San Jose Sharks Trade History: Best and Worst Trades of All-Time

[Bizz]

You guys don't remember just how bad Kiprusoff was when he was on the Sharks. It was pretty clear he was 3rd on the totem pole behind Nabokov and Toskala.

 

[OrrNumber4]

You guys don't remember just how bad Kiprusoff was when he was on the Sharks. It was pretty clear he was 3rd on the totem pole behind Nabokov and Toskala.

To be fair in that trade, the Sharks knew that Kiprusoff could be a very good goaltender. Strelow after all thought he was the best of the trio. But, Nabokov and Toskala had performed while Kiprusoff had floundered, and DW felt that he couldn't reward potential and punish actual play. Still, when it comes to judgement, the Sharks lost a Vezina winner for a 2nd-rounder.

 

[Barrie22]

To be fair in that trade, the Sharks knew that Kiprusoff could be a very good goaltender. Strelow after all thought he was the best of the trio. But, Nabokov and Toskala had performed while Kiprusoff had floundered, and DW felt that he couldn't reward potential and punish actual play. Still, when it comes to judgement, the Sharks lost a Vezina winner for a 2nd-rounder.

Who turned out to be a top 5 shutdown defensemen for the past half dozen years.

Again if you want to account for 2 years later for kipper then you have to account for 2 years later with the 2nd round draft pick which was vlasic.

Hindsight being 20-20 i would take vlasic over kipper straight up every day of the week.

 

[CrypTic]

The Sharks traded a goalie that they knew had a very high ceiling but wasn't performing for a 2nd rounder. It worked out well for both teams.

I loved Kippie and was very sad when he was traded but it wasn't going to work on the Sharks and I'm glad he found his game. I'm also glad we got MEV.

 

[Patty Ice]

I wasn’t a Sharks fan in 2004 and I’m saying it was a bad trade. [Sharks trade Kiprusoff for a 2nd round pick] and [Sharks pick Vlasic with that 2nd round pick] are two separate events. You can’t connect them like that. The valuation by DW at the time of the trade was bad. He fixed that mistake by drafting Vlasic. But if you trade a player for a pick, you can’t judge the trade based on who the pick was used on.

I was one of three posters back then that supported Kipper to be kept and favored trading Nabokov. My reasoning at the time was that I believed Kipper was the more talented goalie and Nabokov would garner the higher return. I thought that Kipper would net the Sharks, at most, a 4th round pick. So, even though I was severely disappointed that Kipper was the one dealt (though not surprised) and I was happy that the fact the Sharks got a second round pick from Calgary. I attribute that to Sutter 's familiarity with Kipper. So while Kipper did prove me right in being the better goalie, his perceived value at the time of the trade and what he actually garnered made it a "win" in my book. That fact the pick became Vlasic just made it an outright win-win.

 

[Barrie22]

Kipper and nabby's careers are nearly identical stat wise for the exact same years which is very helpful.

Nabby 2.44gaa. .911 sv%
Kipper 2.49gaa. .912 sv%

Playoffs is where it changes though.

Nabby 2.43gaa .908sv%
Kipper 2.32gaa .921sv%

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Kipper and nabby's careers are nearly identical stat wise for the exact same years which is very helpful.

Nabby 2.44gaa. .911 sv%
Kipper 2.49gaa. .912 sv%

Playoffs is where it changes though.

Nabby 2.43gaa .908sv%
Kipper 2.32gaa .921sv%

This is the reason why Kiprusoff was traded and it's really as simple as this. Three waiver eligible goalies. Their save percentages up to the start of the 2003-04 season is as follows:

Kiprusoff - .897 save percentage
Toskala - .927 save percentage
Nabokov - .913 save percentage

The Sharks were in a tough spot because Kipper had opportunities and didn't perform. Keeping three goalies on the roster is impractical. Honestly, they were lucky to get a 2nd rounder at the time for him considering his performance up to that point. I'm glad he turned it around and had a great career. He always busted his ass but it just wasn't working out here. It doesn't make it a terrible trade because he was able to use it to jump start his career. It was a numbers game and he was the worst of them at the time. If he was waiver exempt, I'm certain they would've kept him.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I was one of three posters back then that supported Kipper to be kept and favored trading Nabokov. My reasoning at the time was that I believed Kipper was the more talented goalie and Nabokov would garner the higher return. I thought that Kipper would net the Sharks, at most, a 4th round pick. So, even though I was severely disappointed that Kipper was the one dealt (though not surprised) and I was happy that the fact the Sharks got a second round pick from Calgary. I attribute that to Sutter 's familiarity with Kipper. So while Kipper did prove me right in being the better goalie, his perceived value at the time of the trade and what he actually garnered made it a "win" in my book. That fact the pick became Vlasic just made it an outright win-win.

That's a different philosophy but one I can respect. Personally, judging trades is a combination of "at the time" and "what actually happened"; with draft picks, it is always almost entirely the former. What were the chances the Sharks were getting a Vlasic-caliber player from a mid-2nd-round pick? Even with the Sharks's strong drafting record, perhaps 5%? If you still disagree, do a simple thought experiment. What if the Sharks had instead traded Kiprusoff for Calgary's first round pick, and had drafted whatever player (considering I can't remember him, he couldn't have been very good!), would the trade have been a superior one?

When it comes to players, I lean towards judging the result. If the Sharks had boldly traded Nabokov and retained Kipper, they would have been rightfully praised for it. Despite that looking like a bad move at the time the end result stands on its on. Moreover, Kiprusoff breaking out was certainly a very plausible result.

 

[Chaotic8]

That was a really poorly written article. And poorly researched to boot.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

That's a different philosophy but one I can respect. Personally, judging trades is a combination of "at the time" and "what actually happened"; with draft picks, it is always almost entirely the former. What were the chances the Sharks were getting a Vlasic-caliber player from a mid-2nd-round pick? Even with the Sharks's strong drafting record, perhaps 5%? If you still disagree, do a simple thought experiment. What if the Sharks had instead traded Kiprusoff for Calgary's first round pick, and had drafted whatever player (considering I can't remember him, he couldn't have been very good!), would the trade have been a superior one?

When it comes to players, I lean towards judging the result. If the Sharks had boldly traded Nabokov and retained Kipper, they would have been rightfully praised for it. Despite that looking like a bad move at the time the end result stands on its on. Moreover, Kiprusoff breaking out was certainly a very plausible result.

The Sharks would've rightfully been reamed at the time if they traded Nabokov to keep Kiprusoff.

 

[Bizz]

I didn't like DW wasting a 2nd on Tyler Kennedy either, but that pick turned out to be Dillon heatherington who just barely made his NHL debut a couple weeks ago.

 

[Lebanezer]

So much discussion about the Kiprusoff trade, but no one seems all that upset about Ehrhoff and Lukowich for Daniel Rahimi and Patrick White. What they knew would only amount to one compensatory draft for Ehrhoff in his prime is hilariously awful.

 

[Bizz]

So much discussion about the Kiprusoff trade, but no one seems all that upset about Ehrhoff and Lukowich for Daniel Rahimi and Patrick White. What they knew would only amount to one compensatory draft for Ehrhoff in his prime is hilariously awful.

Ehrhoff was addition by subtraction. His numbers in Vancouver were propped up by the Sedins. Then he unsurprisingly fell to Earth once he got to Buffalo, Washington, and LA. Less than 6 years later he was out of the league. Oh and that Compensatory pick, turned out to be some nobody named Chris Tierney.

 

[Lebanezer]

Ehrhoff was addition by subtraction. His numbers in Vancouver were propped up by the Sedins. Then he unsurprisingly fell to Earth once he got to Buffalo, Washington, and LA. Less than 6 years later he was out of the league. Oh and that Compensatory pick, turned out to be some nobody named Chris Tierney.

So you think that a good return for Ehrhoff was a 2nd round pick 3 drafts later?

 

[Bizz]

So you think that a good return for Ehrhoff was a 2nd round pick 3 drafts later?

Ehrhoff was horrible. a conditional 7th would've been sufficient.

You guys bitch about Burns making bonehead plays every once in a while, that was Ehrhoff on a nightly basis. Always a turnover machine. Always poor in the defensive zone. Always losing his defensive assignments leading to high quality scoring chances and goals for the opposing team. Never took away passing lanes. Never had his "head on a swivel". Wildly inaccurate shot. Getting rid of him was a key to them making 2 straight WCFs in the 2 years after he was dumped.

 

[SnarkAttack]

Ehrhoff was addition by subtraction. His numbers in Vancouver were propped up by the Sedins. Then he unsurprisingly fell to Earth once he got to Buffalo, Washington, and LA. Less than 6 years later he was out of the league. Oh and that Compensatory pick, turned out to be some nobody named Chris Tierney.

Man, the Sedins propped him up in SJ, too? Ehrhoff was a pretty good, young, defenseman with some clear flaws. Even with those flaws, trading a young 40 point defenseman for what amounted to nothing is bad.

So all he did was score really well for 2 years while "propped up" by the Sedins, then was a 30ish point defenseman for another 4 years. When we were icing ******* Semenov and Wallin for years to come, this would have been amazing to have.

 

[Bizz]

Tom Preissing and Jason Demers were young 40 point defensemen at one point.

 

[Lebanezer]

Tom Preissing and Jason Demers were young 40 point defensemen at one point.

That is true, but they garnered far better returns than Ehrhoff.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

That is true, but they garnered far better returns than Ehrhoff.

Chris Tierney>Brenden Dillon

 

[Lebanezer]

Chris Tierney>Brenden Dillon

My only point in all this is the Sharks could have done better than a compensatory draft 3 years later for Ehrhoff. Just because that draft pick turned into Chris Tierney doesn’t suddenly makes that return ok.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Man, the Sedins propped him up in SJ, too? Ehrhoff was a pretty good, young, defenseman with some clear flaws. Even with those flaws, trading a young 40 point defenseman for what amounted to nothing is bad.

So all he did was score really well for 2 years while "propped up" by the Sedins, then was a 30ish point defenseman for another 4 years. When we were icing ******* Semenov and Wallin for years to come, this would have been amazing to have.

That was the bigger issue with the Ehrhoff trade. While he had his flaws, he was the type of defenseman (great skater, above average puck mover) that we badly needed from about 2010-2014. All that time we kept burning cap space, assets, and draft picks for slow, garbage, bottom four D-men. It was incredibly frustrating.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

That was the bigger issue with the Ehrhoff trade. While he had his flaws, he was the type of defenseman (great skater, above average puck mover) that we badly needed from about 2010-2014. All that time we kept signing and burning assets and draft picks for slow, garbage, bottom four D-men. It was incredibly frustrating.

Yeah, he was absolutely the type of defenseman we were jonesing for in that time frame. We've been solid in recent years, with Dillon and one of Martin/Ryan filling in the bottom-4 LHD spots, but we would have been so much better off with Ehrhoff. It's tough to say anything for certain but we might have been able to beat Vancouver if we had Ehrhoff (and Vancouver obviously didn't) over Nicolas Wallin. Ehrhoff made less than $500,000 more than Wallin so we probably could have fit him in, cap wise. On top of that, we definitely should have got a better return for him considering what players of his caliber are often traded for.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

And that was mentioned in the article. As a young hockey fan who got into the Sharks because of Nolan, that was a sad day.

f***ing sucked.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

I wasn’t a Sharks fan in 2004 and I’m saying it was a bad trade. The valuation by DW at the time of the trade was bad. He fixed that mistake by drafting Vlasic. But if you trade a player for a pick, you can’t judge the trade based on who the pick was used on.

Watching Kipper prior to that trade was almost as bad as watching Stalock. When Nabby got hurt they handed the reigns to Kipper and he failed miserably. I don't know what changed for him on the plane ride to Calgary but that trade for a 2nd seemed great at the time because he looked like a future career minor leaguer after that stretch of poo he put up. The trade only looked bad once he found his footing for the flames and then it swung back even-ish after Vlassic made the roster.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Kipper was f***ing horrible here before getting traded. Moat sharks fans, including myself, were surprised they got a 2nd for him.