Speculation: 2020-2021: Sharks Roster Discussion Part 1 - Offseason

[WTFetus]

Speculation: - 2019-2020 Sharks Roster Discussion Part 11 - Post TDL

Click to read more...

 

[themelkman]

Yeah i think all of us hoped to see Dahlen get a shot at a roster spot next year. Unfortunately he decided he wasnt interested

 

[Sysreq]

Yeah i think all of us hoped to see Dahlen get a shot at a roster spot next year. Unfortunately he decided he wasnt interested

Tough year for sure. Sounds like a lot of Euros are trying to stay overseas due to the COVID confusion here. Can’t say I blame them.

 

[hohosaregood]

Probably makes more sense to stay at home if the NHL season starts in January. This is assuming that the playoffs end in October and theres a 2 month off season

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Probably makes more sense to stay at home if the NHL season starts in January. This is assuming that the playoffs end in October and theres a 2 month off season

I'll be shocked if the playoffs even happen. One person gets sick and it'll spread like wildfire thru the teams. What happens if a top seed has 5 players get sick? Do they throw that team out of the playoffs? No, they shut it down. It's coming, just wait. This virus didn't magically disappear and the infection numbers are rising. Even if they try and isolate the teams someone will cheat and go out and get infected. They're all human.

 

[hohosaregood]

I'll be shocked if the playoffs even happen. One person gets sick and it'll spread like wildfire thru the teams. What happens if a top seed has 5 players get sick? Do they throw that team out of the playoffs? No, they shut it down. It's coming, just wait. This virus didn't magically disappear and the infection numbers are rising. Even if they try and isolate the teams someone will cheat and go out and get infected. They're all human.

I was thinking about that too especially with the news out of the NFL about all the Cowboys and Texans players that are sick right now. Honestly, the players getting sick is slightly less problematic, it's the older people like the coaches, the trainerss, and the support staff getting sick. Those guys are typically much older and at higher risk.

 

[themelkman]

I understand wanting the revenue and contractual stuff, but canceling sports and coming back for the fresh season just sounds like a much smarter and safer idea to me.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

I was thinking about that too especially with the news out of the NFL about all the Cowboys and Texans players that are sick right now. Honestly, the players getting sick is slightly less problematic, it's the older people like the coaches, the trainerss, and the support staff getting sick. Those guys are typically much older and at higher risk.

There are some NFL players with underlying conditions too. I know the raiders have a tackle who was drafted inspire of some heart defect. You never know who may end up having a terrible time with the disease.

I understand wanting the revenue and contractual stuff, but canceling sports and coming back for the fresh season just sounds like a much smarter and safer idea to me.

I think it's eventually going to be out of their hands.

 

[Lebanezer]

I understand wanting the revenue and contractual stuff, but canceling sports and coming back for the fresh season just sounds like a much smarter and safer idea to me.

This should have always been the plan for the NHL and the NBA. There is no reason to wreck 2 seasons. There's far too many unknowns that they can't prepare for. Waiting another 4 months should allow everyone to have a better understanding of how to deal with the virus so that sports can exist safely and fairly.

 

[STL Shark]

There are some NFL players with underlying conditions too. I know the raiders have a tackle who was drafted inspire of some heart defect. You never know who may end up having a terrible time with the disease.


I think it's eventually going to be out of their hands.

Same can be said with any illness and yet we don't cancel sports and life as a result of them. At some point, you have to plunge ahead and roll with the punches. This whole zero tolerance of anyone getting it policy is asinine when over half the deaths are isolated to nursing homes and 95% of them being from individuals that are 70+. The players should not be a concern as it relates to contracting the virus. They'll be fine. If anything, isolate the coaches as they're virtually the only ones at risk of enduring serious/deathly consequences (and even those odds are insanely remote).

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Same can be said with any illness and yet we don't cancel sports and life as a result of them. At some point, you have to plunge ahead and roll with the punches. This whole zero tolerance of anyone getting it policy is asinine when over half the deaths are isolated to nursing homes and 95% of them being from individuals that are 70+. The players should not be a concern as it relates to contracting the virus. They'll be fine. If anything, isolate the coaches as they're virtually the only ones at risk of enduring serious/deathly consequences (and even those odds are insanely remote).

Yeah, screw old people. We don't need them sucking up all the SS money! Always good to know who the science deniers are. For the record, right now about 6% of the confirmed cases end in death. That is a shit ton of dead people if we just let it run rampant thru the US population. This ain't the flu. A whole lot of younger people still end up having a tough time managing this thing even when they survive and it is causing long term lung damage to some.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Same can be said with any illness and yet we don't cancel sports and life as a result of them. At some point, you have to plunge ahead and roll with the punches. This whole zero tolerance of anyone getting it policy is asinine when over half the deaths are isolated to nursing homes and 95% of them being from individuals that are 70+. The players should not be a concern as it relates to contracting the virus. They'll be fine. If anything, isolate the coaches as they're virtually the only ones at risk of enduring serious/deathly consequences (and even those odds are insanely remote).

I think this is just a reckless and detached view on the situation. 100k in America are dead even with the remote percentages in play. People just continue to underestimate how easy this thing spreads and that even if it is mostly the people you talk about getting it and dying, they are still lives and they’re still going to go out and have a life too. Opening things up again is likely to yield more deaths than is needed for the situation.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

Yeah, screw old people. We don't need them sucking up all the SS money! Always good to know who the science deniers are. For the record, right now about 6% of the confirmed cases end in death. That is a shit ton of dead people if we just let it run rampant thru the US population. This ain't the flu. A whole lot of younger people still end up having a tough time managing this thing even when they survive and it is causing long term lung damage to some.

In california, it's a 3.37% death rate for people who are confirmed to have it. Iceland found out 0.7 percent of it's population had it and a lot of them never had any symptoms whatsoever. Obviously, it's not a 100% transferable scale, but that same rate would put California at 276500 cases with 5,089 deaths, which is a 1.84% death rate.

In Santa Clara, they estimated that 1.5-2.8% of the population have/or have been infected from doing antibody testing. Although it wasn't a perfect test, it shows that it's very well possible that a lot more people have had it than we know about about, which at the low end of that study (1.5%), leaves us with a death rate of 0.86%, or a 0.46% death rate at the high end.

Even if those numbers are off, the death rate is going to be a fair amount lower than we can calculate based off of confirmed cases and deaths because of the amount of people that have it and don't get tested. Several studies have pointed to a fatality rate of ~1-1.5% across multiple countries.

What are we going to do? Lock everyone inside for the next year and hope a vaccine is ready by then while the world is shut down? That's not realistic. Especially considering the main people at risk are a demographic that is relatively easy to protect and isolate considering it's one age bracket and that only 20% of those over the age of 65 are working/looking for work. Instead of paying young healthy people 1050 a week to stay at home, redirect that money to increasing social security for those who need it and creating programs to make sure seniors can get necessities/medical attention from virus-free areas.

One of the larger studies suggested a 0.6% fatality rate the total population and 5.6% for those over the age of 65. It seems like the most realistic option would be to allow those who aren't seniors or have other complications to continue life more normally than currently allowed and have support services for seniors to be able to get necessities from clean environments.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

I think this is just a reckless and detached view on the situation. 100k in America are dead even with the remote percentages in play. People just continue to underestimate how easy this thing spreads and that even if it is mostly the people you talk about getting it and dying, they are still lives and they’re still going to go out and have a life too. Opening things up again is likely to yield more deaths than is needed for the situation.

It's optional to go out and do things. If people are that worried about the virus, then stay home. If there's people who aren't worried about it, then they should be able to go out at their own discretion.

 

[tiburon12]

It's optional to go out and do things. If people are that worried about the virus, then stay home. If there's people who aren't worried about it, then they should be able to go out at their own discretion.

Come on man, you can't be that shortsighted.

And seriously? we're still thinking that death rates are the only thing that matters here? Epidemiologists know very little about what the long-term effects of getting the virus are, why would you put yourself at risk at all?

I really don't understand why some people refuse to accept that this virus is dangerous and that sometimes you have to take a hit to make a play for the future.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

Come on man, you can't be that shortsighted.

And seriously? we're still thinking that death rates are the only thing that matters here? Epidemiologists know very little about what the long-term effects of getting the virus are, why would you put yourself at risk at all?

I really don't understand why some people refuse to accept that this virus is dangerous and that sometimes you have to take a hit to make a play for the future.

I'm not saying it's "not dangerous." Do you know how many other things people subject themselves to that long term effects haven't been studied? A LOT. I'm willing to bet there's several things that you do that could potentially have long term effects that haven't been studied in depth yet.

Why would I put myself at risk? That's a personal question and should be a personal decision. Same as anti-vaxxers not wanting to vaccinate their children. Do I agree with their reasoning? No, but it is their choice.

There's just so many other things that are relatively similar in danger that are completely allowed to personal choice, just the same as this should be. Smoking cigarettes has right around the the fatality rate that a lot of studies are showing, right around 1.5%. Is smoking outlawed or should it be? No. If I want to risk contracting this myself by going to a sporting event, held at a voluntary venue, staffed by voluntary employees, why should I not be able to? I can kind of understand in a socialist country where healthcare is provided, but I pay for my own healthcare and I'm the one who will be held accountable physically and/or monetarily if I contract the virus.

And this is a free market country, so if your reasoning is that people who are more vulnerable/afraid of the virus will still have to visit the same places I do like the grocery store, no they don't have to. If there was/is a market for people to go shop in a way that limits their chances for exposure, then the market will take advantage of said business model, like the explosion in people doing curbside pickup for everything.

 

[Pavelski2112]

I'm not saying it's "not dangerous." Do you know how many other things people subject themselves to that long term effects haven't been studied? A LOT. I'm willing to bet there's several things that you do that could potentially have long term effects that haven't been studied in depth yet.

Why would I put myself at risk? That's a personal question and should be a personal decision. Same as anti-vaxxers not wanting to vaccinate their children. Do I agree with their reasoning? No, but it is their choice.

There's just so many other things that are relatively similar in danger that are completely allowed to personal choice, just the same as this should be. Smoking cigarettes has right around the the fatality rate that a lot of studies are showing, right around 1.5%. Is smoking outlawed or should it be? No. If I want to risk contracting this myself by going to a sporting event, held at a voluntary venue, staffed by voluntary employees, why should I not be able to? I can kind of understand in a socialist country where healthcare is provided, but I pay for my own healthcare and I'm the one who will be held accountable physically and/or monetarily if I contract the virus.

And this is a free market country, so if your reasoning is that people who are more vulnerable/afraid of the virus will still have to visit the same places I do like the grocery store, no they don't have to. If there was/is a market for people to go shop in a way that limits their chances for exposure, then the market will take advantage of said business model, like the explosion in people doing curbside pickup for everything.

Imo, it's not a personal choice if it affects other people. That's the big difference. I'm someone who doesn't have health insurance because I can't afford it (because American healthcare is an extortion racket), so I don't always have the choice to take those risks.

It's hard to see what we've prevented, but generally people agree that California has saved thousands of lives (hell, look at NY compared to us) by shutting down. I don't disagree that shutdowns affect people negatively - they absolutely do, which is unfortunate - but maybe rather than throwing them back into live-fire because everyone needs to make money, we should probably have safety nets for situations just like these.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

Imo, it's not a personal choice if it affects other people. That's the big difference. I'm someone who doesn't have health insurance because I can't afford it (because American healthcare is an extortion racket), so I don't always have the choice to take those risks.

It's hard to see what we've prevented, but generally people agree that California has saved thousands of lives (hell, look at NY compared to us) by shutting down. I don't disagree that shutdowns affect people negatively - they absolutely do, which is unfortunate - but maybe rather than throwing them back into live-fire because everyone needs to make money, we should probably have safety nets for situations just like these.

It is a personal choice though because you don't have to go deal with large public gatherings if you don't want to. But if there are people who ARE okay with the risks and understand them, why should they be stopped? Because it makes YOU feel better that someone else isn't doing something that you wouldn't?

 

[Pavelski2112]

It is a personal choice though because you don't have to go deal with large public gatherings if you don't want to. But if there are people who ARE okay with the risks and understand them, why should they be stopped? Because it makes YOU feel better that someone else isn't doing something that you wouldn't?

If those people spread it to people who perhaps they live with or have to see at work or somewhere else, is it still only just affecting them? What about workers at stores? Someone has to do those jobs, and not everyone can consent to those risks willingly.

Again, I get it. My main job is live audio engineering, which is just not a thing right now because all shows are cancelled for the foreseeable future. I'm a generally-healthy 27-year old and a low-risk person, but the fact that I could spread it to my family makes me re-consider going out or seeing too many people.

 

[The Nemesis]

Alright guys, I think we've had enough runway for this side talk to run its course.

This is the roster thread. We have a covid thread for discussions like that, so let's keep things on topic and where it belongs. Thanks.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

Moved to COVID thread to not derail this one

 

[OrrNumber4]

I'm seeing some people penciling in prospects like Leonard and Merkley into depth roles next year. Hasn't the lesson been learned? Or is there something truly different about these prospects that it is safe to assume they could take NHL duty right away?

Also, it seems like the organization is satisfied with Dylan Gambrell? It seems to me that if he's part of the starting lineup next year then the Sharks haven't learned anything?

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

I'm seeing some people penciling in prospects like Leonard and Merkley into depth roles next year. Hasn't the lesson been learned? Or is there something truly different about these prospects that it is safe to assume they could take NHL duty right away?

Also, it seems like the organization is satisfied with Dylan Gambrell? It seems to me that if he's part of the starting lineup next year then the Sharks haven't learned anything?

Been saying that all summer. Going to just be a repeat of this year, barring a miracle, if we roll into the season with the same plan next year. We're asking wayyyy too much for Leonard to step into a top 6 role for a "contending" team straight out of college as a recent late round pick. It's probably a safe bet to assume Merkley will need at least half this year, if not the full year at minimum, to be ready for the NHL.

 

[STL Shark]

I'm seeing some people penciling in prospects like Leonard and Merkley into depth roles next year. Hasn't the lesson been learned? Or is there something truly different about these prospects that it is safe to assume they could take NHL duty right away?

Also, it seems like the organization is satisfied with Dylan Gambrell? It seems to me that if he's part of the starting lineup next year then the Sharks haven't learned anything?

I agree that those without any professional experience should not be penciled into anything. I think you can safely count on a bottom six comprised of a combination of True, Handemark, Gregor, Marleau, Noesen, Thornton, and Gambrell plus a 2/3 tweener via trade/UFA or Labanc slotting down due to upgrades in the Top 6. For me, the issue is not in depth or ability to roll 4 lines, it is in top-end talent. There are a number of productive-capable bottom 6 guys on the roster as long as they are playing in the Bottom 6 and not being forced up the lineup where they are overmatched.

Kane-Couture-??
Meier-Hertl-??
Marleau-Thornton-Labanc
Gregor-Handemark/True-Noesen
Gambrell

Ferraro-Burns
Vlasic-Karlsson
Simek-??
Middleton

My view is that this is not necessarily a total overhaul. If you can add 3 pieces into that lineup above, you have a definite playoff team. The issue is the salary cap shenanigans that will be needed to add those 3 pieces. To add space via the cap, you have to create a hole in the top 9 of the forward group and/or the top 4 on defense. That's where the offseason approach gets more complex and DW's job becomes much harder. If they had say another $6 million in cap space and could put this lineup together without having to subtract, this would be as simple as sign Toffoli, Granlund, and TVR/Rutta and go compete for the division. That is obviously not the case though and the trading of a Burns, Vlasic, Labanc, etc. just creates another hole while trying to fill one.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I agree that those without any professional experience should not be penciled into anything. I think you can safely count on a bottom six comprised of a combination of True, Handemark, Gregor, Marleau, Noesen, Thornton, and Gambrell plus a 2/3 tweener via trade/UFA or Labanc slotting down due to upgrades in the Top 6. For me, the issue is not in depth or ability to roll 4 lines, it is in top-end talent. There are a number of productive-capable bottom 6 guys on the roster as long as they are playing in the Bottom 6 and not being forced up the lineup where they are overmatched.

Kane-Couture-??
Meier-Hertl-??
Marleau-Thornton-Labanc
Gregor-Handemark/True-Noesen
Gambrell

Ferraro-Burns
Vlasic-Karlsson
Simek-??
Middleton

My view is that this is not necessarily a total overhaul. If you can add 3 pieces into that lineup above, you have a definite playoff team. The issue is the salary cap shenanigans that will be needed to add those 3 pieces. To add space via the cap, you have to create a hole in the top 9 of the forward group and/or the top 4 on defense. That's where the offseason approach gets more complex and DW's job becomes much harder. If they had say another $6 million in cap space and could put this lineup together without having to subtract, this would be as simple as sign Toffoli, Granlund, and TVR/Rutta and go compete for the division. That is obviously not the case though and the trading of a Burns, Vlasic, Labanc, etc. just creates another hole while trying to fill one.

I'd also be wary of Marleau/Thornton playing on the third line