 62 games.

It's less than he is making now...so he took a pay cut.
I'm fine with it.
He's a left handed D-man which we are lacking in the system, and getting a player of his skill level as a free agent would have likely cost a little more.
He has actually had a pretty solid season...for the most part.
But coming into this season, I was not a fan of his. But he has played much better than I thought he would...so good on him.

[theohall]

Don't know if there is a NTC, but with a reasonable salary and already signed, it makes him easier to move also.

[cprice12]

Don't know if there is a NTC, but with a reasonable salary and already signed, it makes him easier to move also.

He does have a NTC. Not sure how limited it is though.

[tjk002]

Does anyone else see this as a first step to Shatty getting moved in the offseason?

[Oaklandblue]

Does anyone else see this as a first step to Shatty getting moved in the offseason?

I actually see this as the first step to keeping Shatt. Shatt + Gunner on a line has been very successful, especially when they click for points.

[glen a richter]

I see this as a move to free up some cap space (smart) and addressing the concern that none of the d prospects may necessarily be ready for next season (also smart... give them time to season in Chicago).

[ecbm]

If the companion to this move isn't aggressively shopping Bouwmeester, I don't really get it. I mean, veteran depth is great. No problem there. But with Bouwmeester locked up and Petro actually having played in more games than Gunnarson (while Shatty has only played in 30 fewer) it seems like we have plenty there. This only leaves two spots for Bortuzzo, Edmundson and any prospect(s) that is ready next season.

It's less than he is making now...so he took a pay cut.

Considering he's having his least productive season ever and that his average TOI has declined ever since his second season as a fulltime player (four straight seasons), that's only reasonable. I'm also not totally impressed with a D who has started 54.1% of his shifts in the O-zone but averages 23 points over 84 games.

Don't know if there is a NTC, but with a reasonable salary and already signed, it makes him easier to move also.

He does have a NTC. Not sure how limited it is though.

Why the (Frank) does every player get one of these now?

He's a left handed D-man which we are lacking in the system

Yeah, that's the legitimate reason to keep him.

I actually see this as the first step to keeping Shatt. Shatt + Gunner on a line has been very successful, especially when they click for points.

Points? Gunnarson has 8 this season in 64 games, unless you meant that differently. This to me is a reason not to keep him. I don't like the idea of him being what relegates Parayko (27 points in 67 games and plays 2 more minutes a night) to the third pairing. Not cool.

[cprice12]

Does anyone else see this as a first step to Shatty getting moved in the offseason?

I still don't get all of the doom and gloom thoughts surrounding Shattenkirk and the idea that we will be forced to trade him because of salary cap issues. They just don't make any sense.

1) Shattenkirk is still under contract for all of next season and his cap hit is only $4.25 million. There is no need to trade him this offseason or at any point really.

2) We have $12.5 million in UFA's this offseason and another $14.7 million (including Shattenkirk's salary) in UFA's the following offseason. That is over $27 million in contracts that can technically come off the books.

3) Even if we end up resigning a bunch of our UFA's and we're over the cap and need to move someone, the idea that Shattenkirk would be first in line to be traded is an odd deduction.

We will resign some, we won't resign others. But there is plenty of money to play with to give Shatty a few million more per year if this organization wants him, which they obviously do.

If Armstrong and company want to keep Shattenkirk, they will...unless of course he doesn't want to be here (which I have heard rumors about). Then that's a completely different story.

[tjk002]

Does anyone else see this as a first step to Shatty getting moved in the offseason?

I still don't get all of the doom and gloom thoughts surrounding Shattenkirk and the idea that we will be forced to trade him because of salary cap issues. They just don't make any sense.

1) Shattenkirk is still under contract for all of next season and his cap hit is only $4.25 million. There is no need to trade him this offseason or at any point really.

2) We have $12.5 million in UFA's this offseason and another $14.7 million (including Shattenkirk's salary) in UFA's the following offseason. That is over $27 million in contracts that can technically come off the books.

3) Even if we end up resigning a bunch of our UFA's and we're over the cap and need to move someone, the idea that Shattenkirk would be first in line to be traded is an odd deduction.

We will resign some, we won't resign others. But there is plenty of money to play with to give Shatty a few million more per year if this organization wants him, which they obviously do.

If Armstrong and company want to keep Shattenkirk, they will...unless of course he doesn't want to be here (which I have heard rumors about). Then that's a completely different story.

Not trying to be doom and gloom on Shatty. Just asking a question. From what I observed in Minnesota, Hitch and Shatty don't necessarily get along. That generally doesn't bode well for someone, whether it be the HC or the player, I don't know.

[WaukeeBlues]

Yea I guess makes sense. A free agent would likely be more expensive than staying in house. I'm not in love with the guy but $2.9 isn't outrageous. Let's Parayko especially and Edmunson too grow into their roles more with no pressure to perform immediately.

And, as noted, gives additional time for Schmaltz, Vannelli, Dunn to develop more without forcing them up to the big club if they're not ready.

[cprice12]

Does anyone else see this as a first step to Shatty getting moved in the offseason?

I still don't get all of the doom and gloom thoughts surrounding Shattenkirk and the idea that we will be forced to trade him because of salary cap issues. They just don't make any sense.

1) Shattenkirk is still under contract for all of next season and his cap hit is only $4.25 million. There is no need to trade him this offseason or at any point really.

2) We have $12.5 million in UFA's this offseason and another $14.7 million (including Shattenkirk's salary) in UFA's the following offseason. That is over $27 million in contracts that can technically come off the books.

3) Even if we end up resigning a bunch of our UFA's and we're over the cap and need to move someone, the idea that Shattenkirk would be first in line to be traded is an odd deduction.

We will resign some, we won't resign others. But there is plenty of money to play with to give Shatty a few million more per year if this organization wants him, which they obviously do.

If Armstrong and company want to keep Shattenkirk, they will...unless of course he doesn't want to be here (which I have heard rumors about). Then that's a completely different story.

Not trying to be doom and gloom on Shatty. Just asking a question. From what I observed in Minnesota, Hitch and Shatty don't necessarily get along. That generally doesn't bode well for someone, whether it be the HC or the player, I don't know.

Hitch isn't long for this team. And I've heard rumors Shatty isn't happy with Hitch. Hitch might not even be here next year. Would be dumb to trade Shatty, who could be a very valuable player for us for years.

[glen a richter]

Yea I guess makes sense. A free agent would likely be more expensive than staying in house. I'm not in love with the guy but $2.9 isn't outrageous. Let's Parayko especially and Edmunson too grow into their roles more with no pressure to perform immediately.

And, as noted, gives additional time for Schmaltz, Vannelli, Dunn to develop more without forcing them up to the big club if they're not ready.

Vannelli's basically had a lost season. He's been injured since the 7th game of the season. Schmaltz may well be the closest but he could also be replacing someone else (Bouw?) who may get traded. I can get on board with that. Bouw makes more money than Gunnarsson for barely a significant offensive increase. The only real thing is the left handed v. right handed shot. Gunnarsson and Bouw are both L and Schmaltz is R. In any event, I'm sure the rationale for this contract was salary cap relief and prospect readiness.

[ecbm]

Let's Parayko especially and Edmunson too grow into their roles more with no pressure to perform immediately.

This is what I mean. Parayko is at least a second-pairing D RIGHT NOW. You don't have to wait until a guy is 25-27 to give him a big role. Petro played 22 minutes a night when he was 21. I find 55 to be equally impressive. I really hope the plan is for Gunnarson to be parked firmly on the third pairing. Or again, move Bouwmeester and shake it up a bit. No way Parayko should get fewer minutes than this guy though.

[theohall]

He does have a NTC. Not sure how limited it is though.

Why the (Frank) does every player get one of these now?

Guys will sign for less with a NTC than without one.

[glen a richter]

Wasn't the trade for Gunnarsson made in part because they wanted more offense from the blueline and Polak wasn't delivering that?

[Oaklandblue]

I actually see this as the first step to keeping Shatt. Shatt + Gunner on a line has been very successful, especially when they click for points.

Points? Gunnarson has 8 this season in 64 games, unless you meant that differently. This to me is a reason not to keep him. I don't like the idea of him being what relegates Parayko (27 points in 67 games and plays 2 more minutes a night) to the third pairing. Not cool.

The points to me were icing on the cake. Sorry that I didn't type that better. To reinterate, I do not see this signing as anything more than a depth move; it won't have any standing on whether we resign Shatts or not, which we will. IF these rumours that are flying around are true and Shatt may leave due to Hitch, I mean seriously, how many more reasons do we need to fire him at this point? If Shatt does leave due to him, it has the possibility of starting a mass exodus if others feel the same as Shatt toward Hitch and I'd like to hope that Stillman won't allow a Keenan 2.0 situation to occur. Players, or any other person generally doesn't vote by being vocal; they vote with their feet. Let's be proactive about this, please....

[ecbm]

He does have a NTC. Not sure how limited it is though.

Why the (Frank) does every player get one of these now?

Guys will sign for less with a NTC than without one.

Fair enough but I think it would need to be a significant amount to give up the flexibility-even more so when the player you're getting is nothing special. And it still comes down to how good your GM is at negotiating. Look at Berglund-salary too high, term too long AND a NTC. That's BS. At least the salary here is appropriate.

Wasn't the trade for Gunnarsson made in part because they wanted more offense from the blueline and Polak wasn't delivering that?

It seems a lot of Blues fans assume this but I never did. Gunnarson was a marginally better point producer than Polak playing on the top pairing and getting a lot of PP time in Toronto. I dare say the left-handed shot was the real draw.

[big d note]

I remember one of the reported reasons for trading for Gunnarsson was better puck movement. Not really for scoring, but for getting the puck out of the zone and starting the transition game better.