Speculation: 2019-2020 Sharks Roster Discussion
- Thread starter WTFetus
- Start date
- Status
Dicdonya
Registered User
- Jul 21, 2011
- 4,450
- 2,596
I would actually be ok with the team going bigger, even if it’s slower, as long as whoever those players are they can play hockey and are not goons.
I think as the league gets smaller and quicker naturally at some point bigger and stronger will start to reassert itself as a legit method to defeat the other team. A player like Hertl shows that being flat out stronger than most guys can lead to you keeping the puck a ton more, which should in theory lead to more scoring chances. Hertl is not fast by any means, so as long as the bigger players are not Pavelski slow, I don’t worry about that team keeping up with today’s hockey, with the immense amount of interference allowed.
I also think we are closer to a big strong slow team right now, than we are to a small fast skilled team, so trading off a couple smaller, weaker players for bigger ones would be easier to do IMO.
Nyquist by a mile. Not only because Nyquist is better and younger, but also because I don’t want Marleau back, he wanted to leave so he can stay gone thanks.
I think as the league gets smaller and quicker naturally at some point bigger and stronger will start to reassert itself as a legit method to defeat the other team. A player like Hertl shows that being flat out stronger than most guys can lead to you keeping the puck a ton more, which should in theory lead to more scoring chances. Hertl is not fast by any means, so as long as the bigger players are not Pavelski slow, I don’t worry about that team keeping up with today’s hockey, with the immense amount of interference allowed.
I also think we are closer to a big strong slow team right now, than we are to a small fast skilled team, so trading off a couple smaller, weaker players for bigger ones would be easier to do IMO.
Nyquist by a mile. Not only because Nyquist is better and younger, but also because I don’t want Marleau back, he wanted to leave so he can stay gone thanks.
Bigger doesn't have to mean slow. Plenty of big guys are fast or above average skaters.
I don't hold the animosity toward Patty that some of you seem to. I have no problem with a guy at the end of his career taking as big a payday as he can get. But I wouldn't want him back because of his age and lack of effectiveness.
Dicdonya
Registered User
- Jul 21, 2011
- 4,450
- 2,596
Generally bigger does mean slower, and any big, fast players out there generally are hard to come by unless they suck. So I think we could find a couple 4th liners with that mix, but finding top 6 caliber big, and fast guys, will generally be tougher and more expensive.
To be clear I’m not saying this is absolutely what I want to do, just that IF DW got bigger at the cost of speed, assuming the talent is equal, I would be ok with it.
Really I just want DW to actually have a freaking identity for the team, so at least big and strong would be one, instead of the hodgepodge of players we had this year, stylistically speaking.
As for Patty, no hate to him as a human, you gotta do what’s best for you and your family, making 18mil probably fits that, but as a fan, bye and don’t come back.
I would bring back Marleau because he fits the scheme speed, score, defense and is cheap contractually. He would be on the 4th line. We would have money for FA like Panarin, Coyle, Zucc, Duchene, etc.
How would marleau be cheap? He gets paid 6.25 million this year. Even if the leafs retained 50% he would still be making 3.1 mil, and that is a bad price to be paying a 4th liner.
I think a 3 team would be the way to go. Leafs retain 50%. Move him like an Ottawa or something that will be near the floor, they retain another 25-50%, and then finally move him West for 2 million or so. I would definitely take Marleau over a guy like Goodrow or Melker Karlsson. Your right though, that his cap hit at even 50% is just way too prohibitive.
Does he really hate it in Toronto that much? Honestly I dont think its worth … this means he didn't take time to think about leaving san Jose and just did it cuz DW didn't want to pony up.
Let him finish his contract, I just feel its too early to try and pull strings like buddy buddy? Doesn't add up.
Let him finish his contract, I just feel its too early to try and pull strings like buddy buddy? Doesn't add up.
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
I think it would be very hard for us to make a spot for Patty here. Even at 50%, we have bigger fish to fry in UFA signings than Patty.
I can totally see him wanting out from Toronto. Honestly, I am surprised it took him 2 years to want out. Babcock seems like a tough coach to play for and Toronto is the one city where they will scrutinize and criticize every player on the team for not performing upto 'expectations'. It was a pretty bad fit from the beginnning.
NewMuzu24
Registered User
- May 28, 2018
- 123
- 148
WRT Patty, he was my favorite Shark ever, but I made my peace with him choosing TOR. However, I don't have any ill-feelings about him coming back if it works out.
That said, I do see a path for him to come back next season. I look at Donskoi, who had 37 points and was a healthy scratch at times, and figure he'd cost ~$3.125M to keep next year, but we'd have to give term. Patty had 37 points, was equally frustrating in his inconsistency, and could cost $3.125M with only the one year left. They bring different things and aren't the same player, but I wouldn't be shocked to see them have similar levels of production next year.
I think the lack of term has benefits. He'd be off the books for a potential lockout/compliance buyout period, and he wouldn't have to be protected in an expansion draft.
Bringing him back/filling a bottom 6 wing spot is definitely far down the priority list, but if the following conditions are met, I would be happy with it:
- He costs nothing in assets to get back at 50% salary
- We've filled/attempted to fill the more important holes on the roster and have more than enough cap space to bring him back
- Him being on the team wouldn't block a prospect who needs/deserves the time at the NHL level
Heck, even have him go to AZ (Hell no to LA) at 50%. Then if at the TDL, they're out of it and we're contending and he's proven useful during the season and we could get him super cheap, that would be even better.
Not advocating for bringing him back aside from the eventual one-day press conference contract, but I do think there's a particular set of circumstances in which it could be a good move.
That said, I do see a path for him to come back next season. I look at Donskoi, who had 37 points and was a healthy scratch at times, and figure he'd cost ~$3.125M to keep next year, but we'd have to give term. Patty had 37 points, was equally frustrating in his inconsistency, and could cost $3.125M with only the one year left. They bring different things and aren't the same player, but I wouldn't be shocked to see them have similar levels of production next year.
I think the lack of term has benefits. He'd be off the books for a potential lockout/compliance buyout period, and he wouldn't have to be protected in an expansion draft.
Bringing him back/filling a bottom 6 wing spot is definitely far down the priority list, but if the following conditions are met, I would be happy with it:
- He costs nothing in assets to get back at 50% salary
- We've filled/attempted to fill the more important holes on the roster and have more than enough cap space to bring him back
- Him being on the team wouldn't block a prospect who needs/deserves the time at the NHL level
Heck, even have him go to AZ (Hell no to LA) at 50%. Then if at the TDL, they're out of it and we're contending and he's proven useful during the season and we could get him super cheap, that would be even better.
Not advocating for bringing him back aside from the eventual one-day press conference contract, but I do think there's a particular set of circumstances in which it could be a good move.
WSS11
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2009
- 6,139
- 5,311
You must have already forgotten all the years that we were slow and big including 2016 when the Pens skated around our boys like they were telephone poles. This team was built perfectly this year but had no system. It doesn’t matter how we construct this team if the coaches running it have no idea how to utilize them.
Jargon
Registered User
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,105
- 4,877
We have a system, it just is not very good. Cycle the puck, pass to D-Man standing at the corner of the point as far away as possible from the net, shoot puck, hit shin pad/miss net/hope for deflection, repeat.
Yeah, there's hardly offensive creativity to our system when we have the puck deep in the attacking zone. D-men only pinch on a puck race rather than when there's forward control of the puck down low. Burns has a great shot but he's much more deadly when he's skating below the faceoff circles. I'm not opposed to having the point funneling be a significant part of the system to utilize their best offensive talents but it shouldn't be first, second, and third options. They need to be able to have someone like Hertl be able to pass to a pinching d-man to the backdoor occasionally or other various forward cycle plays.
Groo
Registered User
Jargon
Registered User
Yeah, this I agree with. It's kinda interesting because the system the team played at the beginning of the year -- where we had virtually no defense, but our players were scoring like crazy and the games were really fun to watch -- was potent and exciting... if they also played defense. If they can find the right balance... 'cause otherwise, it's, yeah, everybody pinches like crazy and let's in a million goals (but scores a ton), or everyone is stationary, passing to D who shoots it with a hope and a prayer.
WSS11
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2009
- 6,139
- 5,311
The 75 odd man rushes against per game and constant breakdowns in dzone coverage. I don’t like the bruins, blues or golden knights but you could tell they’re at least structurally organized. The sharks were anything but that this year and Jones was left hung out to dry most nights because of it.
It's done for a specific purpose and that purpose is reasonable. It's to push the PK back and have the puck carrier be able to build up speed so that if they have to chip it in, he's likely the first one to retrieve it. The problem is that they still try to carry it in with that setup instead of putting the puck in the best spot to get it back and set up. They also decide for some reason that it should be someone like Hertl or Pavelski be the guy that tries to enter the zone after the pass back.
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
Yeah, don't think I would want Marleau with the Sharks again. Use the money you would take from signing him and use it in other areas.
LadyStanley
Registered User
They've got Clarkson's $5.25m which has been on LTIR the past two years. But Holden seems to be one guide identified as tradeable asset.
He's UFA, nor RFA. Been inconsistent. But does have Finish suomo going for him.
- Status
