Speculation: Next head coach of the San Jose Sharks

[DG93]

Which vacant NHL head coaching job is most appealing?

With 24 of the NHL's 32 teams in offseason mode, the coaching carousel is starting to spin. On Tuesday alone the St. Louis Blues removed the interim tag from Drew Bannister and the Ottawa Senators tabbed Travis Green as their next head coach. The Buffalo Sabres brought back Lindy Ruff in...

www.thescore.com

Sharks ranked worst HC job of those open

The only thing that makes this the worst HC job is that there is the risk of being replaced when the team is ready to start pushing for the playoffs in 2-3 years.

 

[Star Platinum]

The only thing that makes this the worst HC job is that there is the risk of being replaced when the team is ready to start pushing for the playoffs in 2-3 years.

Yeah, but not like that's insignificant when you look at head coach turnover in the NHL, which has always been inexplicably crazy to me. Coaches get scapegoated constantly in this sport.

 

[Lebanezer]

Yeah, but not like that's insignificant when you look at head coach turnover in the NHL, which has always been inexplicably crazy to me. Coaches get scapegoated constantly in this sport.

GMs need someone to blame when they sink 80% of their cap space on 5 or 6 guys.

 

[StreetHawk]

The only thing that makes this the worst HC job is that there is the risk of being replaced when the team is ready to start pushing for the playoffs in 2-3 years.

If a candidate has options, going to be hard to convince that person to take the SJ job given the likelihood of 2 more bottom 5-7 finishes ahead in the next 2 seasons. 30 points was the difference between SJ and Montreal, who holds pick #5. So, that's a lot of points to make up.

That just puts some context into expectations for the Sharks the next 2 seasons. How are they going to make up that difference?

 

[ChompChomp]

If a candidate has options, going to be hard to convince that person to take the SJ job given the likelihood of 2 more bottom 5-7 finishes ahead in the next 2 seasons. 30 points was the difference between SJ and Montreal, who holds pick #5. So, that's a lot of points to make up.

That just puts some context into expectations for the Sharks the next 2 seasons. How are they going to make up that difference?

All the more reason the HC should be (and I still think will be) Ryan Warsofsky. Warsofsky is the kind of guy that isn't going to have any qualms with this. I also think you give him a 5 year contract.

Let's say next 3 seasons the Sharks year over year improve by 10 points in the standings, so Warsofsky's year 3 they are a 70-80 point team. In that case, they wouldn't necessarily want to move on from Warsofsky, but rather would still want him under contract rather than him being poached. (At that point, the league will look at Warsofsky as the next Jon Cooper for sure)

That's what is exciting about the Sharks HC job, especially to someone like Warsofsky. You lead the Sharks to year over year improvements in your tenure, and you are a made man in terms of an NHL HC career, because that kind of "success" will get you several HC jobs in the future before you sputter out.

 

[Hodge]

All the more reason the HC should be (and I still think will be) Ryan Warsofsky. Warsofsky is the kind of guy that isn't going to have any qualms with this. I also think you give him a 5 year contract.

Let's say next 3 seasons the Sharks year over year improve by 10 points in the standings, so Warsofsky's year 3 they are a 70-80 point team. In that case, they wouldn't necessarily want to move on from Warsofsky, but rather would still want him under contract rather than him being poached. (At that point, the league will look at Warsofsky as the next Jon Cooper for sure)

That's what is exciting about the Sharks HC job, especially to someone like Warsofsky. You lead the Sharks to year over year improvements in your tenure, and you are a made man in terms of an NHL HC career, because that kind of "success" will get you several HC jobs in the future before you sputter out.

Are you Warsofsky's agent or something? This level of obsession over some random guy is nuts.

5 year contract

 

[TheBeard]

I never thought I'd say this but it really would have been in the team's best interest if Quinn stuck around for one more year.

 

[one2gamble]

I never thought I'd say this but it really would have been in the team's best interest if Quinn stuck around for one more year.

I still feel like there was something more there than the performance of the team

 

[TheBeard]

I still feel like there was something more there than the performance of the team

100% there was, but it would have made things easier. I honestly feel like this with Quinn’s decision more than the team “deciding” to go in another direction.

 

[LadyStanley]

Nothing breaking about Sharks opening

 

[matt trick]

ChompChomp's post inspired me to look into what's a reasonable two-year trajectory. Looking for a three year trajectory is pretty tough because we get into the two covid years.

Standings (not lottery finishes) the past 5 years (bottom 10, bottom 5, bottom 3):

1. Chicago (3, 2, 2)- got franchise C
2. Montreal (3, 3, 1)
3. San Jose (3, 2, 1) - got franchise C
4. Arizona (3, 1, 1)
5. Anaheim (2, 2, 2)- got #1 C (maybe 2)
6. Seattle (2, 1, 1)- maybe got #1 C
7. Columbus (2, 2, 1) - got #1C
8. Philly (2, 1, 0)
9. New Jersey (2, 1, 0)*
10. Ottawa (2, 0, 0)
11. Detroit (2, 0, 0)
12. Calgary (1, 0, 0)
13. St. Louis (1, 0, 0)

*Won Nemec lottery

Largest point improvements year over year from the bottom 5:

• New Jersey: 24 points
• Seattle: 21 points
• Philly: 14 points
• Arizona: 13 points

Largest two-year point improvement from the bottom 3:

• Philly: 26 points
• Seattle: 21 points
• Arizona: 20 points
• NJD: 18 points (lol, somehow regressed with their talent...)

We were 8/12 points worse than the last place finisher the past two years. Maybe it's reasonable to think that SJ can exceed Montreal's 21 point improvement on a two year horizon and get to 70 points in two years, given the worse stating point. That'd be somewhere in the 5-8 range. Of course given the lesser starting point, perhaps the argument is, well, it'll actually be more difficult.

Grier's got a clean cap, and maybe a bit more young talent than some of other squads above. That said, I'd argue the talent is similar to Chicago and Anaheim/Columbus (a bit more loaded tbh), though they have another year in the post franchise center acquisition timeline before they hit the 2 year mark.

Pretty safe bet we're picking top 5 each of the next two years. Given Hagens and McKenna-not to mention the need for an elite d- not the worst thing in the world. If Grier gets the team to 7th in two years, before getting to the middle of table, I think that'd be a win. Tanking for two more years would definitely suck, but it's probably most realistic, and would hopefully give two more elite prospects. Hasso may disagree, and Grier may believe (probably rightly) that if he doesn't get the team to improve by 30-40 points in two years, he's gone. Not sure Grier can be that patient.

7 straights years of bottom six is pretty brutal, but only Eklund/Zetterlund would have experienced 3 of those years. This means the losing culture for the players is maybe not quite so damning, as two of those years will have the introduction of new faces of the franchise, followed by the introduction of several other high-upside youngsters- say Nygard, Hensler, Musty, Muk, and Vegas' 1st.

Don't think it's the Oilers experience of drafting you're supposed franchise player (Hall), and then proceeding to draft 1, 1, 7, 3, 1, 4 in the subsequent six years.

 

[gaucholoco3]

ChompChomp's post inspired me to look into what's a reasonable two-year trajectory. Looking for a three year trajectory is pretty tough because we get into the two covid years.

Standings (not lottery finishes) the past 5 years (bottom 10, bottom 5, bottom 3):

1. Chicago (3, 2, 2)- got franchise C
2. Montreal (3, 3, 1)
3. San Jose (3, 2, 1) - got franchise C
4. Arizona (3, 1, 1)
5. Anaheim (2, 2, 2)- got #1 C (maybe 2)
6. Seattle (2, 1, 1)- maybe got #1 C
7. Columbus (2, 2, 1) - got #1C
8. Philly (2, 1, 0)
9. New Jersey (2, 1, 0)*
10. Ottawa (2, 0, 0)
11. Detroit (2, 0, 0)
12. Calgary (1, 0, 0)
13. St. Louis (1, 0, 0)

*Won Nemec lottery

Largest point improvements year over year from the bottom 5:

• New Jersey: 24 points
• Seattle: 21 points
• Philly: 14 points
• Arizona: 13 points

Largest two-year point improvement from the bottom 3:

• Philly: 26 points
• Seattle: 21 points
• Arizona: 20 points
• NJD: 18 points (lol, somehow regressed with their talent...)

We were 8/12 points worse than the last place finisher the past two years. Maybe it's reasonable to think that SJ can exceed Montreal's 21 point improvement on a two year horizon and get to 70 points in two years, given the worse stating point. That'd be somewhere in the 5-8 range. Of course given the lesser starting point, perhaps the argument is, well, it'll actually be more difficult.

Grier's got a clean cap, and maybe a bit more young talent than some of other squads above. That said, I'd argue the talent is similar to Chicago and Anaheim/Columbus (a bit more loaded tbh), though they have another year in the post franchise center acquisition timeline before they hit the 2 year mark.

Pretty safe bet we're picking top 5 each of the next two years. Given Hagens and McKenna-not to mention the need for an elite d- not the worst thing in the world. If Grier gets the team to 7th in two years, before getting to the middle of table, I think that'd be a win. Tanking for two more years would definitely suck, but it's probably most realistic, and would hopefully give two more elite prospects. Hasso may disagree, and Grier may believe (probably rightly) that if he doesn't get the team to improve by 30-40 points in two years, he's gone. Not sure Grier can be that patient.

7 straights years of bottom six is pretty brutal, but only Eklund/Zetterlund would have experienced 3 of those years. This means the losing culture for the players is maybe not quite so damning, as two of those years will have the introduction of new faces of the franchise, followed by the introduction of several other high-upside youngsters- say Nygard, Hensler, Musty, Muk, and Vegas' 1st.

Don't think it's the Oilers experience of drafting you're supposed franchise player (Hall), and then proceeding to draft 1, 1, 7, 3, 1, 4 in the subsequent six years.

One thing to keep in mind is that this team was constructed last minute due to Dubas dragging out the EK trade. This prevented Grier from finding a PMD since by that point none were available. He tried mid season at a Hail Mary with Addison but that didn’t work out.

Also this team as it was constructed was better than their point total. They only played 22 games with 3 of Hertl, Couture, Granlund, and Sturm. Of those 22 they won 11 of them. They were decimated by injuries at a level that is more than a typical year.

This team as constructed was probably closer to 60 points. Still bad but not in the worst of the cap era conversation. So when everyone says they have to improve 19 points to be level with MTL it is missing a lot of context. I would argue that a 47 point season is a 5-10% worst case outcome if this season played out multiple times.

This is still a bad team and needs to have better Center depth to survive injuries and roster at least one top 4 defenseman which they didn’t last year. With Celebrini, Smith, and 2-3 actual NHL UFA’s (not Hoffman level) it is not to hard to envision this team reaching 80-85 points. Which is in line with a 20 point improvement on their median expectation last season.

 

[LadyStanley]

Demers and Brodie talk about Sharks future. What kind of coach is needed? What parts might the team need/have put together the next few years.

 

[The Nemesis]

All the more reason the HC should be (and I still think will be) Ryan Warsofsky. Warsofsky is the kind of guy that isn't going to have any qualms with this. I also think you give him a 5 year contract.

Let's say next 3 seasons the Sharks year over year improve by 10 points in the standings, so Warsofsky's year 3 they are a 70-80 point team. In that case, they wouldn't necessarily want to move on from Warsofsky, but rather would still want him under contract rather than him being poached. (At that point, the league will look at Warsofsky as the next Jon Cooper for sure)

That's what is exciting about the Sharks HC job, especially to someone like Warsofsky. You lead the Sharks to year over year improvements in your tenure, and you are a made man in terms of an NHL HC career, because that kind of "success" will get you several HC jobs in the future before you sputter out.

Hey, how's Mike Haviland working out for you?

 

[OrrNumber4]

One thing to keep in mind is that this team was constructed last minute due to Dubas dragging out the EK trade. This prevented Grier from finding a PMD since by that point none were available. He tried mid season at a Hail Mary with Addison but that didn’t work out.

Excellent observation. Grier will almost assuredly target PMDs in the off-season. I feel like Reilly or Karlsson could be great buy-low opportunities.

 

[Jargon]

Excellent observation. Grier will almost assuredly target PMDs in the off-season. I feel like Reilly or Karlsson could be great buy-low opportunities.

I… don’t think there’s a world where Karlsson comes back to the Sharks, I think that particular boat has sailed.

But I have to imagine with Celebrini, Grier’s #1 goal through the draft and summer is to improve both the NHL team’s defense and the defensive prospect pool as a whole, so I expect him to be pursuing FA and trades aggressively.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I… don’t think there’s a world where Karlsson comes back to the Sharks, I think that particular boat has sailed.

But I have to imagine with Celebrini, Grier’s #1 goal through the draft and summer is to improve both the NHL team’s defense and the defensive prospect pool as a whole, so I expect him to be pursuing FA and trades aggressively.

It would be odd, and unusual...but we know he fits on the team, and he'd be the queen bee of the defense again.

 

[Hodge]

We just got rid of the f***ing loser. I never want to watch Erik Karlsson play "defense" again.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

I’m like 110% confident in saying Karlsson has no interest in playing for the Sharks in the immediate future, Dubas no interest in trading Karlsson for any sort of return the Sharks should be paying, and Grier no interest in acquiring a player he likely spent the first half of his tenure trying to move on from.

I really enjoyed watching Karlsson play for the Sharks. He’s a fantastic electrifying player when he’s on. But his time is coming to an end. Grier and the Sharks should be focused on building for the future and finding the leader of the defensive core for the next decade.

Lastly, after the string of Boyle, Burns, and Karlsson and I’d really love to see Grier and the org build around a more complete all-situations dman, surrounding them with a physical, mobile, two-way oriented corps.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I’m like 110% confident in saying Karlsson has no interest in playing for the Sharks in the immediate future, Dubas no interest in trading Karlsson for any sort of return the Sharks should be paying, and Grier no interest in acquiring a player he likely spent the first half of his tenure trying to move on from.

I really enjoyed watching Karlsson play for the Sharks. He’s a fantastic electrifying player when he’s on. But his time is coming to an end. Grier and the Sharks should be focused on building for the future and finding the leader of the defensive core for the next decade.

Lastly, after the string of Boyle, Burns, and Karlsson and I’d really love to see Grier and the org build around a more complete all-situations dman, surrounding him with a physical, mobile, two-way oriented corps.

I completely agree that it is never going to happen, I just think if EK was a UFA people would be advocating signing him to a 3x10 contract which is the exact contract he will be on with Pittsburgh.

How is that deal any different than paying Stamkos 3x10. Plus the Sharks need a PMD more than any other position right now including scoring wingers.

If Dubas offered EK back for a 7th round pick I would take that. There is no need for cap space for 3 years while Smith and Celebrini are on their ELC’s. It won’t matter if he prevents the tank since Celebrini has arrived and the goal is to improve.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

I completely agree that it is never going to happen, I just think if EK was a UFA people would be advocating signing him to a 3x10 contract which is the exact contract he will be on with Pittsburgh.

How is that deal any different than paying Stamkos 3x10. Plus the Sharks need a PMD more than any other position right now including scoring wingers.

If Dubas offered EK back for a 7th round pick I would take that. There is no need for cap space for 3 years while Smith and Celebrini are on their ELC’s. It won’t matter if he prevents the tank since Celebrini has arrived and the goal is to improve.

It’s a good point about the 3x10 contract. I did a double take as I’m one of those advocating the pursuit of Stamkos on a similar (if not even slightly bigger) contract.

For me it’s about turning the page to the next generation. I feel like bringing in Stamkos is adding some much needed scoring, a solid trigger man for our young forwards to feed, and a former #1 overall pick who’s got a perspective on what that means and how to navigate that. The investment is in providing some insulation and guidance to two high-pedigree future franchise corner stones.

Retreading Karlsson, while surely improving the puck moving capabilities of exactly one defensive pairing, does nothing to help overall team defense (yes, if the puck is in the offensive zone it’s not in the defensive zone. But you know what I mean). But beyond the optics and baggage of walking back such a significant separation of player and team, I think the temptation to run the offense through Karlsson would be too great, and not all that helpful in building for when Karlsson is done and gone. Not that I’d underline it too heavily, but just look at the difference in productivity of the Sharks’ defensive corps post Karlsson. Not that this group should have been expected to make huge strides, but literally no one seemingly was made better for having spent a year feeding the EK65 oriented offense.

Lastly, I just really don’t think having your marquee defensemen be a guy you’re thinking twice about putting on the ice in the last minutes to protect a one goal lead is the way to kickoff the upswing of a rebuild.

 

[gaucholoco3]

It’s a good point about the 3x10 contract. I did a double take as I’m one of those advocating the pursuit of Stamkos on a similar (if not even slightly bigger) contract.

For me it’s about turning the page to the next generation. I feel like bringing in Stamkos is adding some much needed scoring, a solid trigger man for our young forwards to feed, and a former #1 overall pick who’s got a perspective on what that means and how to navigate that. The investment is in providing some insulation and guidance to two high-pedigree future franchise corner stones.

Retreading Karlsson, while surely improving the puck moving capabilities of exactly one defensive pairing, does nothing to help overall team defense (yes, if the puck is in the offensive zone it’s not in the defensive zone. But you know what I mean). But beyond the optics and baggage of walking back such a significant separation of player and team, I think the temptation to run the offense through Karlsson would be too great, and not all that helpful in building for when Karlsson is done and gone. Not that I’d underline it too heavily, but just look at the difference in productivity of the Sharks’ defensive corps post Karlsson. Seemingly no one’s game was improved for having spent the previous couple of years playing alongside EK65. Not that this group should have been expected to make huge strides, but literally no one seemingly was made better for having spent a year feeding the EK65 oriented offense.

Lastly, I just really don’t think having your marquee defensemen be a guy you’re thinking twice about putting on the ice in the last minutes to protect a one goal lead is the way to kickoff the upswing of a rebuild.

I agree that EK is not the best fit but it is amazing what winning the lottery will do as now the EK contract is no longer the issue.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I agree that EK is not the best fit but it is amazing what winning the lottery will do as now the EK contract is no longer the issue.

I'd trade for Karlsson if we're able to send Vlasic out as part of it.

 

[sharski]

can't lie, i'm somewhat interested in running back the 3-Headed Monster of EK65, Burns and Vlasic just for the lulz

but in all srsness, i think GMMG should def be all in on Stamkos this offseason... if he signed w/ the Sharks AND Celebrini AND Smith both decide to play here next season... madre de dios

 

[pappaf2]

I personally have zero interest in seeing EK65 back with the sharks. I’d much sooner having Burns back if the team wants to rehash one of them.