Confirmed Signing with Link: [SJS] Sharks sign Kevin Labanc (1 year, $1M)

hohosaregood

Banned
Sep 1, 2011
32,414
12,622
Pavs is low-key more injury prone than Karlsson. I can't remember the last time he actually finished a season healthy. But this is a Labanc thread. Karlsson/Labanc should be one of the most dangerous PP QB combos in the league for the next few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SjMilhouse

Stewie Griffin

What the deuce
May 9, 2019
4,968
7,880
Canada
Because losing your captain whom a lot considered to be the heart of your team, a top 4 d man(Braun), a top 6 winger (Nyquivst) and a top 9 forward(Donskoi) is handling it well. Not to mention they have approx 25mil tied up in 3 dmen whom led the team bottom 10 in goals against last season.
-Braun was the 3rd pairing RHD making like 4 million. The sharks gained a 2nd round pick (which turned into another 2nd eventually) in a draft where they weren't drafting until the 3rd round originally.
-Nyquvist was a deadline acquisition that never really hit an offensive groove with the team
-As mentioned, Donskoi was constantly in our bottom 6 or healthy scratched
-Pavs was the one big blow, but he's not getting any younger, and the cap space was better used on Meier and Labanc. If both of those youngsters can continue to improve (even just a little), and Erik karlsson is healthy this season, it will make up for the offensive loss of losing Pavelski
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
Pavs is low-key more injury prone than Karlsson. I can't remember the last time he actually finished a season healthy. But this is a Labanc thread. Karlsson/Labanc should be one of the most dangerous PP QB combos in the league for the next few years.

Pavelski had scored 5 5-on-5 points in his final 35 playoff games as a Shark.

One-legged Karlsson scored 8 this year.
 

Stewie Griffin

What the deuce
May 9, 2019
4,968
7,880
Canada
Great deal. No matter the AAV, sharks have alot of cap space next season, with Labanc and Dillon being the two big things to resign. The rest is jsut depth
 

WSS11

Registered User
Oct 7, 2009
6,056
5,095
Cool, he put up points but was on the ice for almost every goal against and was absolutely horrible on his defensive positioning, which the injury hardly effected. Extending Karlsson was not worth losing the depth that the lost.

You’ve never played hockey with a groin or hamstring injury if you believe that. He was skating on one leg out there. Of course that had a serious effect on his positioning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sabresEH

matt trick

Registered User
Jun 12, 2007
9,782
1,386
Last year was always going to be a good shot for SJ. Pavelski, Labanc, Meier, Karlsson, Donskoi, and Nyquist were all going to need raises meaning we couldn't keep everyone.

Unfortunately, injuries to Karlsson, Pavelski, Hertl, and Simek meant it that we had no shot against the Blues. The Blues were exceptional defensively, but I'd loved to have a shot at them healthy- no guarantee we'd win, but the odds would have been much better. It didn't happen, and full credit to STL, they played a better team game, regardless of injuries.

SJ will be good again this year, and continues to get younger. Wilson returns the core of the team, save Pavelski. I love Pavelski, he's a wonderful player, and I expect he'll put up 75 goals (30, 25, 20) during his Stars contract, but he is declining, and leadership aside (I have no idea how/if that can be replaced), was the most replaceable asset from the Sharks core that had to shed a lot of salary to support ~12/13M in raises for Labanc, Meier, and Karlsson.
 

hilarnat

Registered User
Jun 17, 2017
269
160
Labanc signing thread arguing about Karlsson/Pavelski... He is/was a very interesting RFA case, especially after Meier's signing.
I get that you can argue about how much that left for Labanc but I'd rather read about salary/cap hit speculation than what lead to it.
 

Flames Fanatic

Mediocre
Aug 14, 2008
13,362
2,906
Cochrane
It’s an odd stance to take that somebody else got their facts wrong, and should correct them?

There is a difference between correct a slight mistake (a single goal) vs firing back at someone who has made a huge mistake. Yours read like the latter. You jumped to an insult despite the fact the Kings finished with TWO more goals against than the Sharks. Now I realize that the Sharks goaltending was far from good for the majority of the year, but it's entirely fair to point out that your team finished 40 points ahead of his and yet your goals against total is very similar.

It's like jumping on someone for saying someone played 2 minutes of PP time a game on average but it's actually 2:05.

Edit: Two goals, not one now that I am looking up the numbers myself, not relying on what others are saying. Point still stands in the grand scheme of things.
 

jbell886

Registered User
Sep 6, 2009
2,684
295
Anyone but the sharks. Bob McKenzie or Pierre Leburn are the most common. Every once in a blue moon, Kevin Kurz gets it. I think John Scott broke one a while back.

Bob and Pierre are both on summer vacation so you likely won’t hear anything from them
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
There is a difference between correct a slight mistake (a single goal) vs firing back at someone who has made a huge mistake. Yours read like the latter. You jumped to an insult despite the fact the Kings finished with TWO more goals against than the Sharks. Now I realize that the Sharks goaltending was far from good for the majority of the year, but it's entirely fair to point out that your team finished 40 points ahead of his and yet your goals against total is very similar.

It's like jumping on someone for saying someone played 2 minutes of PP time a game on average but it's actually 2:05.

Edit: Two goals, not one now that I am looking up the numbers myself, not relying on what others are saying. Point still stands in the grand scheme of things.

If somebody said the Flames were full of playoff chokers and they won 0 playoff games this year, you’d probably go out of your way to correct them, wouldn’t you? Even though they only won one game, and the difference isn’t all that significant, and that person may have a point, you’d probably still correct them. On a similar note, all I did was correct the poster who came into this thread to stir things up and couldn’t even get their facts right.

If this was a serious discussion about the Sharks’ cap situation and, somebody pointed to the fact that they’ve allocated $24.5M into 3 defensemen that led them to an 11th (highest) place finish in goals against, I would obviously provide a much more nuanced and detailed response, with counter-points like: Burns and Karlsson are the two best offensive players on the team that finished 2nd in goals for, goaltending and coaching were a bigger reason for their goals against than the performances of those 3 defensemen, all 3 of them proved they are excellent players and major net positives (despite Karlsson’s injury) in the playoffs where the Sharks made it to the final 3, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBeast

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
You said Meier and Labanc would total under 8m. C'mon. That was ridiculous. They might even exceed 10m

I have been wrong about many things, most recently how much Connolly would get.

When you're JTR and loudly and proudly proclaim to anyone who disagrees what they will get and even put it as part of your user profile, someone might point when you are wrong though.

What's 6+1?
 

han316

Registered User
Feb 6, 2013
319
572
that's so low i have to wonder what type of dirt Doug Wilson has on the guy!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad