Sharks roster discussion

[Juxtaposer]

Didn't stop the Phil Kessel trade (pushed back to next season if they miss the playoffs, turns into a 2nd that season if they miss again).
You're acting as if your condition is set in stone, when I wouldn't even call if "often". Quickly looking over trades, conditional 1sts were negotiated twice in the last 6 seasons. 1 with your considerations (Schenn) and one with something similar to what LZ was going for (Kessel).

Are you sure there were only two conditional 1sts traded in the past 6 seasons? Where are you getting your info, because I distinctly remember Thomas Vanek being traded for a conditional 1st in 2014. The Isles ended up with a top-5 pick (Dal Colle) and so the 1st was pushed to 2015 with no conditions. Luckily the Isles made the playoffs that year, but that’s sort of the scenario that I’m thinking of.

The Kessel trade is not exactly what I would consider to be a shining example of your point. The Leafs got a really, really poor return for him.

 

[WTFetus]

Are you sure there were only two conditional 1sts traded in the past 6 seasons? Where are you getting your info, because I distinctly remember Thomas Vanek being traded for a conditional 1st in 2014. The Isles ended up with a top-5 pick (Dal Colle) and so the 1st was pushed to 2015 with no conditions. Luckily the Isles made the playoffs that year, but that’s sort of the scenario that I’m thinking of.

The Kessel trade is not exactly what I would consider to be a shining example of your point. The Leafs got a really, really poor return for him.

Ah, NHLtradetracker didn't list that as a "condition" for some reason.
I still wouldn't call those conditions an often occurrence; there are always ways to play around it as the Pens showed recently (regardless of how you view the actual trade value).

 

[Led Zappa]

Maybe it’s just me, but I got a funny feeling that the 2019 Sharks are going to be worse than the 2018 Sharks and I have no interest in giving up a lottery pick next year either.

I don't have any feeling about either year. It's weird.

And this is the first time I've been quoted that I didn't get a notification for that I know of. Also weird.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

You know what's depressing as hell? Nobody disagreed with me.

I don't remember the last time where 2 games in I thought, "I may have to start reading up on the top 10 prospects".

What's the point? Last time we picked in the top 10 we got a low ceiling player with "grit" and "good work ethic". Just let Jux tell you who the overrated low ceiling top-10 prospect is and assume the player we pick will be equal to or worse than them.

It would have worked last year. We picked in the top-20 and got a low ceiling player (Josh Norris) even worse than the low ceiling player we were expected to pick. (Ryan Poehling)

 

[hohosaregood]

What's the point? Last time we picked in the top 10 we got a low ceiling player with "grit" and "good work ethic". Just let Jux tell you who the overrated low ceiling top-10 prospect is and assume the player we pick will be equal to or worse than them.

It would have worked last year. We picked in the top-20 and got a low ceiling player (Josh Norris) even worse than the low ceiling player we were expected to pick. (Ryan Poehling)

There is no point. Any player drafted by the Sharks won't be playing hockey in 3 years a la Alexei Cherepanov ideally.

 

[tiburon12]

There is no point. Any player drafted by the Sharks won't be playing hockey in 3 years a la Alexei Cherepanov ideally.

That's pretty grim :/

 

[hohosaregood]

That's pretty grim :/

At least we get something of value out of it.

 

[stator]

Absolutely not, Hertl is terrible at center.

Hertl is probably the best center they have for the future at this time. The trouble with Couture is that he tends to have difficulty adjusting to a center's role over a winger at times.

Both have the same problem however, that is DeBoer is not matched well as a coach for these players. Moreso for Hertl.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Didn't stop the Phil Kessel trade (pushed back to next season if they miss the playoffs, turns into a 2nd that season if they miss again).
You're acting as if your condition is set in stone, when I wouldn't even call if "often". Quickly looking over trades, conditional 1sts were negotiated twice in the last 6 seasons. 1 with your considerations (Schenn) and one with something similar to what LZ was going for (Kessel).

From an nhl.com article regarding the Kessel trade...

*If Pittsburgh qualifies for the 2016 postseason, Toronto will receive the Penguins’ 2016 first-round draft pick; and the Penguins will receive Toronto’s 2016 second-round selection. The second-round pick would be the one Toronto originally acquired from Pittsburgh for Daniel Winnik earlier this year.
*Should Pittsburgh miss the 2016 playoffs, Toronto will INSTEAD receive the Penguins’ 2017 first-round pick; with Pittsburgh getting Toronto’s 2017 second-round selection in return.
*If the Penguins were to miss the postseason the next two years, Toronto would receive Pittsburgh’s 2017 second-round draft pick and Pittsburgh would not receive a draft pick.

So the Leafs were giving up a 2nd round pick in those conditions unless the Pens missed the playoffs twice in a row in which the Pens would then trade just a 2017 2nd for nothing. So there was a lot of protections from going from a 1st to a 2nd in that particular deal.

 

[Gecklund]

If given the choice, which of the three scenarios would you run?

1. Send Ryan back to the AHL

2. Trade Dillon, Keep Ryan with Burns and move Martin down to play with Heed or DeMelo

3. Trade Dillon. Play Martin and Burns together and Ryan and Heed together.

4. Trade Martin. Keep Ryan with Burns and have Dillon play with Heed or DeMelo

Personally I’m leaning toward option 4. I think after Ryan and Heed we don’t really have any D that could step into the lineup when Martin is gone. So if we trade Dillon there’s no one who can fill in that spot when Martin inevitably leaves in a year or two. If we trade Martin, our D is pretty set long term in my opinion.

 

[AgentCooper]

I choose 5: waive DeMelo.

 

[hohosaregood]

I choose 5: waive DeMelo.

I'd rather not. There's already 7D down in Worcester and that's just gonna guarantee Roy's never gonna play.

 

[Gecklund]

I choose 5: waive DeMelo.

So who is your 7th D then?

 

[AgentCooper]

So who is your 7th D then?

We don't need to designate one person as a "7th defenseman." Dillon can sit sometimes, Martin can sit sometimes, Heed and Ryan will both probably spend time in the AHL this year, and then DeMelo can come up and sit.

 

[Barrie22]

Mark streit as wilsons favorite type of defenseman maybe?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If given the choice, which of the three scenarios would you run?

1. Send Ryan back to the AHL

2. Trade Dillon, Keep Ryan with Burns and move Martin down to play with Heed or DeMelo

3. Trade Dillon. Play Martin and Burns together and Ryan and Heed together.

4. Trade Martin. Keep Ryan with Burns and have Dillon play with Heed or DeMelo

Personally I’m leaning toward option 4. I think after Ryan and Heed we don’t really have any D that could step into the lineup when Martin is gone. So if we trade Dillon there’s no one who can fill in that spot when Martin inevitably leaves in a year or two. If we trade Martin, our D is pretty set long term in my opinion.

Without knowing the returns of the trade scenarios, I can't give a definitive opinion on which option I'd choose. My gut tells me to trade Dillon and keep Ryan up based on his performance and the hunch that Dillon has more trade value than Martin while both being capable of fulfilling the role that would be there for the one that's kept at roughly the same quality. Regardless of who is traded, I'd keep Ryan with Burns and put Heed with the guy we don't trade but I'd probably prefer to keep Martin both for value's sake and because he doesn't have as many pinching errors as Dillon.

 

[Vaasa]

If given the choice, which of the three scenarios would you run?

1. Send Ryan back to the AHL

2. Trade Dillon, Keep Ryan with Burns and move Martin down to play with Heed or DeMelo

3. Trade Dillon. Play Martin and Burns together and Ryan and Heed together.

4. Trade Martin. Keep Ryan with Burns and have Dillon play with Heed or DeMelo

Personally I’m leaning toward option 4. I think after Ryan and Heed we don’t really have any D that could step into the lineup when Martin is gone. So if we trade Dillon there’s no one who can fill in that spot when Martin inevitably leaves in a year or two. If we trade Martin, our D is pretty set long term in my opinion.

I agree with you, trade Martin, keep Dillon. Then after the end of the season evaluate if Dillon still has a place in the org. But Dillon is a "young vet" who is still decent and who brings a physical game around the net that none of our other D do. I am reluctant to trade him without someone similar in the org who is ready to step in. Martin has been good, and bad. But he's older, on a worse contract, and honestly his play has been decreasing IMO. The Sharks have so much cap room that they could easily retain half his salary if necessary to raise the return.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

So when and how do we get that top 6 F we desperate need?

 

[hohosaregood]

So when and how do we get that top 6 F we desperate need?

Next year in the form of a highly touted russian prospect...hopefully

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

Next year in the form of a highly touted russian prospect...hopefully

 

[Internazionale]

Couture and Braun are available because I said so.

 

[Gecklund]

Couture and Braun are available because I said so.

I’d say Pavelski. He’s been trash and one dimensional.

 

[Friday]

Pavelski is feeling the heat, Ive never seen him look as frustrated in a regular season game like he did last night against the Islanders. At least the boys played fairly well, just no finishers on the team. I don't know who's going to score the goals this year if Pavs, LoCo, and Burns arnt scoring every game

 

[Gecklund]

Pavelski is feeling the heat, Ive never seen him look as frustrated in a regular season game like he did last night against the Islanders. At least the boys played fairly well, just no finishers on the team. I don't know who's going to score the goals this year if Pavs, LoCo, and Burns arnt scoring every game

Meier and Labanc both look good. Obviously can’t be counted on to consistently score but they can help as can Tierney. I am constantly in a loop between whether I want the team to rebuild, refresh, or contend. If we rebuild, we can trade players like Couture, Pav, Burns, Vlasic while their values are high. If we refresh, I feel like we will be in the same boat a few years from now since we don’t have any great prospects. I don’t think we are anywhere near good enough to contend but then again neither were the Kings either of the seasons they won.

 

[Friday]

Meier and Labanc both look good. Obviously can’t be counted on to consistently score but they can help as can Tierney. I am constantly in a loop between whether I want the team to rebuild, refresh, or contend. If we rebuild, we can trade players like Couture, Pav, Burns, Vlasic while their values are high. If we refresh, I feel like we will be in the same boat a few years from now since we don’t have any great prospects. I don’t think we are anywhere near good enough to contend but then again neither were the Kings either of the seasons they won.

Hah same, I kinda want the team to lose every game BUT Meier and Lebanc to be scoring all the points. Its time to move on from Jumbo and Pavs, I don't think the fanbase (casual) could stomach trading Burns haha so we might just be stuck with a great D unit terrible forwards and a average goalie.