Tank season 2017-2018

[Juxtaposer]

UFA contracts are stupid because GMs pay UFAs for past performance, not future performance. A contract is only worth it if you're paying for future performance, like a McDavid or Eichel, a young player who is trending up. If you're paying a player who is trending down, then that ought to be a consideration. Unfortunately, most GMs are stuck giving out overpayments because if they don't, the player will undoubtedly find a GM who is willing to. This is a major reason that it's so hard to win without young players who are actually worth their contracts. Players are almost always underpaid during their best years and then become overpaid in their declining years. We have too many players in that latter category. I'm extremely curious (and scared) of what Couture and Pavelski are going to get on their next contracts.

 

[Lebanezer]

UFA contracts are stupid because GMs pay UFAs for past performance, not future performance. A contract is only worth it if you're paying for future performance, like a McDavid or Eichel, a young player who is trending up. If you're paying a player who is trending down, then that ought to be a consideration. Unfortunately, most GMs are stuck giving out overpayments because if they don't, the player will undoubtedly find a GM who is willing to. This is a major reason that it's so hard to win without young players who are actually worth their contracts. Players are almost always underpaid during their best years and then become overpaid in their declining years. We have too many players in that latter category. I'm extremely curious (and scared) of what Couture and Pavelski are going to get on their next contracts.

Couture and Pavelski have basically this season to prove their worth and maybe the 1st half of next season. I can't see either one getting a raise if all their numbers continue to stagnate or decline. I also wouldn't expect Pavs to get more than a 3 year deal. Couture I'd expect to get a 4 year deal, so that his next contract wouldn't be an over 35. My concerns regarding Couture are gradually increasing. I'd like to see a 30 goal season again and improved possession numbers. He probably needs Havlat, I mean Hertl to help him there.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Couture and Pavelski have basically this season to prove their worth and maybe the 1st half of next season. I can't see either one getting a raise if all their numbers continue to stagnate or decline. I also wouldn't expect Pavs to get more than a 3 year deal. Couture I'd expect to get a 4 year deal, so that his next contract wouldn't be an over 35. My concerns regarding Couture are gradually increasing. I'd like to see a 30 goal season again and improved possession numbers. He probably needs Havlat, I mean Hertl to help him there.

Unless they both bounce back big time, I have a hard time seeing either get over $7M, but you never know; I wouldn’t have expected either the Jones or Vlasic contract.

 

[Lebanezer]

Unless they both bounce back big time, I have a hard time seeing either get over $7M, but you never know; I wouldn’t have expected either the Jones or Vlasic contract.

Like you said earlier, Vlasic falls into the category of got paid for what he's done. With Jones, I get the Sharks think he's got potential, but man they jumped the gun. a 2 year deal at around 4.5 should have sufficed and if he continued to improve, then pay the man. Pavs will be too old to give 7 million to. If they give him and Couture 7 million in 2 years, and have Vlasic, Burns and Jones making as much as they are, forget competing. That would be 35 million dollars tied up in 5 players over 30. I think I just depressed myself even more about the team's future.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Unless they both bounce back big time, I have a hard time seeing either get over $7M, but you never know; I wouldn’t have expected either the Jones or Vlasic contract.

I can see both getting 7 mil on fairly short deals like three or four years in the open market just because teams tend to overpay there. Marleau still got a shade over 6 at his age with his production. I don't see why Couture and Pavs couldn't get that much more given that both are significantly younger, have better production overall, and have at least an equal reputation in terms of their versatility. And if I'm GM, I'm not planning on re-signing them so I'd be looking for a deal between now and next year's trade deadline.

 

[OrrNumber4]

This has been discussed quite a bit by the board in the past, but I haven't seen it in this thread (at least after a cursory glance and a quick CTRL+F on this page): Why the flying **** does Roy Sommer have a job? He actually seems like a decent enough hockey coach, but he's done absolutely jack **** to help develop young talent, which. as a head coach at the minor league (read: developmental) level, is his primary job over simply coaching games to be competitive. Someone took a look a while ago on all the players that spent significant developmental time under Sommer, and it wasn't pretty. The org doesn't send players to the AHL affiliate to develop at this point - it sends them there to wither on the vine and die.

Honestly, you can't look at the Sharks draft history in a vacuum and judge the scouting staff and/or Doug Wilson without taking a long, hard look at the guy who acted as the intermediary for a lot of players between their journey from amateur hockey to the NHL. Might Mueller have been a purely ****ty pick? Sure. Probably was. But he's another defenseman to play under Sommer who have gone down the ****ter, and especially if he finds his game in New Jersey, you have to wonder if the Sharks can't do better developing.

That study needs to be put in context. It looked at NHLers that had 150+ games or three+ seasons under Sommer. The study noted there were quite a few players; Clowe, Gorges, Murray, Cheechoo, Goc, Rissmiller, Boyes...but all of them many years ago. In recent history, it was very slim pickings. But the study ignored the effects of the lockout; with the salary cap, those cheap young players became very important. Teams wouldn't let them marinate in the minors but would promote them to fill up roster spots. Players like Ehrhoff, Clowe, Murray, Cheechoo etc. were allowed to hone their craft in the AHL and joined the NHL team as competent players while the current model is to throw the players to the wolves. At least up until like 2013, if you looked around the league, there were very few players who "ripened" in the AHL to become NHLers. Even teams like Detroit, who stuck closely to the old model, only had two more players, albeit of better quality. The Sharks had Carkner, McGinn, Irwin, and Desjardins.

 

[Bleedred]

This has been discussed quite a bit by the board in the past, but I haven't seen it in this thread (at least after a cursory glance and a quick CTRL+F on this page): Why the flying **** does Roy Sommer have a job? He actually seems like a decent enough hockey coach, but he's done absolutely jack **** to help develop young talent, which. as a head coach at the minor league (read: developmental) level, is his primary job over simply coaching games to be competitive. Someone took a look a while ago on all the players that spent significant developmental time under Sommer, and it wasn't pretty. The org doesn't send players to the AHL affiliate to develop at this point - it sends them there to wither on the vine and die.

Honestly, you can't look at the Sharks draft history in a vacuum and judge the scouting staff and/or Doug Wilson without taking a long, hard look at the guy who acted as the intermediary for a lot of players between their journey from amateur hockey to the NHL. Might Mueller have been a purely ****ty pick? Sure. Probably was. But he's another defenseman to play under Sommer who have gone down the ****ter, and especially if he finds his game in New Jersey, you have to wonder if the Sharks can't do better developing.

I overlooked this post originally, but it's a good point.

I've always wondered why Roy Sommer never got an NHL head coaching position, after almost 20 years as an AHL head coach. He's been the Sharks AHL head coach for almost 20 years, but it's not like they've had stability in the same city. Since he's been the Sharks AHL head coach, the Sharks AHL team has played in Kentucky, Ohio, Massachusetts and now San Jose. So it's not like he's been in the same city and not wanted to relocate his family in all that time. Has there ever been any interest? Does he just like being an AHL head coach and not an NHL head coach/assistant in the NHL? Or is there just not any interest? He's 60 years old now, so I doubt he'll ever be an NHL head coach, if he hasn't been to this point. Maybe he'll be an assistant again, like he was in the past.

With the impending purge of DW coming soon enough, I think we'll also see the end of Roy Sommer. I firmly believe that Doug's reign will end soon, and that could be in 1-2 years or it could be all the way in 3 years. Regardless of exactly how much longer it will be, I feel like we are almost certainly in the twilight years for Doug Wilson. Maybe he's even fired via promotion, as we've seen in the past with other longtime GM's in other organizations.

Who really knows? I thought Doug was on the hot seat earlier this decade. I feel like the run the to the SCF in 2016, or at least the fact that he assembled a team that had a deep playoff run, probably added some years to his tenure.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Sharks prospects have become NHL players in spite of Sommer, not because of him.

Again, this is a coach that I have seen with my own two eyes forget to send out a sixth skater after pulling his goalie. Giving him credit for Murray, Clowe, Ehrhoff, etc. is doing a disservice to those players. You can’t just look at every player who ever played on a Sharks AHL affiliate and give Sommer credit for them getting to the NHL.

Sommer is going to retire soon (hopefully). Until then he’ll be the Barracuda’s coach.

 

[stator]

I've been saying the worse a team can do is to make the 1st round of the playoffs and then exit. This league lives off prospects and the draft. Teams need to replenish with early 1st round picks.

If you need examples... Edmonton, Toronto, Chicaco, Pittsburg are some.

There's two winners in each season. The cup winner and the lottery winner. A first round exit means you've lost both.

Vancouver and the Sharks are much alike. Both had the 1st and 2nd pick from one draft year, but could never bring the cup home. Both sucked because they hung onto those 1st and 2nd players too long.

 

[StanleyCup2035]

I've been saying the worse a team can do is to make the 1st round of the playoffs and then exit. This league lives off prospects and the draft. Teams need to replenish with early 1st round picks.

If you need examples... Edmonton, Toronto, Chicaco, Pittsburg are some.

There's two winners in each season. The cup winner and the lottery winner. A first round exit means you've lost both.

Vancouver and the Sharks are much alike. Both had the 1st and 2nd pick from one draft year, but could never bring the cup home. Both sucked because they hung onto those 1st and 2nd players too long.

You are so right. The worst place to be is to be stuck in the middle.

Everyone, bookmark this page: http://www.tankathon.com/nhl

We are #1 right now, let's keep it up!

 

[Coily]

"with the first selection... San Jose selects from the US development program..." - Tim Burke

 

[Bowie22]

We would most likely lose all three lotteries.

 

[Led Zappa]

We would most likely lose all three lotteries.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

UFA contracts are stupid because GMs pay UFAs for past performance, not future performance. A contract is only worth it if you're paying for future performance, like a McDavid or Eichel, a young player who is trending up. If you're paying a player who is trending down, then that ought to be a consideration. Unfortunately, most GMs are stuck giving out overpayments because if they don't, the player will undoubtedly find a GM who is willing to. This is a major reason that it's so hard to win without young players who are actually worth their contracts. Players are almost always underpaid during their best years and then become overpaid in their declining years. We have too many players in that latter category. I'm extremely curious (and scared) of what Couture and Pavelski are going to get on their next contracts.

I think, somewhere in between a best case and worst case scenario of expensive/slightly long term UFA signings, but much closer to the best case side, you have us signing Martin and Ward. They both were very good in their first year and helped us get to the SCF; they were both worth about what they were paid in that first year. Ward was somewhat poor last year but still an NHL caliber forward and I'm not convinced Burns has the season he did with a different Partner. Now in the final year of Ward's contract, he is probably going to be trash. Not NHL caliber. Martin will probably be a decent #4 this year and a #6 next year.

To summarize, we added a top-6 20-20 forward and a top-4 defenseman at a reasonable cap hit without giving up any assets at all. Now we are going to suffer the consequences this year and next since these guys are declining. It's not really be that bad anyway because it's not like we were going to use that cap space elsewhere, but that's the price of signing UFAs of that caliber.

In general, it's pretty rare a team actually does that well in UFA. Most teams don't sign 2 players with the expectations of putting them in a top-6F/top-4D role and actually get 2 guys who fit right in with the roster and contribute the way they were expected. Generally, the Martin type guy will suck immediately and the Ward type guy will be decent, but inferior to what Ward was in his first year here.

So I'll give DW credit for that. But if he goes out and signs two UFAs in their mid 30s again, it's unrealistic to expect the results to be as good as they were with Martin/Ward, especially since we don't tend to attract the best UFAs as well as bigger market teams do.

 

[stator]

UFA contracts are stupid because GMs pay UFAs for past performance, not future performance.

I can see why that state can be a popular view, but I believe it oversimplifies it. GMs pay for future performance of an anticipated level based upon past performance. That is probably more accurate.

Sharks tend to stay away from the upper echelon of UFAs in terms of what salary levels those players will command in the NHL marketplace. Instead, they like to look for NHL experienced players who had a very good performance track record, then had that take a hit in later years.

They looking for a great deal if the player turns it around. DW does this for both UFA signings and experienced NHL player trades. There's plenty of examples on the Sharks bench now and in the past.

If more than half of these players signed or traded for, worked out, we'd be hailing praises on DW and his staff as if they have the goose that lays the golden eggs. However, it has not and DW has come up with goose eggs instead.

This is one area where DW looks really bad and should be in his performance evaluation by the owners group.

DW has only saved his hide because he came up with some good finds in the european leagues, particulary some of the nordic teams. He has also been good at marketing that to get more mileage out of it that he should have. However, these players are not experienced NHL players that I'm talking about.

 

[Mattb124]

Wilson has been pretty solid with UFA signings, give credit where credit is due. Martin and Ward's contracts were probably 1 year too long but their performance has been solid. Some fans are still missing Schlemko. Boedker is the only recent signing that has underperformed. But most importantly, no Clarkson/Leino contracts.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

Wilson has been pretty solid with UFA signings, give credit where credit is due. Martin and Ward's contracts were probably 1 year too long but their performance has been solid. Some fans are still missing Schlemko. Boedker is the only recent signing that has underperformed. But most importantly, no Clarkson/Leino contracts.

Until Burns and Vlasic, I've never seen sign anyone for more than 5 years.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Until Burns and Vlasic, I've never seen sign anyone for more than 5 years.

Milan Michalek, in a move we were all sure was signaling a new normal...

With UFAs, the great upside is that you are only giving up cash to get them. The downside is the typical overpayment, plus the uncertainty in that you don't know as much about how the player will fit with your team. A plus of deadline acquisitions is that you get to feel the other player out.

 

[rangerssharks414]

Until Burns and Vlasic, I've never seen sign anyone for more than 5 years.

They weren’t UFA signings though. I think that was the point.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Wilson has been pretty solid with UFA signings, give credit where credit is due. Martin and Ward's contracts were probably 1 year too long but their performance has been solid. Some fans are still missing Schlemko. Boedker is the only recent signing that has underperformed. But most importantly, no Clarkson/Leino contracts.

If we're talking about the entirety of DW's tenure, his UFA signings are probably closer to 50-50 with some good ones, some bad ones, and a lot of nothing ones. Not signing an albatross via free agency is not a high bar that I'm willing to credit him for honestly.

 

[StanleyCup2035]

Tank for Dahlin! Prompt Boedker to top line!

 

[KirbyDots]

Tank for Dahlin! Prompt Boedker to top line!

We going to do this after every loss? That's gonna get really tiresome.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

One thing for sure though. They're not playing bad. But we just don't have the depth scoring. And Boedker is a bum

 

[Juxtaposer]

Tank for Dahlin! Prompt Boedker to top line!

I regret to inform you that the Sharks are good.

 

[KirbyDots]

I regret to inform you that the Sharks are good.

They're good but need to be better. At this time I think it would be easier and more desirable for them to become a great team than to become a bad enough team to have a good shot at Dahlin. Even if we completely tanked there isn't any guarantee of that anyway. DW needs to pull the trigger on a move sooner rather than later.