And i would be good with that trade. Hertl is injury prone and as much as i would hate to see him go, he is close to being a cripple on skates if he isn't already. Labanc is going to be nothing more then a over paid 3rd line pp specialist who is a liability defensively. And the 1st would not matter if it came with eichel as the return since he is the young superstar the team needs to extend the competing for the playoffs every year.
Speculation: 2019-2020 Sharks Roster Discussion Part 11 - Post TDL
- Thread starter WTFetus
- Start date
- Status
And i would be good with that trade. Hertl is injury prone and as much as i would hate to see him go, he is close to being a cripple on skates if he isn't already. Labanc is going to be nothing more then a over paid 3rd line pp specialist who is a liability defensively. And the 1st would not matter if it came with eichel as the return since he is the young superstar the team needs to extend the competing for the playoffs every year.
I would too, but I bet it would still take another piece that would hurt.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it took Hertl + Timo + First, and then Buffalo currently would probably be better than us after that trade. Eichel, Kane, and Cooch would be the only top six forwards we’d have. We’d be even worse than this year.
Nolan11
Registered User
- Mar 5, 2013
- 3,236
- 334
Trade couture and LaBanc for dado of, tofu and two 7th overall picks. Depending on cozens, we might make the playoffs but should be better in a year or two.
WSS11
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2009
- 6,102
- 5,192
It's great in theory but is entirely dependent on Dadonov and Toffoli wanting to sign here which is far from a given. Personally, i wouldn't give either of those two players the cap hit that was suggested. Toffoli's skating also concerns me if this team intends to transition over to a more fast paced system. On top of that, i can't see Couture and Labanc returning the 7th overall pick and Buffalo's best prospect.
Is Strome really that good? If he played with Patrick Kane then I take his stats with a grain of salt. I'm not against what you did but if Hertl goes down again or isn't 100% when the next season starts that roster sucks for centers. I think Jumbo can be viewed as nothing more than a 4th line center and 2nd pp guy moving forward. Keep him on the roster for his locker room contributions especially with the void from trading couture. That roster needs one more center than can at least be a legit 2nd line player. Jumbo at his age can't be the 3rd best center on the team next season. Recipe for failure. Also it definitely needs one of the actual problem contracts removed... one of Jones, Vlasic or Burns. Then you can sign that missing center.
Last edited:
Theres no way a GM makes that trade. Especially DW. If a team actually did entertain trading Eichel it would have to be more spread out pain. top 6 player (couture + top prospect (merk) + bottom 6 player (labanc?) + 1st round + conditional pick + mid tier prospect. No way do the Sharks give up 2 top 6 players, especially as young as they both are, for him unless that's all that's all that's going back, so 2 for 1.
Last edited:
Celly4Celebrini
pray
- Jul 10, 2010
- 5,698
- 596
Id take Eichel over anyone the sharks could take at the top of the draft, so id 100% do that deal.
Hertl isnt as young as many perceive him to be, and Labanc may never be more than a 2-3 line guy thats a liability in his own zone.
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,005
- 4,681
There’s zero precedent for that package being necessary in these types of trades. Teams that trade players like Eichel don’t ever get full value. That deal would involve one of Hertl/Timo, Labanc, and a 1st and maybe a spare part or two in terms of prospect/cap balancer.
So, the Jumbo trade is the only similar one I can think of. Elite, young, 1C.
He got a top 6 winger, top pairing D man, and a 4C and that’s known as one of the worst trades ever.
So, a somewhat equivalent in value that we can offer to the DW trade would be
Hertl/Timo - Merkley/Ferraro (add because they’re not established top D men) - LaBanc. And that’s to equal one of the greatest thefts of all time. So, a fair deal would be
Timo - Merkley - LaBanc - 1st
but then you have to factor that Buffalo has no real incentive to trade him and that drives the price up even more. The owner and fans want to contend as soon as possible. They aren’t trading Eichel without a massive overpayment. I’d imagine they’d rather overpay in futures to build a team around Eichel than to trade him for lesser players and futures.
Harbessix
Registered User
Rather than spend the estimated cap hits on Dadonov and Toffoli I think we’d be better off just adding solid depth with 3-4 veterans on 1 year prove it deals at likely the same cost or less. Guys like Haula, Simmonds, Frolik, Galchenyuk ect…
Kane-Hertl-Labanc
Meier-Couture-Simmonds
Gregor-Haula-Galchenyuk
Frolik-Handemark-Noesen
That’s just an example but the premise is adding more depth as opposed to spending all the cap on 1 top six guy…
Kane-Hertl-Labanc
Meier-Couture-Simmonds
Gregor-Haula-Galchenyuk
Frolik-Handemark-Noesen
That’s just an example but the premise is adding more depth as opposed to spending all the cap on 1 top six guy…
Even if you can only get one of them, which should be very doable, or even going all in on a big fish, like Hall, would still work out better than any other reasonable things I can realistically imagine happening.
If 2021 was also a down year because of those trades, we'd have some great youngsters to replenish spots in 2022. We'd have our own first in 2021, which if we couldn't sign any decent FAs, just save the cap and get a high pick, sign some forwards in 2021 (as of now, a very good UFA year), Cozens should be ready to be a full time impact NHLer by 2022, Buffalo's 2020 7OA pick would probably be ready by then, and then we'd have our own high 1st 2021 pick in the pipeline, and Merkley should be ready by then as well. Unless we do something drastic, we're going to be stuck in purgatory for the foreseeable future. We can either trade the limited futures we have for vets to try to be relevant (also not very realistic due to our salary cap) and be absolutely f***ed in 2-3 years or *possibly* take a step back next year, but have a reset/extended window in 2022+.
Strome just seems like exactly what we need. We need a younger, not UFA priced Top 6 forward, that can be had for a reasonable asset cost and Strome is the only one of those I can think of ATM. As in my reply to WS above, worst case scenario is that we suck again next year, but we have our 1st and get another blue chip prospect. Cozens should be ready for a top 6 role in 2022, Merkley would likely be ready, and we'd have two top 10 picks, a late first, and two early second rounders in the pipeline to replenish the team with good, young, cost controlled talent. I just can't see many other options for DW. He's not going to fully rebuild, we don't have cap space/assets to improve the team in a meaningful way, and don't have any high end prospects to hope for besides Merkley.
As much as I want to get rid of Jones, it's going to cost us a 1st at minimum to dump that contract and then we'd still have to spend the same cap hit on another goalie, so then we're out of another first (we need more of these, not less), don't gain any cap room, and just have a better goalie with less assets to improve the team. At best, we're a wild card team for a couple of years and then going to be f***ed for the next 5 years
Similar situation with Vlasic. Maybe we can sign someone like Dillon for 4-5 mil a year and we gain 2 mil in cap room, but same situation as above. That doesn't move the needle enough for us now and still shafts us for the future.
If we trade Burns, we probably get a player or two that's capable of being in the lineup, but then we only have 1 legit top 4 D man, there will definitely be salary cap coming back because only a contender will want Burns and they won't have cap to trade for him without sending some back, so we won't gain much cap room, and maybe get a middle 6 forward back in a trade, so we're now short 2-3 top 4 D men and 1-2 top 6 forwards, no cap space, or good prospects.
Le Rosbeef
Registered User
- Jul 27, 2007
- 3,517
- 1,009
I must confess, aside of the fact he's a solid player, I don't get the Eichel chatter.
We're already thin at forward - banking even more eggs in one basket won't help us. Besides, what has been the criticism of his time in Buffalo? That there's not enough around him to sustain success, right?! Even McDavid is surrounded by a bunch of nothing, and look how that's working for the Oilers. Tomas is a quality player but he needs more around him and I'd rather have him producing at his rate than Eichel at double the cap hit, allowing us more depth.
Gecklund
Registered User
I’d love Galchenyuk at a low cost. I’d put him on Thornton’s wing or at 3C with Jumbo at 4C.
You do realize Frolik and Simmonds have scored at the same rate for the past 3 years that Patty did last year, right? 2-3 more third liners aren't going to make us competitive again. Wouldn't mind Haula or taking a flyer on Galchenyuk if he's cheap, but we need another bonafide top 6 forward, not middle 6 depth. Haula would be a good Goodrow replacement, but we were still horrible with Goodrow last year and adding Frolik and Simmonds to last year's squad would still be a tire fire.
Harbessix
Registered User
I just think our issue was a general lack of depth as opposed to lack of top six forwards. Hertl, Kane, Couture and Meier are all capable of 30 goal seasons. When I look at a team like St Louis they don’t have a ton of star top six forwards but rather really strong depth on all four lines.
And Frolik-Simmonds were just non specific examples. It would be better to replace injured players throughout the season with extras like Sorensen and Gambrell or Leonard as opposed to Letunov and Middleton
And Frolik-Simmonds were just non specific examples. It would be better to replace injured players throughout the season with extras like Sorensen and Gambrell or Leonard as opposed to Letunov and Middleton
I like the buy low idea on Chuck because he can actually be a solid top-9F. Simmonds is cooked, and Frolik is basically another 4th liner. This team has 4 true top-6F and that's not enough. If you want to go with 3 mid-level additions instead of Toffoli/Dadonov, I'd go with Chuck + someone like Craig Smith, Granlund, or Haula and a trade target like Killorn, Palat, or Sundqvist.
Le Rosbeef
Registered User
- Jul 27, 2007
- 3,517
- 1,009
This team is committed to winning so we're not getting a full rebuild. But Doug has - intentionally or not - pushed us into a franchise-changing corner by continuing to chase his cards to the river. Something fairly substantial needs to happen or there's a good chance it's going to get a lot worse for the franchise in the long run and I don't think we can afford to wait another 12 months to see.
As such, what I'm jotting down (Warning: it's long, i'm bored) here is predicated on the fact that Doug clearly isn't stupid; he must appreciably know that he'll need a positive slant on the state of the franchise at year-end to have any chance of retaining his job (which again, I have to assume he would want to). So for me, hedging bets on his path ahead makes most sense given there are no perfect scenarios remaining out there (...unless, hello, post Covid-19 amnesty buyouts!), so my thinking has finally settled on the following:
FWIW at the outset, I have to say that hoping for a turn around of some sort in 2020-21 is possible with a healthy roster and I could see why the Sharks might need to sell that narrative to season ticket holders... but I can't help but feel we'd be ignoring the smart percentages to make it our main strategy. To be a cup contender with just 4 top 6 forwards seems ...optimistic. Sure, a band-aid, high priced second-tier UFA forward could paper over some of the cracks in the short term, but that's where the fool's gold lies. UFAs are gamble with long term-consequences, which can end up just kicking the problem down the hill a little and making things harder to solve in due course. If we're going to have to take some form of risk this year (spoiler: we are), I think there are better options than the thin crop of quality UFA forwards which tie us to our decisions for the long term. Paying $5-6m+ per for Toffolli, or anyone, on a multi-year deal is not the most escapable risk. We'd still be hugely reliant on two key players on the wrong side of 40 logging valuable minutes; any further key injuries next season would derail DW's plans quickly with no easy fix in sight. And let's face it - without any visible change this summer followed by a second swing and playoff miss, surely his tenure would be over...
I'm open enough to say I think he's done a pretty decent job all considered over 17 years. But even he must see he's stuck between a rock and a hard place - two failing seasons - his last two - would taint a large part of his legacy as the GM of the Sharks. He needs flexibility in 12 months time (and with a subtle eye on the expansion draft) - the short term - and I think he can get that with two key moves this summer.
How?
First off, and I appreciate it won't be popular, IMO it's absolutely critical to trade Brent Burns to begin to lay the foundations of a better balance of bucks on D (...on the basis that EK clearly isn't going anywhere and Vlasic comes with serious NMC constraints). Given that Burns should reasonably be expected to hold a fair bit more value than MEV on the trade front, and mindful that we have young Ryan Merkley in the system, I'd reluctantly explore if anything can be done with Burn's 3 team trade list this offseason, without delay. Brent Burn's value is as high today as it will be at any point going forwards. We potentially missed the boat on maximising trade values by doing this with a number of players in the past like Thornton, Marleau and Pavelski but we actually have a way to mitigate Burn's loss unlike the other 3 at the time.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'd undeniably and unquestionably prefer to deal Vlasic from a hockey and operations perspective. But I really don't want to retain on that contract for the next half decade, nor do I foresee a team sending assets of any real value back that couldn't otherwise be acquired less restrictively on the cap. If Montreal was genuinely willing to add him like was mooted last season, we should do everything in our power to make it happen, and much of our potential imbalance would be solved. I digress...
Burns' trade control limits the options and let's face it, heck knows who he's choosing each July... but could you imagine his impact on a PP like Edmonton? Detroit? Chicago? NYI? Winnipeg? All have a need and fit for a player like Burns, so in theory he'd be a much easier sell. But whatever happens, Wilson could simply chase "best return" on him - something he excels at - and if something can come in and help our top 9 right now - crucially with growth potential - even better. $8m really isn't that unpalatable for what he'd bring a team as a No.1 PP weapon given some of the other contracts out there right now. It'd be a tough loss for many reasons, but would be a smart course to pursue.
Secondly, and equally importantly, I'd move heaven and earth to get Alexander Georgiev (by trading Labanc as the skeleton of a creative sign & trade RFA/RFA deal?!) to give Martin Jones some true competition for the role. Look, I'd love to see Jones bounce back - the club really needs him to - but we can no longer sit and point fingers - we actually have to start properly hedging our bets for a situation in which he doesn't: Our prospect pool behind him is speculative at best, paying for a goalie in free agency can be brutal and drafting/developing them even harder.
I have watched Georgiev a decent amount. If it wasn't for Shestyorkin, I doubt he'd even be under consideration for trade, but Lundqvist's contract ties their hands entirely. The key here is if AG was to fairly supplant Jones, eventually you work to find a deal to move MJ and get creative with retention/bad contracts to make it happen, but it'd be justified by way of a much needed reset on the position-potential and allocated $ and term between our pipes. And alternatively, if Jones does recover, you aren't faced with a long term dilemma other than choosing whom to trade if and when the need comes. I think the kid fits the Sharks' current scenario perfectly given his stage of development, age and potential and knows he could have a legitimate shot as a No.1 - something he won't get in NY. Plus it would give Melnichuk time to grow and adapt to NA without throwing him to the wolves as a back up to a guy in a tough spot straight away, and he's another kid with obvious potential. Dell was never going to be truly given that chance as he was always coined as a back up. Georgiev would not be marketed like that and that's vital in terms of the perception around him. Sure we could add a veteran back up, but again, it's just that. And adding a starter like Lehner or Holtby in this climate would again be a chronic long term risk.
I appreciate that in making these two moves, we'd be shifting our gamble from a UFA like Toffoli to an internal one on the shoulders of a youngster, but there's a good reason for doing this to do with timing.
Of course, this season's success falls entirely on ensuring Ryan Merkley could cope in a sheltered role on the bottom pair ... a sort of situational job interview with someone like Pasichnuk, alongside a stay-at home, nurturing-type veteran. But in theory, the offensive drop off from the back end becomes at least somewhat more palatable with him in the team. And crucially, if you give Erik Karlsson the open and very publicly stated job of mentoring his progression / offensive tools into the league, it would go some way towards protect the kid in the narrative of the NHL media. His creative potential is sky high and I'm not against doing whatever it takes to protect his talent and get him to be able to cope defensively at NHL level. He will need sheltering but it can be done. And let's face it, he clearly holds more value to the Sharks than he would garner in a trade because of the past at this stage, but how could he not relish the gift-horse opportunity of learning from the likes of EK, JT and Patty?
Sure, finding a veteran will not be easy (A guy like Kevan Miller - if he could fully come back from his knee injury would be absolute perfection to play as a No.5 with his toughness and experience... Ok, I know that's doubtful!), but again it becomes a short term throw of the dice and simply boils down to finding a character/scheme-fit. That's much better than getting into a bidding war for Tyler Toffolli.
The point of all this is the gamble is managed with fewer long term risks, because crucially (if anyone is still reading) - against all this, we do have a 1st in 2021 and 3 x 3rd rounders. All is not lost if it doesn't work out to plan on the ice without heavily spoiling the optics. It would provide Doug a fork in the road to veer off towards if the hockey side doesn't work as hoping, including a potential lottery pick to put back into the system. And when this year's draft is done, after Ottawa adds a budding star with their SJ/EK65 selection, trust me that vitriol will live long in the memory. If we can have our own solid draft this summer (I'd definitely draft with TB's pick as well as the other top 60 picks rather than trade them if possible - good quality in there) - then the optics again will buffer it somewhat which could prove vital in 12 months time. And of course, we'd have the potential to boost the coffers at the TDL too by taking on some expiring contracts.
So you run with:
Kane - Couture - (x)
(x) - Hertl - Meier
(x) - Thornton - (x)
Marleau - Handemark - Noeson
Simek - Karlsson
Vlasic - [UFA e.g. Kevan Miller]
Ferraro - Merkley/Pasichnuk/A.N. Other
Jones/Georgiev
...where you fill the spots with a combination of Leonard, Gregor, Checkovich, Gambrell, or via the Burn's return, or an unheralded, genuinely inexpensive UFA ( 1 year deal, Craig Smith? Vlad Namestikov etc?) but you do not commit to anything beyond a short contract horizon while the stocks re-fill.
It might just be enough to put a balanced core in place to build back from in 12 months time. Meh. Have at it. I need a lie down...
As such, what I'm jotting down (Warning: it's long, i'm bored) here is predicated on the fact that Doug clearly isn't stupid; he must appreciably know that he'll need a positive slant on the state of the franchise at year-end to have any chance of retaining his job (which again, I have to assume he would want to). So for me, hedging bets on his path ahead makes most sense given there are no perfect scenarios remaining out there (...unless, hello, post Covid-19 amnesty buyouts!), so my thinking has finally settled on the following:
FWIW at the outset, I have to say that hoping for a turn around of some sort in 2020-21 is possible with a healthy roster and I could see why the Sharks might need to sell that narrative to season ticket holders... but I can't help but feel we'd be ignoring the smart percentages to make it our main strategy. To be a cup contender with just 4 top 6 forwards seems ...optimistic. Sure, a band-aid, high priced second-tier UFA forward could paper over some of the cracks in the short term, but that's where the fool's gold lies. UFAs are gamble with long term-consequences, which can end up just kicking the problem down the hill a little and making things harder to solve in due course. If we're going to have to take some form of risk this year (spoiler: we are), I think there are better options than the thin crop of quality UFA forwards which tie us to our decisions for the long term. Paying $5-6m+ per for Toffolli, or anyone, on a multi-year deal is not the most escapable risk. We'd still be hugely reliant on two key players on the wrong side of 40 logging valuable minutes; any further key injuries next season would derail DW's plans quickly with no easy fix in sight. And let's face it - without any visible change this summer followed by a second swing and playoff miss, surely his tenure would be over...
I'm open enough to say I think he's done a pretty decent job all considered over 17 years. But even he must see he's stuck between a rock and a hard place - two failing seasons - his last two - would taint a large part of his legacy as the GM of the Sharks. He needs flexibility in 12 months time (and with a subtle eye on the expansion draft) - the short term - and I think he can get that with two key moves this summer.
How?
First off, and I appreciate it won't be popular, IMO it's absolutely critical to trade Brent Burns to begin to lay the foundations of a better balance of bucks on D (...on the basis that EK clearly isn't going anywhere and Vlasic comes with serious NMC constraints). Given that Burns should reasonably be expected to hold a fair bit more value than MEV on the trade front, and mindful that we have young Ryan Merkley in the system, I'd reluctantly explore if anything can be done with Burn's 3 team trade list this offseason, without delay. Brent Burn's value is as high today as it will be at any point going forwards. We potentially missed the boat on maximising trade values by doing this with a number of players in the past like Thornton, Marleau and Pavelski but we actually have a way to mitigate Burn's loss unlike the other 3 at the time.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'd undeniably and unquestionably prefer to deal Vlasic from a hockey and operations perspective. But I really don't want to retain on that contract for the next half decade, nor do I foresee a team sending assets of any real value back that couldn't otherwise be acquired less restrictively on the cap. If Montreal was genuinely willing to add him like was mooted last season, we should do everything in our power to make it happen, and much of our potential imbalance would be solved. I digress...
Burns' trade control limits the options and let's face it, heck knows who he's choosing each July... but could you imagine his impact on a PP like Edmonton? Detroit? Chicago? NYI? Winnipeg? All have a need and fit for a player like Burns, so in theory he'd be a much easier sell. But whatever happens, Wilson could simply chase "best return" on him - something he excels at - and if something can come in and help our top 9 right now - crucially with growth potential - even better. $8m really isn't that unpalatable for what he'd bring a team as a No.1 PP weapon given some of the other contracts out there right now. It'd be a tough loss for many reasons, but would be a smart course to pursue.
Secondly, and equally importantly, I'd move heaven and earth to get Alexander Georgiev (by trading Labanc as the skeleton of a creative sign & trade RFA/RFA deal?!) to give Martin Jones some true competition for the role. Look, I'd love to see Jones bounce back - the club really needs him to - but we can no longer sit and point fingers - we actually have to start properly hedging our bets for a situation in which he doesn't: Our prospect pool behind him is speculative at best, paying for a goalie in free agency can be brutal and drafting/developing them even harder.
I have watched Georgiev a decent amount. If it wasn't for Shestyorkin, I doubt he'd even be under consideration for trade, but Lundqvist's contract ties their hands entirely. The key here is if AG was to fairly supplant Jones, eventually you work to find a deal to move MJ and get creative with retention/bad contracts to make it happen, but it'd be justified by way of a much needed reset on the position-potential and allocated $ and term between our pipes. And alternatively, if Jones does recover, you aren't faced with a long term dilemma other than choosing whom to trade if and when the need comes. I think the kid fits the Sharks' current scenario perfectly given his stage of development, age and potential and knows he could have a legitimate shot as a No.1 - something he won't get in NY. Plus it would give Melnichuk time to grow and adapt to NA without throwing him to the wolves as a back up to a guy in a tough spot straight away, and he's another kid with obvious potential. Dell was never going to be truly given that chance as he was always coined as a back up. Georgiev would not be marketed like that and that's vital in terms of the perception around him. Sure we could add a veteran back up, but again, it's just that. And adding a starter like Lehner or Holtby in this climate would again be a chronic long term risk.
I appreciate that in making these two moves, we'd be shifting our gamble from a UFA like Toffoli to an internal one on the shoulders of a youngster, but there's a good reason for doing this to do with timing.
Of course, this season's success falls entirely on ensuring Ryan Merkley could cope in a sheltered role on the bottom pair ... a sort of situational job interview with someone like Pasichnuk, alongside a stay-at home, nurturing-type veteran. But in theory, the offensive drop off from the back end becomes at least somewhat more palatable with him in the team. And crucially, if you give Erik Karlsson the open and very publicly stated job of mentoring his progression / offensive tools into the league, it would go some way towards protect the kid in the narrative of the NHL media. His creative potential is sky high and I'm not against doing whatever it takes to protect his talent and get him to be able to cope defensively at NHL level. He will need sheltering but it can be done. And let's face it, he clearly holds more value to the Sharks than he would garner in a trade because of the past at this stage, but how could he not relish the gift-horse opportunity of learning from the likes of EK, JT and Patty?
Sure, finding a veteran will not be easy (A guy like Kevan Miller - if he could fully come back from his knee injury would be absolute perfection to play as a No.5 with his toughness and experience... Ok, I know that's doubtful!), but again it becomes a short term throw of the dice and simply boils down to finding a character/scheme-fit. That's much better than getting into a bidding war for Tyler Toffolli.
The point of all this is the gamble is managed with fewer long term risks, because crucially (if anyone is still reading) - against all this, we do have a 1st in 2021 and 3 x 3rd rounders. All is not lost if it doesn't work out to plan on the ice without heavily spoiling the optics. It would provide Doug a fork in the road to veer off towards if the hockey side doesn't work as hoping, including a potential lottery pick to put back into the system. And when this year's draft is done, after Ottawa adds a budding star with their SJ/EK65 selection, trust me that vitriol will live long in the memory. If we can have our own solid draft this summer (I'd definitely draft with TB's pick as well as the other top 60 picks rather than trade them if possible - good quality in there) - then the optics again will buffer it somewhat which could prove vital in 12 months time. And of course, we'd have the potential to boost the coffers at the TDL too by taking on some expiring contracts.
So you run with:
Kane - Couture - (x)
(x) - Hertl - Meier
(x) - Thornton - (x)
Marleau - Handemark - Noeson
Simek - Karlsson
Vlasic - [UFA e.g. Kevan Miller]
Ferraro - Merkley/Pasichnuk/A.N. Other
Jones/Georgiev
...where you fill the spots with a combination of Leonard, Gregor, Checkovich, Gambrell, or via the Burn's return, or an unheralded, genuinely inexpensive UFA ( 1 year deal, Craig Smith? Vlad Namestikov etc?) but you do not commit to anything beyond a short contract horizon while the stocks re-fill.
It might just be enough to put a balanced core in place to build back from in 12 months time. Meh. Have at it. I need a lie down...
Simmonds is done. I loved him but counting on him in the top 6 is not good planning. He had 8 goals in 68 games last season. No thanks. Labanc is not a top 6 player on a contender. He might be eventually but he isn't yet. Jury is out.
Exactly. When this team almost got the the cup recently they had 7 guys scoring like top 6 players. Right now we sorta have 4. The problem is top 6 players and NHL scoring ability. This organization os more than stacked with prospects who will likely be good bottom 6 players. Don't need to sign vets for that role after Jumbo and maybe Patty.
It's a reasonable way forward but there is no way the team does this. Too many things left to chance. As far as getting rid of jones. No way does it take a first. Someone would take him as long as the Sharks retain salary. at worst they might have to give up a mid to late round pick or a mid tier prospect. But, no, it won't take a first. Especially after he showed signs of getting his game back at the end of the season. If the Sharks get rid of Vlasic they may not even need a replacement. At worst they need someone for the bottom pair which won't cost the 4-5 mil you suggest. There are enough defensive prospects in the system to fill out the bottom pair and Burns and EK65 are going to eat all the RD minutes anyway. If they are somehow able to move Vlasic & Jones they might have room for someone like Hall. Your return for Burns isn't realistic. A team looking to win the cup would give up a 1st and an NHL ready top prospect minimum.
From what DW has said so far this year, any prognostications that have the sharks taking a step back to pick up prospects just isn't realistic. DW is in it to win it.
Lot's of good stuff here. One thing though. They have to bring in an outside top 6 player somehow. If it's the burns trade, great. But one has to come in or that roster will fail at the first forward injury. Also Burns will likely accept a trade to Dallas since his ranch is there. I would be looking at their roster and prospects for a suitable return. As far as trading Vlasic... I see no reason to avoid retaining a couple mil on that contract. If the cap increases once in the next couple years it will negate the impact and free up salary for a younger, competent player. Win.
Last edited:
themelkman
Always Delivers
It took a first to dump Patty at 6 million for one year when he was still a useful player, albeit overpaid. Jones has been the worst starter in the league for 2 straight years and has the 12th highest cap hit of any goalie and still has another 4 years on his contract. Even with retention, it'll probably still take a 1st to move his contract. He's also still owed 21 of a 23 million cap hit, so it's not even useful to teams that want to reach the cap floor and not pay out real money. 10 games of average play isn't going to make people forget about the 2 solid years of .896 save percentage and a -37.88 goals saved above average over the past two years. Even if we retained and traded him, We'd have to eat at least 1 mil + whatever his replacement cost and we're even in cap room and probably loose an important asset.
The Sharks currently only have 2 top 4 Defenseman. Maybe 3 if you count Simek, but he didn't look like it last year. They absolutely would need to spend 4-5 mil to get another player like Dillon who can step in the top 4. Which D prospects are you talking about? Middleton? Desimone? Roy? Meloche? None of them are starting quality on an NHL team. Knyazev has almost no chance of being NHL quality coming straight out of the Q. Hatakka is probably at least another year or two away. Merkley probably needs a year in the AHL. Pasichnuk might be able to step in right away, but probably not the best idea to roll into the season with him penciled in to a starting role. As you saw last year with the forwards, betting on these kinds of players to step in immediately is a huge mistake.
If a contender is sending a 1st + good prospect back for burns, they're also sending back a cap dump because what contender has 8+ mil in cap space available? They would have to send a major contract back our way. None of that even factors in his contract length, which I'd imagine lowers his return a good amount. So, at best we probably gain 3-4 mil in cap room? Great. Now we only have 1 top 4 D man, not enough cap room to sign one, and not enough assets to acquire a young, cost controlled top 4 d man.
Patty and Jones aren’t exactly comparable for many different reasons. Patty had a full no move and wanted to be out west and when the Leafs didn’t get it done said he’d be willing to go somewhere that would buy him out. Jones has a three team list before DW sees if he’s willing to go elsewhere. The Sharks also have the ability to take back cap space that the Leafs didn’t have. It’s just not useful to compare Marleau to Jones.
As for Burns, plenty can handle 8 mil in an offseason trade with most likely wanting to send half back. At that point it depends on the return. That contract could be a 2nd pairing guy or the prospect and pick can certainly be enough to trade for one. Plenty of top four caliber d-men are dealt for 2nd round picks. I wouldn’t worry too much about that.
Difference between the leads dump of marleau and a move to remove jones. The fact that you don't see the difference is shocking actually.
The differences.
1) the leafs had to remove marleau from the roster completely or they would not have been able to field a full team under the cap.
2) marleau was not being traded to a team to play for that team. So whatever team was taking his contract was also going to be eating a few million dollars for 2 seasons of wasted cap space.
3) whoever trades for jones will be doing so with the intention of actually playing him.
Those 3 factors bring down jones price for a trade. And this does not even count the aspect that boy genious in toronto has been absolutely destroyed in every trade he has made and every free agent signing he has made. So he has no idea of how to negotiate which is easier to take advantage of.
If SJ is taking back cap in a Jones trade, that defeats the purpose of the trade. The whole point of getting rid of him is to gain cap to try to sign a forward. Saving 2 mil in cap probably isn't going to move the needle much.
I think you'd be underwhelmed with a return on Burns. His contract will probably be seabrook bad in a couple of years. He has another 5 years at 8 mil a year. Not saying he has negative value, but I wouldn't expect a whole lot coming back. It would probably be something like Johns, conditional 1st, and a prospect like Eriksson at best.
The cost of trading a bad Contract
This is a good thread on the cost of getting rid of cap dumps. Jones's cap dump "value" is 1.579141104294479 WAR, which is equivalent to a little more than one pick between 6-10 and 21-30. That's two first rounders. Absolutely no one is trading for Jones for him to play. The only reason they would trade for him is for assets or to ship out one of their equally as bad contracts. We either have to take a Lucic-Okposo-Ladd type of contract back, trade some very valuable pieces to get rid of Jones, or retain a lot on his contract and part with some mediocre asssets, which at that point, might as well just buy him out and eat the 2.5ish cap hit instead of paying that in retention and parting with an asset.
I disagree that the whole purpose of the trade is to gain cap to try to sign a forward. There are many reasons to trade Jones and there are many things that the team could get back that could help them as a team. They could trade Jones for a similarly overpaid forward that could be of help to the team. They could trade him for a similarly overpaid defenseman if they have another deal done or lined up to move someone like Burns or Vlasic.
As for Burns, no it will not ever be Seabrook bad because Burns is not Seabrook bad, he's not Seabrook injured, and he's not overpaid to Seabrook's level relative to their deals while also not as restrictive at this point in time. Seabrook has a full NMC for another two seasons then a 5 team list and then a 10 team list. Burns has a three team list throughout his deal and likely has suitors beyond that.
I'm also not expecting that much in a Burns trade to be honest. Chances are, he'd be dealt to the Stars for a late 1st or a prospect like Dellandrea, a mid-round pick or a similarly valued prospect, and a contract like Oleksiak or Johns. That'd be fine.
You would rather spend 2.5 million of cap space for 8 years on a goalie that is no longer with the club? Then spend at the very max 2.7 mil for 4 years? How does this make sense to you?
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - Pennine Ridge Stakes (Gr. 2) - BELMONT (AQUEDUCT) RACE 7 - Queens, NYWagers: 3Staked: $565.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 2 Edmonton Oilers @ Dallas Stars - Edmonton Oilers leads series 1-0Wagers: 7Staked: $5,629.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Boston Celtics @ Indiana Pacers - Boston leads series 2-0Wagers: 3Staked: $1,900.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Leeds vs Southampton - WINNER GETS PROMOTED TO PREMIER LEAGUEWagers: 1Staked: $1,000.00Event closes- Updated: