coooldude
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2007
- 3,238
- 2,403
Yes, of course. We are where they were before they even drafted Landeskog. You're talking about 10 years from now, on our timeline.
GDT: Game 42 4pm @ Montreal start of 2nd half
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
coooldude
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2007
- 3,238
- 2,403
Honestly, yeah. I think Grier's plan is to keep it mostly the same, hope for some development from one of our 10 6/7 D's. I think he moves Ferraro for the right assets and keeps him if not.
Next year we are most likely going to be bottom 3 again. It sucks to suck.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing but less than three years after drafting Gabe they won the central division. And guess what? They didn't have to trade Eric Johnson or Tyson Barrie to get there!
And that's fine. Let them develop then without the unforced pressure of having to do too much like Mario is being asked to do. Let Mario be the lightening rod of unfair criticism because once he's gone we've all seen how quickly the fanbase can turn on someone for making a mistake.
coooldude
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2007
- 3,238
- 2,403
They won the central division, lost in the first round, and then were back into the gutter for 3 more years. They were ahead of us in the cycle at that point already and they still weren't really a contender. So it makes no sense to compare our blue line to their blue line when drafting Makar, after they had drafted Landeskog, Mackinnon, Rantanen, etc... and EVEN AFTER drafting those three critical pieces, they still sucked for a long time.
I think you're having trouble with my point because my point is not completely opposite of your point.
I like Ferraro. I think he's playing poorly. I could see us keeping him or letting him go. Your point is that you think it would be really bad for the team to let him go. But bad why? Bad because we will suck next year? We are going to suck next year. We are going to suck the year after, although hopefully not quite as bad if our youngsters and drafts are panning out.
I'm pretty sure that's part of the plan. So I'm saying, don't be so worried if we lose Ferraro. By the time we are even sniffing the playoffs, Ferraro will be 30 and likely the same player he is today, or maybe worse because he plays so hard. At best he's an EJ type. More than likely he's not material.
If you want him around because you like him and like the way he plays, totally fine. I just think it has no bearing on the rebuild.
You know what helped Colorado win the cup?
Holding onto Barrie and ultimately turning him into Kadri.
coooldude
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2007
- 3,238
- 2,403
I mean, obviously you're not going to let this one go, but so what? What really helped them win the cup was drafting Landeskog, MacKinnon, Rantanen, Jost, Makar, and Byram.
Kadri was an important complementary piece to put them over the top. I get that you're trying to equate Ferraro with the future piece that puts the Sharks over the top (or the EJ stable player that helps them in a minor part kind of way). Sure, he could be Barrie, EJ... Or he could be Ryan Wilson. We're so far out that it's impossible to speculate.
I'm not speculating he's anything more than a good lockeroom guy who's holding his own on the ice despite being asked to do more than he should be. His trade value will still be where it is 2-3 years down the road and what he can bring back now certain isn't in the category of the guys you mentioned (since they're all top 10 picks, including Jost, which seems like a weird person to include). He's 25, not 30 on the verge of a complete collapse like Pickles.
The thing about that first line of yours is that if the blue line was incompetent when EK wasn't on the ice, Ferraro is a contributor to that problem. Plus, it made sense to trade Karlsson as the best d-man on the team just like it would to trade Ferraro now. They really can't get worse in terms of this particular problem and Ferraro doesn't exactly help the issues at play. And since they're rebuilding, playing kids for experience is right in line with what they should be doing. Also, we're specifically talking about going out to sign someone to replace him so it's more trading Ferraro and signing say Gustav Forsling in his place. That makes the team better in so many ways, I don't see a convincing reason to not do it. If kids have problems in the depth portion of the lineup then you sit them for Knyzhov or Vlasic. They won't get overwhelmed. They'll just suck. I'd still prefer to play an overwhelmed kid with a chance to get better than a bad vet that won't be a positive contributor.
Ferraro's entire value is the fact that he is young and had a good season when he was 22. Of course when he is no longer considered young and gets further away from that season his value will go down.
I think you, like many here, have created their own narrative of who Mario is now and choose to focus and spotlight negative things versus positive and for that there's really not much I can do. He's 25 and you're acting like he's gonna turn 30 overnight.
Comparing an early thirties guy with major injury problems and the largest defensive contract in the league for multiple years who just had a gift season making it possible to trade him with Mario, the guy many here suggested outright cutting in the offseason and while also claiming has been one of the worst players in the league (I've seen it posted here) yet still has, from what I'm gathering, a fair amount of trade interest is simply insane to me.
The criticism here is so massive yet I guess people also want to... sell low on him? I'm so confused.
The comparison is strictly in the sense that a rebuilding team will move assets for futures regardless of their place on the team if it makes sense. We all know they're vastly different players. Mario being the best d-man on the team is by default for the most part. Ferraro should be a guy that is replaceable either through free agency or trade. And if not, the next man up is not going to do appreciably worse than the output they got going out now. If he has value that can be put towards the rebuild that is beyond a 3rd round pick return, I think it's worth moving him.
I think Ferraro would make a solid depth option for a competing team. It seems the league agrees if his value is at that level on the trade market. What do we need more? Futures or sacrificial lambs and leadership in the face of lots of losing? I think the answer is clear but I don't mind them hanging onto Ferraro to see if someone will pay a significant price like a 1st but I'd be okay with a 2nd. I know some are likely to value him higher or have a different bar to move him. That's fine.
Jargon
Registered User
Realistically, Ferraro is beloved by the team and exactly the kind of culture guy Grier likely wants in that locker room. I think he’s willing to trade anyone but it has to be something very significant, I think, to get him to move Ferraro which is why I suspect it won’t happen.
