Confirmed with Link: Report: Couture to sign 8-year, $8m AAV contract extension (begins for 2019/20 season)

Sharksrule04

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
3,697
1,229
New York, NY
I would pay Tavares as well, was just using a extreme example of the metrics downfalls. I also agree that all 3 guys are probably overpaid, and the contracts can be really bad if they don't age well. On the other hand, hopefully the cap keeps rising and 8M to a guy in a few years is more like 4-5M now.

I think aren't giving Vlasic enough credit at all. Sure he probably had a down year, but you could argue he was are most important player for the last 5 years (People are going to jump on me and say Burns, probably during our SCF run, but for a solid 5 year stretch). If you let Vlasic walk the entire defense that played pretty well for the most part crumbles. Best case scenario we pick up the "top" FA De Haan and deploy him with Braun ? Vlasic does so much for the other pairs by getting totally screwed on his deployment. And during his good years he thrived shutting down the NHL elites no matter how he was used. Take him off that line with or without adding someone and you have DeMelo facing top lines, Burns starting in the defensive zone, etc. Maybe we would be tanking at that point.

Kane is overpaid. The sharks struggle to score 5v5. Kane is top 15 in the NHL at scoring goals 5v5. The sharks see him filling a huge area of need, simple.

I agree with you regarding Vlasic, even after a slightly down year I'm confident saying there isn't a single player more important to this team than him. An argument could be made for Burns but I believe the Sharks would suffer more from Vlasic going down than any other player in the lineup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gaucholoco3

Barrie22

Shark fan in hiding
Aug 11, 2009
24,795
5,955
ontario
I agree with you regarding Vlasic, even after a slightly down year I'm confident saying there isn't a single player more important to this team than him. An argument could be made for Burns but I believe the Sharks would suffer more from Vlasic going down than any other player in the lineup.

I don't know. The team was horrifically bad to start the year while burns offense was non existent. Once his offense went back to being burns esque the team started to become more of a consistent winning team.
 

Used As A Shield

Registered User
Aug 10, 2011
3,948
1,198
I don't know. The team was horrifically bad to start the year while burns offense was non existent. Once his offense went back to being burns esque the team started to become more of a consistent winning team.
If I recall correctly, wasn't that when the supposed system changes took place to take what the coach liked from Vegas's system?
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
I don't know. The team was horrifically bad to start the year while burns offense was non existent. Once his offense went back to being burns esque the team started to become more of a consistent winning team.

If I recall correctly, wasn't that when the supposed system changes took place to take what the coach liked from Vegas's system?

The team had a higher points percentage before we “stole Vegas’ system”.
 

Maladroit

Registered User
May 9, 2018
980
437
Berkeley, CA
That system change did zero favors defensively for the defensemen.

I think we just don't have the defensemen to pull off that kind of system. None of our defensemen (except Heed who never plays) can pass the puck as well as Schmidt, Theodore or Miller and one of those guys is on the ice at all times for Vegas.

If DW wants to play that uptempo style to success he needs a different coach and different defensemen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeThorntonsRooster

Lebanezer

I'unno? Coast Guard?
Jul 24, 2006
14,756
10,263
San Jose
I think we just don't have the defensemen to pull off that kind of system. None of our defensemen (except Heed who never plays) can pass the puck as well as Schmidt, Theodore or Miller and one of those guys is on the ice at all times for Vegas.

If DW wants to play that uptempo style to success he needs a different coach and different defensemen.
I agree. I would go so far as to say that Deboer is terrible at evaluating talent and how it fits in his own system. Every player he’s had input on that the sharks have acquired has for the most part sucked. He then compounds that with poor lineup decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeThorntonsRooster

Maladroit

Registered User
May 9, 2018
980
437
Berkeley, CA
I agree. I would go so far as to say that Deboer is terrible at evaluating talent and how it fits in his own system. Every player he’s had input on that the sharks have acquired has for the most part sucked. He then compounds that with poor lineup decisions.

It really is remarkable. Zubrus, Spaling and Boedker are all on him right? PDB is definitely an upgrade on McLellan but he's not a good coach.
 

Jargon

Registered User
Apr 12, 2011
5,372
8,849
Venice, California
Sorry, are you suggesting that DeBoer ruined Spaling and Zubrus..? I think they did that all on their own.

Kane, Fehr, Meier, Labanc played great under him...

He has his flaws but, “boy, Spaling and a very old Zubrus sure suffered under DeBoer” is a hilarious ding on his record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helistin

Maladroit

Registered User
May 9, 2018
980
437
Berkeley, CA
Sorry, are you suggesting that DeBoer ruined Spaling and Zubrus..? I think they did that all on their own.

Kane, Fehr, Meier, Labanc played great under him...

He has his flaws but, “boy, Spaling and a very old Zubrus sure suffered under DeBoer” is a hilarious ding on his record.

No, I'm saying the Sharks brought in Spaling, Zubrus and Boedker on DeBoer's advisement since he had all of them in previous coaching gigs. They were all beyond horrible. I'm hoping Doug never listens to him on personnel decisions again.
 

Used As A Shield

Registered User
Aug 10, 2011
3,948
1,198
Sorry, are you suggesting that DeBoer ruined Spaling and Zubrus..? I think they did that all on their own.

Kane, Fehr, Meier, Labanc played great under him...

He has his flaws but, “boy, Spaling and a very old Zubrus sure suffered under DeBoer” is a hilarious ding on his record.
No, I am pretty sure he means Zubrus and Spaling and Boedker are all players DeBoer has coached before the Sharks, and had brought in knowing what type of players they were, and they seemingly do not fit his system.
 

Lebanezer

I'unno? Coast Guard?
Jul 24, 2006
14,756
10,263
San Jose
It really is remarkable. Zubrus, Spaling and Boedker are all on him right? PDB is definitely an upgrade on McLellan but he's not a good coach.
Exactly, any player that Deboer signs off on should immediately be put on a list of players you should not acquire. Deboer supposedly had issues with Hoffman which is why the Sharks didn’t keep him. So it clearly works the other way too.
 

Barrie22

Shark fan in hiding
Aug 11, 2009
24,795
5,955
ontario
Exactly, any player that Deboer signs off on should immediately be put on a list of players you should not acquire. Deboer supposedly had issues with Hoffman which is why the Sharks didn’t keep him. So it clearly works the other way too.

Thank god he did. Hoffman is a cancer. I don't care if he was the next gretzky i would not want him near this team.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
Do we have a time stamp on the system change? From what I recall, we had a better points percentage with Tim Heed in the lineup than we did without him, and I just kind of lump that together in my brain with the system change.

At any rate, our points percentage was very comparable at pretty much all points in the season after the ~20 game mark. We were always on pace for something between 95 and 105 points IIRC.

For my money, our team looked significantly better before the system change. I feel like a massively unsustainable 5V5 SH% that was mostly driven by blowouts against non-playoff teams heavily drove us to victories after the system change, while strong defensive play drove us to victories before the system change. But Thornton got injured right around the time of the system change which makes it a bit of an unfair comparison
 

Barrie22

Shark fan in hiding
Aug 11, 2009
24,795
5,955
ontario
Do we have a time stamp on the system change? From what I recall, we had a better points percentage with Tim Heed in the lineup than we did without him, and I just kind of lump that together in my brain with the system change.

At any rate, our points percentage was very comparable at pretty much all points in the season after the ~20 game mark. We were always on pace for something between 95 and 105 points IIRC.

For my money, our team looked significantly better before the system change. I feel like a massively unsustainable 5V5 SH% that was mostly driven by blowouts against non-playoff teams heavily drove us to victories after the system change, while strong defensive play drove us to victories before the system change. But Thornton got injured right around the time of the system change which makes it a bit of an unfair comparison

I am not sure. I just know the record up to december 31st was 20-11-4. 15th in the league.

After the 31st it was 25-15-6. 10th in the league.
 

Used As A Shield

Registered User
Aug 10, 2011
3,948
1,198
Early season no one could score at all, downright terrible points, but defense was tops. Seemed to tank the D with the system change to get players scoring, but I was getting livid at the defense now primarily being just stickwork instead of body position, allowing strong players to skate through the pokes and lifts leaving our players out of position with prime shots on our net.
 

Jaleel619

Registered User
Nov 16, 2016
1,217
432
SJ
Zubrus helped mentor our 4th line that year, I had never seen a 4th line outplay another teams top line until then. If we didn't run into a dynamo Pittsburgh we would have won and it would be a completely different story regarding DeBoer and everybody else. I don't think we could get a better coach atm, and if we did, I'm sure DeBoer would get another job somewhere else and beat us in the playoffs. Seriously. DeBoer wont be going anywhere, if Todd Mclellan got 7 years you can sure bet DeBoer will get more than that.
 

Mattb124

Registered User
Apr 29, 2011
6,513
3,847
Sorry, are you suggesting that DeBoer ruined Spaling and Zubrus..? I think they did that all on their own.

Kane, Fehr, Meier, Labanc played great under him...

He has his flaws but, “boy, Spaling and a very old Zubrus sure suffered under DeBoer” is a hilarious ding on his record.

Zubrus was a a virile young man until Deboer gots his hands on him and then...bam....all of a sudden he was 38 years old. You heard it here first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helistin

Barrie22

Shark fan in hiding
Aug 11, 2009
24,795
5,955
ontario
To add to the record above.

Before 2018. 91 goals for (29th in the league). 85 goals against (1st in the league).

2018 and after. 151 goals for (3rd in the league). 135 goals against (21st in the league).

19.4% pp in 2018. 84.1% pk.
22.4% pp before december 31. 86.0% pk.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
I’m working on a monster post comparing our season before and after that OTL in Vegas. I’m going to make a thread about it since it’s way too off topic for this thread for me to make such a massive post.

Here are the general conclusions though:

- Burns was terrible for the first 22 games, and gradually improved right after that game where he got his first goal. His terrible play tanked our metrics in terms of creating high danger chances and goals and suppressing high danger chances and goals.

- The main reason for the Sharks’ anemic offense in those first 22 games was their terrible on ice shooting percentage. This was partly due to Burns sucking and partly due to random variance but it was almost certainly due for a change in a positive direction.

-Every chance and shot based metric rate was much stronger before the system change. We controlled a much higher percentage of the shots and chances before the system change.

-The Sharks after the system change and without Burns on the ice had terrible metrics all around. The Sharks without Burns before the system change had strong metrics all around.

-It’s tough to say how much of this all is driven by the system change, and how much of it is driven by the regression to the mean by Burns and the absence of Tim Heed and Joe Thornton.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
15,716
4,975
They aren’t guys you toss away for nothing, and I’m not suggesting we toss them away for nothing. Not signing Kane would have got us a 1st. Trading Couture and Vlasic with one year left could have got us a pretty serious haul if they weren’t willing to sign more reasonable extensions.

I agree with much of what you wrote but also wanted to highlight this bit. You have to appreciate the bind DW/SJ was in. After all, if the Sharks had landed Tavares, they would have been much better off with Couture, Vlasic, and Kane rather than the futures they would have gotten for those players. Heck, if they had traded those players, there is no chance Tavares would have come to the Sharks in the first place.

That's the conundrum. The team is missing one huge piece. But if they get that piece, all the peripheral complementary pieces are (mostly) there and the Sharks would be primed to make a run. If they start unwinding the team, the Sharks would be "throwing in the towel".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phu

WTFetus

Marlov
Mar 12, 2009
17,904
3,558
San Francisco
I agree with much of what you wrote but also wanted to highlight this bit. You have to appreciate the bind DW/SJ was in. After all, if the Sharks had landed Tavares, they would have been much better off with Couture, Vlasic, and Kane rather than the futures they would have gotten for those players. Heck, if they had traded those players, there is no chance Tavares would have come to the Sharks in the first place.

That's the conundrum. The team is missing one huge piece. But if they get that piece, all the peripheral complementary pieces are (mostly) there and the Sharks would be primed to make a run. If they start unwinding the team, the Sharks would be "throwing in the towel".
I'm okay with Couture and can understand Vlasic, but I wouldn't have signed Kane, especially that early. We'll never truly know, but he was traded for scraps at the TDL and was injured in the playoffs, so I doubt teams were champing at the bit for him. I also don't think he'd make or break Tavares' decision, and in hindsight it did nothing.
I'd want Kane if we got Tavares. If we didn't, I could live without him.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->