Speculation: Offseason Talk V

[Juxtaposer]

Continue.

Old thread: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1672703

Click to read more...

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Demers isn't a legit top 4. Give me another season that tops the last and i'll start labeling him legit.

Not a fan of his jokester attitude. Right now he's a 3rd pairing RD on this team. Trading him to address the 2nd pair LD spot does address a Legit top 4.

He's also going to be 26 and if he's not legit, he's right on the cusp. Getting rid of him now when he's at the traditional age for d-men to put it together and take that next step would be short-sighted.

His jokester attitude is irrelevant to what he is as a player. He was this team's best d-man in terms of production in terms of even strength play. If he's given the opportunity of QB'ing the top power play, he's probably a 40 point d-man. Looking at who is likely going to be here, Demers is their best bet to be their top producer again at even strength and the only one that is capable of QB'ing a PP.

They can't afford to trade him right now.

 

[SJeasy]

Demers isn't a legit top 4. Give me another season that tops the last and i'll start labeling him legit.

Not a fan of his jokester attitude. Right now he's a 3rd pairing D on this team. Trading him to address the 2nd pair LD spot does address a Legit top 4.

And you just shake up the d even more by what amounts to churn. I am not opposed to moving Demers if it is a coaching issue, but I realize that massive turnover on the blueline (two top 4 d) is a recipe for even less performance than they will likely get for next season. If you are going to do that turnover, you don't want guys who are marginally better. You want real long term solutions. Is someone like Fayne or Scandella promising to be markedly better than the guys they are replacing? My answer is no and that means you are just doing churn. You have to be talking about players like Josi, Kulikov, Krug, Yandle and Gardiner or possibly better to get improvement and it won't happen in the first year.

I don't buy that a guy who hasn't really scored from the blueline up to now is going to come to the Sharks have it magically happen. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Juxtaposer]

And you just shake up the d even more by what amounts to churn. I am not opposed to moving Demers if it is a coaching issue, but I realize that massive turnover on the blueline (two top 4 d) is a recipe for even less performance than they will likely get for next season. If you are going to do that turnover, you don't want guys who are marginally better. You want real long term solutions. Is someone like Fayne or Scandella promising to be markedly better than the guys they are replacing? My answer is no and that means you are just doing churn. You have to be talking about players like Josi, Kulikov, Krug, Yandle and Gardiner or possibly better to get improvement and it won't happen in the first year.

I don't buy that a guy who hasn't really scored from the blueline up to now is going to come to the Sharks have it magically happen. It doesn't work that way.

3/4ths of the top-4 is guaranteed to be Vlasic, Burns, and Braun. There's your check on top-4 turnover (two top-4 D).

 

[SJeasy]

3/4ths of the top-4 is guaranteed to be Vlasic, Burns, and Braun. There's your check on top-4 turnover (two top-4 D).

Burns is turnover in that he didn't play on the blueline this past season. The top 4 were effectively Vlasic, Braun, Stuart and Demers/Boyle. They can temper the Burns movement by pairing him with Vlasic who was his primary partner when Burns did play defense.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Burns is turnover in that he didn't play on the blueline this past season. The top 4 were effectively Vlasic, Braun, Stuart and Demers/Boyle. They can temper the Burns movement by pairing him with Vlasic who was his primary partner when Burns did play defense.

After I thought about it, I figured you might consider Burns to be turnover. But he's played D with the majority of this team, so I really wouldn't.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

After I thought about it, I figured you might consider Burns to be turnover. But he's played D with the majority of this team, so I really wouldn't.

Unless he plays with Vlasic, it pretty much will be, wouldn't it?

 

[SJeasy]

After I thought about it, I figured you might consider Burns to be turnover. But he's played D with the majority of this team, so I really wouldn't.

I did temper my statement by fitting it into my thinking. My hypothesis on the turnover phenomena is that the decline is due to a variety of factors.

1. Familiarity with partners.

2. Familiarity with team style.

3. Familiarity of the coaches with the player's defensive abilities.

4. Familiarity with opposition players if different conference or if player switches sides.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I did temper my statement by fitting it into my thinking. My hypothesis on the turnover phenomena is that the decline is due to a variety of factors.

1. Familiarity with partners.

2. Familiarity with team style.

3. Familiarity of the coaches with the player's defensive abilities.

4. Familiarity with opposition players if different conference or if player switches sides.

Burns has pretty much all of those, doesn't he?

 

[SJeasy]

Burns has pretty much all of those, doesn't he?

They modified the style with Robinson/Johnson since he last played defense. It's not the same as playing forward with the system. He also loses on coach's familiarity with his abilities as he has been absent for so long from the blueline.

I gave the Vlasic proviso on partners and he probably has moderate familiarity on the conference and side of the ice.

 

[Gilligans Island]

Burns has pretty much all of those, doesn't he?

I think we should agree that Burns is half a turnover. If paired with Vlasic, he'll have familiarity but it's been a season and a half for him. I'd imagine by the 30-40 game mark we'll see him settle in.

 

[Juxtaposer]

They modified the style with Robinson/Johnson since he last played defense. It's not the same as playing forward with the system. He also loses on coach's familiarity with his abilities as he has been absent for so long from the blueline.

I gave the Vlasic proviso on partners and he probably has moderate familiarity on the conference and side of the ice.

I think we should agree that Burns is half a turnover. If paired with Vlasic, he'll have familiarity but it's been a season and a half for him. I'd imagine by the 30-40 game mark we'll see him settle in.

Luckily, we don't care what happens the first 30-40 games of the season, right?

 

[Gilligans Island]

Luckily, we don't care what happens the first 30-40 games of the season, right?

No, my expectations are lowered already regardless

 

[SJeasy]

Luckily, we don't care what happens the first 30-40 games of the season, right?

Not me. I am making the point with regards proposals for what amounts to stop gap measures. If they are going to do player movement, make it count. Get someone who will be hard to replace as I listed. If they are already giving up on the turnover phenomena, make sure they don't have to sink into it again for a few years. You do that by going for the higher end and not settling for the C. White's, B. Stuart's and N. Wallin's of the hockey world. Some of the suggestions look like they are going for players like C. Campoli, guys who are going to be fringe jouneymen.

My point was Demers for Fayne or Scandella is a joke in this regard. They'll be unloading the latter two in a year or two just like they want to unload Demers now.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Not me. I am making the point with regards proposals for what amounts to stop gap measures. If they are going to do player movement, make it count. Get someone who will be hard to replace as I listed. If they are already giving up on the turnover phenomena, make sure they don't have to sink into it again for a few years. You do that by going for the higher end and not settling for the C. White's, B. Stuart's and N. Wallin's of the hockey world. Some of the suggestions look like they are going for players like C. Campoli, guys who are going to be fringe jouneymen.

My point was Demers for Fayne or Scandella is a joke in this regard. They'll be unloading the latter two in a year or two just like they want to unload Demers now.

I agree with that.

 

[DystopianTierney]

My point was Demers for Fayne or Scandella is a joke in this regard. They'll be unloading the latter two in a year or two just like they want to unload Demers now.

Trading Demers as a 30-40 point puck moving defenseman would be selling high. He had a good year, but he could easily go off the rails again. If we can get a LD with comparable potential/production to what Demers showed this season it wouldn't be a bad move.

Turnover or not.. There is just as much risk in Demers.

edit: Aiming much higher than Scandella or Fayne.

 

[Gilligans Island]

Not me. I am making the point with regards proposals for what amounts to stop gap measures. If they are going to do player movement, make it count. Get someone who will be hard to replace as I listed. If they are already giving up on the turnover phenomena, make sure they don't have to sink into it again for a few years. You do that by going for the higher end and not settling for the C. White's, B. Stuart's and N. Wallin's of the hockey world. Some of the suggestions look like they are going for players like C. Campoli, guys who are going to be fringe jouneymen.

My point was Demers for Fayne or Scandella is a joke in this regard. They'll be unloading the latter two in a year or two just like they want to unload Demers now.

Agree - though to get that young high end #2, LHD will require trading a valuable piece. And as you know better than most, Thornton and Marleau won't be enough.

You OK trading Pavelski for say, Josi, Staal (re-signed) or Shattenkirk (Braun likely would have to move to 2LHD)?

 

[Gilligans Island]

Trading Demers as a 30-40 point puck moving defenseman would be selling high. He had a good year, but he could easily go off the rails again. If we can get a LD with comparable potential/production to what Demers showed this season it wouldn't be a bad move.

Turnover or not. There is just as much risk in Demers.

The only LHD I'd swap Demers for would be Gardiner. He may have higher upside than Demers but he also is prone to the same brainfarts.

Scandella would be a downgrade to Demers, IMO

 

[Juxtaposer]

Is it bad that I kinda masochistically want us to trade Thornton and Marleau and watch as Sharks fans wonder why Couture and Pavelski aren't having good years?

 

[Oppa]

I'll be devil's advocate and say that the Sharks would easily make the playoffs without Thornton and Marleau if everyone else stays healthy.

Chins up people, we're no Edmonton

 

[Gilligans Island]

Is it bad that I kinda masochistically want us to trade Thornton and Marleau and watch as Sharks fans wonder why Couture and Pavelski aren't having good years?

Yes
Step back from the computer and realize you're a Sharks fan...

 

[SJeasy]

Agree - though to get that young high end #2, LHD will require trading a valuable piece. And as you know better than most, Thornton and Marleau won't be enough.

You OK trading Pavelski for say, Josi, Staal (re-signed) or Shattenkirk (Braun likely would have to move to 2LHD)?

I get tired of the Gardiner/Kadri/Pavs thing. The value isn't right. I don't think of Gardiner as a #2 yet. If you trade Pavs, you want proven. I could see Pavs for Yandle plus. Nashville is short on the left side and to get Josi, you are probably talking Couture.

I agree that Marleau and JT won't garner what people are expecting. If they want significant younger for those two, they should wait until the deadline. If they get younger for them during the off season, it will be side pieces to deals where another older player is the centerpiece. That isn't a real way to get younger and better. It is buying a chance and a very remote one to head in the direction that DW wants to go.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Is it bad that I kinda masochistically want us to trade Thornton and Marleau and watch as Sharks fans wonder why Couture and Pavelski aren't having good years?

HAHAHAHA

If it's wrong, then I don't want to be right

Couture without Marleau as our 1C is a pipe dream...for every other team in the pacific division

 

[Gilligans Island]

I get tired of the Gardiner/Kadri/Pavs thing. The value isn't right. I don't think of Gardiner as a #2 yet. If you trade Pavs, you want proven. I could see Pavs for Yandle plus. Nashville is short on the left side and to get Josi, you are probably talking Couture.

I agree that Marleau and JT won't garner what people are expecting. If they want significant younger for those two, they should wait until the deadline. If they get younger for them during the off season, it will be side pieces to deals where another older player is the centerpiece. That isn't a real way to get younger and better. It is buying a chance and a very remote one to head in the direction that DW wants to go.

Yeah me too. Only player I'd trade for Gardiner would be Demers.

 

[Celly4Celebrini]

Is it bad that I kinda masochistically want us to trade Thornton and Marleau and watch as Sharks fans wonder why Couture and Pavelski aren't having good years?

I can't wait to see the what happened to Pavelski / couture for a 2nd threads pop up next season if JT and PM get moved

JT contributed greatly to Pavelskis goal totals and overal play

Couture shutting down lines without Marleau will be hell

I continue my statement that by leadership turnover he meant Niemi gone along with Boyle and Marty. That's 3 vets right there, not to mention Hannan and likely Kennedy, Burish and Stuart.

That's tons of leadership in the room that will be gone 7 players in total. Anymore turnover than that is just unrealistic