Speculation: 2018-19 Roster Discussion Part I

[tiburon12]

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...

Didn't someone in the org, maybe even Wilson, confirm they were right there on Stamkos? Was it PDB on HC12 a few weeks ago? just adding to your point

 

[Juxtaposer]

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.

Boggles my mind that anyone would complain about the Burns contract. Of the five massive contracts Doug Wilson has recently handed out, Burns’ is the only one I would personally choose to give out. He’s nothing but earned it since the moment it was signed. And in case anyone has forgotten, Burns signed that contract before he had a Norris to his name. He hasn’t slacked off since he got paid.

As for the bolded, that’s one of the things that’s so special about Pavelski. Marleau did the same thing as well (as much as people wanted to call it “scoring points in meaningless games” or whatever).

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Didn't someone in the org, maybe even Wilson, confirm they were right there on Stamkos? Was it PDB on HC12 a few weeks ago? just adding to your point

I could have sworn I read something about this over the summer when they were discussing going after Tavares.

Found the Lebrun mention...

 

[spintops]

I have been optimistic/defensive about the Kane contract - his even strength goal scoring is something we were missing last year. He's definitely struggling at the moment though.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

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.

The amount of penalties that Kane has taken that has yielded a power play or forfeited a power play is I think 10 to Labanc's 8 which the difference was literally this past game. Kane takes others off the ice with him frequently. Kane has drawn nine penalties that yielded a power play or forfeited the other team's power play to Labanc's six. So in reality, Kane has taken one more penalty than he's drawn and Labanc has taken two more penalties than he's drawn as it relates to power plays.

If you want to point to on-ice shooting percentage that's fine but just remember that Kane's number for that is the worst of his career thus far. If you think that's going to continue, that's your mistake to make. Labanc's is better but there's less to go off. The reason why I point to luck for Labanc is the how of his even strength points have gone in this year compared to someone like Kane. I can remember two ridiculously flukey bounces including the one last game that led to even strength production for him. Half of those even strength assists came in one freaking game dude. This past even strength assist was his first even strength point in eight games.

Of course it looks awful on Kane because you're slanting the numbers to make your case but a lot of it, especially the penalty stuff, is stuff you're misrepresenting.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

Very, very small sample size (2 games lol) but I've been impressed with Simek. He isn't afraid to get physical, and he's been damn good defensively. He also has a decent shot.

We might have another Top 4 option here and it's pretty exciting for the future.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Guys, I was not complaining about the Burns contract. I was saying that it is ugly and will probably look real bad in the future, but that it was a necessary evil because unlike Couture/Kane/Jones/Vlasic, Brent Burns is an elite superstar.

 

[Kcoyote3]

Brutal turnovers are Labanc's strong suit.

His strong suit appears to be increasing his points per game, Corsi for, Corsi rel (2nd on team among forwards), and ice time year over year since he was drafted 171st overall.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

Just wish he was more consistent. He's got a good head on his shoulders, we just end up seeing him do awful things for long stretches, then suddenly get multi-assist games lol.

His strong suit appears to be increasing his points per game, Corsi for, Corsi rel (2nd on team among forwards), and ice time year over year since he was drafted 171st overall.

 

[one2gamble]

Guys, I was not complaining about the Burns contract. I was saying that it is ugly and will probably look real bad in the future, but that it was a necessary evil because unlike Couture/Kane/Jones/Vlasic, Brent Burns is an elite superstar.

I dont agree with you on this one. There is nothing about his game that looks like it will deteriorate much over time. Hes not overtly physical or anything. By the end of that contract the cap will 93-95 million and hes probably still going to be putting up 50 points a year

 

[Juxtaposer]

Guys, I was not complaining about the Burns contract. I was saying that it is ugly and will probably look real bad in the future, but that it was a necessary evil because unlike Couture/Kane/Jones/Vlasic, Brent Burns is an elite superstar.

And I strongly disagree with the descriptor “necessary evil”. Burns, knock on wood, hasn’t been injured in several years and his game looks to age well. He’s shown no hint of decline since he signed that contract. I think it’s completely fair and in five years when the cap is close to $95, it won’t look bad at all.

 

[Herschel]

Kinda outside of the regular talking points but does anyone else think once Burns' game start to fall off he will just retire and quit playing hockey even if it means walking away from the final years of his contract?

 

[weastern bias]

Kinda outside of the regular talking points but does anyone else think once Burns' game start to fall off he will just retire and quit playing hockey even if it means walking away from the final years of his contract?

Nah, exotic animals don't pay for themselves

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I dont agree with you on this one. There is nothing about his game that looks like it will deteriorate much over time. Hes not overtly physical or anything. By the end of that contract the cap will 93-95 million and hes probably still going to be putting up 50 points a year

And I strongly disagree with the descriptor “necessary evil”. Burns, knock on wood, hasn’t been injured in several years and his game looks to age well. He’s shown no hint of decline since he signed that contract. I think it’s completely fair and in five years when the cap is close to $95, it won’t look bad at all.

He is 33 and he’s in the second year of his contract. Yes, Burns has been incredible and he has been healthy for a very long period of time, but father time is undefeated and his contract is a huge investment into a player whose average age during each regular season of the contract is over 35 and whose average age during the playoffs of the contract is over 36.

There is something inherently evil about giving $8M per to a guy who is 40 by the time his contract ends. Brent Burns is a freak and watching his evolution has been a pleasure, but he can not defeat Father Time; he can merely prolong his demise at the hands of it much better than most. I would absolutely give him that contract again if it were entirely in my hands to do so. But it is an evil.

 

[Lebanezer]

Kinda outside of the regular talking points but does anyone else think once Burns' game start to fall off he will just retire and quit playing hockey even if it means walking away from the final years of his contract?

I think the last 2 years of his contract will be played as a bottom 6 wing.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

He is 33 and he’s in the second year of his contract. Yes, Burns has been incredible and he has been healthy for a very long period of time, but father time is undefeated and his contract is a huge investment into a player whose average age during each regular season of the contract is over 35 and whose average age during the playoffs of the contract is over 36.

There is something inherently evil about giving $8M per to a guy who is 40 by the time his contract ends. Brent Burns is a freak and watching his evolution has been a pleasure, but he can not defeat Father Time; he can merely prolong his demise at the hands of it much better than most. I would absolutely give him that contract again if it were entirely in my hands to do so. But it is an evil.

I tend to look at a lot of these contracts as paying back the player for severely outperforming their previous deals with the exception being Martin Jones and Evander Kane. That was paying on potential performance. Burns was on a 5.76 mil contract previously and in three of those five years, he severely outperformed that contract. So if Burns is dead on his feet in the last three years of his contract, which is something I don't mind people expecting since he'd be 37 to start those last three years and that's about when someone like Blake started to break down, I'm fine with overpaying him for that time because he's earned that on the whole of it. Couture and Vlasic have all done the same to varying degrees.

 

[OffSydes]

I tend to look at a lot of these contracts as paying back the player for severely outperforming their previous deals with the exception being Martin Jones and Evander Kane. That was paying on potential performance. Burns was on a 5.76 mil contract previously and in three of those five years, he severely outperformed that contract. So if Burns is dead on his feet in the last three years of his contract, which is something I don't mind people expecting since he'd be 37 to start those last three years and that's about when someone like Blake started to break down, I'm fine with overpaying him for that time because he's earned that on the whole of it. Couture and Vlasic have all done the same to varying degrees.

Problem with that is you can't apply his 20-21 cap hit to 15-16.

 

[HaNotsri]

Question about Kane:
Is he back to skating down the wing and shooting from a bad angle that sends the play the other way?

Coaches in Buffalo was working really hard on having him pick his time too shoot better, worked last year. He’s pretty streaky as well and tends to play injured a lot.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Guys, I was not complaining about the Burns contract. I was saying that it is ugly and will probably look real bad in the future, but that it was a necessary evil because unlike Couture/Kane/Jones/Vlasic, Brent Burns is an elite superstar.

Kinda funny that you think this is somehow different than what you said originally. In no reality is the Burns contract bad or a burden. If his knees stay healthy Burns can play into his 40s and still put up points. 6'5" elite skater, elite shot, elite passer. Even when he loses another step or 2 he will still be able to skate on D in this league. As someone who's been thru 40 already, you don't lose much shot strength at that age or hands. 40 isn't 50 or 60, especially in this day and age of training and the diet that a pro athlete like him sticks to. He may only put up 40 to 50 points at 37,38 but he'll still be a mainstay on a PP unit here or elsewhere and be able to play effectively on a 3rd pair with limited minutes. Who knows, maybe he devotes himself to becoming more of a shut down type guy at the end so he can continue to play. He wouldn't be the first offensive defenseman to re-invent himself that way. Centers do it all the time too.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Kurt new article has some interesting stats especially regarding kane...

"Still, Kane is getting his chances, as evidenced by this number — a Sharks team-high. Along with those 84 individual chances, Kane has had 40 high-danger chances, also tops on the team"

Meier is 2nd in those 2 categories but has clearly had better luck or effectiveness finishing. Kane is also 4th in the league in shots.

So all the Kane hate frankly is unwarranted. The stats bare out what I "see" when I watch him. He consistently generates his own offense more than any player on the team. Is it possible he has a career worst shooting percentage this year? Maybe. But I doubt it especially since he's playing in front of 2 of the top 3 offensive defensemen in the league. His shooting percentage currently sits at 6.4% this season. Take out this season for too small sample size and his career avg is over 9%. Last couple seasons he's been better than 10%. So his effort is there and his chance generation is there. I'm still maintain that he's due for a bunch of points soon.

(Mod, if I'm not allowed to copy any of this please let me know)

 

[Negatively Positive]

Chara is 41 and still averaging 21 minutes this year. Burns has always been faster than Chara so if he keeps in shape and stays healthy he might not be too bad by the end of the contract.

 

[tiburon12]

Kurt new article has some interesting stats especially regarding kane...

"Still, Kane is getting his chances, as evidenced by this number — a Sharks team-high. Along with those 84 individual chances, Kane has had 40 high-danger chances, also tops on the team"

Meier is 2nd in those 2 categories but has clearly had better luck or effectiveness finishing. Kane is also 4th in the league in shots.

So all the Kane hate frankly is unwarranted. The stats bare out what I "see" when I watch him. He consistently generates his own offense more than any player on the team. Is it possible he has a career worst shooting percentage this year? Maybe. But I doubt it especially since he's playing in front of 2 of the top 3 offensive defensemen in the league. His shooting percentage currently sits at 6.4% this season. Take out this season for too small sample size and his career avg is over 9%. Last couple seasons he's been better than 10%. So his effort is there and his chance generation is there. I'm still maintain that he's due for a bunch of points soon.

(Mod, if I'm not allowed to copy any of this please let me know)

He certainly seems snake-bitten. He's right there on so many chances and is definitely creating offense. As someone pointed out in this thread or earlier, he seems to go as the team does, which kinda sucks. I think the offense will come as the team turns it around (fingers crossed that happens soon!)

Having said all of that, his defensive play could use a little more energy. Actually, i found myself agreeing with most, if not all, of what Kurz wrote about him in that article

 

[tiburon12]

Chara is 41 and still averaging 21 minutes this year. Burns has always been faster than Chara so if he keeps in shape and stays healthy he might not be too bad by the end of the contract.

Chara is also a fitness freak, so that comes at no surprise. I'm not sure what Burns' training regiments are, but a player in his shoes, with a contract that will exceed his 30's, should take a page out of Chara's book. Chelios too. We know Burns cares a lot about what he consumes, at least

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Kurt new article has some interesting stats especially regarding kane...

"Still, Kane is getting his chances, as evidenced by this number — a Sharks team-high. Along with those 84 individual chances, Kane has had 40 high-danger chances, also tops on the team"

Meier is 2nd in those 2 categories but has clearly had better luck or effectiveness finishing. Kane is also 4th in the league in shots.

So all the Kane hate frankly is unwarranted. The stats bare out what I "see" when I watch him. He consistently generates his own offense more than any player on the team. Is it possible he has a career worst shooting percentage this year? Maybe. But I doubt it especially since he's playing in front of 2 of the top 3 offensive defensemen in the league. His shooting percentage currently sits at 6.4% this season. Take out this season for too small sample size and his career avg is over 9%. Last couple seasons he's been better than 10%. So his effort is there and his chance generation is there. I'm still maintain that he's due for a bunch of points soon.

(Mod, if I'm not allowed to copy any of this please let me know)

I know about the scoring chances and shots. Those metrics tell a story but they aren’t everything. Washington actually has the worst 5V5 HDCF% in the NHL last year and won the Stanley Cup. I’m definitely not saying that 5V5 HDCF% is negatively correlated it’s winning

A player like Kane has historically got a ton of scoring chances and a good percentage of them have always been of the high danger variety but he has historically not finished on a great percentage of them.

He’s got 673 5V5 iHDCF in his career and 137 5V5 goals. That’s a conversion rate of 20.5%. If he were converting at that rate this season, on his 40 iHDCF, he would have 8 5V5 goals this year instead of the 6 that he does.

Similar to a guy like Meier in his rookie season, some players generate a bunch of iHDCF and don’t translate it to goals. It usually means they’re primed to break out, but it doesn’t always mean that.

Last season his S% as a whole was below 10%, BTW. It was above 10% with us but below 10% with Buffalo and below 10% in the aggregate. In 2016-2017, he did have a shooting percentage above 10% for only the 2nd time in his career but in the 3 seasons prior, he was below 8%.

If he were shooting at his career shooting percentage with the rate of shots per game he has this season, and he played 82 games (he’s never done that before), he would finish with 27 goals. However, I think he’s actually over shooting and will finish with the season with a shooting percentage under 8.9%.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

I know about the scoring chances and shots. Those metrics tell a story but they aren’t everything. Washington actually has the worst 5V5 HDCF% in the NHL last year and won the Stanley Cup. I’m definitely not saying that 5V5 HDCF% is negatively correlated it’s winning

A player like Kane has historically got a ton of scoring chances and a good percentage of them have always been of the high danger variety but he has historically not finished on a great percentage of them.

He’s got 673 5V5 iHDCF in his career and 137 5V5 goals. That’s a conversion rate of 20.5%. If he were converting at that rate this season, on his 40 iHDCF, he would have 8 5V5 goals this year instead of the 6 that he does.

Similar to a guy like Meier in his rookie season, some players generate a bunch of iHDCF and don’t translate it to goals. It usually means they’re primed to break out, but it doesn’t always mean that.

Last season his S% as a whole was below 10%, BTW. It was above 10% with us but below 10% with Buffalo and below 10% in the aggregate. In 2016-2017, he did have a shooting percentage above 10% for only the 2nd time in his career but in the 3 seasons prior, he was below 8%.

If he were shooting at his career shooting percentage with the rate of shots per game he has this season, and he played 82 games (he’s never done that before), he would finish with 27 goals. However, I think he’s actually over shooting and will finish with the season with a shooting percentage under 8.9%.

His average shooting percentage last season is 10.05%. So over 10% last 2 years. Lets say you're right and he ends with 8.9%, basically 9%. He's on pace for 300+ shots so that puts him at 27 goals minimum and 54 points. I don't think he finishes that low but I can live with that considering his overall game. Also for him to finish at 9% he will need to go thru a stretch where he's finishing at least 12% or better. So like I said...