Sharks fire David Quinn

[weastern bias]

David Quinn isn't as bad as you are told he is. He was no worse than Gerard Gallant for the Rangers. Gallant had some better luck with the success of certain key players having great years, so that's why his teams were moderately more successful.

With the Sharks, he didn't do a good job. He's not a good NHL coach. But only two years when you aren't given a roster you can win with is tough. Last year wasn't that bad. They also had the Norris winner. Coaching Karlsson to what he did has to count for something. He's been nowhere near that player recently other than that one season under Quinn. This year he was given a sub-NHL roster. Every single year we hear fans of the team with the worst roster (and also some of the other worst rosters) complain about how bad their coach is. Coaching isn't why they had the worst record in the league. Give them any coach and that's a very bad team.

Quinn is terrible, so is Gallant but that doesn't make Quinn any better

That year you say "wasn't that bad" the team finished last in wins with a 100 point defenseman and a winger who scored 30 goals before the trade deadline on the roster, in a season where Chicago traded for a tank goalie to internationally make themselves the worst team in the league they couldn't rise above dead last in the most important column

Quinn is even worse than he was advertised to be

 

[TheBeard]

Based on literally every move they made

They weren't forced to trade any of Meier, Karlsson or Hertl, they chose to

In doing so they chose to ice 9 bottom pair defensemen all seasom

In doing so they chose to let Quinn ice a 13th forward and a 21 year old winger as the 1C and 2C for a quarter of the season

They chose to trade Kahkonen and ice AHL goalies for the last quarter of the season

They chose to keep Quinn all year after multiple 10+ game losing streaks

This season was incredibly intentional, it was the goal in September to finish 32nd, mission accomplished

Yeah, I don’t know how anyone could look at the moves they made last offseason and not see it as anything but a blatant attempt to be as bad as they could possibly be.

Quinn is even worse than he was advertised to be

Eh, I think it’s sort of inconclusive considering what he had to work with. I think the only thing we can say with any certainty is that he’s not a miracle worker.

 

[weastern bias]

Eh, I think it’s sort of inconclusive considering what he had to work with. I think the only thing we can say with any certainty is that he’s not a miracle worker.

He had more than enough talent in New York to not miss the playoffs every single year

He was dealt a raw hand in San Jose, but he simply has no track record of winning at the NHL level and he hasn't proven to be a good developmental coach either

 

[TheBeard]

He had more than enough talent in New York to not miss the playoffs every single year

He was dealt a raw hand in San Jose, but he simply has no track record of winning at the NHL level and he hasn't proven to be a good developmental coach either

Again, my comment was based off him being “worse than advertised” and I don’t know if we can say that based off his two years in SJ. In terms of development, Eklund seemed to come alive under him. Same with Zetterlund. I don’t think the sharks had any other prospects or young kids on the roster lol.

 

[weastern bias]

Again, my comment was based off him being “worse than advertised” and I don’t know if we can say that based off his two years in SJ. In terms of development, Eklund seemed to come alive under him. Same with Zetterlund. I don’t think the sharks had any other prospects or young kids on the roster lol.

Zetterlund came alive due to ice time and he would never see on a competitive roster, that had more to do with Grier's roster construction than anything else

Eklund was routinely deployed on the 4th line and as #1C, 2 spots he will never play in his prime, he succeeded in spite of Quinn's decisions

Bordeleau did play a lot of the year, and I'm still not sure what to make of him, but Quinn didn't know what to do with him either

 

[Jersey Fan 12]

grier should go too.

not much anyone could have done with the roster quinn was given.

How is it on Mike Grier? He's been there for ONE draft.

 

[dirtydanglez]

How is it on Mike Grier? He's been there for ONE draft.

a lot of the moves hes made have been questionable including this one.

 

[Jersey Fan 12]

a lot of the moves hes made have been questionable including this one.

Depends on who they have in mind to replace Quinn.

 

[TGWL]

Thanks for the memories even if they weren't so great.

 

[MOGlLNY]

I'd hire Granato tbh

 

[weastern bias]

a lot of the moves hes made have been questionable including this one.

Once the tank truly began with the Meier trade literally every move Grier has made served the purpose of shedding salary and improving draft position, Grier has been doing a great job tearing down a team that seemed locked in to their fate for years to come, now they're bad but on purpose instead of by accident

 

[BHD]

My takeaway from the season is that he looked overwhelmed... he didn't know how to handle the players amidst the losing. Their rebuild is a daunting task for any coach, let alone one like Quinn. I'm just not sure who you go with. They are still in the middle of a rebuild, and you kind of thought he would last one more season.

 

[Machinehead]

I was thinking the same thing. He's got a good track record with developing young players, especially if that's your goal and you aren't focused on winning games or needing him to make adjustments.

He really doesn't

We could debate whether or not that's his fault, which I don't think it entirely is, but like, who has he developed?

Adam Fox was pretty much coach-proof and a Norris-level talent out of the womb. Beyond that, zero Rangers prospects got better under Quinn.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Based on literally every move they made

They weren't forced to trade any of Meier, Karlsson or Hertl, they chose to

In doing so they chose to ice 9 bottom pair defensemen all seasom

In doing so they chose to let Quinn ice a 13th forward and a 21 year old winger as the 1C and 2C for a quarter of the season

They chose to trade Kahkonen and ice AHL goalies for the last quarter of the season

They chose to keep Quinn all year after multiple 10+ game losing streaks

This season was incredibly intentional, it was the goal in September to finish 32nd, mission accomplished

All this is normal rebuilding stuff. Tanking has to involve some sort of decision like shutting down a healthy player. Meier and Kahkonen were expiring contracts. Karlsson and Hertl were veterans that didn't want to play for a rebuilding team. Teams have to play cap dumps when they move someone like Karlsson sometimes because it's too late to buy them out and nobody wants to trade anything for them. They also bring in short term stopgap measures so that they aren't required to rush a young player. Still, injuries happen and players get played out of position or get rushed anyway because rebuilding teams classically do not have much depth in their organization. Keeping Quinn on a team that was going to lose no matter who the coach was is something you can take or leave but neither instance shows an intent to tank.

 

[Voight]

I don't think Quinn is a good coach, but I feel bad for the guy. I mean what is he supposed to do with that roster, and it's not getting any better any time soon with San Jose. Just pointless to hire another coach who is going to have another miserable record. It would be one thing if you were already adding some young talent to the team starting next season, and want them to have a different coach. But this isn't the case.

I'm sorry, but Mike Grier has not impressed me in the least so far with his track record of trades and other moves.

Honestly, weird hire in the first place. He really didn't have a lot of experience.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Honestly, weird hire in the first place. He really didn't have a lot of experience.

May have been a weird hire but given the Sharks' status in 2022, chances were that experienced managers weren't going to take the job. And for me, that's okay. Grier's done an excellent job putting this franchise in a better position than when he found it. They shed some long term contracts from veterans and have collected some young talent to develop over the next few years while getting good draft picks. Firing Quinn now makes sense for contractual and player development reasons. Hiring Quinn in 2022 made sense too because they were in transition and Quinn was instrumental in getting Karlsson's trade value salvaged.

 

[weastern bias]

All this is normal rebuilding stuff. Tanking has to involve some sort of decision like shutting down a healthy player. Meier and Kahkonen were expiring contracts. Karlsson and Hertl were veterans that didn't want to play for a rebuilding team. Teams have to play cap dumps when they move someone like Karlsson sometimes because it's too late to buy them out and nobody wants to trade anything for them. They also bring in short term stopgap measures so that they aren't required to rush a young player. Still, injuries happen and players get played out of position or get rushed anyway because rebuilding teams classically do not have much depth in their organization. Keeping Quinn on a team that was going to lose no matter who the coach was is something you can take or leave but neither instance shows an intent to tank.

Tanking does not have to involve shutting down healthy players, tanking can be as simple as icing the worst roster possible in order to win less games and improve draft position, which is exactly what Grier and co. did this year

Meier was an expiring RFA, the team held his negotiating rights after expiry and could have qualified and/or extended him, instead they traded him for a nice return (and improved draft position)

Kahkonen was expiring and was traded for a 7th and an injured goaltender who had already been shut down for the year forcing us to ice AHL goalies down the stretch and improving our draft position

Hertl and Karlsson didn't want to play for a rebuilding team, but they were under contract for years to come, so if the Sharks weren't interested in losing games in the short term to improve draft position they could have simply held on to them, guaranteed contracts go both ways and the players had no way of leaving without the team facilitating a trade which they gladly did to increase cap space and improve their draft position

This year was a textbook tank job, there's no way around it, Grier even admitted in his media availability yesterday that this "wasn't a playoff roster", which is about as close you'll get to a GM admitting to tanking on purpose

 

[TheBeard]

Tanking does not have to involve shutting down healthy players, tanking can be as simple as icing the worst roster possible in order to win less games and improve draft position, which is exactly what Grier and co. did this year

Meier was an expiring RFA, the team held his negotiating rights after expiry and could have qualified and/or extended him, instead they traded him for a nice return (and improved draft position)

Kahkonen was expiring and was traded for a 7th and an injured goaltender who had already been shut down for the year forcing us to ice AHL goalies down the stretch and improving our draft position

Hertl and Karlsson didn't want to play for a rebuilding team, but they were under contract for years to come, so if the Sharks weren't interested in losing games in the short term to improve draft position they could have simply held on to them, guaranteed contracts go both ways and the players had no way of leaving without the team facilitating a trade which they gladly did to increase cap space and improve their draft position

This year was a textbook tank job, there's no way around it, Grier even admitted in his media availability yesterday that this "wasn't a playoff roster", which is about as close you'll get to a GM admitting to tanking on purpose

When your top pick-ups on the blue line and in nets are Kyle Burroughs and Mackenzie Blackwood, you're tanking.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Tanking does not have to involve shutting down healthy players, tanking can be as simple as icing the worst roster possible in order to win less games and improve draft position, which is exactly what Grier and co. did this year

Meier was an expiring RFA, the team held his negotiating rights after expiry and could have qualified and/or extended him, instead they traded him for a nice return (and improved draft position)

Kahkonen was expiring and was traded for a 7th and an injured goaltender who had already been shut down for the year forcing us to ice AHL goalies down the stretch and improving our draft position

Hertl and Karlsson didn't want to play for a rebuilding team, but they were under contract for years to come, so if the Sharks weren't interested in losing games in the short term to improve draft position they could have simply held on to them, guaranteed contracts go both ways and the players had no way of leaving without the team facilitating a trade which they gladly did to increase cap space and improve their draft position

This year was a textbook tank job, there's no way around it, Grier even admitted in his media availability yesterday that this "wasn't a playoff roster", which is about as close you'll get to a GM admitting to tanking on purpose

Then to you there is no functional difference between tanking and rebuilding.

 

[weastern bias]

Then to you there is no functional difference between tanking and rebuilding.

There is, because rebuilding is a larger process, not all rebuilds require tanking

Tanking is just one part of one strategy to rebuilding, the part where you lose as much as possible in order to maximize draft position, that's where there Sharks are now, the actual "build" portion of the rebuild hasn't even started yet

The Flyers are rebuilding right now but they're refused to tank, they're committed to attempting to compete no matter the circumstances, but they are still in a rebuild, and it almost resulted in a playoff berth this year

The Sharks on the other hand have bottomed out intentionally, they've gone to the bottom of the standings on purpose for draft purposes, they're tanking

 

[Pinkfloyd]

There is, because rebuilding is a larger process, not all rebuilds require tanking

Tanking is just one part of one strategy to rebuilding, the part where you lose as much as possible in order to maximize draft position, that's where there Sharks are now, the actual "build" portion of the rebuild hasn't even started yet

The Flyers are rebuilding right now but they're refused to tank, they're committed to attempting to compete no matter the circumstances, but they are still in a rebuild, and it almost resulted in a playoff berth this year

The Sharks on the other hand have bottomed out intentionally, they've gone to the bottom of the standings on purpose for draft purposes, they're tanking

If you consider the trades Grier has done tanking rather than rebuilding, you functionally believe they are the same thing. They moved veterans with term to get out of long term deals and do veterans a solid. They moved expiring contracts because it wasn't going to make sense for them to be re-signed. These are all rebuilding decisions and not tanking decisions. Tanking decisions involve sitting players that would otherwise help you win even when they're healthy. The Flyers moved Sean Walker at this deadline in the same sort of manner that the Sharks moved Meier. They knew they weren't going to re-sign the player for their reasons (one being an RFA with a 10 mil QO and the other being UFA is functionally the same scenario). The Flyers also dumped Kevin Hayes for nothing like the Sharks did with Burns. They also moved a player like Provorov with term. In no way are those moves functionally any different than what the Sharks did yet to you one is a rebuild and one is a tank. In reality, both are the same thing.

The Sharks moved the guys that they did to rebuild. They were already in the bottom third of the league when Grier was hired. Grier informed all the vets that he'd accommodate them if they didn't want to stay. Some expressed interest in leaving and he did what he could. They needed futures to rebuild. That they bottomed out in the process is just part of it but it wasn't explicitly intentional. It was intentional in the sense that it was likely to happen when you make certain moves but the intent of the moves was to accommodate players, not to bottom out. You believe otherwise but it's not something that anyone actually confirmed because all the actual comments made on these trades by them is to allow the players to move on.

 

[weastern bias]

And then what happened?

Yes, both teams moved off of bad money for players who didn't fit their timeline, but one team gave that roster to a cup winning coach who has a history of overachieving with lackluster talent, the other fed their roster to coach who has never been to the playoffs in his NHL career

Tanking is more than just roster moves, the Sharks maximized the ineffectiveness their personnel by icing them with a dead fish behind the bench

The Flyers also came into the season with an established NHL starting goaltender, he just ended up being exiled due to a police investigation, the Sharks brought in NHL castoffs and minor league prospects to play in net, Blackwood was actually better than they could have anticipated and he posted an .899 sv% on the season

Both teams were sellers, but the Sharks were actively tanking, you're obfuscating the nuances of the moves the teams made during the year and saying I'm the one implying there's no difference between these two teams' approach to the season

 

[TheBeard]

Then to you there is no functional difference between tanking and rebuilding.

There is, because rebuilding is a larger process, not all rebuilds require tanking

I disagree in that every TRUE rebuild requires a tanking stage where you're actively removing your best players NOW to acquire pieces you hope will be your best players LATER. I suppose it all depends on the definition of tanking though, but to me tanking is purposely making your team worse so it eventually can get better. Now, that's just my definition. Others would define it as actively making your team worse solely for the purpose of finishing higher (or lower) in the standings for draft purposes, but that's always going to be a consequence of removing your best pieces, so It's always going to be a matter of interpretation. One could look at trading Kahkonen and Duclair as done to increase the chances of finishing dead last, and while that's true, I don't think that was why those moves were made. They were made because both players were on expiring contracts with value. The team tanked this year IMO, but the moves made at the deadline weren't done to increase our chances of finishing last, hence why no one with term was moved.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

And then what happened?

Yes, both teams moved off of bad money for players who didn't fit their timeline, but one team gave that roster to a cup winning coach who has a history of overachieving with lackluster talent, the other fed their roster to coach who has never been to the playoffs in his NHL career

Tanking is more than just roster moves, the Sharks maximized the ineffectiveness their personnel by icing them with a dead fish behind the bench

The Flyers also came into the season with an established NHL starting goaltender, he just ended up being exiled due to a police investigation, the Sharks brought in NHL castoffs and minor league prospects to play in net, Blackwood was actually better than they could have anticipated and he posted an .899 sv% on the season

Both teams were sellers, but the Sharks were actively tanking, you're obfuscating the nuances of the moves the teams made during the year and saying I'm the one implying there's no difference between these two teams' approach to the season

A team that was more competitive before and after their moves was more competitive than one that wasn't competitive before and after their moves. Flyers have an easier time bringing in free agents at the player, coach, and management level than the Sharks while also having more organizational depth. That's why they finished just outside the playoff picture both seasons and the Sharks didn't.

A real simple question for you. Tell me what you think tanking is and tell me what you think rebuilding is and point to what and why. I don't think trading a veteran or an expiring contract is on its own a tank move. It depends on the context behind it. They weren't trading players that were helping them win because they weren't winning already with them. I'm obfuscating nothing. I'm trying to get you to legitimately define what tanking and rebuilding is and support that with something because the Flyers and Sharks did very similar things with certain players yet one is tanking and one isn't. And your response to that was to try and point to things that weren't what you originally stated and say that's why it's tanking without a clear definition.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I disagree in that every TRUE rebuild requires a tanking stage where you're actively removing your best players NOW to acquire pieces you hope will be your best players LATER. I suppose it all depends on the definition of tanking though, but to me tanking is purposely making your team worse so it eventually can get better. Now, that's just my definition. Others would define it as actively making your team worse solely for the purpose of finishing higher (or lower) in the standings for draft purposes, but that's always going to be a consequence of removing your best pieces, so It's always going to be a matter of interpretation. One could look at trading Kahkonen and Duclair as done to increase the chances of finishing dead last, and while that's true, I don't think that was why those moves were made. They were made because both players were on expiring contracts with value. The team tanked this year IMO, but the moves made at the deadline weren't done to increase our chances of finishing last, hence why no one with term was moved.

Other than Hertl but even that wasn't done to increase our chances of finishing last. It was done for a veteran who has put in his time here and didn't want to go through a rebuild more than he had to. If your definition of tanking is just moving your best players for futures then that's fine but that's basically what rebuilding is. I think tanking has more intent on losing games for draft positioning than just moving veterans that don't want to be a part of a rebuild. A manager moving players for futures isn't tanking to me. A manager telling his coach to sit someone that's healthy is tanking. But if you think that moving top players for futures is tanking anyway then it's a tank but losing teams shouldn't hang on to veteran players if they can't compete with them.