San Jose Sharks Trade History: Best and Worst Trades of All-Time

[LastWordArmy]

The History of Trade is a mini-series going through each team’s best and worst trades of all time. Each team has their own history and some may cross over, but the series will try to stick to each team. This article will focus on the San Jose Sharks trade history, finding the best and worst of all time.

San Jose Sharks Trade History: Best and Worst Trades of All-Time - Last Word on Hockey

Click to read more...

 

[Barrie22]

I wouldn't call that the worst trade.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

Trading for Martin Havlat was pretty bad. Haven't read the article but that was the first to come to mind.

 

[SnarkAttack]

"Sturm played in 938 NHL games during his career with a total of 242 goals scored and had 245 goals scored."

Uhhh, impressive, I guess. Is that 487 goals?

 

[Barrie22]

Trading for Martin Havlat was pretty bad. Haven't read the article but that was the first to come to mind.

Worst was the owen nolan trade.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

Worst was the owen nolan trade.

And that was mentioned in the article. As a young hockey fan who got into the Sharks because of Nolan, that was a sad day.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Trading for Martin Havlat was pretty bad. Haven't read the article but that was the first to come to mind.

However bad/useless Havlat was, that trade was still a win. In fact, at the time of the trade the move was brilliant. DW should get a lot of credit for moving Heatley right before he fell off a cliff. And Havlat was a really good target. It’s just really unfortunate that he got injured the way he did. He was really effective the short time he was healthy here.

 

[Lebanezer]

Trading for Martin Havlat was pretty bad. Haven't read the article but that was the first to come to mind.

Trading one broken player for another isn’t really a bad trade. Havlat was useful for one season, Heatley was awful for the Wild the whole time he was there.

Trading Brad Boyes for Curtis Brown was a terrible trade. The Owen Nolan trade looks awful because we didn’t keep Boyes. The Ehrhoff trade was also absolutely terrible.

 

[The Nemesis]

Trading for Martin Havlat was pretty bad. Haven't read the article but that was the first to come to mind.

Havlat was acquired in exchange for Heatley. If you hold to the party line that it was not tied to the Burns trade, it was a good trade even with Havlat imploding how he did. Havlat cost $2.5m less per season than Heatley did, and those cost savings were in exchange for only one extra year on the contract (which the Sharks ended up buying out before that final year). Havlat may have produced 3 crap years for the Sharks while being severely limited by injuries, but on the flip side Heatley had 1 good year for the Wild and then cratered completely, producing Havlat-like levels for his last 2 years in Minny before a cup of coffee with the Ducks, a half-year in the AHL, and a final season spent in Germany.

Even with Heatley having a 50 point season in his first year in Minnesota I'm tempted to call that trade a wash at worst. And if you consider it a component piece of a larger Burns trade then it's still a win trading Coyle, Setoguchi, Heatley, and that 1st for Burns and Havlat.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I would think that the worst trade in Sharks history would be the Nazarov-Marchment trade that gave the Lightning the option to swap draft picks that cost the Sharks the top overall pick.

 

[Barrie22]

With the nolan trade, but isn't the narrative around that trade basically that nolan was starting to think he was bigger then the team and trying to say who he wanted on the team or who to play?

I could obviously be wrong but i thought i always heard that as part of the reasoning behind the trade.

 

[The Nemesis]

I would think that the worst trade in Sharks history would be the Nazarov-Marchment trade that gave the Lightning the option to swap draft picks that cost the Sharks the top overall pick.

Possibly on its own, but IIRC that actually ends up linking into the chain of trades that led to the Thornton deal. So maybe it worked out alright?

 

[OrrNumber4]

When it comes to traditional deals, the worst trade would be the Marchment trade where the Sharks lost the first overall pick. Or, the Brown for Boyes trade considering how Boyes turned out (though that wouldn't have happened in SJ). Other candidates: the Sharks lost Bonino in the Huskins trade; that bites. The Bill Guerin trade IMO was a horrible one because it was subtraction by addition. Kiprusoff for a 2nd was definitely a terrible trade. The Larionov trade was pretty bad.

Overall, though, the Sharks's worst picks have been pure draft pick trades. Trading up to draft Mueller, Setoguchi, Bernier, and Petrecki....especially from an opportunity cost perspective.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

When it comes to traditional deals, the worst trade would be the Marchment trade where the Sharks lost the first overall pick. Or, the Brown for Boyes trade considering how Boyes turned out (though that wouldn't have happened in SJ). Other candidates: the Sharks lost Bonino in the Huskins trade; that bites. The Bill Guerin trade IMO was a horrible one because it was subtraction by addition. Kiprusoff for a 2nd was definitely a terrible trade. The Larionov trade was pretty bad.

Overall, though, the Sharks's worst picks have been pure draft pick trades. Trading up to draft Mueller, Setoguchi, Bernier, and Petrecki....especially from an opportunity cost perspective.

I can agree with most of this but the Kiprusoff trade was not then nor now a terrible trade. It was a great trade given the context. That trade has given us many years of Marc-Edouard Vlasic for a goalie that they were going to lose for nothing at the time. I don't know why people forget those very key things just because Kiprusoff beat the Sharks in the Conference Finals one year.

 

[Led Zappa]

Toskala for Couture was nice

Don't tell me it wasn't that simple, nor a trade

 

[Juxtaposer]

I can agree with most of this but the Kiprusoff trade was not then nor now a terrible trade. It was a great trade given the context. That trade has given us many years of Marc-Edouard Vlasic for a goalie that they were going to lose for nothing at the time. I don't know why people forget those very key things just because Kiprusoff beat the Sharks in the Conference Finals one year.

The thing is, you can't say that the trade was Kiprusoff for Vlasic. At the time of the trade, no one knew Vlasic would be the pick. Nor did even the Sharks know how good he'd end up being. The trade was Kiprusoff for a 2nd, full stop.

Acting like we won the Kiprusoff trade is the same logic that lets Bruins fans claim they won the Joe Thornton trade because they won a Cup before us.

 

[PacificOceanPotion]

Not sure what we got for Bill Guerin but he wasnt all that good in SJ..

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The thing is, you can't say that the trade was Kiprusoff for Vlasic. At the time of the trade, no one knew Vlasic would be the pick. Nor did even the Sharks know how good he'd end up being. The trade was Kiprusoff for a 2nd, full stop.

Acting like we won the Kiprusoff trade is the same logic that lets Bruins fans claim they won the Joe Thornton trade because they won a Cup before us.

And the thing I would say in response is that you have to be consistent if you're going to use that logic. If I can't say what they did with that asset then you can't say what Calgary ended up with after the trade either. In that consistent form of logic, the Sharks traded a waiver eligible 3rd string goaltender that they were going to waive if it weren't for said trade and lose him for nothing for a 2nd round draft pick. That is a good trade. Now, if you want to use the consistent logic of what happens after the trade with the assets involved then you have to compare Kiprusoff in Calgary to that 2nd round pick which was Vlasic. In that form of logic, it is an even better trade. Yeah, the Flames got to the Finals over the Sharks on Kiprusoff and had a solid netminder for many years but didn't win anything at the end of it all. The Sharks have gotten 12 solid top pairing d-man years out of Vlasic for that result as well.

Secondly, it's not like the Thornton trade because they won the Cup before us. The Thornton trade was trading established hockey players whom you can track and in both realms of treating the players as they were the day of the trade, the Sharks won the deal by far. In treating the players as they became after the trade, the Sharks won the deal by far. I'm not using team success logic here. If anyone is, you are because you're putting the fact that Kipper won one series in 2004 over every other thing that is involved and it overrides all reasonable logic when that is not at all how I am making my case for this trade.

People calling this a terrible trade are tunnel visioning the fact that Kipper beat us in 2004. They're not using anything else and that is shallow and short-sighted.

 

[Juxtaposer]

And the thing I would say in response is that you have to be consistent if you're going to use that logic. If I can't say what they did with that asset then you can't say what Calgary ended up with after the trade either. In that consistent form of logic, the Sharks traded a waiver eligible 3rd string goaltender that they were going to waive if it weren't for said trade and lose him for nothing for a 2nd round draft pick. That is a good trade. Now, if you want to use the consistent logic of what happens after the trade with the assets involved then you have to compare Kiprusoff in Calgary to that 2nd round pick which was Vlasic. In that form of logic, it is an even better trade. Yeah, the Flames got to the Finals over the Sharks on Kiprusoff and had a solid netminder for many years but didn't win anything at the end of it all. The Sharks have gotten 12 solid top pairing d-man years out of Vlasic for that result as well.

Secondly, it's not like the Thornton trade because they won the Cup before us. The Thornton trade was trading established hockey players whom you can track and in both realms of treating the players as they were the day of the trade, the Sharks won the deal by far. In treating the players as they became after the trade, the Sharks won the deal by far. I'm not using team success logic here. If anyone is, you are because you're putting the fact that Kipper won one series in 2004 over every other thing that is involved and it overrides all reasonable logic when that is not at all how I am making my case for this trade.

People calling this a terrible trade are tunnel visioning the fact that Kipper beat us in 2004. They're not using anything else and that is shallow and short-sighted.

I wasn’t a Sharks fan in 2004 and I’m saying it was a bad trade. [Sharks trade Kiprusoff for a 2nd round pick] and [Sharks pick Vlasic with that 2nd round pick] are two separate events. You can’t connect them like that. The valuation by DW at the time of the trade was bad. He fixed that mistake by drafting Vlasic. But if you trade a player for a pick, you can’t judge the trade based on who the pick was used on.

Do we ever say “Martin Jones for Trent Frederic” when we talk about that trade? No! We say “Martin Jones for a 1st round pick” because that’s whatthe trade was! Was the trade a good trade because the Bruins picked Frederic, a meh prospect? Would it have been a bad trade if they’d picked Steel, DeBrincat, or Girard? No! The player drafted with the pick we traded is completely irrelevant.

 

[hockfan1991]

I wanted to keep Bonino over huskins moen

That may have been our best roster ever Presidents trophy year. We were just to beat up players were injured already in the first round. But I would like to keep Bonino

Actually I was hoping we would assign him this summer with the Space but whatever

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I wasn’t a Sharks fan in 2004 and I’m saying it was a bad trade. [Sharks trade Kiprusoff for a 2nd round pick] and [Sharks pick Vlasic with that 2nd round pick] are two separate events. You can’t connect them like that. The valuation by DW at the time of the trade was bad. He fixed that mistake by drafting Vlasic. But if you trade a player for a pick, you can’t judge the trade based on who the pick was used on.

Do we ever say “Martin Jones for Trent Frederic” when we talk about that trade? No! We say “Martin Jones for a 1st round pick” because that’s whatthe trade was! Was the trade a good trade because the Bruins picked Frederic, a meh prospect? Would it have been a bad trade if they’d picked Steel, DeBrincat, or Girard? No! The player drafted with the pick we traded is completely irrelevant.

And I'm telling you that you're wrong because you're using inconsistent logic and are completely lacking context to make such a claim. Even if you don't connect the two, it was a good trade based on the context of where the team and the players were at the time. Kiprusoff was a garbage goaltender here at the time. He was coming off of a terrible season and was beaten out by two goalies. Getting a 2nd for a 3rd string goalie is a good trade when said goalie was at risk of being waived and lost for nothing. Even if you don't base the trade off of the pick then you're saying that it was a bad valuation for a 3rd string goalie who was terrible to be dealt for a 2nd and that is just absurd.

 

[Bizz]

I wouldn't call that the worst trade.

Not even close. Tom Preissing for Mark Bell tops my list.

 

[Juxtaposer]

And I'm telling you that you're wrong because you're using inconsistent logic and are completely lacking context to make such a claim. Even if you don't connect the two, it was a good trade based on the context of where the team and the players were at the time. Kiprusoff was a garbage goaltender here at the time. He was coming off of a terrible season and was beaten out by two goalies. Getting a 2nd for a 3rd string goalie is a good trade when said goalie was at risk of being waived and lost for nothing. Even if you don't base the trade off of the pick then you're saying that it was a bad valuation for a 3rd string goalie who was terrible to be dealt for a 2nd and that is just absurd.

Oh, well if you’re telling me I’m wrong.

 

[Led Zappa]

Not even close. Tom Preissing for Mark Bell tops my list.

Except Bell led to Couture

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Oh, well if you’re telling me I’m wrong.

Oh well since you're telling me as a non-Sharks fan at the time that the trade was bad, I guess I shouldn't find it rich that you're trying to tone police me here. My reasoning is sound. If you're going to play the card that they didn't know what they were getting at the time of the trade for a 2nd round pick then you cannot claim that anyone knew that the Flames were going to get a starter or a Vezina candidate or whatever because at the time of the trade, Kiprusoff wasn't even playing and the season before was a very poor backup. They got a 2nd round pick for a 3rd string goalie, full stop. Be consistent logically is all I'm saying and your points up to now is not that.