Speculation: 2018-19 Roster Discussion Part I

[Levie]

No one needs to apologize. This isn’t 2009, I can handle some people making asses of themselves now.

But yeah. I think we’re seeing the player Kane really is now.

The type of player who when he doesn't have the puck is utterly useless and when he has the puck he tries to make a cute play and loses it without getting a shot on goal?

 

[Juxtaposer]

I'm pretty sure if we miss the playoffs, that lottery pick goes to Ottawa not Buffalo. And we were giving up a 2nd to rent Kane so I'm not terribly upset even knowing that I felt it was too much to upgrade on a pick one round to keep a solid top six guy for a while. I think they'll probably pay Seattle to take Kane. It'll look bad but it's not going to be as bad as people think, imo.

If we didn’t already owe a 1st to Buffalo, then the 1st we gave to Ottawa would have been lottery protected this season. That’s why I said “essentially”.

 

[Jaleel619]

no.... Kane isn't afraid to take a shot on goal. He's looking to score, and that's what counts at the end of the day. I'll take him.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If we didn’t already owe a 1st to Buffalo, then the 1st we gave to Ottawa would have been lottery protected this season. That’s why I said “essentially”.

That is not an assumption I'd be willing to agree with.

 

[Juxtaposer]

That is not an assumption I'd be willing to agree with.

You don’t think DW would have lottery protected his 1st if given the chance? Your prerogative, but I think it’s a pretty obvious thing he’d do.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

You don’t think DW would have lottery protected his 1st if given the chance? Your prerogative, but I think it’s a pretty obvious thing he’d do.

In a Karlsson trade? No, I don't think that would've been an option available to him.

 

[Levie]

no.... Kane isn't afraid to take a shot on goal. He's looking to score, and that's what counts at the end of the day. I'll take him.

Just about every player in the league is looking to score. The issue is some don't score, and Kane is one of those players. But when he's not scoring his giving away brutal turnovers.

 

[Jaleel619]

Just about every player in the league is looking to score. The issue is some don't score, and Kane is one of those players. But when he's not scoring his giving away brutal turnovers.

Take the zigs with the zags, Kane provides a physical edge that can scare opponents. I'll take it, especially considering where last year we got edged out of games because we lacked physicality. It's not only about scoring goals man.... Haven't you ever heard the saying, I came to a fight and a hockey game broke out? Enter Evander holy field....

Besides, what are you talking about 30 goals isn't good enough for you? Get out of here... man. Come on, Next!

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Kane didn’t deserve to be up with Pavelski and Donskoi after his suspension. It was clear in game 2 of that series that Meier was the much better fit on that line with Pavelski and Donskoi and every single metric says that over the entire course of last season (RS+PO), Meier was better on that line than Kane. Kane was obviously hurt and playing terribly; he really should not have been stapled to that line.

I’m actually not comparing apples to oranges. I’m doing what CapFriendly’s “comparable contract” calculator does on its default settings, which takes age into consideration and places ten times as much emphasis on % of cap hit as it does on face value AAV. Where the top 4 most comparable contracts are Okposo, JVR, Lucic, and Bobby Ryan. All horrible contracts signed by GMs that have either been fired or are considered some of the worst in the NHL.

And if you really want to compare (rotten) apples to apples, let’s go a step further. I adjusted the calculator’s settings to put 20% emphasis on 5 categories: age, Cap hit % of cap ceiling, contract length, games played, and points. After doing that, here are Kane’s top-6 comparables:

Nathan Horton
Kyle Okposo
Milan Lucic
Bobby Ryan
Kyle Turris
Dustin Brown

Yuck. Kyle Turris’ contract might end up being decent. The rest of those are names you can probably find if you check HF’s latest “worst contracts in the league.” thread.

None of those guys are “prime of career assets” on day one of their contract. On average, NHL skaters peak in WAR between age 22-25. (Excluding Jones because these metrics don’t include WAR for goalies who peak later) The average age of Couture/Kane/Vlasic during the first game of their contracts is 29.33, where WAR is over 0.25 less than peak years. The average of those 3, on opening night, over the entirety of their contracts is 32.78, where WAR is over 0.75 less than it is in peak years. I also disagree with your premise that a GM shouldn’t let prime of career assets walk just for the sake of not doing so, but none of those guys are “prime of career assets”, both in terms of simply their age compared to peak age of NHL players, and their actual performance. None of them were coming off career years when they signed their new deals.

The results of 2 elite superstars who hit UFA and considered San Jose as one of their destinations doesn’t really say that history isn’t on my side. You’re looking at just two examples there. Meanwhile, I can say that in 2015, when Doug Wilson wanted to help his team through UFA, he signed Joel Ward and Paul Martin to fair contracts. Joel Ward and Paul Martin are much closer to Kane and Vlasic than Kane and Vlasic are to Tavares and Niedermayer. DW could probably improve on those guys through UFA and for less money at that.

I agree after the suspension when he was hurt, Meier should have moved up. Not regular season though. Meier didn't produce numbers the way Kane did in the regular season and he didn't stretch the other teams defense the way Kane did prior to Kanes injury.

None of those players are really comparable to Kane IMO. Your minutia argument about what "Prime" is ridiculous. Just because that might be the absolute peak doesn't mean it the end of their usefulness. Look at Pavs, Burns... Plenty of 30 wish players playing important roles on contending teams. I completely disagree with your whole premise about letting those players walk for nothing and it's obvious that we'll never agree. Just glad you aren't the GM. This team would suck ass.

As far as UFAs, I named 3 but there have been others. Hence the etc, etc... Plenty others were rumored, speculated about and never even returned the Sharks call. Didn't Weber visit when he was a UFA? Anyone who's been a fan since the beginning knows the Sharks are always the ones left with out a chair when the music stops on every high end UFA that wasn't first traded to the team.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

So Kevin LaBanc has as many assists as Kane does points...

 

[Dicdonya]

So Kevin LaBanc has as many assists as Kane does points...

Which is extra yucky, because Labanc has not been stellar all year, very hot and cold from him.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

So Kevin LaBanc has as many assists as Kane does points...

Kane still has more even strength points than Labanc and Labanc still doesn't look all that good. He gets some bounces to go his way to produce at evens but otherwise is mostly as much or more of a non-factor at evens as Kane.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Kane still has more even strength points than Labanc and Labanc still doesn't look all that good. He gets some bounces to go his way to produce at evens but otherwise is mostly as much or more of a non-factor at evens as Kane.

LaBanc is also scoring 1.82 even strength points per 60 minutes and Kane is scoring 1.64 per 60 minutes. Kane has the 2nd worst even strength GF%Rel on the team behind Vlasic. Kane leads the NHL with 17 minor penalties; LaBanc, who I consider poorly disciplined, has taken less than half as many penalties.

LaBanc might be a non-factor at even strength, but Kane is a negative factor.

On top of that, we're comparing a disappointing 22 year old on his ELC to a 27 year old making $7X7. Kane should be blowing LaBanc out the water in every category. There shouldn't be a comparison between the two.

 

[Jargon]

Oh thank God, we hate Kane again.

Can we talk more about how he doesn’t work out on Instagram?

 

[tiburon12]

LaBanc is also scoring 1.82 even strength points per 60 minutes and Kane is scoring 1.64 per 60 minutes. Kane has the 2nd worst even strength GF%Rel on the team behind Vlasic. Kane leads the NHL with 17 minor penalties; LaBanc, who I consider poorly disciplined, has taken less than half as many penalties.

LaBanc might be a non-factor at even strength, but Kane is a negative factor.

On top of that, we're comparing a disappointing 22 year old on his ELC to a 27 year old making $7X7. Kane should be blowing LaBanc out the water in every category. There shouldn't be a comparison between the two.

I don't think anyone is happy with Kane right now, including Kane.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

LaBanc is also scoring 1.82 even strength points per 60 minutes and Kane is scoring 1.64 per 60 minutes. Kane has the 2nd worst even strength GF%Rel on the team behind Vlasic. Kane leads the NHL with 17 minor penalties; LaBanc, who I consider poorly disciplined, has taken less than half as many penalties.

LaBanc might be a non-factor at even strength, but Kane is a negative factor.

On top of that, we're comparing a disappointing 22 year old on his ELC to a 27 year old making $7X7. Kane should be blowing LaBanc out the water in every category. There shouldn't be a comparison between the two.

The per 60 pretty much removes context. Kane's production is predominantly skill-based production whereas Labanc's at evens is pretty much luck-based in comparison. Both are undisciplined at times and both are non-factors. I just think it's silly to point out a counting stat or much of anything to pump Labanc's tires when he's a negative out there more often than not just like Kane. Labanc loses battles regularly and rarely creates anything. There shouldn't be a comparison between the two. You decided to bring it up but they play different roles. The only reason why Labanc has as many assists as points is because he is a focal point to a power play unit that his even strength play would otherwise dictate he doesn't deserve. Without that spot, he is producing significantly less than Kane.

And to retort regarding the penalties, the difference between Labanc's penalties and Kane's penalties is really just two more power plays awarded to the opposing team between them. All of Labanc's penalties were him and only him going to the box. Kane is and should be getting more penalties as a more physical player but has only given the other team like two more power play opportunities with his more minor penalties because he takes others to the box with him sometimes.

 

[Mattb124]

Just about every player in the league is looking to score. The issue is some don't score, and Kane is one of those players. But when he's not scoring his giving away brutal turnovers.

Brutal turnovers are Labanc's strong suit.

 

[Mattb124]

LaBanc is also scoring 1.82 even strength points per 60 minutes and Kane is scoring 1.64 per 60 minutes. Kane has the 2nd worst even strength GF%Rel on the team behind Vlasic. Kane leads the NHL with 17 minor penalties; LaBanc, who I consider poorly disciplined, has taken less than half as many penalties.

LaBanc might be a non-factor at even strength, but Kane is a negative factor.

On top of that, we're comparing a disappointing 22 year old on his ELC to a 27 year old making $7X7. Kane should be blowing LaBanc out the water in every category. There shouldn't be a comparison between the two.

Why don't you expand on that by delving into detail on his off-season training regiment and how he treats women?

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

The per 60 pretty much removes context. Kane's production is predominantly skill-based production whereas Labanc's at evens is pretty much luck-based in comparison. Both are undisciplined at times and both are non-factors. I just think it's silly to point out a counting stat or much of anything to pump Labanc's tires when he's a negative out there more often than not just like Kane. Labanc loses battles regularly and rarely creates anything. There shouldn't be a comparison between the two. You decided to bring it up but they play different roles. The only reason why Labanc has as many assists as points is because he is a focal point to a power play unit that his even strength play would otherwise dictate he doesn't deserve. Without that spot, he is producing significantly less than Kane.

And to retort regarding the penalties, the difference between Labanc's penalties and Kane's penalties is really just two more power plays awarded to the opposing team between them. All of Labanc's penalties were him and only him going to the box. Kane is and should be getting more penalties as a more physical player but has only given the other team like two more power play opportunities with his more minor penalties because he takes others to the box with him sometimes.

Kane has drawn 12 penalties and LaBanc has drawn 7. Kane has taken 17 penalties and LaBanc has taken 8. Kane That's a penalty differential of -5 for Kane and -1 for LaBanc. So, Kane's penalty differential is 4 worse than LaBanc's. That's 4 more times he put us shorthanded without getting us on the PP in return. We could check offsetting penalties if you want but I don't think that matters as much as overall penalty differential.

Meanwhile, Kane has 12 even strength points and LaBanc has 10. Kane has 2 more even strength points than LaBanc. I'd like to hear your explanation as to how Kane's penalty differential, which is 4 worse than LaBanc's, is insignificant, while his even strength production, which is 2 points more than LaBanc's, is significantly less.

I'm not buying the luck argument either. Kane has historically been a very unlucky player, to the point where we might be able to conclude that it isn't just dumb luck but rather who he is. He's rocking an even strength oiSH% of 5.88%, while LaBanc is rocking an even strength oiSH% of 7.34%. Throughout his last two full seasons in Buffalo, Kane had an oiSH% below 7%, while LaBanc's current 7.34% is the only time in his career that he has had an wish% below 8%. Kane is always going to be more "unlucky" than LaBanc, and that's because LaBanc is a better playmaker and Kane just shoots from anywhere.

For the record, I'm not bringing these numbers up to pump LaBanc's tires. I think he's been real disappointing. I just brought the numbers to point out that it's hilarious how our whipping boy, who we are all pretty disappointed with, has as many assists, while on his ELC, as our 7 million dollar man has points. Other factors be damned, that looks awful on Kane.

I don't think anyone is happy with Kane right now, including Kane.

Why wouldn't he be? He's still on pace to score over 43 points, which he has only actually done twice in his NHL career. The way he is producing right now is much more in line with his the way he has produced over the course of his career than the way that everybody expects him to produce. Yeah, if you were expecting him to score 30 goals and 30 assists every season, you'll be disappointed. But why would you expect that when he's only done one of things once in his NHL career?

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

I don't think anyone is happy with Kane right now, including Kane.

Considering how streaky he is, I expected him to have another big game by now. He's far over due considering the number of great chances he seems to be involved in. I hope he sticks with Shovels and donkey for a little bit. That line looks dangerous every shift.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

The per 60 pretty much removes context. Kane's production is predominantly skill-based production whereas Labanc's at evens is pretty much luck-based in comparison. Both are undisciplined at times and both are non-factors. I just think it's silly to point out a counting stat or much of anything to pump Labanc's tires when he's a negative out there more often than not just like Kane. Labanc loses battles regularly and rarely creates anything. There shouldn't be a comparison between the two. You decided to bring it up but they play different roles. The only reason why Labanc has as many assists as points is because he is a focal point to a power play unit that his even strength play would otherwise dictate he doesn't deserve. Without that spot, he is producing significantly less than Kane.

And to retort regarding the penalties, the difference between Labanc's penalties and Kane's penalties is really just two more power plays awarded to the opposing team between them. All of Labanc's penalties were him and only him going to the box. Kane is and should be getting more penalties as a more physical player but has only given the other team like two more power play opportunities with his more minor penalties because he takes others to the box with him sometimes.

I'm betting Lebanc's 5x5 stats are helped a little by the goals the team has scored directly after a PP expires. Basically still kind of a PP goal. Most people watching this team this year without looking at these advanced stats would prefer Kane over Lebanc. Kane creates his own chances and momentum each shift while Lebanc almost always looks like a floater. He also puts in an honest effort each game and shift IMO which I don't believe you can say about Lebanc.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I agree after the suspension when he was hurt, Meier should have moved up. Not regular season though. Meier didn't produce numbers the way Kane did in the regular season and he didn't stretch the other teams defense the way Kane did prior to Kanes injury.

None of those players are really comparable to Kane IMO. Your minutia argument about what "Prime" is ridiculous. Just because that might be the absolute peak doesn't mean it the end of their usefulness. Look at Pavs, Burns... Plenty of 30 wish players playing important roles on contending teams. I completely disagree with your whole premise about letting those players walk for nothing and it's obvious that we'll never agree. Just glad you aren't the GM. This team would suck ass.

As far as UFAs, I named 3 but there have been others. Hence the etc, etc... Plenty others were rumored, speculated about and never even returned the Sharks call. Didn't Weber visit when he was a UFA? Anyone who's been a fan since the beginning knows the Sharks are always the ones left with out a chair when the music stops on every high end UFA that wasn't first traded to the team.

Yeah I agree that KPD together in the regular season was the right call. Pavelski and Donskoi were firing on all cylinders, Kane needed a line that he could be inserted into as the LW playing as an F1, and that line was great. But once he was injured, it was obvious that Meier was the better fit on that line and especially after game 2 of the Vegas series, it's something that you can blame on DeBoer when Kane was clearly dragging that line down and Meier was clearly bringing it up.

I actually think it's quite kind to Kane to compare him to Lucic, Okposo, Ryan, and Horton. Every single one of them had scored 60 points twice and Kane has never scored 60 points. Statistically, they're all pretty comparable and they even play somewhat similar styles to a certain degree. I'd like to hear why you don't consider them comparable, as CapFriendly is the one that lists them as comparables.

My argument about prime is not ridiculous at all when you consider that your initial argument was that GMs should never let multiple prime aged players walk away. 1. We're not even talking about prime aged players here and 2. GMs should let prime aged players walk away all the time if they suck or are asking for too much money.

The Burns and Pavelski comparisons don't work with these guys for two reasons. 1. Burns and Pavelski peaked way higher than Couture, Vlasic, Kane, or Jones. 2. Burns and Pavelski showed a trend of improvement towards a later age that these guys didn't. Check this out:



The linear trend shows clear improvement for Pavelski and Burns; both of whom aged like fine wine. Pavelski's peak in point shares was age 29, while Burns' was age 31. Now, let's compare this to Kane, Vlasic, and Couture...



NOTES:

-I excluded Burns' first two seasons, Kane's first season, and Couture's first 25 game stint. The reason that I did this is that when comparing their point shares in these seasons heavily skews the linear data trends, partly because they were far inferior players as rookies and and partly because some of those seasons weren't full seasons.

-For the 2012-2013 season, I multiplied point shares by 82/48 to adjust for the lockout. For this 2018-2019 season, I multiplied point shares by 82/28 to adjust for the fact that only 28 games of data exist for this season as of the time of this study.

-Outside of that, I did not adjust for injuries; I believe that if a player is getting injured more often, he is bringing less to your team, and that should be taken into account when signing contracts. This actually hurts my argument to some degree as a guy like Burns was clearly great as a forward from 2013 to 2014 but missed a lot of games and his point shares suffered as well.

-Hockey Reference's Point Shares are not a perfect metric by any stretch, and I actually believe they are far too generous to a player like Marc-Edouard Vlasic whose positive contributions (or lack there of, in recent years) do not always show up on the score sheet. However, they're a decent measure of how good a player is, they match the eye test to a certain degree, and they're a simple number I can look at over a large sample size.

-My adjustments are individual and based on what I feel best fits this analysis, but with other adjustments, the trend is similar.

So, to conclude, and get back to my argument...Pavelski and Burns' trend of aging DOES NOT justify these contracts. Pavelski and Burns were always far better players than Kane, Vlasic, and Couture, and by the ages that Kane/Vlasic/Couture are at, they showed a much more promising trend of aging than Kane/Vlasic/Couture did.

You can say the team would suck ass if I were GM, but that isn't really relevant to the discussion. In this case, the team would not be in much worse shape right now if Vlasic, Kane, and Jones walked in the off-season and were replaced by Simek, Radil, and Dell. All 3 of those guys have very bad this season and the guys that have made this team good this year are all guys that I would have kept. The Burns contract is an ugly one but I haven't been anywhere near as vocal about it because at least Burns is actually a f***ing monster who carries hockey teams on his back.

I'm not trying to plead my case for GM here but if I was GM, I wouldn't be so conservative as to let every good player walk. I would, knowing that it carries a large amount of risk, be rather re-sign Joe Pavelski to a $7M for 3 years, while the real Doug Wilson is probably going to lose Joe Pavelski in the off-season because he had to re-sign Kane. I'm playing the long game here.

As far as UFAs, you're the one comparing apples and oranges talking about UFA Tavares/Niedermayer and RFA Weber. Regarding Weber, an HF poster said that he saw Shea Weber, Doug Wilson, and an Asian guy at a steakhouse in downtown SJ. It later came out that SJ was interested in Weber but didn't want to sign a massive cap circumventing deal like the one that Weber got. Stamkos was never confirmed as more than speculation from Elliott Friedman who is great but also notorious for

I'm not suggesting that we will be able to sign elite superstars in UFA, but that is not what any one of Kane, Vlasic, or Couture are. I know about the snubs from high profile UFAs but I also know that we can go into the UFA market and sign reasonable deals to guys that will fill holes now and whose contracts could become problems later like Boedker, Martin, and Ward. DW signed 3 of those guys in 2 years.

The reason he didn't sign many UFAs in the past was because, just as his philosophy changed on signing his own home-grown players to massive contracts, his philosophy also changed on signing UFAs. He used to say "The biggest mistakes are made on July 1st." Of course the Sharks haven't signed many UFAs when their GM, over the course of more than half of their existence as a franchise, is a guy who made that (incredibly smart) quote.

I rambled a bit. If you don't want to read all of this, please just look at the cool charts.

 

[tiburon12]

Why wouldn't he be? He's still on pace to score over 43 points, which he has only actually done twice in his NHL career. The way he is producing right now is much more in line with his the way he has produced over the course of his career than the way that everybody expects him to produce. Yeah, if you were expecting him to score 30 goals and 30 assists every season, you'll be disappointed. But why would you expect that when he's only done one of things once in his NHL career?

Your position on Kane seems to be clouding your objectivity. We all know points aren't everything. Even if he exceeds 43 points, or 50 points, or 60 points, the rest of his game is not looking as great as it did last season or even at the start of this season. Tonight in the 1st he tried to chip the puck off the boards and out with like 80% effort, hit a leg, took a CAR bounce, and Jones made an in-close save. You can't tell me that he is satisfied with that kind of play. There is something going on with him right now, maybe its related to that TMZ gossip floating around, but points aside, this is not the level of play he is capable of.

Stats are not the only way to look at this.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Yeah I agree that KPD together in the regular season was the right call. Pavelski and Donskoi were firing on all cylinders, Kane needed a line that he could be inserted into as the LW playing as an F1, and that line was great. But once he was injured, it was obvious that Meier was the better fit on that line and especially after game 2 of the Vegas series, it's something that you can blame on DeBoer when Kane was clearly dragging that line down and Meier was clearly bringing it up.

I actually think it's quite kind to Kane to compare him to Lucic, Okposo, Ryan, and Horton. Every single one of them had scored 60 points twice and Kane has never scored 60 points. Statistically, they're all pretty comparable and they even play somewhat similar styles to a certain degree. I'd like to hear why you don't consider them comparable, as CapFriendly is the one that lists them as comparables.

My argument about prime is not ridiculous at all when you consider that your initial argument was that GMs should never let multiple prime aged players walk away. 1. We're not even talking about prime aged players here and 2. GMs should let prime aged players walk away all the time if they suck or are asking for too much money.

The Burns and Pavelski comparisons don't work with these guys for two reasons. 1. Burns and Pavelski peaked way higher than Couture, Vlasic, Kane, or Jones. 2. Burns and Pavelski showed a trend of improvement towards a later age that these guys didn't. Check this out:



The linear trend shows clear improvement for Pavelski and Burns; both of whom aged like fine wine. Pavelski's peak in point shares was age 29, while Burns' was age 31. Now, let's compare this to Kane, Vlasic, and Couture...



NOTES:

-I excluded Burns' first two seasons, Kane's first season, and Couture's first 25 game stint. The reason that I did this is that when comparing their point shares in these seasons heavily skews the linear data trends, partly because they were far inferior players as rookies and and partly because some of those seasons weren't full seasons.

-For the 2012-2013 season, I multiplied point shares by 82/48 to adjust for the lockout. For this 2018-2019 season, I multiplied point shares by 82/28 to adjust for the fact that only 28 games of data exist for this season as of the time of this study.

-Outside of that, I did not adjust for injuries; I believe that if a player is getting injured more often, he is bringing less to your team, and that should be taken into account when signing contracts. This actually hurts my argument to some degree as a guy like Burns was clearly great as a forward from 2013 to 2014 but missed a lot of games and his point shares suffered as well.

-Hockey Reference's Point Shares are not a perfect metric by any stretch, and I actually believe they are far too generous to a player like Marc-Edouard Vlasic whose positive contributions (or lack there of, in recent years) do not always show up on the score sheet. However, they're a decent measure of how good a player is, they match the eye test to a certain degree, and they're a simple number I can look at over a large sample size.

-My adjustments are individual and based on what I feel best fits this analysis, but with other adjustments, the trend is similar.

So, to conclude, and get back to my argument...Pavelski and Burns' trend of aging DOES NOT justify these contracts. Pavelski and Burns were always far better players than Kane, Vlasic, and Couture, and by the ages that Kane/Vlasic/Couture are at, they showed a much more promising trend of aging than Kane/Vlasic/Couture did.

You can say the team would suck ass if I were GM, but that isn't really relevant to the discussion. In this case, the team would not be in much worse shape right now if Vlasic, Kane, and Jones walked in the off-season and were replaced by Simek, Radil, and Dell. All 3 of those guys have very bad this season and the guys that have made this team good this year are all guys that I would have kept. The Burns contract is an ugly one but I haven't been anywhere near as vocal about it because at least Burns is actually a ****ing monster who carries hockey teams on his back.

I'm not trying to plead my case for GM here but if I was GM, I wouldn't be so conservative as to let every good player walk. I would, knowing that it carries a large amount of risk, be rather re-sign Joe Pavelski to a $7M for 3 years, while the real Doug Wilson is probably going to lose Joe Pavelski in the off-season because he had to re-sign Kane. I'm playing the long game here.

As far as UFAs, you're the one comparing apples and oranges talking about UFA Tavares/Niedermayer and RFA Weber. Regarding Weber, an HF poster said that he saw Shea Weber, Doug Wilson, and an Asian guy at a steakhouse in downtown SJ. It later came out that SJ was interested in Weber but didn't want to sign a massive cap circumventing deal like the one that Weber got. Stamkos was never confirmed as more than speculation from Elliott Friedman who is great but also notorious for

I'm not suggesting that we will be able to sign elite superstars in UFA, but that is not what any one of Kane, Vlasic, or Couture are. I know about the snubs from high profile UFAs but I also know that we can go into the UFA market and sign reasonable deals to guys that will fill holes now and whose contracts could become problems later like Boedker, Martin, and Ward. DW signed 3 of those guys in 2 years.

The reason he didn't sign many UFAs in the past was because, just as his philosophy changed on signing his own home-grown players to massive contracts, his philosophy also changed on signing UFAs. He used to say "The biggest mistakes are made on July 1st." Of course the Sharks haven't signed many UFAs when their GM, over the course of more than half of their existence as a franchise, is a guy who made that (incredibly smart) quote.

I rambled a bit. If you don't want to read all of this, please just look at the cool charts.

We've been over this repeatedly... the arbitrary 60 point thing is a straw man. In a previous version of the argument I specifically detailed his points per game etc and it clearly showed that actually his most productive offensive seasons were more recent. I can't remember the exact detail of that and I'm not looking it up again but I clearly proved at that juncture that throwing out a point total for the season was misusing the stats to support a false narative. Throwing out 60 points means very little when talking about a player that doesn't typically play 82 games. In before you denigrate him for getting hurt... he also has stayed relatively healthy the last couple (few?) seasons. Not saying that proves he'll be healthy considering his style of play but I'm fine with it considering the tempo and orneriness he brings. From my perspective the team has missed having a legit forward who stirs the pot and gets everyones adrenaline flowing the way he does.

None of those UFAs you mention signing move the needle on a franchise if they gave up the player your suggesting they walk away from. And again, his philosophy didn't change on signing those big contracts, the league did. You want to compete? You're signing your top end guys to those contracts or they walk.

Lucic - train wreck that was over run once the NHL started skating fast.
Okposo - decent comparison. Would have to look at his history closer to see.
Ryan - freak injuries, hasn't regained his dynamic play since. Not legit comparison.
Horton - terrible injuries & degenerative back problem, can't even play anymore. Not legit comparison.

None of these guys are a direct comparison to the type of player Kane is so I don't believe their contract values are looked at the same way. Hockey isn't always as simple as point totals and fancy stats. No matter how much we as fans want to quantify it like that.

You think the Burns contract is bad? Holy shit man that's crazy considering what players like him are signing for. You're really going to lose your shit when EK65 signs for 10 or 11mil per despite not being able to "pivot".

Dude replacing Vlassic, etc with Radil etc is hilariously bad. You're trying to assert that a couple guys with no more than 5 NHL games between them would replace Kane & Vlassic. The goalie thing has already been proven false as Dell couldn't even handle a few extra starts last season with out imploding.

Stamkos was confirmed by Lebrun or someone like that. Still, there has been a ton of players over over the years. Even midrange players who didn't want to come to SJ. Typically DW had to overpay for low to mid level UFAs to entice them. Might have even started with Jimmy Carson as the first big name to shun SJ. Hahn talks about it every once in a while. Geez look at what happened to Belfour and Cambell that soulless ginger defenseman from the Sabres... Guerin... This list of UFA players who shunned the Sharks is going to get long quick!! Now that was when DW was actually throwing away 1st round picks...

 

[OrrNumber4]

Any bellyaching about the Burns contract must be put to rest.

At this point, for this year...that contract is a bargain. Look at how the cap has gone up and salaries have inflated around the league...sure Burns is going likely to decline with time, but his contract is also going to be less of a cap hit.

Put another way, let us look at the real dollars paid: I'm not sure I have the details completely right, but I think in terms of real dollars he is getting paid 10 million USD/season for this year and the next two. That's below current market value for a Norris-winning defenseman who drives play as he does. When he is 38, I think he is paid like 5 million/season the last two years, which is going to be like 3 million in today's cap dollars. That doesn't seem at all extravagant.

Regarding Kane...another issue I have with him is that he is a bit like Couture in that he goes as the team does. When the team is floundering, Kane is making it worse...the negatively infects his game which poisons the well. Of course, when the team is surging Kane feeds off that energy and makes everyone better. You need a couple of players who can at least tread water when the team goes through adversity.