Sharks fire David Quinn

[Pavel Buchnevich]

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

There were four teams with a worse record last year. Finishing fifth to last is bad, but it’s far from dreadful. He also indisputably didn’t have a playoff roster. He probably got the average result he could’ve from the team last season.

 

[bleedgreen]

Hard to blame that mess on the coach, but someone has to move out just to show you’re trying to improve things I suppose.

 

[TheBeard]

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.

Tanking, to me, is the ugly part of any rebuild where the execution looks far worse than the intent. It’s the point where you have the most current value to offset and thus do so making it appear worse. We don’t really have a Hertl or Karlsson or Meier on the roster anymore to trade off in a highly-publicized (and scrutinized) move. The result, like the perception, always looks bad because of the moves but I agree they’re not done primarily with the intent of making the team worse.

 

[joestevens29]

Hard to blame that mess on the coach, but someone has to move out just to show you’re trying to improve things I suppose.

Does anyone expect or even care if they improve next season? Seems the writing is on the wall

Took Hertl out at trade deadline so that in itself makes it pretty tough to be a better club next year.

Suspect they'll probably be looking at adding some bad contracts once again with getting some assets in return for doing so.

Just seems like he wasn't the guy they wanting to continue with in developing the younger guys. Either that or him and Grier just don't see eye to eye. Can't see this being at all tied to the standings as I think he accomplished exactly what they were looking for this year. And if it is tied to the standings there are larger issues on hand than coaching

 

[weastern bias]

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.

The Flyers finished the 2023 season with 31 wins and 75 points, they were not competitive last year

They could have tanked the season and they had just as much incentive as San Jose did, but they pushed to be competitive this season in a way the Sharks did not

Tanking is losing games on purpose to improve draft position

Rebuilding is changing an organization from a non-competitive state to a competitive one

Rebuilds can be done with or without tanking, though tanking is common and effective in many rebuilds

No player or coach has an incentive to lose so tanking is a management decision and can be achieved through many means, the Blackhawks last year intentionally traded for a bad goaltender to sabotage their season, the Sharks this year employed 9 bottom pair defensemen and 1 healthy top-6 center (who they traded at the deadline) to make sure they had no realistic chance to win most of their games

They are not the same thing, but a tank is often a part of a rebuild, the Sharks tanked this year in an effort to rebuild going forward

This also is not a value judgment, there is nothing wrong with tanking, most of the currently successful franchises tanked at some point to aquire talent, but the Sharks are definitely doing it right now in hopes of enhancing their rebuild moving forward

 

[weastern bias]

There were four teams with a worse record last year. Finishing fifth to last is bad, but it’s far from dreadful. He also indisputably didn’t have a playoff roster. He probably got the average result he could’ve from the team last season.

The Sharks were 4th last in points in 2023 but they were dead last in wins, which I find to be a better barometer to measure the quality of a team, in my opinion they were the worst team in hockey 2 years in a row, they won less games than the Ducks in 2023

As for this year, I don't know if finishing with the worst point total in the salary cap era and the 13th worst goal differential in history can be described as an average performance, they were historically bad, a good coaching job could have had them finished dead last in the league and still not have performed quite so miserably when compared to the history of the league

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I dont think he’s a good coach, but surely they realize this is a pointless move given their timetable to compete, right?

Except he sucks at developing young players.

 

[AlaBlueShirt]

Sharks players can deke on breakaways next season. Congrats!

 

[TheBeard]

Tanking is losing games on purpose to improve draft position

I don't think they ever did that. That would be a huge no-no.

 

[WhereAreTheCookies]

Does he? Certainly didnt help the guys in new york who never developed

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.

I was referring to Granato who is also the one being referred to in the message I quoted. He played a big role in the development of Tage, Cozens, Dahlin, Peterka, Quinn, Samuelsson, etc etc. While the wins weren't where they needed to be he definitely got those guys playing at a higher level than most ever had.

 

[Machinehead]

I was referring to Granato who is also the one being referred to in the message I quoted. He played a big role in the development of Tage, Cozens, Dahlin, Peterka, Quinn, Samuelsson, etc etc. While the wins weren't where they needed to be he definitely got those guys playing at a higher level than most ever had.

Oh, nevermind then. Just assumed it was about Quinn based on the title.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The Flyers finished the 2023 season with 31 wins and 75 points, they were not competitive last year

They could have tanked the season and they had just as much incentive as San Jose did, but they pushed to be competitive this season in a way the Sharks did not

Tanking is losing games on purpose to improve draft position

Rebuilding is changing an organization from a non-competitive state to a competitive one

Rebuilds can be done with or without tanking, though tanking is common and effective in many rebuilds

No player or coach has an incentive to lose so tanking is a management decision and can be achieved through many means, the Blackhawks last year intentionally traded for a bad goaltender to sabotage their season, the Sharks this year employed 9 bottom pair defensemen and 1 healthy top-6 center (who they traded at the deadline) to make sure they had no realistic chance to win most of their games

They are not the same thing, but a tank is often a part of a rebuild, the Sharks tanked this year in an effort to rebuild going forward

This also is not a value judgment, there is nothing wrong with tanking, most of the currently successful franchises tanked at some point to aquire talent, but the Sharks are definitely doing it right now in hopes of enhancing their rebuild moving forward

I was mistaken on the Flyers season but they were still 15 points clear of the Sharks and they still have more resources at their disposal and more flexibility going into this season than the Sharks. Again, the Flyers had more depth organizationally, better cap flexibility, an easier time luring free agents at any level, and less toxic contracts on their books. They had much less incentive to tank because of those reasons.

If your definition of tanking is losing games on purpose and the players and coaches aren't doing it then they're not tanking. None of Grier's moves were explicitly done to improve draft position. If anything, they were explicitly done to shed cap, acquire young prospects and picks, and to accommodate their traded player. Anything beyond that is only you reading more into it than what is actually there. Was he bothered by them being worse as a result, I doubt it but that's still not the same thing as losing games on purpose.

Your rebuild definition doesn't really make sense either because what you're describing is the end result of a successful rebuild and not the actual rebuild itself. No rebuild can be done without moving out what was there before. You can't rebuild if you never destroy what was built to some degree or another. The Blackhawks example is a terrible example of sabotage. Mrazek was acquired as a means to move up from their 2nd round pick to the 1st round. And that goalie performed at a level comparable to Kahkonen who you were earlier using as evidence of tanking because they got rid of him.

The only way you can call what they did tanking is to assume intent that cannot be demonstrated in any reasonable way. I refuse to use that standard for the term. A rebuild involves tearing down a previous group and building up a new one. A tank is a provable showing of losing games on purpose whether that's because they won't call up someone who is much better than what they were playing (I think an argument could be made for the Sharks tanking last year because they buried Eklund in the farm for most of the year when he was clearly better than most forwards on the team but they had a contractual purpose to do so with the slide rule) or scratching a healthy player in favor of a worse player to try and lose. Grier did nothing like that. He traded veterans and expiring contracts for cap flexibility and futures...something all rebuilding teams have to do to succeed.

 

[weastern bias]

I don't think they ever did that. That would be a huge no-no.

I'm not talking about match fixing or throwing games, but an organizational approach

Coaches and players don't tank, owners and general managers do

@Pinkfloyd, if you think the Sharks weren't tanking then no team has ever tanked before, this was as cut and dry a case as they come

 

[Lindys Lazy Eye]

I hope Florida can do this against the Rangers

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I'm not talking about match fixing or throwing games, but an organizational approach

Coaches and players don't tank, owners and general managers do

@Pinkfloyd, if you think the Sharks weren't tanking then no team has ever tanked before, this was as cut and dry a case as they come

Except that's not true. The Penguins in the Lemieux draft tanked. The GM complained to his coach about leading a game. The GM buried a goalie to call up a worse goalie. There have been allegations that the Sens tanked in the Daigle draft and the Nords did in the Lindros draft.

I think the standard for tanking has to be higher than trading veterans for futures and selling expiring contracts at the deadline. That's just part of rebuilding getting value out of players that aren't part of your future plans because they're too old, too expensive, or just won't sign there. If you think that doing so is tanking then you're also saying that every seller at the trade deadline is tanking because that's what they do too.

 

[bleedgreen]

Does anyone expect or even care if they improve next season? Seems the writing is on the wall

Took Hertl out at trade deadline so that in itself makes it pretty tough to be a better club next year.

Suspect they'll probably be looking at adding some bad contracts once again with getting some assets in return for doing so.

Just seems like he wasn't the guy they wanting to continue with in developing the younger guys. Either that or him and Grier just don't see eye to eye. Can't see this being at all tied to the standings as I think he accomplished exactly what they were looking for this year. And if it is tied to the standings there are larger issues on hand than coaching

Well we can know what the long term plan is, but you’ve still got to sell some seats. There does have to be some semblance of trying to improve even if it’s a token effort to those who really follow the game.

I agree that maybe he wasn’t the guy for a true rebuild and they have someone else in mind for the eventual upswing.

 

[sjsharks92]

Thank you for your service to the tank, commander Quinn

 

[sjsharks92]

I don’t blame Quinn or Grier for our current state. I’ve actually been quite impressed with Grier’s moves thus far. Though I don’t think firing Quinn was necessary

 

[OrrNumber4]

Given that the results were expected (indeed, Grier suggested that they didn't factor into his decision), I imagine that the player feedback must have been very concerning.

 

[Peltz]

David Quinn is not the coach you want to lead a rebuilding team. Or a young team. Or a veteran team. You just really don't want David Quinn coaching your team is the moral of this story.

True

 

[Pinkfloyd]

True

Quinn's coaching last season at least allowed the Sharks to move Karlsson's contract. A lot of coaches even in the Sharks situation wouldn't have run the entire system around one player. That trade is going to have a fairly consistent impact on their future.

 

[NVious]

They would've won the cup if not for Quinn, you simply can't waste the prime years of Luke Kunin, William Eklund and Calen Addison

 

[Cas]

They would've won the cup if not for Quinn, you simply can't waste the prime years of Luke Kunin, William Eklund and Calen Addison

One of those things is not like the other.

 

[coooldude]

There are a lot of reasons coaches get fired. Obviously in this case he didn't get fired because of W/L. Development. Systems. Personality. There are a lot of reasons coaches get fired.

The first reasonable post in the first pages.

No way to know for sure, but you have to wonder if this move was heavily influenced by exit interviews with the players. Quinn was a micro-manager in NY who lost the ears of his veterans and had his younger players playing scared. Maybe the players in San Jose had mixed feelings when asked on their evaluations of their head coach?

Getting warmer...

Given that the results were expected (indeed, Grier suggested that they didn't factor into his decision), I imagine that the player feedback must have been very concerning.

Bingo. Grier has proven to be a very straight shooter. In his post firing interview he explicitly said that the decision wasn't made because of record and instead was because of what he learned in the "process" which heavily featured exit interviews.

It only took us, 8 pages to just listen to the dude explain himself. The org (Hasso, Grier) knew they were "going to take a step back to take steps Forward" and "things were going to get worse before they got better" (direct quotes). This wasn't a firing to save face, this had nothing to do with the record, this was an unexpected move because of likely terrible feedback from the players. There's a chance that the Lame Duck theory has merit too, but I think it's pretty easy to read between the lines here.

As for tanking vs rebuild, Pinkfloyd is applying a very narrow definition of tanking (intentionally throwing games) and weastern bias is applying a broader definition (intentionally constructing a team that is so bad that it has a legitimate chance to finish worst overall).

I happen to side with weastern, I think an organization can tank (ice a team on purpose with a clear and legitimate chance to finish last, a management decision, even if the players and coach fight every day for a win) without throwing games. You can rebuild without tanking, the Sharks are both rebuilding and tanking this year. Next year they won't be tanking but they'll probably still finish last or bottom three even with significant roster turnover.

 

[CanadienShark]

Oh no. I'm sooooo sad.