Speculation: 2021 Expansion draft

Status
Not open for further replies.

STL Shark

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
3,915
4,508
Just like a standard draft, they should pick the BPA and not worry about where they come from.
That should be the case, but is often not the case. Marketing a hometown player and generating buzz for said player is easier than not. If we protect Burns, Gambrell is not only the homegrown guy, he is also the BPA for Seattle to select from this team. So would be twofold.
 

Fistfullofbeer

Moderator
May 9, 2011
30,205
8,923
Whidbey Island, WA
That should be the case, but is often not the case. Marketing a hometown player and generating buzz for said player is easier than not. If we protect Burns, Gambrell is not only the homegrown guy, he is also the BPA for Seattle to select from this team. So would be twofold.
You are not going to get buzz out of Gambrell. Oshie sure. Johnson maybe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TomasHertlsRooster

seroes

Registered User
May 3, 2016
2,918
1,760
California
You are not going to get buzz out of Gambrell. Oshie sure. Johnson maybe.
I pretty much agree with this. Gambrell is just a dude. Not enough offensive skill to play in the top 9 and not really a grinder. He is defensively responsible though. Seattle taking him or Dahlen is the most likely option and says alot about the state of the Sharks roster.
 

Cas

Conversational Black Hole
Sponsor
Jun 23, 2020
5,241
7,347
Protecting Gambrell is just about the dumbest decision possible. He's seriously not good, and covers one of the two mandatory exposured forward slots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor Soraluce

hohosaregood

Banned
Sep 1, 2011
32,281
12,447
Just leave Simek and Gambrell unprotected. It's gonna suck if we lose one of them but they're not vitally important to the success of the team. At this point, I may want to keep Gambrell slightly more but it's not that big of a deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor Soraluce

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,610
Folsom
7 forwards, kane, couture, meier, labanc, donato, balcers, hertl. Why are we wasting assets to keep balcers and donato unprotected? Why not just protect them and let the kraken taken the player that does not move the needle either way.

I'm still on the trade Meier to get rid of Jones or Vlasic bandwagon but other than that, I'd do what you're suggesting.
 

Barrie22

Shark fan in hiding
Aug 11, 2009
24,795
5,955
ontario
I'm still on the trade Meier to get rid of Jones or Vlasic bandwagon but other than that, I'd do what you're suggesting.

This whole unprotect good players to keep others when it is not needed is how vegas picked up a bunch of good hidden gems in there expansion drafts.

Teams over thought it and tried to outsmart mcphee, but ended up back firing on all teams involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigDmitriy

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,610
Folsom
This whole unprotect good players to keep others when it is not needed is how vegas picked up a bunch of good hidden gems in there expansion drafts.

Teams over thought it and tried to outsmart mcphee, but ended up back firing on all teams involved.

Yeah it's either pay them to take a dump or protect your best and lose whatever. I don't think Jones can do anything to move me from dangling Meier to get him to go but Meier certainly could if he played at the higher level he's capable of but do it consistently. I just don't think he really wants to be here.
 

STL Shark

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
3,915
4,508
I'm still on the trade Meier to get rid of Jones or Vlasic bandwagon but other than that, I'd do what you're suggesting.
If you’re trading Meier in his prime, it’s not to get rid of Vlasic or Jones. For one, no one in the league that Vlasic would waive for can absorb taking on both of those contracts. Secondly, trading Meier signals a longer rebuild/reset meaning it’s not imperative to just offload a contract just for the sake of cap space that’s not going to get used to be competitive. You’d basically be wasting an asset in Meier to accumulate more cap space for a rebuild. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to move a top 2-3 asset in your organization for cap space during a rebuild when said asset can be used for real assets for the rebuild.

I’m not against trading Meier, but it’s got to be in a deal that nets you a sum of picks and prospects or a young center.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,610
Folsom
If you’re trading Meier in his prime, it’s not to get rid of Vlasic or Jones. For one, no one in the league that Vlasic would waive for can absorb taking on both of those contracts. Secondly, trading Meier signals a longer rebuild/reset meaning it’s not imperative to just offload a contract just for the sake of cap space that’s not going to get used to be competitive. You’d basically be wasting an asset in Meier to accumulate more cap space for a rebuild. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to move a top 2-3 asset in your organization for cap space during a rebuild when said asset can be used for real assets for the rebuild.

I’m not against trading Meier, but it’s got to be in a deal that nets you a sum of picks and prospects or a young center.

We don't really know if that's true come this offseason. And I don't think moving Meier signals anything of the sort in and of itself. This team is one point out of the playoffs as it stands. This idea that they're not going to try and be competitive needs to die. The team doesn't roll that way and they're not playing in a way where you rebuild or continue not adding where it makes sense to try and be a playoff team again. It depends on which scenario you're looking at but as far as I'm concerned, you do what you can to get rid of dead weight even if you get nothing in return because there will be options to fill the spots left behind.
 

STL Shark

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
3,915
4,508
We don't really know if that's true come this offseason. And I don't think moving Meier signals anything of the sort in and of itself. This team is one point out of the playoffs as it stands. This idea that they're not going to try and be competitive needs to die. The team doesn't roll that way and they're not playing in a way where you rebuild or continue not adding where it makes sense to try and be a playoff team again. It depends on which scenario you're looking at but as far as I'm concerned, you do what you can to get rid of dead weight even if you get nothing in return because there will be options to fill the spots left behind.
We go back to having a barren top 6 once again on a team that already struggles scoring for the past two seasons. This is still a team with a horrible goal differential that’s nowhere near being an actual contender. Even if they back into the playoffs this year in a horrible division, they’re still nowhere near the caliber of the top teams in the league and will get eviscerated in the postseason.

Take Meier away from that equation while not adding anything back and you’re much closer to being a last place team again than you are a playoff team.

Regardless, it doesn’t matter because you wouldn’t have to pay Meier to dump Jones retained 50% at his current form and a buyout isn’t all that painful on Jones compared to Vlasic. Anywhere Vlasic is willing to waive his NMC for isnt going to have the cap space to inherit $10-$13 million between the two of them so it’s a moot point.

You can’t look at everything through the lens of this season or next season when making these sorts of decisions on trades and contracts. These moves have long term repercussions and the idea of cutting dead weight immediately no matter what is short sighted and is how you get into even deeper organizational trouble because at some point you have to atone for the mistakes you made on these contracts and it all catches up to you. I can go on ad nauseam about this again, but the past few weeks have shown we’re nowhere near the same thought process on the state of the organization and cap economics so it’s not really worth anyone’s time.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,610
Folsom
We go back to having a barren top 6 once again on a team that already struggles scoring for the past two seasons. This is still a team with a horrible goal differential that’s nowhere near being an actual contender. Even if they back into the playoffs this year in a horrible division, they’re still nowhere near the caliber of the top teams in the league and will get eviscerated in the postseason.

Take Meier away from that equation while not adding anything back and you’re much closer to being a last place team again than you are a playoff team.

Regardless, it doesn’t matter because you wouldn’t have to pay Meier to dump Jones retained 50% at his current form and a buyout isn’t all that painful on Jones compared to Vlasic. Anywhere Vlasic is willing to waive his NMC for isnt going to have the cap space to inherit $10-$13 million between the two of them so it’s a moot point.

You can’t look at everything through the lens of this season or next season when making these sorts of decisions on trades and contracts. These moves have long term repercussions and the idea of cutting dead weight immediately no matter what is short sighted and is how you get into even deeper organizational trouble because at some point you have to atone for the mistakes you made on these contracts and it all catches up to you. I can go on ad nauseam about this again, but the past few weeks have shown we’re nowhere near the same thought process on the state of the organization and cap economics so it’s not really worth anyone’s time.

The idea that Meier, who has spent significant time on the 3rd line, is the difference between what we have now and a barren top six is not convincing to me. But you know damn well that when I'm suggesting such a thing, it is with the intent of using what is saved.

I agree you wouldn't have to pay Meier to dump 50% retained Jones. You're doing it to not retain on Jones at all. The Sharks, like everyone else in the league, won't retain 50% on anyone with more than one year on the deal. You're looking at 1.5 maybe 2 mil if this sort of number inflates with a cap increase.

As for Vlasic, you repeating it doesn't make the assertion true. They likely will still have to take back a contract because Vlasic even at 5.5 mil is still horrible value. Having to do that plus retain opens up the potential of getting some value back on Meier's part of the deal.

The problem here is that you either unwittingly or intentionally try to pigeonhole these discussions into what you want it to be and argue against that. You are dead set on the rebuild argument even though I've never made any such determination myself and the team is unlikely to go that route. Until you get past your false premises and unwarranted preconceived notions of what you think the team needs to do, you'll continue to misrepresent what I'm saying.
 

STL Shark

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
3,915
4,508
The idea that Meier, who has spent significant time on the 3rd line, is the difference between what we have now and a barren top six is not convincing to me. But you know damn well that when I'm suggesting such a thing, it is with the intent of using what is saved.

I agree you wouldn't have to pay Meier to dump 50% retained Jones. You're doing it to not retain on Jones at all. The Sharks, like everyone else in the league, won't retain 50% on anyone with more than one year on the deal. You're looking at 1.5 maybe 2 mil if this sort of number inflates with a cap increase.

As for Vlasic, you repeating it doesn't make the assertion true. They likely will still have to take back a contract because Vlasic even at 5.5 mil is still horrible value. Having to do that plus retain opens up the potential of getting some value back on Meier's part of the deal.

The problem here is that you either unwittingly or intentionally try to pigeonhole these discussions into what you want it to be and argue against that. You are dead set on the rebuild argument even though I've never made any such determination myself and the team is unlikely to go that route. Until you get past your false premises and unwarranted preconceived notions of what you think the team needs to do, you'll continue to misrepresent what I'm saying.
So acknowledging that no team is going to retain 50% for multiple years on Jones or anyone else (I tend to agree with that though these are unprecedented times with the cap), why would it then be a good idea to pay on a buyout for Vlasic for 10 years? Even taking out the idea of the team not being ready to really contend factor that we don't agree on, you have to see how saying we won't/shouldn't retain 50% on Jones for 3 years and then suggesting we buyout Vlasic and pay that cost for 10 years is counterintuitive, right? How is it a better idea to payout Vlasic's buyout for 10 years (3 of which are greater than 50% of his cap hit) than it is to retain 50% on Jones for 3 years?

It's not that I disagree with everything, it's the flip flopping and lack of cohesion in your stance on how to approach the salary cap situation doesn't make sense. There are options to rid the team of cap space like trading Jones at 50% and trying to get Burns to Seattle that are so much less penal than paying Vlasic for 10 years or trading Timo Meier to someone to take one of those deals, but you're insistent that we should take the scorched earth actions that are most penal and detrimental to the long-term success of the org. That's where I disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor Soraluce

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,610
Folsom
So acknowledging that no team is going to retain 50% for multiple years on Jones or anyone else (I tend to agree with that though these are unprecedented times with the cap), why would it then be a good idea to pay on a buyout for Vlasic for 10 years? Even taking out the idea of the team not being ready to really contend factor that we don't agree on, you have to see how saying we won't/shouldn't retain 50% on Jones for 3 years and then suggesting we buyout Vlasic and pay that cost for 10 years is counterintuitive, right? How is it a better idea to payout Vlasic's buyout for 10 years (3 of which are greater than 50% of his cap hit) than it is to retain 50% on Jones for 3 years?

It's not that I disagree with everything, it's the flip flopping and lack of cohesion in your stance on how to approach the salary cap situation doesn't make sense. There are options to rid the team of cap space like trading Jones at 50% and trying to get Burns to Seattle that are so much less penal than paying Vlasic for 10 years or trading Timo Meier to someone to take one of those deals, but you're insistent that we should take the scorched earth actions that are most penal and detrimental to the long-term success of the org. That's where I disagree.

The Vlasic buyout is only to be done if there are no trade alternatives anyone is willing to accept. And no I don't see how two different situations with two different sets of options and consequences are counterintuitive. There's no cohesion to you because you're not acknowledging that there are numerous options potentially on the table to go with. I don't make the decisions but I don't insist that they go scorched earth because I don't view losing Meier nor buying out Vlasic as scorched earth. I think that's overly hyperbolic. Understanding that those options could and should be on the table doesn't mean that they couldn't find a deal for Jones and Vlasic that's better. If they can then great but I'm willing to pay these prices to move those two for different reasons. I can see the Sharks moving Vlasic to Montreal at 5.5 for Byron and Chiarot. I can see the Sharks keeping Jones another year after his current performance. I wouldn't but I understand that there's a difference between what I'd do and what the team is going to do.

You exaggerate the consequences of a couple options I've suggested and act like I'm all about that when I'm not.
 

Herschel

Registered User
Dec 8, 2009
1,353
402
The Vlasic buyout is only to be done if there are no trade alternatives anyone is willing to accept. And no I don't see how two different situations with two different sets of options and consequences are counterintuitive. There's no cohesion to you because you're not acknowledging that there are numerous options potentially on the table to go with. I don't make the decisions but I don't insist that they go scorched earth because I don't view losing Meier nor buying out Vlasic as scorched earth. I think that's overly hyperbolic. Understanding that those options could and should be on the table doesn't mean that they couldn't find a deal for Jones and Vlasic that's better. If they can then great but I'm willing to pay these prices to move those two for different reasons. I can see the Sharks moving Vlasic to Montreal at 5.5 for Byron and Chiarot. I can see the Sharks keeping Jones another year after his current performance. I wouldn't but I understand that there's a difference between what I'd do and what the team is going to do.

You exaggerate the consequences of a couple options I've suggested and act like I'm all about that when I'm not.

I am curious if you feel Vlasic playing on the 3rd pairing is holding someone back or if you feel he is no longer an NHL-level defenseman? His numbers since moving down to the third pair have been good and IMO so has the eye test.
 

Herschel

Registered User
Dec 8, 2009
1,353
402
The Vlasic buyout is only to be done if there are no trade alternatives anyone is willing to accept. And no I don't see how two different situations with two different sets of options and consequences are counterintuitive. There's no cohesion to you because you're not acknowledging that there are numerous options potentially on the table to go with. I don't make the decisions but I don't insist that they go scorched earth because I don't view losing Meier nor buying out Vlasic as scorched earth. I think that's overly hyperbolic. Understanding that those options could and should be on the table doesn't mean that they couldn't find a deal for Jones and Vlasic that's better. If they can then great but I'm willing to pay these prices to move those two for different reasons. I can see the Sharks moving Vlasic to Montreal at 5.5 for Byron and Chiarot. I can see the Sharks keeping Jones another year after his current performance. I wouldn't but I understand that there's a difference between what I'd do and what the team is going to do.

You exaggerate the consequences of a couple options I've suggested and act like I'm all about that when I'm not.

I am curious if you feel Vlasic playing on the 3rd pairing is holding someone back or if you feel he is no longer an NHL-level defenseman? His numbers since moving down to the third pair have been good and IMO so has the eye test.
 

tealzamboni

Registered User
Mar 3, 2007
1,816
1,226
You are not going to get buzz out of Gambrell. Oshie sure. Johnson maybe.

I was trying to think of a counterpoint here, but then I realized I forgot that Sharks prospect or two who apparently once played for the junior sharks.
And I also realized how easy it was for Randy to hype Nieto/Chmelevski as if they're basically from the bay area.

I assume the Kraken will try establish its fanbase in the general Pacific Northwest region, so they could always play up some BC/Western Canada players too. Or simply find a core player who's a good ambassador to the city.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,610
Folsom
I am curious if you feel Vlasic playing on the 3rd pairing is holding someone back or if you feel he is no longer an NHL-level defenseman? His numbers since moving down to the third pair have been good and IMO so has the eye test.

I don't think he's holding anyone in particular back but given that his role is now almost definitively an extremely sheltered 3rd pairing role, I think they have ample players to fill that role at a much cheaper cost. There's also typically a lot of depth d-men available in free agency that would be cheap if this past off-season holds true to this one as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->