Rumor: Sharks GM Doug Wilson looking desperately to get a first for rebuild mode

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
I told Sharks fans they needed to package Kane/Hertl. I've had the pulse of their team for a decade. Hertl is out for the year and who knows if he will ever be the same. Thornton and Marleau probably gone after this year. Burns/Karlsson contracts. No goalie. Couture always hurt. It's beyond repairable at this point. I gave them their last chance.. Package Kane/Hertl. Balance out your lines and get a franchise goalie. But now? They aren't seeing a Cup for a decade +.

If you can actually predict when players will get injured, you should stop posting this on an internet forum and you should start making bets. You'll be too rich to be salty about people disagreeing with you on an internet forum.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
If the Sharks went full rebuild, it would take anywhere from 5-10 years.

This is because they aren't going to get anywhere near full value from dealing whoever in their current core would be willing to go. The trade clauses are too restrictive.

Look at the Senators, they are already pretty much three years into a rebuild and they are still a bottom feeder. It's a similar scenario, but I doubt the Sharks will get as much for their core as the Senators did, and that's even with the mis-steps the Senators made along the way.

The only way I can see the Sharks pulling off a rebuild would be clearing the deck by getting the best offers for Karlsson, Burns, Couture, Vlasic, Kane, etc (which will all be soft offers because of NTC issues), and then loading up with assets through taking on bad money/finishing low enough in the draft to get top end talent.

There could be an argument made that Kane/Karlsson/Couture are young enough to keep around for a 5 year rebuild. That the Sharks could try to move on from the other older core players and keep those three along with Lebanc, Hertl, and Meier. But that would be contingent on those players wanting to stay through a rebuild. The Sharks obviously wouldn't have to trade them, but teams rarely like keeping players around who don't agree with the organizational goal. There would also be the downside that the Sharks probably end up in that middle ground where they aren't bad enough to get a good shot at top end talent, but aren't good enough to be a contender or consistently make the playoffs. At that point, that's more of a re-tool than a rebuild.

I think it's important to make a distinction here between "value".

So, first and foremost, there's "market value", which is what another team would be willing to pay. I totally agree with you that the Sharks probably wouldn't get full market value for guys like Burns because the trade protection limits his value.

However, there's also "intrinsic value", which is a totally different thing. There's a solid argument to be made that intrinsic value on Burns' contract has been a negative thus far, and it is almost certainly going to be a negative going forward. Just trading Burns for absolutely nothing is trading him for far more than he is worth, in terms of intrinsic value.

I'm using Burns as an example because he's kind of in between both ends of the spectrum in that he probably does have positive market value around the league, but he also legitimately sucks this season and probably won't play up to his contract going forward. But, based on what we hear from GMs, coaches, and players around the league, as well as Norris voters I'm almost certain that his market value right now is still pretty high. Even if the Sharks can't get full market value for Burns due to his restrictive clause, they will almost certainly get something that blows his intrinsic value out of the water.

However, most of everything I just said here applies to all of the big contract guys to some varying degree. I think that the intrinsic value on every single one of the Vlasic, Couture, Karlsson, Kane, and Jones contracts is negative, given how those players have performed this season and given how NHL players naturally age. So, if you trade them all right now, you might get significantly less than market value due to the restrictive trade clauses. But, just by removing these contracts from the organization, even if you get nothing return, I think you improve the intrinsic value of the assets in the organization. And again, I think that market value for these guys is so screwed up that even after it their market values are slashed by their trade clauses, it is still going to be so much higher than their intrinsic value.

There's an argument to be made that one or two of these specific contracts will have mild positive intrinsic value going forward, especially if the team can rebound and become a contender again by years 3-4 of Karlsson's deal, but as a whole, I don't think you can make an honest, unbiased argument that those 5 contracts as a whole will have positive intrinsic value. I mean, going forward at the start of the 2020-2021 season, you will be paying $253.5M for:

- 7 years of Erik Karlsson
- 5 years of Evander Kane
- 5 years of Brent Burns
- 7 years of Logan Couture
- 6 years of Marc-Edouard Vlasic

There is no chance in hell that you are getting your money's worth out of that group of 5 as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthProbert

Hookslide

Registered User
Nov 19, 2018
3,908
3,190
I think it's important to make a distinction here between "value".

So, first and foremost, there's "market value", which is what another team would be willing to pay. I totally agree with you that the Sharks probably wouldn't get full market value for guys like Burns because the trade protection limits his value.

However, there's also "intrinsic value", which is a totally different thing. There's a solid argument to be made that intrinsic value on Burns' contract has been a negative thus far, and it is almost certainly going to be a negative going forward. Just trading Burns for absolutely nothing is trading him for far more than he is worth, in terms of intrinsic value.

I'm using Burns as an example because he's kind of in between both ends of the spectrum in that he probably does have positive market value around the league, but he also legitimately sucks this season and probably won't play up to his contract going forward. But, based on what we hear from GMs, coaches, and players around the league, as well as Norris voters I'm almost certain that his market value right now is still pretty high. Even if the Sharks can't get full market value for Burns due to his restrictive clause, they will almost certainly get something that blows his intrinsic value out of the water.

However, most of everything I just said here applies to all of the big contract guys to some varying degree. I think that the intrinsic value on every single one of the Vlasic, Couture, Karlsson, Kane, and Jones contracts is negative, given how those players have performed this season and given how NHL players naturally age. So, if you trade them all right now, you might get significantly less than market value due to the restrictive trade clauses. But, just by removing these contracts from the organization, even if you get nothing return, I think you improve the intrinsic value of the assets in the organization. And again, I think that market value for these guys is so screwed up that even after it their market values are slashed by their trade clauses, it is still going to be so much higher than their intrinsic value.

There's an argument to be made that one or two of these specific contracts will have mild positive intrinsic value going forward, especially if the team can rebound and become a contender again by years 3-4 of Karlsson's deal, but as a whole, I don't think you can make an honest, unbiased argument that those 5 contracts as a whole will have positive intrinsic value. I mean, going forward at the start of the 2020-2021 season, you will be paying $253.5M for:

- 7 years of Erik Karlsson
- 5 years of Evander Kane
- 5 years of Brent Burns
- 7 years of Logan Couture
- 6 years of Marc-Edouard Vlasic

There is no chance in hell that you are getting your money's worth out of that group of 5 as a whole.
Wow !! those are pretty sad contracts to be saddled with going forward and trying to rebuild.......Is Wilson responsible for all these signings ?
 

SouthGeorge

Registered User
May 2, 2018
7,960
3,078
Wow !! those are pretty sad contracts to be saddled with going forward and trying to rebuild.......Is Wilson responsible for all these signings ?

Yeah, they are done. Pure incompetence. Couture 8 mill per a year for 6 more years. Kane 7 million per a year for 5 more years. Hertl 5.6 for 2 more years and he might not be the same. Martin Jones 5.75 for 4 more years and his 3.25 gaa and .889 sv%. Then 19.5 million for 2 defensemen who don't play a lick of defense. Like I said... decade + to turn that around.
 

Pitaya

Prince of the Alps, Nico Hischier
Dec 14, 2019
2,708
1,825
Really think he is a Lou type player?
One of his " we before me types"?
I think Lou and Barry Trotz can fix that, plus hed cost less than youd think with his contract

Plus I think the media about him is overblown a bit.

Isles need scoring and he certainly adds that along with size, grit, and the ability to push Beauvilier down and really spread out the wealth
 

Pitaya

Prince of the Alps, Nico Hischier
Dec 14, 2019
2,708
1,825
Yeah, they are done. Pure incompetence. Couture 8 mill per a year for 6 more years. Kane 7 million per a year for 5 more years. Hertl 5.6 for 2 more years and he might not be the same. Martin Jones 5.75 for 4 more years and his 3.25 gaa and .889 sv%. Then 19.5 million for 2 defensemen who don't play a lick of defense. Like I said... decade + to turn that around.
How can you possibly determine that?

You have zero idea what can be done in 2-3 years let alone 10.

Not to mention, Hettl and Couture are incredible players. Kane is only overpaid slightly (though they should move him), and the Sharks have some young guns like LeBlanc and Meier.

They have plenty of pieces to move to quickly revamp or re-sort some cap space and try again for a Cup next season.

Quit trying to act like you know what theyd do or how long itd take - its just flat out wrong
 

Kranix

Deranged Homer
Jun 27, 2012
18,121
16,151
He should do the opposite of what's expected and be a buyer at the deadline. Trade Labanc and some more futures for a big fish rental.
 

CREW99AW

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
40,928
3,389
I have no problem with
I think Lou and Barry Trotz can fix that, plus hed cost less than youd think with his contract

Plus I think the media about him is overblown a bit.

Isles need scoring and he certainly adds that along with size, grit, and the ability to push Beauvilier down and really spread out the wealth

I am a big JHS fan,do not mind that he marches to a different drum, refused to be PC.

Lou..he seems to mind. I do not see Lou going out and acquiring Kane.
 

KevinRedkey

12/18/23 and beyond!
Jan 22, 2010
9,796
4,697
What is exciting about Zboril? Seriously asking. His numbers in the AHL do not look good at all for a 22 year old. I will admit to not having see him play but those numbers really don't make taking on Backes attractive.

He's not special. Might not even become an NHLer. I just meant a low level guy that one had promise.
 

Jester9881

Registered User
May 16, 2006
14,350
3,460
Long Island NY
I have no problem with


I am a big JHS fan,do not mind that he marches to a different drum, refused to be PC.

Lou..he seems to mind. I do not see Lou going out and acquiring Kane.

Weather we like it or not, Andrew Ladd is still on the team. Kane has publically avowed his hatred for him, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual. No way Lou brings Kane into the Isles room and risks destroying team chemistry, regardless of how important Ladd currently is to the team.
 

DarthProbert

Registered User
Feb 3, 2015
1,912
1,499
How can you possibly determine that?

You have zero idea what can be done in 2-3 years let alone 10.

Not to mention, Hettl and Couture are incredible players. Kane is only overpaid slightly (though they should move him), and the Sharks have some young guns like LeBlanc and Meier.

They have plenty of pieces to move to quickly revamp or re-sort some cap space and try again for a Cup next season.

Quit trying to act like you know what theyd do or how long itd take - its just flat out wrong
According to most Sharks fans on here(or maybe just the loudest ones) they absolutely can not move any of their pieces who have any value; they have no cap space to build around those players, and near zero futures to build around them. So either bite the bullet and trade from the "YOU CAN'T TRADE HIM!!!" pile or suck til those contracts expire. Because face it - even if the Sharks had their own lotto pick this year, and won the lottery, and Lafrieniere pans out into a superstar, they wouldn't be able to pay him when his ELC expires. THAT is how bad it is.

BTW 2 different sites this am are claiming Labanc has asked for a trade. Neither listed a source or I'd post a link.
 

topshelf15

Registered User
May 5, 2009
27,993
6,005
Trading for EK wasnt the wrong move,it was already having a number 1 RHD in Burns.....
 

themelkman

Always Delivers
Apr 26, 2015
11,392
8,377
Calgary, Alberta
According to most Sharks fans on here(or maybe just the loudest ones) they absolutely can not move any of their pieces who have any value; they have no cap space to build around those players, and near zero futures to build around them. So either bite the bullet and trade from the "YOU CAN'T TRADE HIM!!!" pile or suck til those contracts expire. Because face it - even if the Sharks had their own lotto pick this year, and won the lottery, and Lafrieniere pans out into a superstar, they wouldn't be able to pay him when his ELC expires. THAT is how bad it is.

BTW 2 different sites this am are claiming Labanc has asked for a trade. Neither listed a source or I'd post a link.
Labanc would be someone we could move, but I don’t believe he’s asked for a trade. The rest just isn’t true. Depending on who comes back next year we could have like 6-7 mil in cap space which could easily be a lot more in three years
 

DarthProbert

Registered User
Feb 3, 2015
1,912
1,499
Labanc would be someone we could move, but I don’t believe he’s asked for a trade. The rest just isn’t true. Depending on who comes back next year we could have like 6-7 mil in cap space which could easily be a lot more in three years
You think DW is suddenly going to get frugal for 3 years? Precedent suggests otherwise.
 

DarthProbert

Registered User
Feb 3, 2015
1,912
1,499
What teams would offer their first for Meier?
For Meier the player, half the teams in the league would offer a 1st or more. But in typical DW fashion, he found another way to shoot himself in the foot and added that $10 million qualifying offer. Granted GMs have no concept of the future and as we know "the cap can only go up!" but that would already reduce the offer from me.

As an Avs fan I'd offer a 1st, +. But I don't want to face that QO the same summer MacKinnon's deal comes up. So unless he becomes a consistent 40+ goal man with any linemates, he's a 2 year rental.
 

hohosaregood

Banned
Sep 1, 2011
32,273
12,439
For Meier the player, half the teams in the league would offer a 1st or more. But in typical DW fashion, he found another way to shoot himself in the foot and added that $10 million qualifying offer. Granted GMs have no concept of the future and as we know "the cap can only go up!" but that would already reduce the offer from me.

As an Avs fan I'd offer a 1st, +. But I don't want to face that QO the same summer MacKinnon's deal comes up. So unless he becomes a consistent 40+ goal man with any linemates, he's a 2 year rental.
I think you need to add a 1st to get rid of Meier.
 

405Exit

Registered User
Mar 15, 2018
2,442
424
Labanc would be someone we could move, but I don’t believe he’s asked for a trade. The rest just isn’t true. Depending on who comes back next year we could have like 6-7 mil in cap space which could easily be a lot more in three years

Anaheim would love the addition of Labanc. But I REALLY don’t think you should move him. He’s cheap and a very good forward for you going into the rebuild. But if Sharks are in need of moving him for picks. I got no problem starting with 2nd ++
 

Patty Ice

Straight to the Banc
Feb 27, 2002
13,854
3,339
Not California
Labanc + 2nd for Georgiev + 1st

Not interested in moving Labanc for Georgiev. He is no one's answer in net. A young 50 point scoring winger is worth way more than a backup goalie with suspect numbers. The upgrade in pick (which I don't see the Rangers going for) barely moves the needle for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: themelkman

BoardsofCanada

Registered User
Aug 26, 2009
1,049
1,162
G.T.A.
The Sharks are essentially a heavyweight team that has under-performed this season. They don't need a full rebuild. They need a world class goalie. Something as simple as drafting Askarov this June might be all they need to turn it around.

edit: without a first round pick, it will be difficult to draft Askarov but my point still stands.. a turn around can happen with a few simple moves.
 
Last edited:

Sysreq

Registered User
Apr 9, 2015
2,947
1,194
The Sharks are essentially a heavyweight team that has under-performed this season. They don't need a full rebuild. They need a world class goalie. Something as simple as drafting Askarov this June might be all they need to turn it around.

edit: without a first round pick, it will be difficult to draft Askarov but my point still stands.. a turn around can happen with a few simple moves.

The Sharks have some good pieces, but the truth is, they are depleted. Reminds me a lot of Detroit before or Minnesota. Hertl and Couture are good - but they aren’t in that elite franchise forward category. Our top end isn’t high enough and our depth isn’t really deep enough.

We are missing a top-6 RW, a franchise Goalie, and our 3rd line is in shambles. We have no cap and no real prospects. The amount of work required to fix this roster is going to extend beyond a single off season.

And to do it, you are going to leave us even more depleted.

Bite the bullet. Move out who you can and start a rebuild. Jumbo and Patty have been carrying this franchise for 20 years now. They can’t do it anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthProbert

varano

Registered User
Jun 27, 2013
5,161
1,917
Last year they were out scoring teams 7-5, 6-4 , and winning games while playing terrible defence and hanging jones out to dry.

This year is the same but without the offensive production. You cant have a team with a -41 goal differential and expect it to win. You either out score your problems or stop the other team and win 2-1 but neither is happening here.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->