Speculation: Summer 2018 Roster Discussion Part III

[Pinkfloyd]

Can a team retain cap space but not pay the contract? Maybe we could get Ottawa to retain cap space but we pay for Ryan!

Nope.

 

[Gecklund]

Nope.

Well that’s dumb.

 

[FunkyPhin]

We weren't close to Tavares man. His mind was made up well before going down to LA for the ''interviews''. You would think California would be a hotter market for the big names. We still have time to do something, and I have faith DW will do something.

Exactly, he said it himself, it was either staying pat with the Islanders, or going to Toronto. Before everything came out it looked like we had a shot, but it was basically just Tavares jerking the other 4 teams around.

 

[tiburon12]

Exactly, he said it himself, it was either staying pat with the Islanders, or going to Toronto. Before everything came out it looked like we had a shot, but it was basically just Tavares jerking the other 4 teams around.

Man, I hope he fails in Toronto. Like, early 90's Bills failures

 

[STL Shark]

Get the **** out of here with the personal attacks. I’m a business major at San Jose State University and a Technical Marketing Intern at a thriving local solar company, but that doesn’t matter; business acumen is absolutely not a requirement for a forum about hockey. I’m here to talk about hockey and how teams win hockey games and championships; not how gluttonously rich billionaires like Hasso Plattner can make marginally more money. There’s a businsss of hockey forum if you want to try and condescend people about their business accumen over there.

9 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Champions tanked. The one that didn’t was carried by the greatest goaltending performance of all time from a journeyman who had been relegated to backup the year prior. 9 of those 10 teams had two straight years of being one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL and they all drafted franchise superstars, better than any player on our roster, with those top-5 picks.

Carolina literally had back to back top 5 picks in Andrew Ladd and Eric Staal and they literally won a Cup with those players. But that’s not even relevant; no failed tank team is, because for the last time: tanking is not a guarantee of success; not tanking is a guarantee of failure, outside of seriously unpredictable circumstances that cannot be sustainably replicated. You point to Edmonton and Buffalo’s failures in their tank; I point to every single NHL team that didn’t tank in the past 10 years, put together a strong team “the right way”, and lost to a stacked tank team. I actually have a much bigger list of teams to point at: SJS, NYR, STL, PHI, NJD, DET (this decade), VAN,

Also, just for some quick business, cause I can’t help myself; I do love business: San Jose has declined pretty steeply in average attendance by percentage since 2009. Over the past 3 seasons, we have made the playoffs. Yet we have ranked 22nd (95.4%), 16th (99.7%), and 17th (98.9%) in attendance. In 08-09, 09-10, and 10-11, we ranked 9th (100%), 6th (100.4%), and 5th (100.4%). Our years upon years of being a mediocre good (mediocre amongst teams that are good - sort of like STL) team have left our fan base very jaded, and they are slowly diminishing. Although it doesn’t take any sort of numbers to tell you that Sharks fans are losing their passion, and that the fan base clearly isn’t what it used to be.

Meanwhile, Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh - the famous 3-headed tank monster - have all been top-10 in attendance since all 3 got their first Cup. And before you mention the “size of their markets” as reason for this - as if San Jose isn’t literally a top-10 most populated city in America and the Sharks aren’t the only big 4 sport in San Jose - all 3 of those teams had terrible attendance numbers in the years they tanked and got their superstar(s) and were near the bottom of the NHL. They came out of it just fine and are now posting great attendance numbers; better than we ever have. You make a lot more money when you win a Stanley Cup than you lose from a couple of years of tanking. So, your business argument is a major L. You’re the one with no business acumen if you think that the only way to win a ****ing Stanley Cup is a bad business model.

Someone is sensitive. I wasn’t talking about SJ in regard to this conversation for the millionth time. We all agree the moves made by STL wouldn’t have been the right moves for the Sharks.

I am talking about why you’re insistent to say the Blues were stupid to make their time better. I spoke with the CFO of the team while my firm was doing some work for them this spring. I know that they had to make those moves because the fans demand it and they can’t afford to go on another prolonged stretch of sucking like they did for six years from the first lockout through 2011-12. They wanted to make a run at Tavares. Didn’t get a seat at the table and pivoted and made some very solid hockey trades and signings and are now a playoff team. Given they have too many good pieces to be able to reasonably tank, it was either make the team better and get playoff revenue, or finish 12-14th every year for the foreseeable future and still not get a star player. They chose the route that gets them an extra 10-20 million dollars a year and a better chance at winning a Cup in the next decade.

 

[do0glas]

You guys are talking like business is black and white. As a marketing person, your demographics matter. Sj built a damn loyal fan base.

What is forgotten is that wimning will always generate fans. See vegas. Then see Arizona. However those markets are different. Vegas has more options to generate revenue.

The st. Louis thing may have generated from sucking and not really looking like they were rebuilding. Fans want hope too. Its why drafting exciting skilled players is important when tanking. Droves of ppl are watching eichel and barzal just cuz they're fun.

So business perspectives are heavily market dependent. Im not sure im convinced by what stl thinks they have to do. But tanking is a big business gamble

 

[rangerssharks414]

Man, I hope he fails in Toronto. Like, early 90's Bills failures

I hope the Leafs don't make the finals four years in a row.

 

[STL Shark]

I hope the Leafs don't make the finals four years in a row.

It would almost be funnier that way haha. It would be hilarious to see them get their hopes up and then lose 4 times in a row. It would also mean a Western teams win 4 times in a row which increases our odds by 50%. All about the positives.

 

[Herschel]

It would almost be funnier that way haha. It would be hilarious to see them get their hopes up and then lose 4 times in a row. It would also mean a Western teams win 4 times in a row which increases our odds by 50%. All about the positives.

Or if they come close for a couple years and then Matthews decides he wants to return home and signs with Arizona.

 

[Sharksrule04]

John Tavares just changed hands this off-season. San Jose cleared cap space to make a run at him. San Jose still has the cap space and the assets to acquire Tyler Seguin, Erik Karlsson, or Artemi Panarin; one of whom will certainly change hands, one of whom will quite possibly change hands, and one of whom will most likely stay put. That’s 4 elite players that we have a chance at acquiring and that DW is probably doing his best at acquiring one of.

Maybe I have too much of an obsession with “elite players”, but you know who else seems to be obsessed with elite players? The Stanley ****ing Cup. And I’m obsessed with the Stanley Cup.

Sorry but that's an absurd argument. Should the Blues not try to improve their team because they missed out on Tavares? There is no reason to believe we are getting Seguin or Panarin. These are purely concepts made up on HF Boards. Karlsson we've at least been rumored to a few times but I still severely doubt we have a chance at him either.

The point is the Blues have added 4 players who will contribute immediately to their team. ROR is a first line player. Perron played better last season than I would expect him to going forward but he's still a top 6 talent. Bozak is a 40-50 point player and Maroon is a 15-20 goal 40 point player. Tavares wasn't an option for them and despite your over simplification of acquire superstars, it's not that easy or frequently done. So should the Blues have done nothing? You're acting like 16M is a lot to pay 4 players, especially considering that group of four has a first center, a top 6 forward and 2 other solid middle 6 forwards. That is dirt cheap for the production they just acquired.

I'm not saying the Sharks should have acquired those players, but the Blues did a great job in adding offensive depth and production this off-season for a very reasonable price.

 

[Sharksrule04]

Not sure why there is this narrative that the only way to improve the team is by acquiring a 1c. Is it the best way? Absolutely, no doubt about it. The only way? Of course not. Two elite players are known to be more than available right now in Panarin and Karlsson. I'm not saying DW should go completely all in on 1 or both of players since they are approaching free agency, but those are 2 players that would without a doubt improve our team. DW needs to be right there on these guys until a different team gives into demands or he can scoop 1 up.

People have these ideas and become locked in on them as if the league isn't constantly evolving. The funny thing is that this is the same problem DW used to have and people complained about it. DW would just emulate past cup winners rather than looking at where the league was heading or making the changes to see past the current NHL.

This whole concept of you must have an amazing number 1C is pure nonsense. If the Sharks had 9 better wingers than our opponent but they have a better #1C I can guarantee the Sharks would be in a better position to win that series. The goal is to ice the best team possible. Focusing on fixing one area is a recipe for failure.

 

[Sharksrule04]

Yes, they added pieces. They added pieces that don’t make them a contender, but that do prevent them from adding a piece that puts them over the top. Meanwhile, we still have the opportunity to add a piece that makes us a contender, and those pieces are still available and will change hands.

And we could be waiting years for that move to become available. Also you have no idea who will be a contender next year. No one thought Vegas was a contender and they made it to the SCF.

 

[LadyStanley]

We should buy Toronto.

Who do you mean we, Kemo Sabe?

I agree. With impact players like Seguin and Panarin entering the final year of their contracts, maybe he's waiting to see how things shake out with these two and make a move for one at the deadline.

Panarin refusing (currently) to even talk extension with CBJ has come out.


DW will always kick the tires and look at possible deals. But will he pull the trigger on a deal? Only if the NET impact improves the organization.

 

[Juxtaposer]

People have these ideas and become locked in on them as if the league isn't constantly evolving. The funny thing is that this is the same problem DW used to have and people complained about it. DW would just emulate past cup winners rather than looking at where the league was heading or making the changes to see past the current NHL.

This whole concept of you must have an amazing number 1C is pure nonsense. If the Sharks had 9 better wingers than our opponent but they have a better #1C I can guarantee the Sharks would be in a better position to win that series. The goal is to ice the best team possible. Focusing on fixing one area is a recipe for failure.

You cannot win a Stanley Cup without a star #1C in the cap era. I don’t see how this can possibly be a controversial statement. This is the only thing about Cup-winners that is indisputable.

 

[Sharksrule04]

Yeah, teams should just fold the franchise. Because you know, tanking totally isn’t an option.

9 of the last 10 Stanley Cup winners had two seasons where they were bottom-5 in the NHL, and they drafted superstars with picks acquired in those seasons that are better than anybody on St. Louis’ roster. 6 of the last 10 Conn Smythe winners were top-5 picks. 4 of the last 6 were first overall picks.

I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe you think making the playoffs and winning a round is good enough. I don’t. The Sharks made the playoffs and won a round this year and personally, I’m furious about their performance this season. They lost to a ****ing expansion team on home ice. That’s not good enough. Who cares if they won a round? They lost. They didn’t win the Cup.

24 teams can't tank. Who do you consider a Cup Contender? You expect every other team to tank or do nothing until they can acquire another superstar?

The Sharks played better than most peoples expectations this year. I'm annoyed they lost to Vegas but that doesn't change the fact that many predicted us to miss the playoffs.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

And we could be waiting years for that move to become available. Also you have no idea who will be a contender next year. No one thought Vegas was a contender and they made it to the SCF.

Seriously. If every team adhered to the policy of, 'lets not add a player to our roster unless they are elite' would lead to a lot of unemployed hockey players. I think its hard to argue that those additions put the Blues 'over the top' just like its hard to argue that they did not make them better. There is a lot that goes into winning the SC. Injuries, goalie being on hot streak, scoring depth, etc. all play significant roles in the long SC run.

The Blues made additions to their team to make them a playoff team and have a better chance there than what they would have had last season. They did that by those additions.

 

[Sharksrule04]

Get the **** out of here with the personal attacks. I’m a business major at San Jose State University and a Technical Marketing Intern at a thriving local solar company, but that doesn’t matter; business acumen is absolutely not a requirement for a forum about hockey. I’m here to talk about hockey and how teams win hockey games and championships; not how gluttonously rich billionaires like Hasso Plattner can make marginally more money. There’s a businsss of hockey forum if you want to try and condescend people about their business accumen over there.

9 of the last 10 Stanley Cup Champions tanked. The one that didn’t was carried by the greatest goaltending performance of all time from a journeyman who had been relegated to backup the year prior. 9 of those 10 teams had two straight years of being one of the 5 worst teams in the NHL and they all drafted franchise superstars, better than any player on our roster, with those top-5 picks.

Carolina literally had back to back top 5 picks in Andrew Ladd and Eric Staal and they literally won a Cup with those players. But that’s not even relevant; no failed tank team is, because for the last time: tanking is not a guarantee of success; not tanking is a guarantee of failure, outside of seriously unpredictable circumstances that cannot be sustainably replicated. You point to Edmonton and Buffalo’s failures in their tank; I point to every single NHL team that didn’t tank in the past 10 years, put together a strong team “the right way”, and lost to a stacked tank team. I actually have a much bigger list of teams to point at: SJS, NYR, STL, PHI, NJD, DET (this decade), VAN,

Also, just for some quick business, cause I can’t help myself; I do love business: San Jose has declined pretty steeply in average attendance by percentage since 2009. Over the past 3 seasons, we have made the playoffs. Yet we have ranked 22nd (95.4%), 16th (99.7%), and 17th (98.9%) in attendance. In 08-09, 09-10, and 10-11, we ranked 9th (100%), 6th (100.4%), and 5th (100.4%). Our years upon years of being a mediocre good (mediocre amongst teams that are good - sort of like STL) team have left our fan base very jaded, and they are slowly diminishing. Although it doesn’t take any sort of numbers to tell you that Sharks fans are losing their passion, and that the fan base clearly isn’t what it used to be.

Meanwhile, Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh - the famous 3-headed tank monster - have all been top-10 in attendance since all 3 got their first Cup. And before you mention the “size of their markets” as reason for this - as if San Jose isn’t literally a top-10 most populated city in America and the Sharks aren’t the only big 4 sport in San Jose - all 3 of those teams had terrible attendance numbers in the years they tanked and got their superstar(s) and were near the bottom of the NHL. They came out of it just fine and are now posting great attendance numbers; better than we ever have. You make a lot more money when you win a Stanley Cup than you lose from a couple of years of tanking. So, your business argument is a major L. You’re the one with no business acumen if you think that the only way to win a ****ing Stanley Cup is a bad business model.

You ever get tired of making the same argument? No where does this message board say that you can't discuss hockey as a business and a business major such as yourself should be able to understand that there is a business evaluation in every single move made in hockey or pretty much any functioning organization. Hockey is a business so when we sign, waive, draft, or trade a player there is always an associated business/financial analysis of the impact of that decision.

Reciting the past Stanley Cup winners is purely a model for the future, it isn't fact for what will happen next year or the year after that. You can pretend it is and then cherry pick the stats that support your argument (you seriously used Andrew Ladd as an example of elite players acquired via "tanking"?) but the game is constantly changing. The Penguins understood this and made changes which allowed them to win 2 more cups. People who have your train of thought will point to Crosby and Malkin but the fact is they had those 2 players the entire time they weren't winning cups. You're too fixated on one or two players which is why your argument is annoying and wrong. This isn't the NBA where 5 good players would be on the court for 80% of the game. Your best skater is on the ice for maybe 30-50% of the game depending on the position. You cannot simply focus on 1 aspect as the recipe for winning the Stanley Cup just because it's consistent with past cup winners and expect it to be factual going forward in an evolving league. Truth is every year 80-90% of the teams with an Elite player or 2 will not win the Stanley Cup. The key is to find the perfect recipe/balance for winning in that individual season or string of seasons.

 

[Sharksrule04]

I think our best chance is to build a package around Meier but not take Ryan back.

Maybe Meier, Norris, Merkley, and a 2020 1st for Karlsson. Then flip Braun, a 2019 2nd and a prospect for patches.

This is a lineup that if healthy I think could contend for a cup. View attachment 129503

Way too much. Giving up essentially 4 first rounders for 1 year of a guy (maybe more if we extend him) and we wouldn't have a 1st rounder for 2 more years. If they didn't win the cup the next couple of year our future would legitimately be awful and I'm not convinced this team wins a cup by adding Karlsson.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Once you get into the playoffs, you do know that you can’t win unless you have legit elite superstars on your roster and St. Louis has none.

People say “once you get into the playoffs you never know”, but this sport is so much closer to basketball than we like to admit. There have been 5 Stanley Cup winners in the past 10 years. They all had superstars who were easily top-5 in their position in the NHL when they won. Chicago had Toews, Kane, Keith. Los Angeles had Kopitar, Doughty, and Quick. Pittsburgh had Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, and Letang. Bergeron had Chara/Bergeron/Thomas. Washington had Ovechkin, Kuznetsov, and Holtby. Every single one of those players is better than every single player on St. Louis with maybe the exception of Letang/Kessel against Pietrangelo.

If every Cup winner over the past 10 years has had 3 players that would be the best player on STL, then why on earth do you think that anything can happen when they get to the playoffs? Maybe re-phrase it as “anything can happen, except St. Louis winning a Stanley Cup.”

Who cares if their new team is better than the team that made the WCF? Their team that made the WCF was lucky to eek out two game 7s against two superior teams and then they got absolutely curb stomped by the Sharks who didn’t even win the SCF.

Well said.

I would argue that Tarasenko is a superstar. Pietrangelo is a borderline-elite D-man. I think having a superstar definitely helps but landing one is easier said than done. You do what you can to improve the team. That being said, I am on the same page as you. Blues have a better team today than they did last playoffs. But at this time, it is hard to proclaim them a SC favorite .. or even close to one.

As others have mentioned, if Tarasenko is a superstar, then so is Pavelski and perhaps Couture. Tarasenko obviously has room to improve, but a lot of the hype surrounding him was assuming he would have already taken the leap a few years ago. Instead, his numbers are trending downwards.

Not to mention that Pavelski is sizably superior to Tarasenko south of the offensive blueline.

Yeah, teams should just fold the franchise. Because you know, tanking totally isn’t an option.

9 of the last 10 Stanley Cup winners had two seasons where they were bottom-5 in the NHL, and they drafted superstars with picks acquired in those seasons that are better than anybody on St. Louis’ roster. 6 of the last 10 Conn Smythe winners were top-5 picks. 4 of the last 6 were first overall picks.

I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe you think making the playoffs and winning a round is good enough. I don’t. The Sharks made the playoffs and won a round this year and personally, I’m furious about their performance this season. They lost to a ****ing expansion team on home ice. That’s not good enough. Who cares if they won a round? They lost. They didn’t win the Cup.

Age-old debate about constantly being competitive vs. winning the thing after losing for a while.

You ever get tired of making the same argument? No where does this message board say that you can't discuss hockey as a business and a business major such as yourself should be able to understand that there is a business evaluation in every single move made in hockey or pretty much any functioning organization. Hockey is a business so when we sign, waive, draft, or trade a player there is always an associated business/financial analysis of the impact of that decision.

Reciting the past Stanley Cup winners is purely a model for the future, it isn't fact for what will happen next year or the year after that. You can pretend it is and then cherry pick the stats that support your argument (you seriously used Andrew Ladd as an example of elite players acquired via "tanking"?) but the game is constantly changing. The Penguins understood this and made changes which allowed them to win 2 more cups.

Others have talked about the importance of superstars "since the lockout", but it has been a trend since WWII (if not before). I think since then, 3-4 teams have won a cup without a superstar at two of the three major positions, and only like a dozen have even made the finals without such players.

 

[WSS11]

Less bickering and more pointless speculation from the talking heads allowing us to dream about Karlsson and Burns on our power play.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I would argue though they may be superior, relative to the current defensive group in the NHL, they are the same level. Karlsson/Burns being recent Norris winners, are top-5 in the NHL, arguably Karlsson being the best in the league. Pronger and Niedermayer were in the league at the same time as Lidstrom, who was superior. So, basically, while those guys may be better, relative to the current talent level in the NHL it's pretty close.

That is an interesting take I hadn't thought about. But you are essentially just looking at the cream-of-the-cream-of-the-crop and saying Burns/Karlsson have the relative advantage. It would be useful to look at the strength at the other tiers. For example, sure, Pronger and Niedermayer had to contend with Lidstrom...but not much else. Sergei Gonchar, 200/300 games of Al Macinnis and Brian Leetch, Sergei Zubov, Brian Rafalski...hell, Tomas Kaberle was considered a first-pairing defenseman!

Burns and Karlsson have each other, and Subban, Keith, Doughty, Suter, Weber, Carlson, Chara, Pietrangelo, Yandle, OEL...

 

[Maladroit]

Tarasenko is getting insanely underrated in this thread. Has anyone comparing him to Joe Pavelski ever actually watched either of them play? There is no combination of players/prospects/picks off the Sharks that I wouldn't trade for Tarasenko.

 

[Sharksrule04]

Well said.



As others have mentioned, if Tarasenko is a superstar, then so is Pavelski and perhaps Couture. Tarasenko obviously has room to improve, but a lot of the hype surrounding him was assuming he would have already taken the leap a few years ago. Instead, his numbers are trending downwards.

Not to mention that Pavelski is sizably superior to Tarasenko south of the offensive blueline.



Age-old debate about constantly being competitive vs. winning the thing after losing for a while.



Others have talked about the importance of superstars "since the lockout", but it has been a trend since WWII (if not before). I think since then, 3-4 teams have won a cup without a superstar at two of the three major positions, and only like a dozen have even made the finals without such players.

Obviously having better players is going to help teams be better than their opponent. I'd think that is fairly obvious. The point is every season since WWII there are multiple teams in the league that have superstars and often multiple superstars which do not win. So clearly having superstars isn't the only ingredient to winning. It seems lazy to say you must have a superstar on your team to win the Cup when half the teams in the league any given season will have superstars. Sure, every team that has won the Cup since whenever has had a superstar, but how many with superstars have not won the Cup. It's a lazy oversimplification of winning the SC.

 

[hohosaregood]

Tarasenko is getting insanely underrated in this thread. Has anyone comparing him to Joe Pavelski ever actually watched either of them play? There is no combination of players/prospects/picks off the Sharks that I wouldn't trade for Tarasenko.

i dont actually watch hockey

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Tarasenko is getting insanely underrated in this thread. Has anyone comparing him to Joe Pavelski ever actually watched either of them play? There is no combination of players/prospects/picks off the Sharks that I wouldn't trade for Tarasenko.

Yeah I think Tarasenko is getting massively underrated. Last year was an off year for him and he still had 66 points in 80 games. He was 2nd in team scoring by 4 points. However, he has been carrying the Blues offense for a while now. Here are his point totals as opposed to the 2nd highest on the Blues for the last few years.

2014-15: 73 | 64
2015-16: 74 | 52
2016-17: 75 | 55

He is a game changer and can take over a game. He pretty much drives the Blues offense without being given any help on a offense starved team. Pavs may be many things but he is not a game changer.