How many successful rebuilds kept their aging stars?

[Boy Hedican]

I'm hoping some of you hockey data base nerds could give some insight as to how many of the successful rebuilds kept their aging star players. Hypothetically, if we move JT but not Marleau, would his 3 years with us be enough for our window to re-open to warrant keeping him in teal?

Click to read more...

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I'm hoping some of you hockey data base nerds could give some insight as to how many of the successful rebuilds kept their aging star players. Hypothetically, if we move JT but not Marleau, would his 3 years with us be enough for our window to re-open to warrant keeping him in teal?

Good way to get people to do the research for you is to call them nerds. lol

That all depends on what you define as a rebuild and what you define as successful. Crosby's rookie season had Lemieux playing with him. The Sharks rebuild when DW took over the job, they kept Damphousse, Ricci, and Thornton.

 

[Oppa]

I personally would've gone with "Dear Nerds"

but I'll see if I can find that list of cup winning teams somewhere

 

[Sleepy]

This year, Havlat, Burish, Kennedy, Boyle, and Stuart were the problems on the roster and the ones significantly underperforming their contracts. And if we're going to only use the playoffs as the measuring stick, Couture, Pavelski, and Hertl were just as invisible at JT and PM games 4-7.

I get the DW is frustrated as we all are, but I think he's set an expectation for roster changes at a level that will ultimately set the Sharks back.

 

[WantonAbandon]

I'm hoping some of you hockey data base nerds could give some insight as to how many of the successful rebuilds kept their aging star players. Hypothetically, if we move JT but not Marleau, would his 3 years with us be enough for our window to re-open to warrant keeping him in teal?

First you have to define rebuild. Are you talking about a playoff team that won the cup within 5 years of losing a playoff series? Off the top of my head, Boston... There are many others....

 

[SoftDumpInTheCorner]

This year, Havlat, Burish, Kennedy, Boyle, and Stuart were the problems on the roster and the ones significantly underperforming their contracts. And if we're going to only use the playoffs as the measuring stick, Couture, Pavelski, and Hertl were just as invisible at JT and PM games 4-7.

I get the DW is frustrated as we all are, but I think he's set an expectation for roster changes at a level that will ultimately set the Sharks back.

Sure the Sharks may be set back, but the question is for how long?

Right now, I can't see that roster beating LA or ANA in a 7 game series, blame the coach, goalie & forwards all you want. Its the fact that the other teams have better players than we do. Getzlaf/Perry & Doughty/Kopitar are all in or approaching the prime of their careers. Thornton/Marleau had their shot 4 or 5 years ago and they couldn't get it done.

The next question is do you fans want a quick death or a long gut bleeding death? Speaking in terms of rebuilding the team. Right now this team has two solid centers (Couture/Hertl) they can build around along with a handful of complimentary wingers (Nieto/Wingels) and a decent defense core (Vlasic/Burns/Braun/Demers) that most teams would love to have. Aside from the depth at the wing position the Sharks have quite a bit to work with to expedite a full on rebuild, that would include sending Thornton/Marleau/Pavelski for whatever they can get through trade.

Or the Sharks can bleed through the gut and keep what they have and continue to have post season disappointments. There isn't much difference in having regular season success and losing in the first round than having mediocre regular season success and losing in the first round.

 

[WantonAbandon]

Sure the Sharks may be set back, but the question is for how long?

Right now, I can't see that roster beating LA or ANA in a 7 game series, blame the coach, goalie & forwards all you want. Its the fact that the other teams have better players than we do. Getzlaf/Perry & Doughty/Kopitar are all in or approaching the prime of their careers. Thornton/Marleau had their shot 4 or 5 years ago and they couldn't get it done.

The next question is do you fans want a quick death or a long gut bleeding death? Speaking in terms of rebuilding the team. Right now this team has two solid centers (Couture/Hertl) they can build around along with a handful of complimentary wingers (Nieto/Wingels) and a decent defense core (Vlasic/Burns/Braun/Demers) that most teams would love to have. Aside from the depth at the wing position the Sharks have quite a bit to work with to expedite a full on rebuild, that would include sending Thornton/Marleau/Pavelski for whatever they can get through trade.

Or the Sharks can bleed through the gut and keep what they have and continue to have post season disappointments. There isn't much difference in having regular season success and losing in the first round than having mediocre regular season success and losing in the first round.

Their shot... The larger point remains that Marleau and Thornton are still quite valuable contracts. There would be teams willing to take them off the Sharks hands, all would have a real chance at winning the cup.

 

[Gilligans Island]

Their shot... The larger point remains that Marleau and Thornton are still quite valuable contracts. There would be teams willing to take them off the Sharks hands, all would have a real chance at winning the cup.

Your basically making a case for a quick death - I.e, trade them now.

The bleed slowly method is to hold onto them for three more years and get no value when their contracts expire

 

[SJeasy]

Your basically making a case for a quick death - I.e, trade them now.

The bleed slowly method is to hold onto them for three more years and get no value when their contracts expire

It isn't necessarily no value. They can go at the deadline in their final year a la Clowe. The question is how much greater value can the Sharks get now.

To an extent, the dollar value of their contracts decrements their hockey value because they are up there in years.

For others, the worst case is exemplified by Toronto hanging onto Sundin. They finished high enough not to get top 5 picks and got little value when he finally left. They also had the NMC issue with McCabe where it came down to the agent challenging the GM with a "Buy me out" before McCabe ultimately moved. The GM lost his job before it even halfway turned around. Toronto is a case study in how not to do it. They got too anxious and traded for players to fix things up quick rather than improve their scouting and development.

 

[Juxtaposer]

My guess would be zero.

 

[Audio Outlaw]

Marleau needs to be moved. He is too comfortable playing in San Jose.

 

[Boy Hedican]

yeah I could have been specific re: the rebuild, but since we haven't yet determined what our rebuild model will be I was leaving it open ended to people interpretation.

I use the term nerds loosely, please don't be offended by it. I work with engineers all day who I call nerds and we all have a laugh (I'm a cool nerd to them).

But back to the topic...I had thought about this all when I decided I could live with Patty staying. Actually I want Patty to stay. But I think I'm reacting on the emotional connection I have with him in teal. If we want to truly rebuild, and rebuild fast (which I think the Sharks org would want to do) then maybe we do need to cut ties with him while he has value. The analogy of dying slowly holds true in this context. But if we're moving both Patty and JT, lets not stop there. I say Pavs is equally as valuable (if not more to some GM's) as trade bait to collect future assets. I think most of us are on board with moving Nemo as well. But WHY STOP THERE? Move Raffi at the trade deadline (as much as I've enjoyed him) as well. If Burns doesn't work on D, move him too.

ya know...I think I'm warming up to an fire sale that doesn't include the familiar core pieces we've all been discussing (short of Pavs and Burns).

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Marleau needs to be moved. He is too comfortable playing in San Jose.

Yet he's the one who is more willing to waive his NMC while JT doesn't want too. That tells me Marleau still wants a cup on his résumé while Thornton is content without one.

 

[Audio Outlaw]

Yet he's the one who is more willing to waive his NMC while JT doesn't want too. That tells me Marleau still wants a cup on his résumé while Thornton is content without one.

Good point. Your probably right. I think Marleau would do better elsewhere and Jumbo would remain the same. I've seen enough of Marleau either way... Thornton on the other hand I would want to keep around.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Good point. Your probably right. I think Marleau would do better elsewhere and Jumbo would remain the same. I've seen enough of Marleau either way... Thornton on the other hand I would want to keep around.

Why? Marleau has played at a higher level than Thornton has the last few years and hasn't shown any significant signs of slowing down physically as Thornton has.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Good point. Your probably right. I think Marleau would do better elsewhere and Jumbo would remain the same. I've seen enough of Marleau either way... Thornton on the other hand I would want to keep around.

If you want the team to not change in any way from what it has been then you keep Thornton.

 

[Boy Hedican]

Yet he's the one who is more willing to waive his NMC while JT doesn't want too. That tells me Marleau still wants a cup on his résumé while Thornton is content without one.

this is all talk/speculation btw. I don't think anyone can use that as a valid talking point.

 

[stator]

Why? Marleau has played at a higher level than Thornton has the last few years and hasn't shown any significant signs of slowing down physically as Thornton has.

I agree with the preference of trading Thornton over Marleau, but many emphasis Thornton's assists and see more trade value with Marleau. Personally, I believe the assists is overrated in the NHL, and credited too easily just like MLB.

Consider the question of "What did Trevor Hoffman do for the Padres" as a comparison.... hint: Trevor was more flash than winning a championship. It's an interesting comparison to start the question on what does Joe Thornton bring to the Sharks (and have brought to the Sharks over the years)?

For me, the thought process regarding that heads to Thornton being overrated.

 

[hockeyball]

If you want the team to not change in any way from what it has been then you keep Thornton.

Yah I think that's pretty much confirmed from what Roenick said. Not that Roenick is the end all of trustworthy sources, but he's been in that locker room and we have not and he thinks exactly what i though, stripping Thornton of the captaincy and not trading him is pointless because no one will pay any attention to the new captain.

 

[SJeasy]

I agree with the preference of trading Thornton over Marleau, but many emphasis Thornton's assists and see more trade value with Marleau. Personally, I believe the assists is overrated in the NHL, and credited too easily just like MLB.

Consider the question of "What did Trevor Hoffman do for the Padres" as a comparison.... hint: Trevor was more flash than winning a championship. It's an interesting comparison to start the question on what does Joe Thornton bring to the Sharks (and have brought to the Sharks over the years)?

For me, the thought process regarding that heads to Thornton being overrated.

Playmakers are worth standings points, either forwards like JT and Datsyuk or #1 dmen like Suter and Pronger. It isn't just personal scoring stats. I don't buy the thing about JT coming to SJ and SJ being sunk without him. His Boston team wasn't going anywhere either at the time. But, the change in direction for both teams at the time gives an indication of the general trend around playmakers. Boyle was another case in point.

I am in the camp of moving JT for the right return. But I am fully aware of the consequences which will be a drop in standings points. It will be noticeable. I am also of the opinion that DW, Burke and TM will have to re-evaluate their thinking on playmakers and especially in drafting and developing them. Both blueliners and forwards. They are going to have use different criteria for some draft slots and TM will need to make some allowances for those skills that are not entirely north-south.

 

[do0glas]

A purely cosmetic change of removing Thornton and not really adding to the core would surely see a drop. We may not see the fruits of a Thornton trade for a few seasons.

Sharks may see a drop in profits, a drop in standings and may even miss the playoffs. But I've seen with other sports where the economics of a season take the front seat. You won't win, you'll be successful, have a chance but never get it done.

But it seems we might have a GM willing to stake his job on a risky approach. It would fb easy to keep everyone. Trim the fat, change some staff and start marketing it as a new team-sell the tickets and then get knocked out early. Rinse/repeat.

I don't think Thornton/Marleau can win a cup here. I think they could elsewhere though and I'd like to see that. But we need to move on.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Boston got a top-5 pick in between trading Thornton and winning a Cup.

 

[Rickety Cricket]

Boston got a top-5 pick in between trading Thornton and winning a Cup.

Technically they had 2 but Kessel was essentially traded for #2 pick.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Technically they had 2 but Kessel was essentially traded for #2 pick.

Yeah I wasn't going to count the Seguin pick because they didn't tank for it. But they were bad enough directly post-Thornton (2006) to get a top-5 pick.

 

[do0glas]

I can't see this team tanking if we keep couture, pavs, vlasic, Braun and burns but IMO uninformed as it may be we need a top 5 pick without moving couture or vlasic.