Should we fire DW?

[Sharksrule04]

Havlat came with injury problems. His entire career was 1 injury after another. If you can't blame wilson for trading for a known injury plagued player then he will never be bad in your opinion.

Agree, he was an injury risk but not to the point of playing as few games as he did in SJ. Also, is anyone really complaining about that trade? We got rid of Heatley's salary and Heatley declined very quickly once he left SJ.

 

[Sharksrule04]

I don't see a GM as anything else but a supervisor so how you view a supervisor in terms of what their benchmarks are will likely be how you view DW as a GM. I can't see how one can absolve the supervisor for the results of the team he puts together. If he constantly puts together good paper teams that fall short of the ultimate goal then he is obviously not capable of seeing what is missing to get over that hump. If the goal of the franchise for you is to win the Cup, I don't see how keeping someone who has a lengthy track record of not getting the job done is the way to go much less say that the man is doing a good job. A good job is based on the expectations you have of that person. If all you expect out of a GM in this context is to put good teams together then yeah but I thought people wanted more than that. I also don't understand the thought process of judging his ability based on what the team looks like on paper. It ought to be based on the results of the things he put together.

Your benchmark for success is winning the cup. Only 1 GM can have a successful season by that benchmark. In an 8 year period at most 8 GM's can have a successful period (most recently its what, 4 or 5). Every team has the goal of winning the Stanley Cup but reality points out that not every team can win one. That doesn't mean every GM isn't doing their job well.

For example, you look at a company. Does only the best employee keep their job? No, basically anyone who is doing their job above average is generally going to keep the job. Can anyone argue that DW isn't in the top third of GM's in the league? I don't see how you can deny that he is. The team has produced among the top third and his moves speak for themselves. Unless you can replace him with one of those GM's above him, I don't see how it makes sense.

A comparison for evaluating trades: a manager hires an employee whose resume is good for the job, but then a year later the employee commits a crime and is forced to leave the company. Do you blame the hiring manager? No, at the time of hire he was a great hire. This is how I approach GM's. If the trade was good at the time, then the GM did his part. It's on the players to play and the coaches to coach. The best a GM can do is evaluate talent and bring in as much of the right talent as possible. I don't expect him to be a fortune teller.

Not saying I'm right here, this is simply my thought process. To me DW is getting the job done. He is building teams that should compete for a cup. It's on the team to compete though.

 

[Ukapitalo]

I give DW a B, B+ rating as an overall GM. Is that enough to win a cup? I dunno, maybe... With some luck on our side and a team that's red hot going into the playoffs it's a possibility (**cough LA **).

The reality is if we get rid of him, who's going to replace him? We're looking for an upgrade obviously if DW is fired, so who is out there that is a B+, A- at least and is willing to come to SJ?

I don't about you, but I'd rather have DW than a worse GM brought in just for the sake of change.

 

[Sharksrule04]

How exactly is that being fair when that isn't what happened? Everyone should know by now that winning the Cup is long odds to begin with so it's just a poor bet. Hitting the lottery and winning doesn't make it any less of a poor bet that should be avoided simply because there are more cost-efficient ways to accomplish what you want to do (with regards to addressing holes in the lineup).

But my answer would still be no, I wouldn't be 100% behind those moves even if they won the Cup. The ends doesn't justify the means even in this context. Although I do understand that that position would be an extreme minority in this realm.

Ehh, I would argue the draft odds are absurdly terrible considering the weight we put on keeping them. What % of players drafted ever amount to anything in the NHL?

It was understood that Guerin could very likely only be a rental, but Campbell wasn't supposed to be. Most believed he would re-sign with the Sharks.

The better question is not whether you'd be satisfied with the trades if they won the cup, but if you agree they filled a need. I saw in a previous post you argued against the Guerin trade fitting a need which I disagree with, but do you believe the Campbell trade didn't fill a need? I'd argue that was our biggest need at the time of that trade.

If the trade fits a glaring need, then it's a good trade in my book. It means the GM is trying to improve the team and push them closer to the top prize.

 

[Sharksrule04]

When it comes to the deadline rental stuff, there is no maybe about it. It is, was, and will always be a poor bet. How many teams take the rental every year and fail? Using an extreme example to try and prove your point isn't going to do you much good with me. Like I said, the ends don't justify the means. Even in the context that results matter, the results of trading for rentals shows it is a very bad bet.

I'd argue its the same ratio of teams that win the cup. Most playoff bound teams have some activity during the deadline time frame, and every year only 1 team will win the cup. Many teams have historically added pieces at the deadline in a cup winning year. Some had large impacts, some did not. That is the point though. It's an effort to give your team that extra boost to win it all.

The part that annoys me the most though with your the logic you use is that many people (not saying you would) will then complain about DW doing nothing to help our team if he doesn't trade. There is too much hypocrisy in evaluating these GM's among fans. If he act's and they don't win a cup, then he isn't thinking of our future. If he does nothing and we don't win a cup, then he should have acted. It's a no win situation unless you win the cup, which is probably the toughest thing to do in all of sports.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Your benchmark for success is winning the cup. Only 1 GM can have a successful season by that benchmark. In an 8 year period at most 8 GM's can have a successful period (most recently its what, 4 or 5). Every team has the goal of winning the Stanley Cup but reality points out that not every team can win one. That doesn't mean every GM isn't doing their job well.

For example, you look at a company. Does only the best employee keep their job? No, basically anyone who is doing their job above average is generally going to keep the job. Can anyone argue that DW isn't in the top third of GM's in the league? I don't see how you can deny that he is. The team has produced among the top third and his moves speak for themselves. Unless you can replace him with one of those GM's above him, I don't see how it makes sense.

A comparison for evaluating trades: a manager hires an employee whose resume is good for the job, but then a year later the employee commits a crime and is forced to leave the company. Do you blame the hiring manager? No, at the time of hire he was a great hire. This is how I approach GM's. If the trade was good at the time, then the GM did his part. It's on the players to play and the coaches to coach. The best a GM can do is evaluate talent and bring in as much of the right talent as possible. I don't expect him to be a fortune teller.

Not saying I'm right here, this is simply my thought process. To me DW is getting the job done. He is building teams that should compete for a cup. It's on the team to compete though.

It's not my benchmark. It's the team's benchmark because they've said that for years under DW. You can't really use a regular business company as an actual comparison because no business has an equal sort of dynamic as professional sports. Him being in the top whatever doesn't exempt him from being moved on when GM's who have won championships have moved on from their respective teams and gone elsewhere. In your comparison of the manager, you're utilizing one instance and one time where things go wrong. That's sort of shallow in this context because this is not just one trade, one year, and one team. This has been the way it has been for years now. The trades are merely pieces of evidence, one way or the other, towards the end of judging how he's done and the other pieces of evidence are how the team performs. When the team consistently falls short and the GM is not able to fix why they're falling short on performance, at some point you have to look at the manager. That's true no matter what walk of life it is no matter how low or high the standard is. I don't think that you can say on one hand that he's building teams that should compete for the Cup when that implies that they're not for some reason and yet the manager is not identifying why they aren't competing for Cups and fixing it.

Ehh, I would argue the draft odds are absurdly terrible considering the weight we put on keeping them. What % of players drafted ever amount to anything in the NHL?

It was understood that Guerin could very likely only be a rental, but Campbell wasn't supposed to be. Most believed he would re-sign with the Sharks.

The better question is not whether you'd be satisfied with the trades if they won the cup, but if you agree they filled a need. I saw in a previous post you argued against the Guerin trade fitting a need which I disagree with, but do you believe the Campbell trade didn't fill a need? I'd argue that was our biggest need at the time of that trade.

If the trade fits a glaring need, then it's a good trade in my book. It means the GM is trying to improve the team and push them closer to the top prize.

It really doesn't matter what the overall draft pick conversion percentage is. The Sharks do well with it and that's what really counts here. A draft pick to the Sharks should be valued significantly more than those who either fail at drafting or who have better avenues for player acquisition. The best value you will get from an asset is a draft pick that hits and that just happens to be the route they succeed more often than others at.

There were signs with Campbell that he was going to test the market regardless. The team chose to ignore those signs to get a good PMD for their run because they hadn't been getting that elsewhere.

It's a good trade to fit a glaring need but only if you're going to fill that need for an extended period of time. 20-some odd games plus your playoff run is not filling your team's needs. It's just a temporary fill which is not good to go with as a roster strategy when the team needs those draft picks to do consistently well over the course of many years. If the GM wants to push the team closer to the top prize, he needs to address those things before the season starts...not at the deadline.

I'd argue its the same ratio of teams that win the cup. Most playoff bound teams have some activity during the deadline time frame, and every year only 1 team will win the cup. Many teams have historically added pieces at the deadline in a cup winning year. Some had large impacts, some did not. That is the point though. It's an effort to give your team that extra boost to win it all.

The part that annoys me the most though with your the logic you use is that many people (not saying you would) will then complain about DW doing nothing to help our team if he doesn't trade. There is too much hypocrisy in evaluating these GM's among fans. If he act's and they don't win a cup, then he isn't thinking of our future. If he does nothing and we don't win a cup, then he should have acted. It's a no win situation unless you win the cup, which is probably the toughest thing to do in all of sports.

Factually, you cannot make that argument. One team wins...multiple teams pick up rentals and not necessarily the one that does pick up rentals. The complaints about him doing nothing is often just a continuation of the complaining done when he didn't address something before the season started. There were plenty of years where the blue line was an obvious and glaring hole where the team simply didn't address it and occasionally tried to address it with someone that was just not the right person to go with. The whole hypocrisy thing is just painting a group of people with a big broad brush. I'm not going to bother with that whole generalization thing because it doesn't apply to me and most anyone here who has put legitimate thoughts into these many different conversations that we have here. But even if true, suffice it to say that that comes with the territory especially when you have high expectations.

The overall point that I'm trying to make is that if you're going to hold the players to a certain standard, you ought to hold DW to that standard and I feel that that isn't done. I just can't see how you can blame the players and only the players for failings when it has been happening for years now under the same GM.

 

[Sharksrule04]

It's not my benchmark. It's the team's benchmark because they've said that for years under DW. You can't really use a regular business company as an actual comparison because no business has an equal sort of dynamic as professional sports. Him being in the top whatever doesn't exempt him from being moved on when GM's who have won championships have moved on from their respective teams and gone elsewhere. In your comparison of the manager, you're utilizing one instance and one time where things go wrong. That's sort of shallow in this context because this is not just one trade, one year, and one team. This has been the way it has been for years now. The trades are merely pieces of evidence, one way or the other, towards the end of judging how he's done and the other pieces of evidence are how the team performs. When the team consistently falls short and the GM is not able to fix why they're falling short on performance, at some point you have to look at the manager. That's true no matter what walk of life it is no matter how low or high the standard is. I don't think that you can say on one hand that he's building teams that should compete for the Cup when that implies that they're not for some reason and yet the manager is not identifying why they aren't competing for Cups and fixing it.



It really doesn't matter what the overall draft pick conversion percentage is. The Sharks do well with it and that's what really counts here. A draft pick to the Sharks should be valued significantly more than those who either fail at drafting or who have better avenues for player acquisition. The best value you will get from an asset is a draft pick that hits and that just happens to be the route they succeed more often than others at.

There were signs with Campbell that he was going to test the market regardless. The team chose to ignore those signs to get a good PMD for their run because they hadn't been getting that elsewhere.

It's a good trade to fit a glaring need but only if you're going to fill that need for an extended period of time. 20-some odd games plus your playoff run is not filling your team's needs. It's just a temporary fill which is not good to go with as a roster strategy when the team needs those draft picks to do consistently well over the course of many years. If the GM wants to push the team closer to the top prize, he needs to address those things before the season starts...not at the deadline.



Factually, you cannot make that argument. One team wins...multiple teams pick up rentals and not necessarily the one that does pick up rentals. The complaints about him doing nothing is often just a continuation of the complaining done when he didn't address something before the season started. There were plenty of years where the blue line was an obvious and glaring hole where the team simply didn't address it and occasionally tried to address it with someone that was just not the right person to go with. The whole hypocrisy thing is just painting a group of people with a big broad brush. I'm not going to bother with that whole generalization thing because it doesn't apply to me and most anyone here who has put legitimate thoughts into these many different conversations that we have here. But even if true, suffice it to say that that comes with the territory especially when you have high expectations.

The overall point that I'm trying to make is that if you're going to hold the players to a certain standard, you ought to hold DW to that standard and I feel that that isn't done. I just can't see how you can blame the players and only the players for failings when it has been happening for years now under the same GM.

Good points, I think mostly we have a philosophical difference. I don't view the Sharks as failing. I think they've been one of the premiere teams in the league for about 13-14 years. The goal of my fandom is to see my team win a cup, but I'm not the type of person who believes change is necessarily better. Idea's like that might have lead to guys like Yzerman being moved and Detroit may have never won a cup.

You mention that I only hold players accountable and not higher ups, which really isn't true. I've just been arguing that I think DW has done a good job and people who are mad we haven't won a cup blame it on the top guy, which is fair, it's just not my method. Like you said sports are different than businesses and I do believe in team sports a manager can be doing a great job without seeing the results. I will gladly place blame on Wilson when I think it is called for. Ehrhoff trade being a solid example as well as some of those contracts that were offered to aging/declining d-men 5-7 years ago. Or maybe passing on Barzal and Connor 3 times like the Bruins did. I think the majority of his work though has been positive.

I don't believe "luck" is the reason the Sharks haven't won a cup. I don't believe it's Thornton being a playoff choker. I don't believe it was even Nabby/Niemi. I do believe it is because the Sharks, unlike all of the cup winners since basically the beginning of time, have never gotten hot at the right time. We've had the talent to win the cup, I firmly believe this. Problem is some group struggled at the wrong time and the other groups weren't able to push enough to carry the team. It was either the defense, the goaltending, the offense, the top guys, the bottom guys, the coaching. You name it, at some point they failed us. Not because of talent, it was because of some unproven factor.

That simply won't work in the generation of Western powerhouses that we're in. If the Sharks were in the Eastern conference I have no doubt we would have made the finals several times by now, but possibly even won a cup. These aren't excuses that I'm making for the team, they are observations. The Western Conference has been the best since the 90's and in some seasons it's not even close.

With the exception of the first of the recent 3 cups the Blackhawks have won, I don't believe a single team that won the cup was better than some of those great Sharks teams (including this years team), but this is why we play the game. On paper doesn't always translate to cup.

So my point of writing this is, I actually don't blame anyone, players, coach, GM for the Sharks failures. In certain circumstances I'll blame goaltending or defense, or lack of scoring but there is no 1 ingredient that I think results in us having 0 cups. As fans and analysts we invent things such as "clutch", or "complete" or "choker" to describe teams and players but it's all horse crap. There is no science from one season to the next that results in a cup other than, scoring more goals than your opponent.

 

[Nolan11]

Good points, I think mostly we have a philosophical difference. I don't view the Sharks as failing. I think they've been one of the premiere teams in the league for about 13-14 years. The goal of my fandom is to see my team win a cup, but I'm not the type of person who believes change is necessarily better. Idea's like that might have lead to guys like Yzerman being moved and Detroit may have never won a cup.

You mention that I only hold players accountable and not higher ups, which really isn't true. I've just been arguing that I think DW has done a good job and people who are mad we haven't won a cup blame it on the top guy, which is fair, it's just not my method. Like you said sports are different than businesses and I do believe in team sports a manager can be doing a great job without seeing the results. I will gladly place blame on Wilson when I think it is called for. Ehrhoff trade being a solid example as well as some of those contracts that were offered to aging/declining d-men 5-7 years ago. Or maybe passing on Barzal and Connor 3 times like the Bruins did. I think the majority of his work though has been positive.

I don't believe "luck" is the reason the Sharks haven't won a cup. I don't believe it's Thornton being a playoff choker. I don't believe it was even Nabby/Niemi. I do believe it is because the Sharks, unlike all of the cup winners since basically the beginning of time, have never gotten hot at the right time. We've had the talent to win the cup, I firmly believe this. Problem is some group struggled at the wrong time and the other groups weren't able to push enough to carry the team. It was either the defense, the goaltending, the offense, the top guys, the bottom guys, the coaching. You name it, at some point they failed us. Not because of talent, it was because of some unproven factor.

That simply won't work in the generation of Western powerhouses that we're in. If the Sharks were in the Eastern conference I have no doubt we would have made the finals several times by now, but possibly even won a cup. These aren't excuses that I'm making for the team, they are observations. The Western Conference has been the best since the 90's and in some seasons it's not even close.

With the exception of the first of the recent 3 cups the Blackhawks have won, I don't believe a single team that won the cup was better than some of those great Sharks teams (including this years team), but this is why we play the game. On paper doesn't always translate to cup.

So my point of writing this is, I actually don't blame anyone, players, coach, GM for the Sharks failures. In certain circumstances I'll blame goaltending or defense, or lack of scoring but there is no 1 ingredient that I think results in us having 0 cups. As fans and analysts we invent things such as "clutch", or "complete" or "choker" to describe teams and players but it's all horse crap. There is no science from one season to the next that results in a cup other than, scoring more goals than your opponent.

My views fall in line with PFs on this one more than yours, but you both are making good points along the way. Am enjoying your conversation. IMO, DW had been falling down on the job for several many years before this one. The moves he made, and did not make, this last off-season through to this deadline all are along the right track (FINELY)! So I am of a mind now to give him a short leash instead of a noose.

A GMs job is to properly acquire and expend assets to build a team and grow its competitiveness faster than his neighbors. With the exception of the Thornton and Burns trades, DW was not really doing that. Team was getting marginally better, but his wasting of assets along the way (salary cap and picks/prospects) left us short when we needed to go all in. He seems to have recognized some of his strategic errors and is now out there finding unclaimed assets for free (Karlsson, Donskoi, maybe now Sorensen) and avoided the overpaying for bottom line/pair veteran anchors with grit....

I don't agree with all DW has done this year (especially term of Martin and Wards contracts), but he is finally doing the things this team needs to fill in our holes and give us some hope for the future. If he had sat on his hands again like he did last year, I'd have been passing out the pitchforks. As it stands, I have some unlit torches in my garage that could be lit pretty quickly, but for now my lighter is in my pocket.

 

[Led Zappa]

My views fall in line with PFs on this one more than yours, but you both are making good points along the way. Am enjoying your conversation. IMO, DW had been falling down on the job for several many years before this one. The moves he made, and did not make, this last off-season through to this deadline all are along the right track (FINELY)! So I am of a mind now to give him a short leash instead of a noose.

A GMs job is to properly acquire and expend assets to build a team and grow its competitiveness faster than his neighbors. With the exception of the Thornton and Burns trades, DW was not really doing that. Team was getting marginally better, but his wasting of assets along the way (salary cap and picks/prospects) left us short when we needed to go all in. He seems to have recognized some of his strategic errors and is now out there finding unclaimed assets for free (Karlsson, Donskoi, maybe now Sorensen) and avoided the overpaying for bottom line/pair veteran anchors with grit....

I don't agree with all DW has done this year (especially term of Martin and Wards contracts), but he is finally doing the things this team needs to fill in our holes and give us some hope for the future. If he had sat on his hands again like he did last year, I'd have been passing out the pitchforks. As it stands, I have some unlit torches in my garage that could be lit pretty quickly, but for now my lighter is in my pocket.

I'd love for you to make an argument for GM's that made all these great moves that led to a cup outside teams like Pit and Chi that got Malkin, Crosby - Kane, Toews after years of sucking. And the Kings took 10 years, 10 YEARS!, to become what they were when they won their first cup.


If only PF would hold Marlov to the same standard he holds DW

 

[Nolan11]

I'd love for you to make an argument for GM's that made all these great moves that led to a cup outside teams like Pit and Chi that got Malkin, Crosby - Kane, Toews after years of sucking. And the Kings took 10 years, 10 YEARS!, to become what they were when they won their last cup.

I am not arguing that winning a cup is the only sign of a GM doing his job well. I am saying he/or eventually she, needs to continually assess their team, eliminate holes and generally improve their chance of winning it all, year after year.

The teams that got malkin/Crosby, kane/toews and todays oilers were not run well. But what Chicago did after there first cup win was brilliant. If I recall this right, they blew up the roster and traded a ton of vets that off season and reaped like four extra 2nds and a pair of first rounders..... They sucked the next season but then were quickly back on track.

Lombardi also made some brilliant moves at the TDL for the Kings last few cup run years.

Now for our Sharks, DW has made some great moves and some what were you thinking wrong moves along the way. Over the years, he has kept us in the running but never really improving faster than the top teams in our conference. Therefore, our chances of bring home the hardware never really improved, until this year. I am happy that we are not only a better team, but that he did so without overly mortgaging our future. We have some prospects that should be up next year, he is signing some Euros (Sorensen is arguably worth one of the 2nds he traded to the leafs for polak). I have some hope again!

 

[Juxtaposer]

Donskoi is basically worth a top-15 pick in my mind. If DW can keep adding assets from the late rounds/free agents like Sorenson, he can make up for giving up picks.

 

[Irie]

I'd love for you to make an argument for GM's that made all these great moves that led to a cup outside teams like Pit and Chi that got Malkin, Crosby - Kane, Toews after years of sucking. And the Kings took 10 years, 10 YEARS!, to become what they were when they won their first cup.

What you've failed to understand from the posts of the many of us that are critical of Wilson's tenure is that we are "not blaming Wilson for the Shark's not winning a cup", we understand it is a difficult accomplishment that requires a lot of different facets, including luck. But many of us disagree with the majority of his moves during his time here, and we have a valid argument and our opinions are well justified, even if you disagree with them.

His targeting of severely decling players to fill glaring roster holes and them offering them terrible over-priced extensions is the reason we complain. Wilson has put together a great core, but has missed repeatedly on trying to add decent secondary parts.

It is crazy to assume all players coming into a new situation are going to gell and really work out, we get that. But it is also crazy to believe that players that have been down right awful for 2 years are going to be serviceable for this team once acquired.

 

[Led Zappa]

What you've failed to understand from the posts of the many of us that are critical of Wilson's tenure is that we are "not blaming Wilson for the Shark's not winning a cup", we understand it is a difficult accomplishment that requires a lot of different facets, including luck. But many of us disagree with the majority of his moves during his time here, and we have a valid argument and our opinions are well justified, even if you disagree with them.

His targeting of severely decling players to fill glaring roster holes and them offering them terrible over-priced extensions is the reason we complain. Wilson has put together a great core, but has missed repeatedly on trying to add decent secondary parts.

It is crazy to assume all players coming into a new situation are going to gell and really work out, we get that. But it is also crazy to believe that players that have been down right awful for 2 years are going to be serviceable for this team once acquired.

And what you apparently fail to understand is that this isn't NHL 2016. You apparently don't appreciate that the Sharks have had trouble attracting FA's and you can't trade for anyone you want and there's this thing called a CAP. Overall Wilson has done an amazing job and I'm not gonna rehash it right now.

Not one person has compared him to another GM and made a case as to why they are better than Wilson. I do see virtually every fan base clown on their GM unless they've won a cup.

 

[Irie]

And what you apparently fail to understand is that this isn't NHL 2016. You apparently don't appreciate that the Sharks have had trouble attracting FA's and you can't trade for anyone you want and there's this thing called a CAP. Overall Wilson has done an amazing job and I'm not gonna rehash it right now.

Actually, wilson has stated multiple times that he is not a fan of bidding for premium free agents on day 1 of the ufa frenzy when the top tiered ufas are all signed. Saying SJ has trouble attracting UFAs when their offers are low-ball is being disingenuous. And as stated before, i respect his conviction, but trading for premium ufa's at the deadline and then saying "the san jose market" is unattractive to UFAs for some reason" when they dont re-sign because wilsons offer is over a million lower than the competitor's is also crazy. The cost of living and CA taxes are a factor, but this market is more desirable to UFAs that are relocating families than Anaheim in many ways.

As far as the cap goes, well that is all Wilson's doing with repeated signings like Shelley, Huskins, Wallin, Stuart, Burish.

Wilson is not a terrible GM in my opinion, but as we have argued about in the past, i feel he has consistently lacked a cohesive plan. His philosophy has obviously evolved, and i am pretty happy with his work this last year, (i just thank god that his bieksa deal fell apart and he signed Martin instead) but i fear he now is in a position where his expectations to win define his job security, and he has no choice but to trade assets to remain marginally competitive, and that philosophy will never allow this team to reach the next level.

 

[hohosaregood]

Kinda get the feeling a lot of the stereotypical "lol Sharks" moves were kind of driven by McLellan but there's a lot of holes in that idea if I think it through thoroughly.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I honestly don't think there was ever a Bieksa deal.

 

[Irie]

I honestly don't think there was ever a Bieksa deal.

Benning admitted that there was talks with Wilson about Bieksa. Bieksa was asked to and agreed to wave his NTC to go to SJ. Now how close Wilson actually was to making the move is a real unknown, afterall, Wilson is known around the league as probably "the biggest tire kicker GM in the NHL". But legitimate sources came out with the Bieksa extension numbers, before the trade was dead, and they turned out to be identical to what he asked for from Anaheim (and received).

So it is POSSIBLE that Wilson was never very serious about actually pulling the trigger on Bieksa, but he was definitely pondering it at some point. Thankfully, it either fell apart, or he came to his senses in time.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Benning is also in over his head and seems to confuse discussions with a sure fire trade.

 

[Irie]

Benning is also in over his head and seems to confuse discussions with a sure fire trade.

With Benning's track record, that definitely could be a possibility...

But Bieksa and his agent said they had an extension in place with Wilson, and he was pissed because he even brought his family to San Jose to look at houses... but who knows, maybe Wilson was just trolling Bieksa to get revenge for the 2011 conference finals

 

[Fresnel]

don't worry Bieksa, DWW will probably trade Demelo, Donskoi and a 2nd for you this off season

 

[Coach Parker]

Love reading back through this now. Wilson continues to develop and build a contender on the fly after only one year of DNQ.

Sharks are going to the Finals. Wilson and company deserve full credit for the moves to bring in the young talent they did to revitalize this team and St.Louis won't have the legs to match them.

Either way, win or lose, the future under Wilson looks bright once again.

 

[Limekiller]

Love reading back through this now. Wilson continues to develop and build a contender on the fly after only one year of DNQ.

Sharks are going to the Finals. Wilson and company deserve full credit for the moves to bring in the young talent they did to revitalize this team and St.Louis won't have the legs to match them.

Either way, win or lose, the future under Wilson looks bright once again.

I'm still pissed at a number of his past idiocies (Burish, the 2013 draft, etc.) I freely admit, however, that his moves THIS year have been quite good, and some (Donskoi) have been outstanding.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

I haven't seen this being brought up, but should Wilson be given some consideration for GM of the year? The moves he's made last summer have been really impactful for this team and it's a big reason why they are in the WCF. I know GM of the year is a regular season thing, but I'm impressed, and a little surprised, on how great of a job DW did last offseason.

 

[hohosaregood]

I still think the way he was doing his double talk thing and basically trying to passive-aggressively alienate Marleau and Thornton last year was pretty disgusting but he's made good moves this year.

 

[Mach12]

He definitely made good moves this year. Regardless of what we want, this WCF berth will probably give him a fair amount of rope.