Forums/NHL Signings

Montreal Canadiens signed Hunter Shinkaruk (1 Year / $650,000 AAV)

Was this a good signing?
The chart has been hidden

Poll Options

 

Aug 20 at 3:10 PM
#1
Hunter Shinkaruk has signed a new contract with the Montreal Canadiens.
STANDARD CONTRACT
COMPARE THIS CONTRACT
LENGTH: 1 YEAR
EXPIRY STATUS: RFA
SIGNING TEAM: Montreal Canadiens
VALUE: $650,000
C.H.% : 0.82
SIGNING DATE: August 20, 2018
SOURCE: CapFriendly
SEASONCLAUSECAP HIT AAV P. BONUSES S. BONUSES BASE SALARY TOTAL SALARY MINORS SALARY
2018-19$650,000$650,000$0$0$650,000$650,000$80,000
TOTAL$650,000$650,000$0$0$650,000$650,000$80,000
Aug 20 at 3:40 PM
#2
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 233
Likes: 58
lol who voted no. hes making the lowest amount allowed and they wouldn't have traded for him if they weren't going to sign him. low money 0 risk high upside that maybe he will step up his game if not no harm no foul
Wings1 and Bled101 liked this.
Aug 20 at 4:18 PM
#3
NateElder12
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 5,556
Likes: 721
Quoting: Canadianape
lol who voted no. hes making the lowest amount allowed and they wouldn't have traded for him if they weren't going to sign him. low money 0 risk high upside that maybe he will step up his game if not no harm no foul


i wouldn't say "high upside" but you are spot on with the rest haha.. a "no" vote is confusing. And it's only a year lol. Not like it's 8 years at that price.
Canadianape and EthanK24 liked this.
Aug 20 at 4:25 PM
#4
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 233
Likes: 58
Quoting: NateElder12
i wouldn't say "high upside" but you are spot on with the rest haha.. a "no" vote is confusing. And it's only a year lol. Not like it's 8 years at that price.


ya poor choice of words what I kinda meant is that there is only an upside meaning if he does figure it out it could be insanely "high" for Montreal. no downside.

the same opportunity exists with Rychel in Calgary
NateElder12 liked this.
Aug 21 at 3:48 PM
#5
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 79
Likes: 26
While the contract is solid (if the facts are correct), the trade that brought Shinkaruk to Montreal for fellow RFA Kerby Rychel is not so solid. Thus it’s hard to look at one separate from one another. Rychel, while inconstant, was a higher draft pick and achieved greater success at every level than Shinkaruk. He is also faster than him and actually has a legitimate shot at making an NHL roster soon - if he figures out how to play week in, week out. Shinkaruk on the other hand profiles as an AHL lifer, who can contribute on special teams and on a 3rd line (or 2nd if the team is less deep), but doesn’t have a future in the NHL - yes, even with the Canadiens. Can’t see why bergevin made this trade but he has made a lot of bad trades and signings. If Rychel figures his stuff out and starts playing in the NHL, this will look even worse.
Aug 21 at 3:50 PM
#6
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 79
Likes: 26
Quoting: Canadianape
lol who voted no. hes making the lowest amount allowed and they wouldn't have traded for him if they weren't going to sign him. low money 0 risk high upside that maybe he will step up his game if not no harm no foul


I voted “yes” tho was crtitical of the trade. Saw Rychel a lot with the Marlies last year before the trade to Montreal and he certainly has moments of brilliance where he can drive play and be an elite player at the AHL level. Have not seen that from Shinkaruk yet. Taken as a whole - if I could have Shinkaruk’s contract vs Rychel’s, I would take the other $75,000 or so and go with Kerby.

I imagine a lot of the “NO” votes are looking at the broader picture of the contract & trade that preceded it. Obviously he isn’t being overpaid nor is the term too long. But it’s a bad trade most would agree I am sure.
MountRoyal514 liked this.
Aug 21 at 4:11 PM
#7
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 233
Likes: 58
Quoting: rebecca
I voted “yes” tho was crtitical of the trade. Saw Rychel a lot with the Marlies last year before the trade to Montreal and he certainly has moments of brilliance where he can drive play and be an elite player at the AHL level. Have not seen that from Shinkaruk yet. Taken as a whole - if I could have Shinkaruk’s contract vs Rychel’s, I would take the other $75,000 or so and go with Kerby.

I imagine a lot of the “NO” votes are looking at the broader picture of the contract & trade that preceded it. Obviously he isn’t being overpaid nor is the term too long. But it’s a bad trade most would agree I am sure.


the poll is about the signing not the trade. there is no doubt that Rychel seems to have more upside then shinkaruk on paper and as a flames fan I have no problem with the trade. However this trade literally means nothing. Both guys were not going anywhere on either team. both of them have made no progress with their time in the AHL and in 95% of scenarios moving forward both guys continue to do nothing and continue to be AHL players.

However in 5% of the scenarios one or both of these guys benefits from the change in scenery and in leadership (coaches, teammates) and starts to excel and then maybe one day cracks the roster on the fourth line.

This trade has no downside and extremely low risk for both teams. If it works out in the future and one or the other develops into an NHL player then you can complain about the trade. Until then there is no reason to dislike this trade. A team cant just hold onto the same young player for years if it is evident it is not going to work in that system.

this is the same risk that the Flames took when they acquired Curtis Lazar from the senators. Lazar needed a change of scenery and he still was showing an ounce of potential so the flames took a gamble with the second round pick. now a couple years down the road I can truly complain about that trade because Lazar is a complete bust and was a waste of a 2nd round pick

the difference in pay for these two players is irrelevant because as you said I doubt either GM was that worried about 75000 dollars
Aug 21 at 4:18 PM
#8
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 79
Likes: 26
Quoting: Canadianape
the poll is about the signing not the trade. there is no doubt that Rychel seems to have more upside then shinkaruk on paper and as a flames fan I have no problem with the trade. However this trade literally means nothing. Both guys were not going anywhere on either team. both of them have made no progress with their time in the AHL and in 95% of scenarios moving forward both guys continue to do nothing and continue to be AHL players.

However in 5% of the scenarios one or both of these guys benefits from the change in scenery and in leadership (coaches, teammates) and starts to excel and then maybe one day cracks the roster on the fourth line.

This trade has no downside and extremely low risk for both teams. If it works out in the future and one or the other develops into an NHL player then you can complain about the trade. Until then there is no reason to dislike this trade. A team cant just hold onto the same young player for years if it is evident it is not going to work in that system.

this is the same risk that the Flames took when they acquired Curtis Lazar from the senators. Lazar needed a change of scenery and he still was showing an ounce of potential so the flames took a gamble with the second round pick. now a couple years down the road I can truly complain about that trade because Lazar is a complete bust and was a waste of a 2nd round pick

the difference in pay for these two players is irrelevant because as you said I doubt either GM was that worried about 75000 dollars


Hey there I fully agree with you that the poll is re: signing. That’s why I voted “YES” while also describing my concerns about the broader context (I.e. the trade that led to the signing). You were perplexed as to why so many people voted “No” and I just volunteered a suggestion. Because yes, he is being paid the NHL min (and barely more than that in the AHL to boot) and is signed for the minimum it’s hard to argue with the signing (unless you feel it should have been an AHL deal - or no deal at all). Since no one from the “no” side has peeped up yet I am assuming that for them this their thinking.
Aug 21 at 4:21 PM
#9
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 233
Likes: 58
Quoting: rebecca
Hey there I fully agree with you that the poll is re: signing. That’s why I voted “YES” while also describing my concerns about the broader context (I.e. the trade that led to the signing). You were perplexed as to why so many people voted “No” and I just volunteered a suggestion. Because yes, he is being paid the NHL min (and barely more than that in the AHL to boot) and is signed for the minimum it’s hard to argue with the signing (unless you feel it should have been an AHL deal - or no deal at all). Since no one from the “no” side has peeped up yet I am assuming that for them this their thinking.


fair enough I wasn't criticizing your response just offering up an explanation of the trade to anyone who might disagree with the trade
rebecca liked this.
Aug 21 at 4:25 PM
#10
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 79
Likes: 26
Edited Aug 21 at 10:54 PM
Quoting: Canadianape
the poll is about the signing not the trade. there is no doubt that Rychel seems to have more upside then shinkaruk on paper and as a flames fan I have no problem with the trade. However this trade literally means nothing. Both guys were not going anywhere on either team. both of them have made no progress with their time in the AHL and in 95% of scenarios moving forward both guys continue to do nothing and continue to be AHL players.

However in 5% of the scenarios one or both of these guys benefits from the change in scenery and in leadership (coaches, teammates) and starts to excel and then maybe one day cracks the roster on the fourth line.

This trade has no downside and extremely low risk for both teams. If it works out in the future and one or the other develops into an NHL player then you can complain about the trade. Until then there is no reason to dislike this trade. A team cant just hold onto the same young player for years if it is evident it is not going to work in that system.

this is the same risk that the Flames took when they acquired Curtis Lazar from the senators. Lazar needed a change of scenery and he still was showing an ounce of potential so the flames took a gamble with the second round pick. now a couple years down the road I can truly complain about that trade because Lazar is a complete bust and was a waste of a 2nd round pick

the difference in pay for these two players is irrelevant because as you said I doubt either GM was that worried about 75000 dollars


And yes, I totally take your point on the unpredictability of these “prospects” (tho they are getting long in the tooth). They both have stagnated, both were higher picks who haven’t lived up to their potential and both are moving on to their 3rd+ team in 3 years. It’s most likely neither will play 100+ games in the NHL or be an impact player at that level. Both could go on (and likely will if their health cooperates and they have the desire) to long pro careers in the AHL or Europe but anything beyond that is uncertain at best.

That said, if someone made a poll on who “won” that trade based on potential upside, I would bet $100 that Rychel would beat Shinkaruk (edit: looks at Poll on Trade page and sees tha Shinkaruk winning by a hair...oops). It doesn’t mean he is or will be better but his upside at times is undeniable (tho as I admit I have seen him more).
Aug 21 at 4:51 PM
#11
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 233
Likes: 58
Quoting: rebecca
That said, if someone made a poll on who “won” that trade based on potential upside, I would bet $100 that Rychel would beat Shinkaruk. It doesn’t mean he is or will be better but his upside at times is undeniable (tho as I admit I have seen him more).


I agree and that's probably what Calgary saw when doing this trade. But I would posture that its equally likely that Shinkaruk gets better in Montreal so as I said nobody can pass judgment on this trade unless either of them becomes an NHL player in the future. and even if one of them does become an NHL player in the future there is no garuntee that would have happened with the team the were previously playing for.

perfect example is one that involves Shinkaruk.

Flames traded Markus Granlund to the Canucks for Shinkaruk. At the time no one really thought much about the trade cause both guys were fringe NHL players. Now however Shinkaruk is a second line AHL player and Granlund is a consistent NHL player. Flames lose big time but that's because the change in scenery and leadership in vancouver for Granlund brought out his full potential.
rebecca liked this.
Aug 21 at 10:48 PM
#12
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 79
Likes: 26
Quoting: Canadianape
I agree and that's probably what Calgary saw when doing this trade. But I would posture that its equally likely that Shinkaruk gets better in Montreal so as I said nobody can pass judgment on this trade unless either of them becomes an NHL player in the future. and even if one of them does become an NHL player in the future there is no garuntee that would have happened with the team the were previously playing for.

perfect example is one that involves Shinkaruk.

Flames traded Markus Granlund to the Canucks for Shinkaruk. At the time no one really thought much about the trade cause both guys were fringe NHL players. Now however Shinkaruk is a second line AHL player and Granlund is a consistent NHL player. Flames lose big time but that's because the change in scenery and leadership in vancouver for Granlund brought out his full potential.


Yeah some cheeky monkey in the Trade thread said Vancouver is the winner of the Shinkaruk-Rychel trade. They certainly fared better than the Leafs and the return in the Rychel (plus a 2nd) for 2 months of no-goatee Plekanec & Bobby Baun’s Grandson, LOL.
Canadianape liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Submit Poll Edit