GDT: 151208 Sharks @ Flames (6pm, CSN-CA)

[Pinkfloyd]

we didnt have the pieces to get hamilton. he got traded for a 1st and two 2nds. if you are just moving our first you maybe land a young top 4 d, which would help us considerably, but jones has added points to the standings to my eye and the stats seem to back that up. so its hard to say which acquisition would be more valuable, but i know you are in the camp that you can get by with stellar defense and average tending. its not a wrong position just one extra body would not give this core of d man that ability.

but imo, jones looks like he could be a top 5-10 goalie in this league. so one 1st rounder for him seems like better management than three picks for hamilton, who i want quite a bit. we could all look like fools in a couple of years when it turns out hamilton was benefiting from playing on the bruins versus being a #1. both wouldve been an equal gamble.

and from what i have seen out of vlasic this year he looks like a number 1 two way D. PDB has loosened the reigns a bit and its helped him quite a bit. hes got 11 points and is a +6, if he keeps that pace thatll be a great year for him, probably even a career year but maybe it continues. its also interesting that he is scoring at a equal clip to burns at ES per 60 and is a million times better defensively.

but to me you have to have a really strong goaltender. we are never going to be chicago stacked or use a team defensive system like LA, but we could be a NYR or tampa style team and that would start with a goalie like jones.

I don't agree that the Sharks didn't have assets for Hamilton. They just didn't have the opportunity given reports but that's merely an example. It's too early to tell that Jones has added points in the standings. They did get Ward and Martin too who have both helped out. The goalie for a 1st thing is a matter of principle. It's unnecessary and investing too much into the position for building a winning team.

It's not an equal gamble going Hamilton over Jones. It's a worse gamble betting on Jones with that pick because the upside isn't there. No matter how good Jones may be, the team as it stands will never stand to reap any rewards because it isn't good enough. Hamilton being on this team with another goaltender has a better chance of being a high reward just based on how winning teams are assembled these days.

Vlasic isn't a #1 two-way d-man. He's a top end defensive d-man that possesses the puck well but he doesn't and will not produce like a #1 needs to. He simply doesn't have that offensive acumen to be that player. Being on a 36 point pace is a good year for Vlasic but he's not an actual offensive threat even if he maintains that clip. He's not involved like that.

Having a strong goaltender is ultimately meaningless unless the team in front can compete with the best in the league as teams with elite goalies can attest to over the years.

 

[Coily]

Makes me wonder, is it possible to play hockey as an epileptic?

Stool can play in the NHL so I would assume so.

 

[Mafoofoo]

Man what the hell happened Sharks? I leave for a few days and all they've done is lose while the Kings keep winning.

 

[stator]

Marleau,Thornton,Couture,Pavelski,Hertl ?

I don't see Marleau or Thornton as top six, but more like top 3rd line at this point in their careers. Certainly a couple of seasons ago, I would say they were top line. Now is the time to trade them, or actually last year was.

I agree with Couture, Pavelski, and Hertl. But who would be the 4th? Close as I can get is Melker.

Vlasic isn't a #1 two-way d-man. He's a top end defensive d-man that possesses the puck well but he doesn't and will not produce like a #1 needs to. He simply doesn't have that offensive acumen to be that player. Being on a 36 point pace is a good year for Vlasic but he's not an actual offensive threat even if he maintains that clip. He's not involved like that.

Well said about Vlasic, but some might read this as marginalizing Vlasic. His skills are needed and sought after as well. Him and Burns will be the top trade targets come March. I agree that the Sharks need more offensive threat from their defense lines other than just Burns, but not from all defensemen. Without that threat on a defense line, the opposition forwards will be more like Marleau.... looking for a breakaway more than contributing on defense. Vlasic just needs to be paired with a good defenseman with offensive power. This is what many are hoping that Tennyson and Mueller turn into.

The other defense problem the Sharks have is pairing difficulties. Dillon is hard to pair with should an injury force some line changes. He is just not a versatile as he should be in that regard. He's awful with Vlasic and Braun.

Having a strong goaltender is ultimately meaningless unless the team in front can compete with the best in the league as teams with elite goalies can attest to over the years.

I think this chicken/egg back in forth is getting old. Winning teams need both, but since there is only one goalie on the ice and does not take shifts, who's in your net is pretty darn important. You can see this in teams that win in post season. Having a top goalie greatly increases the odds of winning postseason. It's not having top defensemen on all three lines.

I think you are mistaking my suggestion that they be moved on as a criticism of them? It's not. As I said, I'm a fan of both - but I really think DW is a **** for putting NMC in their contracts when it was pretty foreseeable that the club needed to move.

I don't think a successful rebuild can be done with them in the club unfortunately.

I am right there with you on both counts. NMC was a terrible mistake, but DW stated it keeps them in Sharks uniform when they retire. But since it's unlikely they'll win a cup, who cares? Trading them for a good rebuild becomes paramount, and yes, I agree, it cannot be done without them being involved in a trade.

 

[tahoesharksfan]

Maybe the issue at present is not the goalies?

I don't think it was last night. A couple of those goals wouldn't have even gotten to the paint if there had been any real D being played...

 

[hohosaregood]

I'm okay with the Jones trade but in a general sense, a good defense can cover for an average goalie more effectively and consistently than a good goalie goalie can cover for an average defense.

 

[magic school bus]

I'm okay with the Jones trade but in a general sense, a good defense can cover for an average goalie more effectively and consistently than a good goalie goalie can cover for an average defense.

I agree with this, and i'm against trading a 1st for a goalie for that reason.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Man, I would love to think of yesterday as an off-day and the team just not being focused. But that was the 4th straight loss for us. So, there is obviously something more than that.

I know others have noticed that Pavs production has gone down over the last few games. I think that is to do with Jumbo's non-concussion. Once Couture gets back to speed I would definitely look at splitting up Pavs and Jumbo.

Marleau-Couture-Ward
Pavs-Hertl-Karlsson
Wingels-Thornton-Nieto
Zubrus/Smith-Tierney-Donskoi

I love Jumbo and he is still a top-6 F when healthy but I am pretty sure he is not 100% right now. If he insists on playing, he needs to be facing lesser competition.

Also, the team D was terrible yesterday. We left way too many open guys and let a smaller Calgary team screen our goalies at will. The coaching staff needs to rip our players a new one.

Zubrus made too many mental mistakes against Calgary. I am hoping when Smith comes back he immediately replaces him.

 

[spintops]

Let Patty center the second line, put Couture-Pavs together.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The notion that Thornton and Marleau are not top six forwards is so ridiculous. Go ahead and prove that assertion, stator. Just saying it because they're not dominant top 10 or 20 NHL players anymore doesn't mean they're not top six players. For them to be top six players, they only have to be considered one of the best 150 forwards in the league and that's with the strictest of benchmarks. Go ahead and show how the guys that are 47th and 91st among forwards in scoring are somehow not in the top 150 among forwards not even including every other metric that shows the same thing.

 

[spintops]

The notion that Thornton and Marleau are not top six forwards is so ridiculous. Go ahead and prove that assertion, stator. Just saying it because they're not dominant top 10 or 20 NHL players anymore doesn't mean they're not top six players. For them to be top six players, they only have to be considered one of the best 150 forwards in the league and that's with the strictest of benchmarks. Go ahead and show how the guys that are 47th and 91st among forwards in scoring are somehow not in the top 150 among forwards not even including every other metric that shows the same thing.

I love Jumbo, but he isn't himself right now. November 17th was his last game with a even strength point. He had 1 point in his last 8 games going into last night. He plays on the top line with a winger that is a proven 40 goal scorer. His production is unacceptable right now and one of the reasons the team is on a losing streak.

 

[hohosaregood]

I love Jumbo, but he isn't himself right now. November 17th was his last game with a even strength point. He had 1 point in his last 8 games going into last night. He plays on the top line with a winger that is a proven 40 goal scorer. His production is unacceptable right now and one of the reasons the team is on a losing streak.

Overall, this team has struggled hard at even strength. Every line. Every pairing. Until Tierney's goal against Calgary, the team hadn't scored at even strength in 9 periods or something like that.

 

[Alwalys]

Overall, this team has struggled hard at even strength. Every line. Every pairing. Until Tierney's goal against Calgary, the team hadn't scored at even strength in 9 periods or something like that.

thank god we just got one of our best even-strength players back, though it hurts to have another of our best even-strength players now injured

 

[spintops]

Overall, this team has struggled hard at even strength. Every line. Every pairing. Until Tierney's goal against Calgary, the team hadn't scored at even strength in 9 periods or something like that.

I agree. Just hurts when your best player 1C center goes completely goes cold. When your 3rd and 4th liners sink it's common/not as hard to overcome.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

The notion that Thornton and Marleau are not top six forwards is so ridiculous. Go ahead and prove that assertion, stator. Just saying it because they're not dominant top 10 or 20 NHL players anymore doesn't mean they're not top six players. For them to be top six players, they only have to be considered one of the best 150 forwards in the league and that's with the strictest of benchmarks. Go ahead and show how the guys that are 47th and 91st among forwards in scoring are somehow not in the top 150 among forwards not even including every other metric that shows the same thing.

They must be top 6 players because they are playing in the top six spots right?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

They must be top 6 players because they are playing in the top six spots right?

Show evidence that they aren't and I'd gladly consider it and change my mind if it's relevant enough to justify changing position. Just because they aren't playing like top end 1st liners anymore doesn't mean they're no longer top six caliber players. Those are different benchmarks.

 

[OrrNumber4]

The notion that Thornton and Marleau are not top six forwards is so ridiculous. Go ahead and prove that assertion, stator. Just saying it because they're not dominant top 10 or 20 NHL players anymore doesn't mean they're not top six players. For them to be top six players, they only have to be considered one of the best 150 forwards in the league and that's with the strictest of benchmarks. Go ahead and show how the guys that are 47th and 91st among forwards in scoring are somehow not in the top 150 among forwards not even including every other metric that shows the same thing.

For the term "top-6 forward" to mean anything, it can't be reduced to something as banal as relative to the amount of spots open in the league.

Just like there aren't 30 #1 d-men, there aren't enough quality top-6 forwards to go around. If you want to call all those 150 forwards top-6 forwards, then you are going to need different terms for all the tiers.

IMO, Marleau and Thornton are still first-line players. Thornton is hovering around top 20 for forwards (playoff failures aside), and Marleau is probably in the 50s. There is a greater threat of them regressing as they get older.

You have to assume Thornton's recent bad play is a blip that will go away.

 

[WTFetus]

For the term "top-6 forward" to mean anything, it can't be reduced to something as banal as relative to the amount of spots open in the league.

If you're going by spots open, shouldn't it be 180? How are you guys getting 150?

 

[CanadienShark]

I don't see Marleau or Thornton as top six, but more like top 3rd line at this point in their careers. Certainly a couple of seasons ago, I would say they were top line. Now is the time to trade them, or actually last year was.

I agree with Couture, Pavelski, and Hertl. But who would be the 4th? Close as I can get is Melker.

Both Marleau and Thornton are irrefutably top 6 players. They easily produce like top 6 players and in Marleau's case, he has a high end defensive game going for him. The fact that you're trying to argue both are 3rd liners... I just don't even understand. Care to share your basis for that? They don't produce like it, both are at worst defensively capable, both draw high end competition, etc.

I love Jumbo, but he isn't himself right now. November 17th was his last game with a even strength point. He had 1 point in his last 8 games going into last night. He plays on the top line with a winger that is a proven 40 goal scorer. His production is unacceptable right now and one of the reasons the team is on a losing streak.

That's fair, but I think he's injured. I don't think he's just suddenly gone from easily a legit 1st line centre to a 3rd line centre within the space of 10 odd games.

For the term "top-6 forward" to mean anything, it can't be reduced to something as banal as relative to the amount of spots open in the league.

Just like there aren't 30 #1 d-men, there aren't enough quality top-6 forwards to go around. If you want to call all those 150 forwards top-6 forwards, then you are going to need different terms for all the tiers.

IMO, Marleau and Thornton are still first-line players. Thornton is hovering around top 20 for forwards (playoff failures aside), and Marleau is probably in the 50s. There is a greater threat of them regressing as they get older.

You have to assume Thornton's recent bad play is a blip that will go away.

I'd argue the opposite. I think there are 30 #1 d-men, 30 #2 d-men and so on. There are however large gaps within that title. There are different qualifying terms to differentiate between different calibre of players within each cohort. Any other definition seems wholly nonsensical to me. One person might think there's 10 1st liners in the league, another person 20, another person 30, and so on. There's no sense of consistency with that argument.

If you're going by spots open, shouldn't it be 180? How are you guys getting 150?

Yes, yes yes. I never understood 150. 180 is the benchmark.

 

[matt trick]

Everyone has their own definition, but I've often found that breaking it down into "top 6/pairing/4/first line on a playoff team" helps to give a sense of whether guys are roughly reasonable for their spots.

There are 48 first line spots on playoffs teams and 96 total for top 6. The points on tiers within those groups is legit. Malkin and Marleau are probably both in the top 48, but obviously the gap between the two is massive.

That said, if you have a guy that 14 other teams would take in their role, they're probably legit fits for that role.

 

[Nolan11]

Everyone has their own definition, but I've often found that breaking it down into "top 6/pairing/4/first line on a playoff team" helps to give a sense of whether guys are roughly reasonable for their spots.

There are 48 first line spots on playoffs teams and 96 total for top 6. The points on tiers within those groups is legit. Malkin and Marleau are probably both in the top 48, but obviously the gap between the two is massive.

That said, if you have a guy that 14 other teams would take in their role, they're probably legit fits for that role.

I want to challenge your math somewhat. Yes, with 16 playoff teams you would have 48 top line players (in theory). But you would also have maybe two dozen players on non-playoff teams that, if you could, could be dropped into one of those play off teams and easily replace a player in that top 48. If your looking to create tiers of players you need to look at the whole, not just last year's playoff teams.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

For the term "top-6 forward" to mean anything, it can't be reduced to something as banal as relative to the amount of spots open in the league.

Just like there aren't 30 #1 d-men, there aren't enough quality top-6 forwards to go around. If you want to call all those 150 forwards top-6 forwards, then you are going to need different terms for all the tiers.

IMO, Marleau and Thornton are still first-line players. Thornton is hovering around top 20 for forwards (playoff failures aside), and Marleau is probably in the 50s. There is a greater threat of them regressing as they get older.

You have to assume Thornton's recent bad play is a blip that will go away.

That's exactly why I went to 150 rather than 180 to more or less remove that potential argument. The top 150 forwards in this league should be legitimate top six forwards in this league. People need to remember what a top six forward is. It's essentially someone who is at a bare minimum a legitimate 2nd line player. This is not a high bar here when we're talking about players like Jumbo and Marleau.

If you're going by spots open, shouldn't it be 180? How are you guys getting 150?

The 150 was purposely used as a way to account for the argument that there may not be 180 top six caliber players simply because that's the amount of openings in this league. I assumed that 150 would be a good enough number for calling someone a legitimate top six player rather than arguing a borderline or gray area or whatever. It was an attempt to use the strictest term for what this argument is about. It could be top 100 and it would still hold true for those two players. I think certain people are overestimating what it really takes to be a legitimate top six forward in this league and are just letting the fact that Thornton and Marleau's game are slipping from their peak to properly gauge their play level relative to that term.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Okay guys, I found something interesting. It's gonna blow your minds.

Patrick Marleau Corsi For% with Martin Jones: 49.9%
Patrick Marleau Corsi For% with Alex Stalock: 60.0%

It's a Pink Floyd Conspiracy!

 

[Barrie22]

Okay guys, I found something interesting. It's gonna blow your minds.

Patrick Marleau Corsi For% with Martin Jones: 49.9%
Patrick Marleau Corsi For% with Alex Stalock: 60.0%

It's a Pink Floyd Conspiracy!

No wonder pinkfloyd wants stalock to be given more starts.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Okay guys, I found something interesting. It's gonna blow your minds.

Patrick Marleau Corsi For% with Martin Jones: 49.9%
Patrick Marleau Corsi For% with Alex Stalock: 60.0%

It's a Pink Floyd Conspiracy!

Probably because we're losing most of the time with Stalock so we get to be more aggressive. haha