Speculation: Summer 2018 Roster Discussion Part IV

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) We may experience a temporary downtime. Thanks for the patience.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Maladroit

Registered User
May 9, 2018
980
437
Berkeley, CA
What honest research have you done that makes you so certain that Kane is any less primed for a decline than Ryan, Lucic, Okposo, and Eriksson were?

"This time will be different" is what every fan and GM looking through rose-colored glasses thinks every time one of these idiotic contracts is signed. The only silver lining is that the Kane, Vlasic, Jones and likely even Couture contracts are ticking time bombs that will result in the end of Doug Wilson's regime and usher the Sharks into a full rebuild. You can handle one, maybe two of these deals, but having four on the books is untenable in even the medium term.
 

Hinterland

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2016
11,994
5,658
"This time will be different" is what every fan and GM looking through rose-colored glasses thinks every time one of these idiotic contracts is signed. The only silver lining is that the Kane, Vlasic, Jones and likely even Couture contracts are ticking time bombs that will result in the end of Doug Wilson's regime and usher the Sharks into a full rebuild. You can handle one, maybe two of these deals, but having four on the books is untenable in even the medium term.

I like the Jones contract. Cheap deal for a good goalie. He also won't be too old when it expires. Otherwise I agree.
 

Maladroit

Registered User
May 9, 2018
980
437
Berkeley, CA
I like the Jones contract. Cheap deal for a good goalie. He also won't be too old when it expires. Otherwise I agree.

$5.75 million isn't cheap for a mediocre starter and the cap hit is the least of my concerns with the deal. Locking up any non-elite goaltender for six years is a huge risk and Jones isn't just non-elite he's a league average starter. Which means that even with zero decline he's probably going to put up a save percentage that's below league average in three of those six years.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,361
25,425
Fremont, CA
What the hell else do you think I'm talking about apart from production when I'm referring to decline? On average forwards retain 90% of their peak scoring through age 29 which drops to 80% by 31 and 70% by 32-33. We're starting with an incredibly unimpressive peak for Kane - his peak was as a 60-point player so it's reasonable to expect him to be in the 50-55 point range for the first two years of the contract, drop below 50 by year four and hover around the 40-point mark in the final two years of the deal. And this is all assuming he plays 82 games a season which we know isn't going to happen so adjust those numbers downward somewhat.

Those are just averages and Kane isn't going to follow that trajectory perfectly but it's flat out stupid to bet against historical precedent and assume he's going to vastly outperform those numbers. And those numbers past year two absolutely do not warrant a $7 million cap hit, no matter what the ceiling is, for a player who brings nothing else to the table outside of scoring. Hell I'm not even convinced he's worth $7 million next season.

He is absolutely not worth $7 million next season. He is the only forward with a cap hit of $7M or more who has never scored 60 points and he sure as hell doesn’t bring enough away from the puck to justify making any more than his offensive peers.
 

Maladroit

Registered User
May 9, 2018
980
437
Berkeley, CA
He is absolutely not worth $7 million next season. He is the only forward with a cap hit of $7M or more who has never scored 60 points and he sure as hell doesn’t bring enough away from the puck to justify making any more than his offensive peers.

My theory is that DW rushed to sign Kane in order to show Tavares that "star players" (lol) want to play here and because he thought having Kane as a potential winger would somehow entice Tavares to sign with the Sharks. Meanwhile the Leafs are offering the opportunity to play with peak Matthews, Marner and Nylander. It's just an embarrassment for everyone involved.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,711
14,213
Folsom
What the hell else do you think I'm talking about apart from production when I'm referring to decline? On average forwards retain 90% of their peak scoring through age 29 which drops to 80% by 31 and 70% by 32-33. We're starting with an incredibly unimpressive peak for Kane - his peak was as a 60-point player so it's reasonable to expect him to be in the 50-55 point range for the first two years of the contract, drop below 50 by year four and hover around the 40-point mark in the final two years of the deal. And this is all assuming he plays 82 games a season which we know isn't going to happen so adjust those numbers downward somewhat.

Those are just averages and Kane isn't going to follow that trajectory perfectly but it's flat out stupid to bet against historical precedent and assume he's going to vastly outperform those numbers. And those numbers past year two absolutely do not warrant a $7 million cap hit, no matter what the ceiling is, for a player who brings nothing else to the table outside of scoring. Hell I'm not even convinced he's worth $7 million next season.

And that's all great but it doesn't always apply to every individual. Joe Pavelski is an example that defies the trends and sometimes players will defy trends. I'm not assuming he's going to vastly outperform any number. I have my questions regarding Kane moving forward but I'm not willing to make predictions about three or four years down the road regarding a player's supposed decline when we've seen numerous players come to San Jose and play very well into their 30's. Kane certainly has the talent to do that and still has things he can improve on to be a more well-rounded player. I don't really care if someone like you thinks he's worth 7 mil. I really don't care if he is worth it or not. The fact remains that he's going to be here at 7 mil and it'd be better for everyone involved if we didn't have to hear people incessantly bitch about it before he even gets to opening night.

What honest research have you done that makes you so certain that Kane is any less primed for a decline than Ryan, Lucic, Okposo, and Eriksson were?

Have you kept up on what those players have done and what's happened to them? Bobby Ryan gets hurt all the time because of the same broken finger that will never get better. Lucic is a big slow oaf that will only get slower and can't even be made to produce with McDavid anymore. Comparing Okposo on a bad team to Kane being on a good team isn't remotely a fair comparison but at least that one is close. Loui Eriksson has never had the motor that Kane does and it's obvious when he plays for a crap team like Vancouver that he doesn't play with really any intensity. Trying to blanket comparison Kane to those four is an exercise in being disingenuous. If you want to continue doing that, more power to you but know it will damage your credibility every single time you do such idiotic comparisons.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,711
14,213
Folsom
$5.75 million isn't cheap for a mediocre starter and the cap hit is the least of my concerns with the deal. Locking up any non-elite goaltender for six years is a huge risk and Jones isn't just non-elite he's a league average starter. Which means that even with zero decline he's probably going to put up a save percentage that's below league average in three of those six years.

Martin Jones' cap hit is 13th among goalies and that's roughly about where he ranks in any given year. That contract is fine and complaining about that means you don't actually want any stability in net.
 

Maladroit

Registered User
May 9, 2018
980
437
Berkeley, CA
Martin Jones' cap hit is 13th among goalies and that's roughly about where he ranks in any given year. That contract is fine and complaining about that means you don't actually want any stability in net.

Anaheim just signed a vastly superior goalie for a roughly equivalent % of cap hit to a contract that will expire when he's younger than Jones will be when his ends. The Jones contract is hardly the most disastrous the Sharks currently have on the books but it's still an unwise one. There is absolutely no guarantee that Jones provides stability, that's a complete fallacy. Goalies who aren't at the upper echelon are largely unpredictable year to year.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,711
14,213
Folsom
Anaheim just signed a vastly superior goalie for a roughly equivalent % of cap hit to a contract that will expire when he's younger than Jones will be when his ends. The Jones contract is hardly the most disastrous the Sharks currently have on the books but it's still an unwise one. There is absolutely no guarantee that Jones provides stability, that's a complete fallacy. Goalies who aren't at the upper echelon are largely unpredictable year to year.

There's no guarantee except for the fact that he's done so since being a Shark. You don't have to like all his save percentage numbers and you can compare them to whomever you please but Jones has provided stability in net for the team. It shows in how they play together and how they win games because that's the bottom line for goalies and teams. But the important thing is that you provide no actual options for them to replace Jones with. Every single free agent goalie that comes to market has been worse by a fair margin and I don't want the team spending more assets to find a goalie. I didn't like them doing it for Jones but at least he's proving to be worth doing that.
 

Mattb124

Registered User
Apr 29, 2011
6,618
4,104
What honest research have you done that makes you so certain that Kane is any less primed for a decline than Ryan, Lucic, Okposo, and Eriksson were?

What honestly leads you to believe this is researchable? Did you find a section in Cap Geek with Kane's MRI's?
 

Nolan11

Registered User
Mar 5, 2013
3,236
334
I don't see why you guys care if they're bad contracts. If they become crippling contracts, they just become burdens that lead to the tank you want anyways.

This. A few factors on the contract length discussions. First, we have an expansion coming up. If we lose Thornton and pavelski without finding a replacement, Kane could be exposed.

Second, we have a shortened/cancelled season likely due to the CBA negotiations. That should allow for some healing and less wear and tear on those 30+ year old bodies. It's not the age of a player so much as it is the hard mileage.
 

Hinterland

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2016
11,994
5,658
I don't see why you guys care if they're bad contracts. If they become crippling contracts, they just become burdens that lead to the tank you want anyways.

You can waste lots of years by doing what Wilson does. Just look at the Redwings. I wasn't on the rebuild train initially but it would surely be smarter than to constantly overpay for average players. It's what Holland did and slowly but surely he was up against the cap, couldn't even sign his RFA's and still had a crap team. He also gambled on terms and it cost him (and will continue to cost)

I'm not the greatest fan of that model.
 

Nolan11

Registered User
Mar 5, 2013
3,236
334
How about offer sheeting Shea Theodore 4 x 4. Cost us our 2nd if Vegas doesn't match ( even if they do, takes him right up to UFA)
 

nerdybeard

Registered User
Oct 1, 2011
671
303
Oakland, CA
It's pretty clear PDB will not give Heed any playing time - so I still like the idea of acquiring Faulk somehow. Or really any somewhat skilled D to take some assignments off Vlasic/Braun. It was very clear they were just gassed in the final stretch of the regular season and playoffs, but Vlasic showed he can bring a little teeny bit of offense last season which was nice.
Either bringing in a solid two-way guy for Vlasic and dropping Braun down with Dillon, or keeping Vlasic/Braun joined at the hip and upgrading 3rd pairing RD would be great overall. However, we all know DeMelo will be back at it again with Dillon and Vlasic/Braun will be getting double shifted in the 3rd period of all tight games until forever.
 

The Nemesis

Semper Tyrannus
Apr 11, 2005
88,565
32,197
Langley, BC
It's pretty clear PDB will not give Heed any playing time - so I still like the idea of acquiring Faulk somehow. Or really any somewhat skilled D to take some assignments off Vlasic/Braun. It was very clear they were just gassed in the final stretch of the regular season and playoffs, but Vlasic showed he can bring a little teeny bit of offense last season which was nice.
Either bringing in a solid two-way guy for Vlasic and dropping Braun down with Dillon, or keeping Vlasic/Braun joined at the hip and upgrading 3rd pairing RD would be great overall. However, we all know DeMelo will be back at it again with Dillon and Vlasic/Braun will be getting double shifted in the 3rd period of all tight games until forever.

It's cute that people think things will change on the 3rd pairing.

EnchantingIllfatedKissingbug-max-1mb.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor Soraluce

sampler

Registered User
Aug 3, 2018
326
244
It's pretty clear PDB will not give Heed any playing time - so I still like the idea of acquiring Faulk somehow. Or really any somewhat skilled D to take some assignments off Vlasic/Braun. It was very clear they were just gassed in the final stretch of the regular season and playoffs, but Vlasic showed he can bring a little teeny bit of offense last season which was nice.
Either bringing in a solid two-way guy for Vlasic and dropping Braun down with Dillon, or keeping Vlasic/Braun joined at the hip and upgrading 3rd pairing RD would be great overall. However, we all know DeMelo will be back at it again with Dillon and Vlasic/Braun will be getting double shifted in the 3rd period of all tight games until forever.

Yeah, I would love to add a good two-way top 4 Dman, if only they grew on trees. I agree that Vlasic, Braun, and Burns are getting too old to anchor the D for much longer. I thought they hung in pretty well, but the punishment for especially pickles and Braun will break their bodies down.

This is a huge year for Joakim Ryan. I thought he did very well in his debut last year, and he has shown at all levels to be able to contribute well at both ends. The two-goal game he had was very exciting and showed that he is not afraid to come down and enter the fray offensively, while possessing the speed and calm to get back well and make smart plays in the D zone. If he takes a giant leap, it could lighten the load. Demelo also looked a whole lot better as the year progressed and may be ready for more minutes while contributing more offensively too.

Heed someone found himself in the doghouse and just can't get out. I think Middleton and Simek seem to have a better chance of landing a full time, longer term gig.

There are very few to-be-ufa Dmen likely to come on the market this year, so the deadline will likely be thin. Dougie has not acquired a defenseman of meaning for a long time (4 years ago for martin was by UFA, so not since 2011 for burns as Polak does not count). Erik Karlsson is a nice pipe dream, but not gunna happen and Faulk plays top 4 minutes and scores alot, but is minus a billion every year. Does he have the defensive game to play key minutes? I am not interested in scoring 10 more goals and giving up 25, not to mention the significant cost that acquiring him will have.

Right now, I see few great choices, so I think at least for one more year, its the Burns-Pickles-Braun show with a cameo from Ryan and Demelo hopefully taking some strides.
 

sampler

Registered User
Aug 3, 2018
326
244
Per the discussion about the Kane. Pickles, Burns, Jones, Couture contracts...

1. Jones' deal is A-OK! its not super cheap, but Jones has provided stability in net unseen since maybe the top Nabby days, and even then, Jones has shown he can do it in the Playoffs just as well. He's not at all old, and has shown no signs of decay to me. I would be surprised if this turns out badly. And, even if it was an overpay, if he goes elsewhere, what next? Mrazek? Lehner? some other cast-off? No thanks. jones gives safety and stability. He is the only goalie to lead the sharks to the cup finals. I'll take that deal anyday.

2. Kane: iffy for sure. Could go either way. I am not convinced it's terrible. Yet. The risk is high: Injury history, character stuff, overall contributions are all unsure. He was not even a 50 pt player prior to this season. He has lots of inury history and of course the sexual stuff and teammate problems. It's an extremely high risk $$ and term. However, he showed, albeit briefly, that as a complementary piece, on a team with solid leadership, in a friendly market, he has the skillset to be 30+ goal, 60-70 pt player, which makes 7M a cheap deal, especially for someone who is just 26 at the start and adds physicality too. Big risk, but not necessarily bad.

3. Burns: Gotta pay what it takes. Norris trophy winners are expensive. Simple as that. Letting him walk is just not an option for a team that has nothing close to a replacement player. The end of that deal will Hurt, but the good news is that a shot doesnt generally get weaker so the contributions offensively and on the PP should still be solid. The defense may be weaker, so finding a Burns Whisperer will be the key to making this deal work in the tail end. Unfortunately, Burns is irreplacable for the sharks now, so Dougie had little choice here.

4. Vlasic: See above. Best shut down Dman in the league. Been underpaid for years. He was on team Canada's goal team. He is now a known star, so 7M is cheap. This is the one deal that will really hurt the last 3-4 years. Vlasic plays a punishing game, blocking shots, absorbing hits, and trying to keep up with the fastest, biggest guys in the league. This is going to crush him eventually, and injuries will start coming. Its a catch-22, because giving him 9-10M per for 4 years makes more sense in terms of value, but kills the cap now. Just like giving burns 10+M for 4 years is proper valuation, but kills the cap today. Dougie is obiously counting on a rising cap that makes 8M or 7M 4 years from now look like 4M in today's dollars. That's the only way this can be looked at as not killing them a few years down the line.

5. Couture: 8M is alot. He is likely worth 8M today,so 8M 5 years from now is alot. However, with cooch, his contributions extend beyond the ice. Much like Jumbo and Pavs, Couture is center to the organizational soul. He consistently elevates his game in the biggest moments as he would have been the Conn Smythe winner if the sharks had won two years ago, and he led the team in scoring and was the best player last year too. His 8x8 might be a tough one to absorb 4 or 5 years from now, but his character off the ice might justify a lower role on the ice. Jumbo was not worth 8 last year or 5 this year for his on-ice contributions. But if you read Kane's piece in the player's journal, you see why dougie gives him the $$. He brings other guys in. He makes SJ a good place to live and work. He adds levity when the team is struggling and he is a role model who has been highly effective in the development of Pavelski, Couture, Hertl and others. It is wrong to underestimate the effect that Couture has and will have on the young guys coming up. He will wear the C when Pavs is done, and that's why he is paid what he is.

In other words, yes 3 or 4 years from now, the sharks could be in trouble. However, the cap will likely be least 10M higher, and the players will still be respectable, even if not as central as today. That's why the development of Hertl, Meier, Labanc, Ryan, Norris, Gambrell, Suomela, Balcers, Merkley, and others is so crucial, and the right trade and patience to get the correct guy is key.
 

spintops

Registered User
Sep 13, 2013
1,653
867
Anaheim just signed a vastly superior goalie for a roughly equivalent % of cap hit to a contract that will expire when he's younger than Jones will be when his ends. The Jones contract is hardly the most disastrous the Sharks currently have on the books but it's still an unwise one. There is absolutely no guarantee that Jones provides stability, that's a complete fallacy. Goalies who aren't at the upper echelon are largely unpredictable year to year.
Props for using the cap hit number everytime you bring up Kane, and then using cap hit % when talking about Gibson / someone with a higher cap hit. That's the way to use stats in your favor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharksrule04

The Nemesis

Semper Tyrannus
Apr 11, 2005
88,565
32,197
Langley, BC
Yeah, I would love to add a good two-way top 4 Dman, if only they grew on trees. I agree that Vlasic, Braun, and Burns are getting too old to anchor the D for much longer. I thought they hung in pretty well, but the punishment for especially pickles and Braun will break their bodies down.

This is a huge year for Joakim Ryan. I thought he did very well in his debut last year, and he has shown at all levels to be able to contribute well at both ends. The two-goal game he had was very exciting and showed that he is not afraid to come down and enter the fray offensively, while possessing the speed and calm to get back well and make smart plays in the D zone. If he takes a giant leap, it could lighten the load. Demelo also looked a whole lot better as the year progressed and may be ready for more minutes while contributing more offensively too.

Heed someone found himself in the doghouse and just can't get out. I think Middleton and Simek seem to have a better chance of landing a full time, longer term gig.

There are very few to-be-ufa Dmen likely to come on the market this year, so the deadline will likely be thin. Dougie has not acquired a defenseman of meaning for a long time (4 years ago for martin was by UFA, so not since 2011 for burns as Polak does not count). Erik Karlsson is a nice pipe dream, but not gunna happen and Faulk plays top 4 minutes and scores alot, but is minus a billion every year. Does he have the defensive game to play key minutes? I am not interested in scoring 10 more goals and giving up 25, not to mention the significant cost that acquiring him will have.

Right now, I see few great choices, so I think at least for one more year, its the Burns-Pickles-Braun show with a cameo from Ryan and Demelo hopefully taking some strides.

Ryan won't show his offensive dimension as long as hes the Burns-sitter. Covering for Burns means sacrificing his forays into the offensive zone and never getting the puck since it all runs off Burns' stick.

It kinda sucks, but I'm OK with taking that hit if he can continue to help prop up Burns' defensive zone deficiencies better than some of the other guys we've had in that role.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sampler

Maladroit

Registered User
May 9, 2018
980
437
Berkeley, CA
Props for using the cap hit number everytime you bring up Kane, and then using cap hit % when talking about Gibson / someone with a higher cap hit. That's the way to use stats in your favor.

When have I ever compared Kane to another contract using the raw number rather than % of cap? When I listed comparable contracts it was guys like Lucic and Okposo who have lower cap hits than Kane but were also signed under lower cap ceilings. It's not like I'm disingenuously comparing Kane to Tarasenko or Bergeron or something just because the cap hits are similar.
 

sampler

Registered User
Aug 3, 2018
326
244
Ryan won't show his offensive dimension as long as hes the Burns-sitter. Covering for Burns means sacrificing his forays into the offensive zone and never getting the puck since it all runs off Burns' stick.

It kinda sucks, but I'm OK with taking that hit if he can continue to help prop up Burns' defensive zone deficiencies better than some of the other guys we've had in that role.

Still, Ryan might only score 5, but get 30-40 assists and begin skating 20+ mins/night. He will definitely be given that chance this season. I have no problem if burns remains the trigger man and Ryan gets a billion helpers and solidifies the defensive side. Paul martin was unreal in cup run year and the next. He had 20 and 26 points respectively, but was outstanding. For me, I see Ryan as having a bit more offensive potential, so I think that 30-40 points is not out of the question if he plays a regular shift alongside Burns. Also, Martin was atop PK guy, while I think Ryan will not be used that way. That should allow him to maximize his time with Burns at EV or possibly a touch of PP time.

Also, should be interesting to see if demelo takes a step to the next level beyond a #6/7 Dman. He definitely had his best year last year, and might get a bigger chance this year, especially if injuries hit.

I think the D should be able to hold up. The biggest risk wold be an injury to burns or vlasic. That could spell big trouble, real fast if Dillon finds himself with 20+ mins. If they can stay lucky and avoid injuries to those two, the D should be fine...
 

Sysreq

Registered User
Apr 9, 2015
2,958
1,220
Why are you spreading lies? This is beyond ridiculous:laugh:

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/148625359/

Here again extra for you.


Since you mentioned him...here Boedker's numbers of last season. 2,56 P/60 during the playoffs, 2,26 during the regular season but keep in mind that until new years eve Boedker scored only 8 points. His P/60 in 2018 (when he finally got used properly) must be skyhigh.

lol Skinner scores 1.8 goals per 60 at 5 on 5 last season. With a rediculous 64% offensive zone starts. That’s terrible. He is a defensive liability and doesn’t score 5 on 5. You drop his ice time to 2nd, 3rd line minutes he would see here and stop sheltering him, and he is gonna be Boedker 2.0. Skinner is not a play-off archetype player - he will do well with the Sabres. But there is a reason his return was so low.

We did not want Skinner.

My list remains: Trouba, Panarin, Karlsson. And just for shiggles - Rick Nash on a sweetheart cup chasing contract. Skinner, Pacioretty, et al, are a disaster waiting to happen.
 

Sysreq

Registered User
Apr 9, 2015
2,958
1,220
What are you talking about? Skinner is a top 50 5on5 scorer per 60 minutes over the past three years. Boedker is 213th on the same list and has some of the worst possession numbers in the NHL over that period while Skinner is well above average.

I dunno where you are getting your numbers. Link?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad