SJGoalie32
Registered User
Who said anything about mailing it in or tanking?
Over the last 4 seasons, the Sharks have consistently had at least 4 forwards who put up between 0.65 and 0.95 points per game (JT, PM, Pavs, Couture).
Last year they had 5 forwards (Burns) in that range and, discounting the injury to Hertl, they would have had a 6th.
By comparison, last season the Kings only had 2 forwards with that kind of output (3 with Gaborik). The Ducks had only 2 forwards in that range. And the Hawks have 4 forwards in that range (5 if you count Keith from the Defense).
Now Burns will be moving back to D next season, but presuming you get something close to a full healthy season from Hertl, the Sharks should still have at least 5 forwards that will put up solid offensive regular season production.
I really don't understand how simply removing just one of those 5 forwards from the equation (i.e. Thornton) suddenly turns this season into a good-for-nothing tank job. Even if you get nothing for JT (or just future draft picks) the Sharks would STILL have at least 4 top offensive talents who will put up solid reg season numbers. And if you get a decent forward in replacement (either via trade or free agency), then you're back up to 5 or more highly productive forwards.
Does anybody really think that a team consisting of Marleau, Pavelski, Couture, Hertl, Burns, and Vlasic (with or without an additional offseason acquisition) is a WORSE team than the Minnesota Wild or Phoenix Coyotes? JT is an asset, to be sure, but the Sharks will not plummet 24 points in the standings due solely to his absence.
Again, I'm not saying we need to tank or blow this team up. But I am sick to death of this apparently prevailing belief among some Sharks fans that merely trading away one aging forward whose significant but declining skill set which undermines and clashes with the up tempo attacking style the team wants to implement is tantamount to "tanking" and "mailing it in."
