Speculation: Summer 2018 Roster Discussion Part IV

[Juxtaposer]

Why haven’t I seen anyone discussing the most relevant point regarding Tierney? At the beginning of the season, Tierney looked awesome, like he’d addressed his short-comings and was finally ready to be a good 3C. But by the second half of the season he was back to the Tierney we know and get extraordinarily frustrated by. And this was while he was playing with Meier, who just got better and better.

If Tierney is the player he was in the first half of the season, then by all means, sign him to $3+ M over multiple years. But I think it’s a safer bet that he’s the player we saw in the last half of the season, which is the same mediocre player we’ve seen over the rest of his career.

 

[Maladroit]

Yeah, I definitely feel like he could have gotten them a little cheaper. I mean, Burns is the one that he waited to negotiate on, and that’s the only player who I feel like actually would have got more in the open market. Vlasic, Jones, and Couture were all signed 365 days before they had to be, and all 3 of them were signed to terrible contracts. Kane was signed very quickly and he was also paid less than I predicted Jim Benning would offer him. None of those guys gave any sort of home-town discount except for maybe Burns who was the best player in the NHL during the calendar year of 2016 when he signed his contract.

The average age of Burns, Kane, Couture, Vlasic, and Jones combined on their contracts will be 33. Putting $35.75M into 5 declining players who will be an average age of 33 is so inexplicably ****ing stupid I can’t even put words into it.

People are going to tell me I’m being melodramatic here, but those 5 contracts look like DW is trying to sabotage the Sharks. If any other GM signed those 5 contracts in the span of ~500 days like DW did, we would all be grilling them on the main boards and talking about how awful those contracts are. The reality is that we are biased and love those players so we don’t understand that they are all A) Currently overpaid and B) most likely going to decline at a more rapid rate than the salary cap increases. But the truth is that those 5 contracts will define the franchise over the next 6-8 years and they will most likely ruin us.

I think we just need to accept that the Sharks will never undergo anything approaching a scorched-earth rebuild under Wilson. That's what he believed, correctly or not, would be required in the immediate term if he didn't lock all of those players up so he did it. Like you said, the Burns contract is fine. I'm mostly okay with Couture too although I wish he'd have waited until midseason to try and get a discount - the likelihood of Couture performing well enough that he'd earn more than 8x8 seems very low. But we'd be f***ed down the middle if we let Couture walk and Thornton retired so I get why he signed that one.

Vlasic, Jones and Kane are completely inexcusable. The full NMC in the first five years of Vlasic's contract is incredible to me. How do you give a 31 year old defensive defenseman a full no move on top of $7milx8. The modified NTC in the final three years of the deal is hilarious too, as if anyone is trading for him at that point. Those deals will blow up in Wilson's face and likely contribute to the end of his tenure as Sharks GM.

 

[Dicdonya]

I thought it was only if we miss the playoffs and win one of the first three pick lotteries....

Per capfriendly it just says "miss the playoffs". Now they could be wrong, but that's what it says

 

[Lebanezer]

 

[Dicdonya]

I think you meant to say 12-20 points a year.



You're making my argument for me with the 2019-20 cap breakdown. First of all it's around $27.5 million assuming the cap goes up a modest amount. That figure would be $36.5 million if it weren't for the Dillon, Braun and Karlsson contracts. $9 million tied up in two third pairing defensemen and a 13th forward. And you want to add another non-essential player to the mix for $3 million on top of that so it's $12 million for two third pairing defensemen and two fourth liners. That's where the money for Donskoi, Meier, Labanc and Ryan should be coming from (Pavelski should absolutely be shown the door, Thornton probably retires, Heed and Sorensen are replaceable and/or can be signed on the cheap) but instead it would be tied up in players who are eminently replaceable by guys making less than $1 million apiece.

The Sharks are at a point where they need as much long-term cap flexibility as possible to land a #1 center. It's the most important position in hockey and no one currently on the roster or in the system can fill it. That doesn't mean letting Timo Meier walk if he earns a long-term contract coming off his ELC. But it does mean that pissing away $3 million a year for three more years on a guy whose job can be done by players we already have who make less than $1 million with no long-term commitment is negligent.

Lol I guess it's just a coincidence that the three previous Sharks who have filed for arbitration under Doug Wilson - Marcel Goc, T.J. Galiardi and Jason Demers - were all gone within a year max. Wilson makes sure to get RFA deals done with players he views as important to the organization's future. The fact that it's come this far with Tierney strongly suggests he'll have the same fate as those other guys. Which is the right thing to do.

He couldn't have meant 12-20pts, since Tierney has never scored less than 20, but whatever.

So just gunna dodge the question huh? Right on, guess we know you have no answer. Ill try one more time, if you think 1-5mil contracts are a no go, how are you signing the players I listed above next year, or are you willing to let all of them walk/trade them, unless they improve to 5+mil players, or in Pavs/Thorntons case, stay 5+ mil players. Huh?

And no, we don't get to play what ifs with next years roster in regards to the question I asked. Until we don't, we do have Dillon, Braun and Karlsson next year. How are you going to sign everyone next year, minus 13mil for Seguin.

If we want to play what ifs with next years cap, I can EASILY fit Tierney into whatever roster I want to pretend we will have, because I don't make silly contract choices like "no players signed to 1-5mil contracts". You are the one making ultimatum choices here, not me.

You still have time to walk back that statement if you like, I can understand if you realize that maaaaybe it was little short sighted, or not exactly what you meant.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Per capfriendly it just says "miss the playoffs". Now they could be wrong, but that's what it says

I think you’re right. But I don’t see it as a good thing. I think the 2020 roster has a good chance of being significantly worse than the 2019 roster, so if we barely miss the playoffs next year, I’d prefer to give Buffalo the 2019 pick anyway. Do we get a choice? I dunno.

 

[gaucholoco3]

View attachment 130409

Seriously. I put my phone down for a few hours and suddenly the sky is falling. This team is still on paper the best team in the pacific with lots on intriguing prospects and enough cap space to make an opportunistic move during the year.
Arguing that guys are overpaid by 250-500k is pointless. Also these aren’t one sided negotiations and the players have leverage as UFA. Ask NYI fans how they feel about their best players walking for nothing.

 

[Maladroit]

He couldn't have meant 12-20pts, since Tierney has never scored less than 20, but whatever.

So just gunna dodge the question huh? Right on, guess we know you have no answer. Ill try one more time, if you think 1-5mil contracts are a no go, how are you signing the players I listed above next year, or are you willing to let all of them walk/trade them, unless they improve to 5+mil players, or in Pavs/Thorntons case, stay 5+ mil players. Huh?

And no, we don't get to play what ifs with next years roster in regards to the question I asked. Until we don't, we do have Dillon, Braun and Karlsson next year. How are you going to sign everyone next year, minus 13mil for Seguin.

If we want to play what ifs with next years cap, I can EASILY fit Tierney into whatever roster I want to pretend we will have, because I don't make silly contract choices like "no players signed to 1-5mil contracts". You are the one making ultimatum choices here, not me.

You still have time to walk back that statement if you like, I can understand if you realize that maaaaybe it was little short sighted, or not exactly what you meant.

How do you not understand that I'm bringing up the Dillon, Karlsson and Braun contracts because signing Tierney for 3 years at $3mil per is almost guaranteed to look just as bad as those deals in a year's time? Yes we can't undo the deals those three players signed but we can sure as hell avoid overpaying a fourth mediocre player.

You're the only one suggesting some idiotic ironclad rule of never signing a player to a cap hit between $1mil and $5mil. All I said was that smart teams are increasingly moving in the direction of not having players signed in that range because the rising cap means the types of players falling roughly in that salary range aren't enough of an upgrade over bargain basement UFAs to be worth it.

It's like when you thought the Artem Anisimov contract is one I'd be in favor of because it's close enough to $5mil or would be $5mil in 2019 cap dollars or whatever. My point wasn't "instead of signing a player for $4 million/yr you should sign them for $6 million because you can never have players making between $1 million and $5 million on your roster" it was "only sign players who will be extremely hard if not impossible to replace through other avenues so you can retain cap flexibility to add a star."

In effect this could and probably should mean you have very few contracts in the $1-5mil AAV range but I'd obviously have no problem retaining a player like Donskoi for $4.5mil/year or whatever he ends up getting. He's the inverse of Anisimov where he's likely worth $6mil+ but won't get it due to his injury history.

Anyway to answer your question it's difficult but probably doable to fit Seguin, Donskoi, Meier, Labanc and Ryan in for $27.5mil and still have enough left over to fill out the rest of the roster with sub-$1mil players. Pavelski should not be re-signed. It becomes a whole lot more difficult when you have Tierney signed for $3mil on top of the other three contracts for bottom of the lineup talent.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Seriously. I put my phone down for a few hours and suddenly the sky is falling. This team is still on paper the best team in the pacific with lots on intriguing prospects and enough cap space to make an opportunistic move during the year.
Arguing that guys are overpaid by 250-500k is pointless. Also these aren’t one sided negotiations and the players have leverage as UFA. Ask NYI fans how they feel about their best players walking for nothing.

1. Being the best in the Pacific means nothing when the Pacific is by far the worst division in the NHL. Are we the best team in the NHL? Are we even close? Do we have a legitimate chance at a Stanley Cup next year? If not, then we have nothing to brag about.

2. The issue is not with these players currently being overpaid by $250-500K - the issue is with these players currently being overpaid by $1-2M and with their aging trend showing they will likely be either overpaid by $3-4M or bought out by the end of their contracts.

3. Not one of Couture, Kane, Vlasic, or Jones are the same caliber of player as Tavares, so that point is moot. I would much rather have Tavares at $13M/7Y than any of the Sharks we have signed long term.

 

[Dicdonya]

I think you’re right. But I don’t see it as a good thing. I think the 2020 roster has a good chance of being significantly worse than the 2019 roster, so if we barely miss the playoffs next year, I’d prefer to give Buffalo the 2019 pick anyway. Do we get a choice? I dunno.

Yeah, I agree, but I also was just letting that poster know that we could still have next years pick, if this year is a tire fire and we actually get a really nice pick. That poster was not the first that thought next years pick was already out the door.

 

[Maladroit]

1. Being the best in the Pacific means nothing when the Pacific is by far the worst division in the NHL. Are we the best team in the NHL? Are we even close? Do we have a legitimate chance at a Stanley Cup next year? If not, then we have nothing to brag about.

2. The issue is not with these players currently being overpaid by $250-500K - the issue is with these players currently being overpaid by $1-2M and with their aging trend showing they will likely be either overpaid by $3-4M or bought out by the end of their contracts.

3. Not one of Couture, Kane, Vlasic, or Jones are the same caliber of player as Tavares, so that point is moot. I would much rather have Tavares at $13M/7Y than any of the Sharks we have signed long term.

And I don't think anyone's suggesting we should have let them all walk for nothing. Vlasic should have been traded to Montreal last summer when it became clear what his contract demands were. Imagine if we'd gotten their unprotected 2018 1st round pick in that deal. Also Kane automatically wouldn't have walked "for nothing" because him walking would mean we get to keep our 2019 1st.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

And I don't think anyone's suggesting we should have let them all walk for nothing. Vlasic should have been traded to Montreal last summer when it became clear what his contract demands were. Imagine if we'd gotten their unprotected 2018 1st round pick in that deal. Also Kane automatically wouldn't have walked "for nothing" because him walking would mean we get to keep our 2019 1st.

Exactly. We would have been much better off signing them all to $8-10M/3-5Y contracts and trading them with $3-5M retained if they began to fell off.

With that said, if the only option was to let all of Couture, Kane, Vlasic, Jones, and Burns walk for nothing, or sign them to the contracts we did, I would be like, adios amigos!

 

[Dicdonya]

I think increasingly the smart teams in the league are going to move in the direction of not having any players on their roster who, excluding ELC bonuses, carry a cap hit of between ~$1mil and ~$5mil. Pay your stars and difficult-to-replace players as much as you need to then fill out the rest of your roster with ELCs, cheap depth and European UFAs/reclamation projects.

What you said at first..

You're the only one suggesting some idiotic ironclad rule of never signing a player to a cap hit between $1mil and $5mil. All I said was that smart teams are increasingly moving in the direction of not having players signed in that range because the rising cap means the types of players falling roughly in that salary range aren't enough of an upgrade over bargain basement UFAs to be worth it.

What you are saying now.

It went from teams moving towards not signing "any" 1-5mil forwards and being filled with nothing but 5+mil players and ELC/Cheap Euros, to well, sign fewer of them. If the latter is what you had said from the get go, I wouldn't have had any issue with it. However using words like "any" would indicate you don't want a single one in that price range, which would rule out teams signing many of their younger RFA's to bridge deals, which would be insane.

You might be able to see how those two things are different, and might lead one to misrepresenting your intentions. At least you have cleared that up now, I don't know why it took so long, if you thought I was interpreting you wrongly, when I have said it in every one of my responses to you, but I am glad that you finally did.

 

[hohosaregood]

Exactly. We would have been much better off signing them all to $8-10M/3-5Y contracts and trading them with $3-5M retained if they began to fell off.

With that said, if the only option was to let all of Couture, Kane, Vlasic, Jones, and Burns walk for nothing, or sign them to the contracts we did, I would be like, adios amigos!

Might as well just watch the AHL at that point

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Might as well just watch the AHL at that point

Yeah, it would certainly be ugly.

Hertl-Thornton-Pavelski
Meier-Couture-LaBanc
Radil-Suomela-Donskoi
Sorensen-Gambrell-Goodrow

Ryan-Braun
Dillon-Heed
Simek-DeMelo

Dell
Bibeau

With Couture’s contract expiring at the end of the season and him likely being moved at or before the TDL. This is assuming we also ditch Tierney.

This roster would likely lead to us getting a lottery pick. But I would like our long term outlook much better than I currently like it and I would also much prefer our chances at winning a Stanley Cup within the next decade compared to now. That’s the point.

 

[PacificOceanPotion]

 

[Juxtaposer]

Joakim Ryan confirmed #1D.

Seriously though, I’m totally fine with the Burns contract and I’m not mad about Couture. It’s the other three that are brutal. Vlasic could have gotten a haul last year, and Jones could have gotten a good return from Carolina or Buffalo or the Isles who need a starting goaltender desperately. Letting Kane walk saves us a 1st round pick. All brutal moves/lack of moves.

 

[hohosaregood]

Yeah, it would certainly be ugly.

Hertl-Thornton-Pavelski
Meier-Couture-LaBanc
Radil-Suomela-Donskoi
Sorensen-Gambrell-Goodrow

Ryan-Braun
Dillon-Heed
Simek-DeMelo

Dell
Bibeau

With Couture’s contract expiring at the end of the season and him likely being moved at or before the TDL. This is assuming we also ditch Tierney.

This roster would likely lead to us getting a lottery pick. But I would like our long term outlook much better than I currently like it and I would also much prefer our chances at winning a Stanley Cup within the next decade compared to now. That’s the point.

I don't think our chances would be better. I don't even think tanking really works. It's not like every tank team is on the fast track to the scf. Like look back at the last ~10 drafts and there really aren't any players that stick out as key contributors to their team's scf run.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Seriously. I put my phone down for a few hours and suddenly the sky is falling. This team is still on paper the best team in the pacific with lots on intriguing prospects and enough cap space to make an opportunistic move during the year.
Arguing that guys are overpaid by 250-500k is pointless. Also these aren’t one sided negotiations and the players have leverage as UFA. Ask NYI fans how they feel about their best players walking for nothing.

Who are these “lots of intriguing prospects” you speak of? We have one.

I don't think our chances would be better. I don't even think tanking really works. It's not like every tank team is on the fast track to the scf. Like look back at the last ~10 drafts and there really aren't any players that stick out as key contributors to their team's scf run.

No one is saying tanking is a guaranteed way to get a Cup. It’s just the only consistently successful way.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Why haven’t I seen anyone discussing the most relevant point regarding Tierney? At the beginning of the season, Tierney looked awesome, like he’d addressed his short-comings and was finally ready to be a good 3C. But by the second half of the season he was back to the Tierney we know and get extraordinarily frustrated by. And this was while he was playing with Meier, who just got better and better.

If Tierney is the player he was in the first half of the season, then by all means, sign him to $3+ M over multiple years. But I think it’s a safer bet that he’s the player we saw in the last half of the season, which is the same mediocre player we’ve seen over the rest of his career.

Which is why I'm not concerned about the arbitration. If they don't come to terms with Tierney, whatever the decision in arbitration is will work out to the Sharks benefit. They can make whatever his salary is go for one or two years and still maintain RFA status with Tierney and still trade the guy for value if it comes down to that. I really doubt that the Sharks will sign Tierney to anything three years or more simply because I don't think they want to sign him straight to UFA status and I don't think they want to invest four years or more into him. I can easily see him being a piece being dealt to Carolina for Faulk and/or Skinner and I can easily see him just going through the arbitration process and being the 3C here for the next couple years until the next contract negotiation happens. They're in a good spot with him contractually and he's in a good spot to get a decent payday. I get the frustration but he's already surpassing expectations by being in the spot he's in and he's a good value for what he will get paid regardless unless they invest 3+ years into him which I don't expect.

 

[Dicdonya]

Why haven’t I seen anyone discussing the most relevant point regarding Tierney? At the beginning of the season, Tierney looked awesome, like he’d addressed his short-comings and was finally ready to be a good 3C. But by the second half of the season he was back to the Tierney we know and get extraordinarily frustrated by. And this was while he was playing with Meier, who just got better and better.

If Tierney is the player he was in the first half of the season, then by all means, sign him to $3+ M over multiple years. But I think it’s a safer bet that he’s the player we saw in the last half of the season, which is the same mediocre player we’ve seen over the rest of his career.

Here is what I found, and what I believe some possibilities could be based on that.

I started off by considering the biggest shift in the team this year was Thornton going down, and that might have affected many players, Tierney included.

So I parsed the data for before and after Thornton.

Before at ES-
Pts/60 1.36
G/60 .68
CF% 52.43
FF% 53.04
GF% 52.38
SV% 93.03
ZS% 56.66

PP pts/60 7.29

After at ES-
Pts/60 1.85
G/60 .62
CF% 45.61
FF% 47.35
GF% 44.64
SV% 89.12
ZS% 44.37

PP pts/60 2.99

Now a couple things stand out here, in my opinion.

One, Tierney actually scored more pts in the back half of the year. So his production was not the issue.

Two, his possession stats took a nose dive. Was that Tierney starting to fade, or different line mates on his line because of the major Thornton shift making that happen. Ill get to that in a sec.

Three, he went from getting very offensive zone starts, to getting very defensive zone starts. This could easily be a partial cause for the much lesser possession numbers in itself. Also the save percentage dropped through the floor, not sure if that was because Tierney, or whomever his linemates were, player far worse defensively, or he was getting bad luck on the ice.

Lastly, in the first half of the year, he was absolutely killing it on the PP. He and Labanc were number one and two, in pts/60, on the team, not just the 2nd unit. Considering before Thornton got hurt, Labanc was primarily on the 2nd unit with Tierney, it seems our 2nd pp suffered greatly for it went Thornton went down. I will say this too, Tierney was still the highest pts/60 player on the 2nd unit in the latter half of the year. So his numbers were hurt from losing Labanc as a PP partner, but he still showed, IMO, that he was the best player still on the 2nd unit as far as the PP goes.

Ok, so getting back to line mates for Tierney, and if something shifted dramatically after Thornton went down.

I went and manually checked a sampling of games from before, and after, Thornton got hurt. To see who Tierney was starting each game with. Obviously line changes could occur in game, but it IMO, still gives at least a semi decent idea who he was with for the most part.

Before the injury, Tierney played mostly with some combination of Boedker(mostly), Donskoi, Karlsson or Hansen. In two games he played with ONE of Meier or Labanc.

After the injury, the first couple games he was still with a mix of those players above, minus Labanc. However for atleast the last 20+ games every single game he was with Meier and Labanc at the same time, of the games I looked at.

I think it might be fair to say that as a line, those three don't mesh. More specifically I think its Tierney and Labanc who don't mesh, just a hunch, because they are both more playmaker than shooter, both small and relatively easy to knock of the puck. Labanc is not particularly defensively responsible yet, and when we also consider Tierney's ZS% dropped dramatically, at the same time he is playing primarily with Labanc and Meier, it might further indicate why possession stats, Gf% and SV% took a nose dive for Tierney in the latter half of the year.

Also, that line was the worst in the playoffs for us at ES, IMO, which further solidifies my belief that those three should not be a line.

What's you opinion, based on what you see here, or have found out yourself.

 

[STL Shark]

The biggest point that I have yet to see anyone bring up in the Tierney discussion is that he was literally a 4th line center until this year. He was playing more with guys like Mike Brown, Dainius Zubrus, Tommy Wingels, Joel Ward etc. than he did with real linemates. Minus the 2016 postseason when Deboer played Nick freaking Spaling as 4C in order to load up the top 6. Tierney had a good postseason but was back in the 4C role come 2016-17 season where his numbers were back to being poor. This was the first year he has been in a 3C role with truly good linemates for a full season and that in part is why his numbers were up a lot.

Is Tierney an elite 3C? No. I don't think anyone is trying to imply that. Tierney is an average to above average 3C who with the depth of this forward group will have opportunities to play with good linemates and put up 35+ points. He is a put up 89 points in 67 his last year in London and is a PPG player in the AHL. Lets not pretend he doesn't have offensive instincts and ability like many have said. He is actually a really creative player in the O-Zone when he is playing with confidence, but was saddled with Brown, Haley, and Scott in his first three seasons who couldn't think the game at that sort of level to finish off many of his chances.

I still think the best move for the current roster is to trade him as I think he can be a key piece in a Duchene type deal along with other assets, but that doesn't mean he is a bad player or should be viewed as a 4C and nothing more.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Here is what I found, and what I believe some possibilities could be based on that.

I started off by considering the biggest shift in the team this year was Thornton going down, and that might have affected many players, Tierney included.

So I parsed the data for before and after Thornton.

Before at ES-
Pts/60 1.36
G/60 .68
CF% 52.43
FF% 53.04
GF% 52.38
SV% 93.03
ZS% 56.66

PP pts/60 7.29

After at ES-
Pts/60 1.85
G/60 .62
CF% 45.61
FF% 47.35
GF% 44.64
SV% 89.12
ZS% 44.37

PP pts/60 2.99

Now a couple things stand out here, in my opinion.

One, Tierney actually scored more pts in the back half of the year. So his production was not the issue.

Two, his possession stats took a nose dive. Was that Tierney starting to fade, or different line mates on his line because of the major Thornton shift making that happen. Ill get to that in a sec.

Three, he went from getting very offensive zone starts, to getting very defensive zone starts. This could easily be a partial cause for the much lesser possession numbers in itself. Also the save percentage dropped through the floor, not sure if that was because Tierney, or whomever his linemates were, player far worse defensively, or he was getting bad luck on the ice.

Lastly, in the first half of the year, he was absolutely killing it on the PP. He and Labanc were number one and two, in pts/60, on the team, not just the 2nd unit. Considering before Thornton got hurt, Labanc was primarily on the 2nd unit with Tierney, it seems our 2nd pp suffered greatly for it went Thornton went down. I will say this too, Tierney was still the highest pts/60 player on the 2nd unit in the latter half of the year. So his numbers were hurt from losing Labanc as a PP partner, but he still showed, IMO, that he was the best player still on the 2nd unit as far as the PP goes.

Ok, so getting back to line mates for Tierney, and if something shifted dramatically after Thornton went down.

I went and manually checked a sampling of games from before, and after, Thornton got hurt. To see who Tierney was starting each game with. Obviously line changes could occur in game, but it IMO, still gives at least a semi decent idea who he was with for the most part.

Before the injury, Tierney played mostly with some combination of Boedker(mostly), Donskoi, Karlsson or Hansen. In two games he played with ONE of Meier or Labanc.

After the injury, the first couple games he was still with a mix of those players above, minus Labanc. However for atleast the last 20+ games every single game he was with Meier and Labanc at the same time, of the games I looked at.

I think it might be fair to say that as a line, those three don't mesh. More specifically I think its Tierney and Labanc who don't mesh, just a hunch, because they are both more playmaker than shooter, both small and relatively easy to knock of the puck. Labanc is not particularly defensively responsible yet, and when we also consider Tierney's ZS% dropped dramatically, at the same time he is playing primarily with Labanc and Meier, it might further indicate why possession stats, Gf% and SV% took a nose dive for Tierney in the latter half of the year.

Also, that line was the worst in the playoffs for us at ES, IMO, which further solidifies my belief that those three should not be a line.

What's you opinion, based on what you see here, or have found out yourself.

This whole post pretty much matches up with what I’ve seen, honestly. Thanks for doing all that research.

I would be curious to know Tierney’s 5v5 on-ice shooting percentage in the back-half, though. I think his increase in scoring is likely due to Meier, so I would be curious as to how many of Tierney’s back-half 5v5 points also had Meier scoring on the play. Not asking you to look that up because you’ve definitely already contributed a lot, but those two things are what I suspect are at the root of Tierney’s second half scoring increase despite the cratering possession numbers. I wonder if being separated from Donskoi is a third contributing factor. Donskoi and Tierney had incredible numbers together IIRC, but I think it’s pretty obvious that Donskoi was the play driver of the duo.

Like I said, Tierney really had a “tale of two seasons” type of deal this season and it’s incredibly blatant with those numbers you posted.

 

[Jaleel619]

If we ever go through a rebuild we need lots of Sharknado GDTs.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Joakim Ryan confirmed #1D.

Seriously though, I’m totally fine with the Burns contract and I’m not mad about Couture. It’s the other three that are brutal. Vlasic could have gotten a haul last year, and Jones could have gotten a good return from Carolina or Buffalo or the Isles who need a starting goaltender desperately. Letting Kane walk saves us a 1st round pick. All brutal moves/lack of moves.

I’m sorry, why exactly is the Couture contract not a problem? He has notably declined since his 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 seasons. It has been a steady trend of decline over the course of 4 seasons now and he has been injured in every one of the last 3 seasons. I’m not saying he sucks, but he is not quite as good as he once was. The contract also doesn’t even kick in until he is 30 years old and it takes him until he turns age 38 $8M with a 3 team no-trade list. How on earth is that contract not a problem?

The Couture contract is a terrible contract. There was absolutely need to immediately lock up a player of his caliber in their age 30-37 seasons to such a high rate as soon as possible. It’s not as bad as the Kane, Vlasic, or Jones contracts, but it’s still pretty f***ing bad.

I don't think our chances would be better. I don't even think tanking really works. It's not like every tank team is on the fast track to the scf. Like look back at the last ~10 drafts and there really aren't any players that stick out as key contributors to their team's scf run.

Are we talking SCF runs or SCF wins?

Drew Doughty and Steven Stamkos were the top-2 draft picks ten years ago. Tampa picked Victor Hedman a year later and Tampa has made 3 ECF and 1 SCF with those guys and will probably win the SCF next year. Seth Jones indirectly contributed to Nashville’s SCF run the same way Brayden Schenn did to LA’s win by returning a key piece in trade. Also, I realize I am Mr. “Cups are everything”, but McDavid/Draisaitl and Matthews/Marner were both back to back top-5 picks who have both carried their franchise out of the treacherous trenches in which they appeared stuck.

With that said, tanking isn’t a fool proof road to victory. Never said it was. But you almost certainly need to tank to win at this point.