Speculation: Summer 2018 off season roster discussion

[Sharksrule04]

Relatively easy goes out the window when you put the context of the games into the discussion. Every game against LA was a one goal game where they only scored seven goals in four games. Every game there was tight. They had two easy games against the Sharks but the Sharks had them in a position to be beaten and let it slip away from them. Every game against the Jets has been close as well. Not as close as the Kings series but every game Vegas won in the Winnipeg series was a one goal game in the 3rd period. Just pointing to the record and thinking that's easy in any sense of the word is a gross oversimplification.

Once again, agreed. Hockey fans who actually pay attention will know this, but the mass media doesn't pay attention and this non-sense with Vegas will make our sport look bad. For the most part I love that hockey has more of a cult following in this country because we generally are free of the dumb hot-take shows and moron's who just say things to get clicks like football and basketball are more subjected to, but this story attracts those fools and paints a more negative picture for our sport from the people who don't pay enough attention. The media mostly is responsible for my Vegas hate. With the exception of Neal and Carrier, I don't really hate anyone on their roster.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Once again, agreed. Hockey fans who actually pay attention will know this, but the mass media doesn't pay attention and this non-sense with Vegas will make our sport look bad. For the most part I love that hockey has more of a cult following in this country because we generally are free of the dumb hot-take shows and moron's who just say things to get clicks like football and basketball are more subjected to, but this story attracts those fools and paints a more negative picture for our sport from the people who don't pay enough attention. The media mostly is responsible for my Vegas hate. With the exception of Neal and Carrier, I don't really hate anyone on their roster.

To be fair, mass media doesn't pay attention to hockey so outside of the potential headline when it happens, nothing will come of it and people will move on. Especially the people that you're mentioning.

 

[WTFetus]

I agree with the previous poster in that Vegas has ruined this season for me. I honestly don't know how any hockey fan can be happy about their success. The Stanley Cup has often been referred to as the hardest trophy to win and now an expansion franchise is 4 wins away. I wanted them to have some success to develop a solid fanbase. Even sweeping the Kings was fine. Once they won two playoff series (ignoring that one was against the Sharks) I had enough of them. A new franchise shouldn't have that success. Makes the league look bad IMO. There are franchises that have never won a cup being in the league since the late 60's and this team makes the final in their first season. At this point if they were swept in the final I think that could salvage this, but this story isn't good attention for the league IMO.

That's such a ridiculous take. Why do you need to fail first to justify success? And if anything, it makes the league look good that a team can be competitive from the get-go.
I'm partly rooting for Vegas in the SCF because of all the salt here.

 

[hockeyball]

That's such a ridiculous take. Why do you need to fail first to justify success? And if anything, it makes the league look good that a team can be competitive from the get-go.
I'm partly rooting for Vegas in the SCF because of all the salt here.

I live in Nevada, I can't escape the bandwagon nonsense around here. Friggen Walmart has an entire aisle of Golden Knights crap...

They are technically my home team, and I should be rooting for them, but I just can't do it.

 

[Friday]

If the Sharks miss on JT and sign Kane annnnnnd still have room, think Pete talks to his old friend Kovalchuk?

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

If the Sharks miss on JT and sign Kane annnnnnd still have room, think Pete talks to his old friend Kovalchuk?

I’ve thought about this, and I could definitely see them doing it, but a 50-60 winger is already the last thing this team needs. Adding Kane makes it even more of a non-need. How would the lines even work?

Kane-Thornton-Pavelski
Kovalchuk-Hertl-Donskoi
Meier-Couture-LaBanc

That’s not awful by any means but I still think we’re missing a real impact player on that roster and Kovalchuk really isn’t that guy. That looks like what everybody thinks Vegas is; three 2nd lines. I’ll take my chances on Tavares and try to spend that money on defense if we strike out on him.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If the Sharks miss on JT and sign Kane annnnnnd still have room, think Pete talks to his old friend Kovalchuk?

I'm sure they'll talk but I can't see Kovy going anywhere west of the Eastern Time Zone. The other thing to be aware of is the fact that Kovalchuk's contract, assuming it's more than one year, is a 35+ contract. Sharks tend to avoid those kinds of contracts.

 

[Friday]

If we could snag a Marchessault haha

 

[Friday]

Also hoping the Sharks go out and find someone perfect to pair with Dillon, something to make that 3rd pair playable in more situations.

 

[Sharksrule04]

That's such a ridiculous take. Why do you need to fail first to justify success? And if anything, it makes the league look good that a team can be competitive from the get-go.
I'm partly rooting for Vegas in the SCF because of all the salt here.[/QUOT

So you think a team of 3rd liners and 4th-5th d-men should be a top the league and possible champions? If not then cool your tone and don't jump to conclusions. Did I say a team should fail? No, I thought Vegas was going to be a competitive team this season immediately after the expansion draft, possibly even a playoff team (and early on I was rooting for them to be respectable). I think making the playoffs would have been a big success and a great first step for that franchise. Playing in the SCF in your first season is a joke and makes the other teams look stupid. This isn't "salt" it's logic. A team that is new and comprised mostly of depth players should not be playing for the championship against teams that have years of drafting and development, and history has proven that.

edit: side note, I'm not saying Neal, Marchessault, etc... are 3rd liners, but every team was allowed to protect essentially their top 2 lines and 3 d-men and that doesn't even count ineligible players. So essentially Vegas was piecing together a team of mid level players.

 

[WTFetus]

I live in Nevada, I can't escape the bandwagon nonsense around here. Friggen Walmart has an entire aisle of Golden Knights crap...

They are technically my home team, and I should be rooting for them, but I just can't do it.

I mean, they're a successful team in their first season. Isn't every Knights fan basically a bandwagoner?

 

[Maladroit]

edit: side note, I'm not saying Neal, Marchessault, etc... are 3rd liners, but every team was allowed to protect essentially their top 2 lines and 3 d-men and that doesn't even count ineligible players. So essentially Vegas was piecing together a team of mid level players.

That's not what happened in actuality though. A bunch of GMs tripped over themselves to hand Vegas much better players than they needed to and, as a result, they have a pretty great team. If anyone should be embarrassed by this it's Dale Tallon, Bob Murray, Chuck Fletcher, Jarmo Kekalainen and to a lesser extent David Poile, Doug Armstrong and whoever Boston's GM is, not the NHL as a whole.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

So you think a team of 3rd liners and 4th-5th d-men should be a top the league and possible champions? If not then cool your tone and don't jump to conclusions. Did I say a team should fail? No, I thought Vegas was going to be a competitive team this season immediately after the expansion draft, possibly even a playoff team (and early on I was rooting for them to be respectable). I think making the playoffs would have been a big success and a great first step for that franchise. Playing in the SCF in your first season is a joke and makes the other teams look stupid. This isn't "salt" it's logic. A team that is new and comprised mostly of depth players should not be playing for the championship against teams that have years of drafting and development, and history has proven that.

edit: side note, I'm not saying Neal, Marchessault, etc... are 3rd liners, but every team was allowed to protect essentially their top 2 lines and 3 d-men and that doesn't even count ineligible players. So essentially Vegas was piecing together a team of mid level players.

Except when you call them a team of 3rd liners and 4-5 d-men you are saying that Neal, Marchessault, and whoever are 3rd liners. A lot of the 30 teams had more than just seven forwards that were top line or second line caliber talents. A lot of teams had more than just three defensemen that were top pairing or second pairing caliber talents. A lot of them just needed the opportunity. These are not just purely depth players that were made available in this draft. There were a lot of good talented players on their way up but teams couldn't protect. You're not using logic if you're mindlessly lumping the players that Vegas acquired as nothing more than depth players. The cap, the expansion rules, and one incredibly stupid move by Florida made this occur and this is what should be happening for an expansion team. They should be able to compete from day one in a legitimate professional sports league.

 

[WTFetus]

So you think a team of 3rd liners and 4th-5th d-men should be a top the league and possible champions? If not then cool your tone and don't jump to conclusions. Did I say a team should fail? No, I thought Vegas was going to be a competitive team this season immediately after the expansion draft, possibly even a playoff team (and early on I was rooting for them to be respectable). I think making the playoffs would have been a big success and a great first step for that franchise. Playing in the SCF in your first season is a joke and makes the other teams look stupid. This isn't "salt" it's logic. A team that is new and comprised mostly of depth players should not be playing for the championship against teams that have years of drafting and development, and history has proven that.

edit: side note, I'm not saying Neal, Marchessault, etc... are 3rd liners, but every team was allowed to protect essentially their top 2 lines and 3 d-men and that doesn't even count ineligible players. So essentially Vegas was piecing together a team of mid level players.

Saying a team shouldn't have success is pretty much rooting for failure.
The team had to go through 82 regular season games and win 3 post-season series. They are just as deserving of getting to the SCF as any other previous team. You're not providing any logic. You're just regurgitating "This shouldn't happen!" without actually providing any reasonable argument against it. Yes, their success makes other teams that never been to the SCF look bad. But that's 100% on the other teams; it has nothing to do with Vegas.

 

[Sharksrule04]

That's not what happened in actuality though. A bunch of GMs tripped over themselves to hand Vegas much better players than they needed to and, as a result, they have a pretty great team. If anyone should be embarrassed by this it's Dale Tallon, Bob Murray, Chuck Fletcher, Jarmo Kekalainen and to a lesser extent David Poile, Doug Armstrong and whoever Boston's GM is, not the NHL as a whole.

That's what I'm saying though. I didn't use individual GM's names but this makes the league look stupid. Poor player management across the league lead to this, so as I was saying it makes the teams and the league look pretty stupid. Some of this was the favorable rules, but most of it was awful management by these teams. A team that didn't exist a year ago took all the players teams "no longer wanted" and turned them into a championship contending team.

 

[Sharksrule04]

Saying a team shouldn't have success is pretty much rooting for failure.
The team had to go through 82 regular season games and win 3 post-season series. They are just as deserving of getting to the SCF as any other previous team. You're not providing any logic. You're just regurgitating "This shouldn't happen!" without actually providing any reasonable argument against it. Yes, their success makes other teams that never been to the SCF look bad. But that's 100% on the other teams; it has nothing to do with Vegas.

Success is arbitrary. To me success this year for Vegas would have been a middle of the pack team competing for a playoff spot. Based on expansion history this would be a successful season as most expansion franchises do not make the playoffs in their first season. Not sure why you mention the games they played and the playoffs series. I've never mentioned that they've had an easier path to where they are than other teams have had in the past.

I also did provide a reasonable argument as to why this shouldn't happen. Teams were allowed to protect their top 8-10 players and in most cases even more because of ineligible players. Naturally a team comprised of other teams bottom 8 or 9 players won't be among the best teams in a league without other teams making the wrong players available. This is why I believe other teams and the league as a whole look stupid. You have a fairly large group of teams who couldn't properly analyze their own talent and basically created a contending team as a result.

I've never criticized Vegas or their players. Vegas has done wonders with the rules and players that were made available to them. My anger is at the NHL, it's GM's and the media. As the fan of an expansion franchise who hasn't won crap, it's pretty easy to see this team and root against them.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

That's not what happened in actuality though. A bunch of GMs tripped over themselves to hand Vegas much better players than they needed to and, as a result, they have a pretty great team. If anyone should be embarrassed by this it's Dale Tallon, Bob Murray, Chuck Fletcher, Jarmo Kekalainen and to a lesser extent David Poile and Doug Armstrong, not the NHL as a whole.

I don't think that's fair. For the Ducks, if they didn't give Vegas Theodore to take Stoner, they would have lost one of Vatanen, Manson, or Silfverberg. For the Wild, if they didn't do Tuch and Haula, they would've lost Dumba or Staal. For Columbus, that was also a money move but it was either Karlsson or Saad and in that moment, that was the right move. I don't think Nashville made the wrong decision protecting Jarnkrok over Neal. Neal's a solid goal scorer but he doesn't do much else and for only one more year of keeping him compared to keeping Jarnkrok who produces less but does a bit more and is under contract longer while being younger, that's a good move. The Blues choosing to protect Reaves over Perron was dumb but he's on a career year and it wasn't the first time that the Blues moved on from Perron so I don't think they were going to keep him anyway and there's no way Perron keeps this up next year wherever he plays.

Other than Florida and St. Louis, those teams had hard choices to make and were going to lose a good player regardless. And even in St. Louis' case, they weren't giving up a player they were likely to keep past this season with all they have up front. Still a dumb move to let Perron go over Reaves but Perron had a pretty good streak of about three years of inconsistent play and having always been garbage come playoff time.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Success is arbitrary. To me success this year for Vegas would have been a middle of the pack team competing for a playoff spot. Based on expansion history this would be a successful season as most expansion franchises do not make the playoffs in their first season. Not sure why you mention the games they played and the playoffs series. I've never mentioned that they've had an easier path to where they are than other teams have had in the past.

I also did provide a reasonable argument as to why this shouldn't happen. Teams were allowed to protect their top 8-10 players and in most cases even more because of ineligible players. Naturally a team comprised of other teams bottom 8 or 9 players won't be among the best teams in a league without other teams making the wrong players available. This is why I believe other teams and the league as a whole look stupid. You have a fairly large group of teams who couldn't properly analyze their own talent and basically created a contending team as a result.

I've never criticized Vegas or their players. Vegas has done wonders with the rules and players that were made available to them. My anger is at the NHL, it's GM's and the media. As the fan of an expansion franchise who hasn't won crap, it's pretty easy to see this team and root against them.

I don't understand why, other than jealousy, anger needs to be there at all. When you bring a team into the league, the whole point of the process of putting their team together should be to make them competitive immediately. There is no good argument against that. The league's job then is to make the draft conducive to that and they did. Other than Dale Tallon, every GM played the hand that they were dealt and made respectable decisions to that end. The players that were available or potentially available had certain deals not been made were not merely bottom of the lineup players. These were a lot of decent vets, crossroad young vets, and young talent in general. Let's be real here. McPhee is no more and no less idiotic than any of his other fellow GM's. This is the same guy that dealt Forsberg for Erat. This is the same guy that they'll probably fire within the next five to six years because he's going to make some questionable decisions himself like he already did with trading for Tatar and numerous contract decisions coming up.

 

[Maladroit]

I don't think that's fair. For the Ducks, if they didn't give Vegas Theodore to take Stoner, they would have lost one of Vatanen, Manson, or Silfverberg. For the Wild, if they didn't do Tuch and Haula, they would've lost Dumba or Staal. For Columbus, that was also a money move but it was either Karlsson or Saad and in that moment, that was the right move. I don't think Nashville made the wrong decision protecting Jarnkrok over Neal. Neal's a solid goal scorer but he doesn't do much else and for only one more year of keeping him compared to keeping Jarnkrok who produces less but does a bit more and is under contract longer while being younger, that's a good move. The Blues choosing to protect Reaves over Perron was dumb but he's on a career year and it wasn't the first time that the Blues moved on from Perron so I don't think they were going to keep him anyway and there's no way Perron keeps this up next year wherever he plays.

Other than Florida and St. Louis, those teams had hard choices to make and were going to lose a good player regardless. And even in St. Louis' case, they weren't giving up a player they were likely to keep past this season with all they have up front. Still a dumb move to let Perron go over Reaves but Perron had a pretty good streak of about three years of inconsistent play and having always been garbage come playoff time.

Most of those teams were in a bad spot going into the expansion draft, I'm not saying they weren't. But they all turned a bad situation into a disastrous one. Anaheim could and should have just traded Vatanen, which they ended up doing anyway. I would absolutely lose Josh Manson or Jakob Silfverberg over a 21-year-old cost controlled defenseman with top pairing potential like Shea Theodore every day of the week.

Again, with Minnesota, they were going to lose a good player no matter what but there was no reason to lose two, especially a young prospect who was exempt from the draft. They could have absolutely kept Staal and Dumba without losing any other assets if they'd simply protected those players instead of Zucker and Brodin. Sure, losing either Jason Zucker or Jonas Brodin isn't ideal but it's a hell of a lot better than giving up a 21-year-old power forward with speed and skill like Alex Tuch who had already demonstrated an impressive level of scoring at a very young age in the AHL plus a guy who was consistently popping in 15 goals on the fourth line in Erik Haula.

Protecting a cost-effective third liner like Jarnkrok over an impending UFA first liner like James Neal is a move a rebuilding or even middling team could easily justify. Nashville was coming off a Stanley Cup Final appearance and obviously expecting to be a contender again this year. You think they couldn't have used a player like Neal next to Kyle Turris on their second line instead of Craig freakin' Smith? The margin in that Winnipeg-Nashville series was razor-thin, Neal could have very easily made the difference between winning and losing (Jarnkrok didn't even play in three of those games and had a whopping zero points in the series). Hell, the way things are shaking out, protecting Jarnkrok over James Neal might have very well cost Nashville the 2018 Stanley Cup. It was an indefensible move at the time for a team in their position and it looks even worse in hindsight.

If every GM had simply bit the bullet and just let Vegas have their pick of the 9th or 11th best player on each roster rather than screw around with side deals, the Knights probably finish bottom five in the league. Instead GMs massively overvalued their own players as usual.

 

[WSS11]

No idea how reliable this guy is but I’m not a fan of giving Kane this contract. AAV is fine but term is high.

 

[OffSydes]

No idea how reliable this guy is but I’m not a fan of giving Kane this contract. AAV is fine but term is high.

He tweeted this so....






But Kurz does follow him so dunno

 

[one2gamble]

someones just trying to get followers , neither of those deals really make sense

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Most of those teams were in a bad spot going into the expansion draft, I'm not saying they weren't. But they all turned a bad situation into a disastrous one. Anaheim could and should have just traded Vatanen, which they ended up doing anyway. I would absolutely lose Josh Manson or Jakob Silfverberg over a 21-year-old cost controlled defenseman with top pairing potential like Shea Theodore every day of the week.

Again, with Minnesota, they were going to lose a good player no matter what but there was no reason to lose two, especially a young prospect who was exempt from the draft. They could have absolutely kept Staal and Dumba without losing any other assets if they'd simply protected those players instead of Zucker and Brodin. Sure, losing either Jason Zucker or Jonas Brodin isn't ideal but it's a hell of a lot better than giving up a 21-year-old power forward with speed and skill like Alex Tuch who had already demonstrated an impressive level of scoring at a very young age in the AHL plus a guy who was consistently popping in 15 goals on the fourth line in Erik Haula.

Protecting a cost-effective third liner like Jarnkrok over an impending UFA first liner like James Neal is a move a rebuilding or even middling team could easily justify. Nashville was coming off a Stanley Cup Final appearance and obviously expecting to be a contender again this year. You think they couldn't have used a player like Neal next to Kyle Turris on their second line instead of Craig freakin' Smith? The margin in that Winnipeg-Nashville series was razor-thin, Neal could have very easily made the difference between winning and losing (Jarnkrok didn't even play in three of those games and had a whopping zero points in the series). Hell, the way things are shaking out, protecting Jarnkrok over James Neal might have very well cost Nashville the 2018 Stanley Cup. It was an indefensible move at the time for a team in their position and it looks even worse in hindsight.

If every GM had simply bit the bullet and just let Vegas have their pick of the 9th or 11th best player on each roster rather than screw around with side deals, the Knights probably finish bottom five in the league. Instead GMs massively overvalued their own players as usual.

I don't think they did. They made the best of the situation for them. Anaheim got rid of a contract when they were going to lose a good player regardless. You can have your preferences but any of them were going to help Vegas immediately. Minnesota's situation is again a matter of preference but not some egregious error. Getting Staal or Brodin would help Vegas immediately. Getting Zucker would help Vegas immediately too. Tuch is a guy that had talent but when you look at it from Minnesota's perspective, they had to choose between giving up someone young and proven or giving up someone young and unproven. Tuch was unproven. All those other options aren't and they were a playoff team. They can't just prioritize Tuch six games out of college over those guys. That's just not realistic. You can talk about the AHL scoring all you like but teams don't prioritize that over proven NHL players 99% of the time. As for Haula, the fact that he's on their 4th line is why they made him available. He's 27 and not some young buck they needed to worry about keeping over others. Minnesota just had a significant amount of decent talent. They were going to lose someone very good and let go two guys that weren't big time contributors to their club over losing a bigger piece. As for Nashville, that's a move that teams make all the time. Nashville let Neal go because they weren't going to re-sign him. His spot was filled by Kevin Fiala and he produced what Neal did. And putting Neal in Smith's place doesn't change anything. Neal is a guy who only goes as much as the guy who makes the plays on his line goes. Otherwise, he's not a factor. Smith produced the same as Neal did this season. And Kyle Turris playing the way Kyle Turris did is why Craig Smith or James Neal would've made no difference in that series much less be the difference in winning the Cup.

And I probably agree with you on your scenario but it's not because of a bunch of teams making poor decisions. It's because Dale Tallon in his infinite wisdom gave up two bona fide 2nd line players simply because he didn't want to sign Marchessault for some stupid reason. Everyone else, the difference is marginal at best upon examination.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

1) You also added a 60-point forward in Nylander, and maybe some NHL-ready prospects in Kostin and Hughes.
2) I'd want a massive return for Burns. Like Nylander + Liljegren + first rounder. He also has a partial NMC.
3) Vlasic has a full-NMC starting next season; Sharks would have to trade him now.

That might be closer to realistic value for Burns. I would be trading Vlasic right now if I could.

I love these fantasies where we trade everyone of value over the age of 27. I really honestly do. But even tanking teams don’t make that many drastic moves. The closest (absolute closest!) scenario is Carter and Richards. If we could trade two of Vlasic/Couture/Pavelski/Jones for that type of return (top-10 pick (8th overall, Couturier), young second line power forward (Simmonds), young potential first line winger (Voracek), top-5 prospect in the entire league (Schenn)), then that would be the way to go. IMO that was an absolutely brilliant and ballsy move by the Flyers. It’s unfortunate that Schenn was never better than a top-6 winger for them, and Couturier didn’t live up to his promise, but it was a pair of great trades nonetheless.

My theoretical tank lineup was just me having fun and showing an example of how quickly we could re-build. And yes, I have said for years that those were two genius trades by Philadelphia. And LA somehow managed to win them both as well.

He tweeted this so....






But Kurz does follow him so dunno

someones just trying to get followers , neither of those deals really make sense

This guy is a total fraud, you can tell because he has a pinned tweet at the top of his page showing a “rumor” of his that ended up being true. Nobody with actual sources is going to pin one tweet of theirs to try and prove that they have sources lol. And on top of that, the rumor was that Rick Nash was close to being traded and that Nashville and Columbus were potential suitors; something that everybody was talking about.

 

[Friday]

6X6 seems like a lot haha