Speculation: Sharks 2015-2016 Roster Talk: Rumors, Roster, Proposals. Part III ‎

[AgentCooper]

I can think of Couture and Hannan in the first round, and Couture was in the top-10 while Hannan was drafted nearly two decades ago. I guess the Sharks moved up to pick Nieto, Carle, and....Mcginn? I think Ehrhoff as well, though again, that is going back a while.

I'll add that I'll bet you'll find some examples in late rounds too.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I'll add that I'll bet you'll find some examples in late rounds too.

Nah, I don't think so. You just don't see that much success late in the draft.

Although, the Sharks do have some spectacular fails in moving up overall. From Petrecki to Bernier to Kaspar.

 

[KirbyDots]

Someone asked this of Elliotte Friedman on a Reddit AMA:

Q-Have you heard anything about the Sharks backup goalie situation or the Marleau rumors?

A-"Today's trade takes SJ close to the cap, but I do know they are trying to address the salary situation.
On Marleau, I'd guess they go for it with him this year and see how he feels after the season. He's still good, and that's a good team."

Maybe Tenny/Brown possibly gone, maybe we can still add a backup or forward upgrade?

 

[pappaf2]

I'm curious what exactly "trying to address the salary situation" will entail?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Dumping Brown for whatever most likely.

 

[do0glas]

I'm curious what exactly "trying to address the salary situation" will entail?

I see smith, brown, Tennyson as moveable. Not a lot of salary moving when you add spaling.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I can probably agree with this line of thinking.

End of the day, Kennedy wasn't a great acquisition (might have been subtraction by addition, if anything), and moving up to take Mueller isn't at all the choice I'd make in hindsight. That is two seconds the Sharks could have saved.

Actually drafting Boudreau and Mueller...I see that as the cost of doing business.

Most of their trades like this don't work out. They rarely get anything long term out of these moves or quality effectiveness out of these trades. I would say the only exception was when they traded for Ian White. But even with that, it was still short term and that was it.

I don't blame management for missing on picks outside the top ten. I applaud them when they trade back like they did in the Goldobin draft. If you're going to make these types of trades then they probably should be more willing to trade back come draft day. It's the easiest way to do it without much of a sacrifice especially with where they tend to pick. Missing on picks outside the top ten is only a problem if it becomes a habit. With Hertl and Goldobin bookending Mueller, they may be coming close to turning a corner in this aspect.

I don't want them to keep 2nds off the table as that would be ridiculous. They're good trade assets when it makes sense.

 

[sjshrky27]

Is Goodrow injured?

 

[Coily]

Is Goodrow injured?

Nope.

 

[magic school bus]

Do you think moving up to get Roy was a poor decision?

Probably, yes.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Most of their trades like this don't work out. They rarely get anything long term out of these moves or quality effectiveness out of these trades. I would say the only exception was when they traded for Ian White. But even with that, it was still short term and that was it.

The problem is is that when you make those short term moves, you are basically saying "cup or bust". That changes the calculus...most of those trades aren't going to work out by definition.

I don't blame management for missing on picks outside the top ten. I applaud them when they trade back like they did in the Goldobin draft. If you're going to make these types of trades then they probably should be more willing to trade back come draft day. It's the easiest way to do it without much of a sacrifice especially with where they tend to pick. Missing on picks outside the top ten is only a problem if it becomes a habit. With Hertl and Goldobin bookending Mueller, they may be coming close to turning a corner in this aspect.

I don't want them to keep 2nds off the table as that would be ridiculous. They're good trade assets when it makes sense.

I think this is a more balanced view that I can get on board with. Not to pick on him, but Vaasa's views are too extreme. For San Jose to draft as well as he wants, DW would need a time machine.

 

[do0glas]

The problem is is that when you make those short term moves, you are basically saying "cup or bust". That changes the calculus...most of those trades aren't going to work out by definition.



I think this is a more balanced view that I can get on board with. Not to pick on him, but Vaasa's views are too extreme. For San Jose to draft as well as he wants, DW would need a time machine.

The only way to do what he wants is to have multiple picks in every round and use the shotgun approach. The issue is that you are moving already good players to get the extra picks so then you end up in the top 5 and get a superstar and everything looks great again.

San Jose can't bear the expense of a full tank and rebuild. So Vaasa should likely find a different team .

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Do you have any examples outside of the top-10?

In the DW era, Matt Carle, Joe Pavelski (this one is arguable technically), Carter Lee (also arguable technically), Lukas Kaspar, Devin Setoguchi (although top 10), Ty Wishart, Jamie McGinn, James Delory, Logan Couture (also top 10), Nick Petrecki, Tyson Sexsmith, Justin Daniels, Samuel Groulx, Harri Sateri, Matt Nieto, Christophe Lalancette, Mirco Mueller, Julius Bergman, and Jeremy Roy.

The reason why I put someone as arguable is because one could argue it's not technically moving up if you trade a draft pick next year, even if it is up a round (a 6th next year for a 7th this year). Pavs' pick was acquired by trading a 6th rounder in 2004 for him. Same for Carter Lee but with an 8th for a 9th.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Probably, yes.

Giving up a 2nd round pick to get a player that was projected to go in the 15-30 range and can end up being a top-2 D-man was a poor decision? Is your reasoning simply that we should keep more draft picks than actually try to draft a potentially better player at a higher position? Quantity over quality?

The funny thing is that despite all that was done we still drafted 9 players last year. DW is well aware of us needing to build our prospect pool and has been working on that. My big issue with our organization is actually how they draft in the 1st round. And I am actually holding our scouts responsible for that. DW needs to hire some better ones.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

No clue why but I can imagine Galchenyuk in a Sharks jersey

I guess DW is not done yet but I don't know what else he would try to do. Unless he's trading Dillon or Martin as part of a package for a better defenseman, there isn't any top room left on defense. There are like 15 NHL caliber forwards to choose from at this point.

 

[HydroF]

No clue why but I can imagine Galchenyuk in a Sharks jersey

Well that would be nice.

 

[Jwec]

It is not Sharks related but Nucks traded Hunter Shinkaruk for Markus Granlund. What you guys would've offered for Shinkaruk?

 

[themelkman]

it is not sharks related but nucks traded hunter shinkaruk for markus granlund. What you guys would've offered for shinkaruk?

2 seconds

 

[Limekiller]

It is not Sharks related but Nucks traded Hunter Shinkaruk for Markus Granlund. What you guys would've offered for Shinkaruk?

Mirco Mueller?

 

[OrrNumber4]

The reason why I put someone as arguable is because one could argue it's not technically moving up if you trade a draft pick next year, even if it is up a round (a 6th next year for a 7th this year). Pavs' pick was acquired by trading a 6th rounder in 2004 for him. Same for Carter Lee but with an 8th for a 9th.

No, I did not count this as moving up. The Sharks lost a 6th and gained a 7th, and in two different drafts. Just like trading a player for a draft pick.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No, I did not count this as moving up. The Sharks lost a 6th and gained a 7th, and in two different drafts. Just like trading a player for a draft pick.

They paid a price later for something now. There is an argument for it being moving up.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

It is not Sharks related but Nucks traded Hunter Shinkaruk for Markus Granlund. What you guys would've offered for Shinkaruk?

Nothing. Granlund is a good player and always scores against S.J.

 

[magic school bus]

Giving up a 2nd round pick to get a player that was projected to go in the 15-30 range and can end up being a top-2 D-man was a poor decision? Is your reasoning simply that we should keep more draft picks than actually try to draft a potentially better player at a higher position? Quantity over quality?

The funny thing is that despite all that was done we still drafted 9 players last year. DW is well aware of us needing to build our prospect pool and has been working on that. My big issue with our organization is actually how they draft in the 1st round. And I am actually holding our scouts responsible for that. DW needs to hire some better ones.

Jeremy Roy aside, this type of stuff is said every year. "so and so was supposed to go X spots higher in the draft," but they didn't. The draft is mostly a crapshoot after the early part of the first, with the odds of drafting an nhl player generally going down the further into the draft you go. But they are mostly right about the picks when you think about it.

Roy was a 2nd round pick. I don't remember the exacts of the trade, but I'll put it this way: the odds of drafting an nhl player in rounds 2 and 3 is roughly equal (with the 2nd having a bit of an edge, obviously). If you had both a 2nd (~30%) and a 3rd (~25%), you'd have about the same odds as picking an nhl player between 21-30 overall (~55%). I'm willing to bet without even looking it up that we gave up more than a 3rd to move up to draft this supposed late 1st player (Roy). Now, if you really think he was supposed to go around 15th overall (which would fit into the 11-20 range //~60%) now we might be onto something, but that's assuming a lot.

I'll leave with this, if Wilson were to say pick up several 3rds for cheap then I'd say he's lowkey onto something.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Jeremy Roy aside, this type of stuff is said every year. "so and so was supposed to go X spots higher in the draft," but they didn't. The draft is mostly a crapshoot after the early part of the first, with the odds of drafting an nhl player generally going down the further into the draft you go. But they are mostly right about the picks when you think about it.

Roy was a 2nd round pick. I don't remember the exacts of the trade, but I'll put it this way: the odds of drafting an nhl player in rounds 2 and 3 is roughly equal (with the 2nd having a bit of an edge, obviously). If you had both a 2nd (~30%) and a 3rd (~25%), you'd have about the same odds as picking an nhl player between 21-30 overall (~55%). I'm willing to bet without even looking it up that we gave up more than a 3rd to move up to draft this supposed late 1st player (Roy). Now, if you really think he was supposed to go around 15th overall (which would fit into the 11-20 range //~60%) now we might be onto something, but that's assuming a lot.

I'll leave with this, if Wilson were to say pick up several 3rds for cheap then I'd say he's lowkey onto something.

It was their 2nd in 2015, a 2nd in 2016, and a 6th to move up 8 spots.

 

[magic school bus]

It was their 2nd in 2015, a 2nd in 2016, and a 6th to move up 8 spots.

Mercy. ******* hate it then. My goodness