Speculation: 2022-23 Sharks Roster Discussion Part II

[weastern bias]

Guys, there's a gigantic question mark forcing his way out of his organization, we'd be stupid not to jettison the #2 prospect in our system for this guy who has no guarantee to become an NHL caliber talent because the prospect we already have has no guarantee to become an NHL caliber talent

 

[Herschel]

Peeking at their stats, Theodore was a fairly dominant AHL player from day one. Josi was prolific in an elite men's league and also dominated the AHL from day one.

Merkley took a year to even get the offense going in the AHL, and he's still bad defensively.

Super hard to compare Merkley's first AHL season which happened under significant Covid restrictions to Theodore's first season in the AHL.

Not only that but their team situations were very different. Theodore was stuck in the AHL were as Merkley has done quite a bit of yo-yo'ing

All things considered, Merkley needs to take noticeable strides this season and I suspect the plan is for him to do that in the AHL.

 

[TheBeard]

Guys, there's a gigantic question mark forcing his way out of his organization, we'd be stupid not to jettison the #2 prospect in our system for this guy who has no guarantee to become an NHL caliber talent because the prospect we already have has no guarantee to become an NHL caliber talent

Yeah, but Lund dominated the Eastern European Elite Balcan League which is almost a guarantee he'll dominate the NHL

 

[Hodge]

If you don’t think the SHL is a top pro league you should write off Eklund as a legitimate prospect considering the season he just put up there.

 

[STL Shark]

So you're admitting you actually can't acquire a better prospect than Lundkvist for a 2nd round pick even though @STL Shark claims there's "oodles of data" showing you can. Got it.

Lundkvist has already proven he can be a dominant player in one of the best pro leagues in the world. That's much more meaningful than anything Bordeleau has done so far.

You truly are the most dense individual on planet earth. Truly remarkable in your ways of ignoring parts of arguments and selectively picking out one phrase and ignoring all other content/context in creating false narratives.

I CLEARLY stated that 1) You're the one narrowing the argument to a prospects for prospects trade and 2) That there is "oodles of data that shows that shows you can acquire solid NHL D-Men for 2nd rounders". In no way shape or form or even inference does that read that I said anything remotely close to your claims. You're either incapable of reading or just continuing to grasp at straws and move the goal posts because you keep getting stuffed in a locker post after post.

 

[Hodge]

You truly are the most dense individual on planet earth. Truly remarkable in your ways of ignoring parts of arguments and selectively picking out one phrase and ignoring all other content/context in creating false narratives.

I CLEARLY stated that 1) You're the one narrowing the argument to a prospects for prospects trade and 2) That there is "oodles of data that shows that shows you can acquire solid NHL D-Men for 2nd rounders". In no way shape or form or even inference does that read that I said anything remotely close to your claims. You're either incapable of reading or just continuing to grasp at straws and move the goal posts because you keep getting stuffed in a locker post after post.

My mistake for making the charitable assumption that you couldn't actually be suggesting something as stupid as trading Bordeleau or a 2nd round pick for an established NHL defenseman. How the hell would that make any sense for the Sharks in their current state? A non-playoff team should not be moving those assets for the type of "solid NHL D-man" they would be bringing back.

Even Lundkvist at 22 is close to the upper age limit of players we should be trading significant futures for. But in a straight up swap for Bordeleau I think we're clearly getting the better end of the deal even with the age difference.

 

[TheBeard]

If you don’t think the SHL is a top pro league you should write off Eklund as a legitimate prospect considering the season he just put up there.

My point is dominating any league that ain't the NHL don't mean squat until they dominate in the NHL

 

[PacificOceanPotion]

My mistake for making the charitable assumption that you couldn't actually be suggesting something as stupid as trading Bordeleau or a 2nd round pick for an established NHL defenseman. How the hell would that make any sense for the Sharks in their current state? A non-playoff team should not be moving those assets for the type of "solid NHL D-man" they would be bringing back.

Even Lundkvist at 22 is close to the upper age limit of players we should be trading significant futures for. But in a straight up swap for Bordeleau I think we're clearly getting the better end of the deal even with the age difference.

Not gonna lie, I like Bords a lot, but I’d do a Lundkvist swap for him.

 

[Gecklund]

Not gonna lie, I like Bords a lot, but I’d do a Lundkvist swap for him.

I’d love to hear your reasoning on this. Not saying you’re wrong but I’d love to hear a non asshole response for the trade.

I’ve kind of said from the beginning that it’s not necessarily bad value but I feel like it’s a bad fit positional wise. I see Lundkvist as a similar prospect to Merkley. We also have a few other RD on in the system. Whether you think Bordeleau is going to be a C or not, you can’t deny that he still could very well end up a C at the NHL level. There’s only Bystedt in my opinion other than Bordeleau who projects to be a C at the nhl level in our pool.

 

[one2gamble]

Bords is going to rip shit up, just watch

 

[TheBeard]

The creativity and excitement bords brought at the end of last year was much needed after how difficult the season was. Trading him for another problem child feels like a great way to keep the fans engaged during another difficult season!

 

[ThePlanet]

My (overly optimistic) opening night starting lineup:

Meier - Hertl - Barabanov
Lindblom - Couture - Bonino
Eklund - Kunin - Bordeleau
Gregor - Sturm - Labanc

Hatakka - Karlsson
Ferraro - Nutivaara
Vlasic - Merkley

 

[Cas]

Bords is going to rip shit up, just watch

My heart says Gretzky, but I think he's just going to wind up as Crosby but with McDavid's speed.

 

[DG93]

I’d love to hear your reasoning on this. Not saying you’re wrong but I’d love to hear a non asshole response for the trade.

I’ve kind of said from the beginning that it’s not necessarily bad value but I feel like it’s a bad fit positional wise. I see Lundkvist as a similar prospect to Merkley. We also have a few other RD on in the system. Whether you think Bordeleau is going to be a C or not, you can’t deny that he still could very well end up a C at the NHL level. There’s only Bystedt in my opinion other than Bordeleau who projects to be a C at the nhl level in our pool.

Despite Hodge's reply being very snarky, I actually agree with his reasoning. The Sharks' prospect pool isn't good overall, but it's especially poor on defense in terms of top-4 potential. Lundqvist did well in a top pro league like the SHL and has that top-4 upside that the majority of Sharks' prospects seem to lack at this point. While Bordeleau could develop into a middle-6 tweener, I'd be happy to trade him for a guy with intriguing top-4 upside, especially when the Rangers have less leverage.

 

[hohosaregood]

This is definitely the words one says when they're competing for the playoffs this year

 

[Gecklund]

Despite Hodge's reply being very snarky, I actually agree with his reasoning. The Sharks' prospect pool isn't good overall, but it's especially poor on defense in terms of top-4 potential. Lundqvist did well in a top pro league like the SHL and has that top-4 upside that the majority of Sharks' prospects seem to lack at this point. While Bordeleau could develop into a middle-6 tweener, I'd be happy to trade him for a guy with intriguing top-4 upside, especially when the Rangers have less leverage.

Lundkvist doesn’t have some so much higher potential or chance of making it than Merkley, Laroque, or Havelid though. Bordeleau again is our only C with top 6 potential.

 

[hohosaregood]

Lundkvist doesn’t have some so much higher potential or chance of making it than Merkley, Laroque, or Havelid though. Bordeleau again is our only C with top 6 potential.

And if Bordeleau is as useless as Hodge thinks he is, then the rangers have zero reason to trade for him

 

[Cas]

Despite Hodge's reply being very snarky, I actually agree with his reasoning. The Sharks' prospect pool isn't good overall, but it's especially poor on defense in terms of top-4 potential. Lundqvist did well in a top pro league like the SHL and has that top-4 upside that the majority of Sharks' prospects seem to lack at this point. While Bordeleau could develop into a middle-6 tweener, I'd be happy to trade him for a guy with intriguing top-4 upside, especially when the Rangers have less leverage.

While I can understand the idea, the fact is that the Sharks prospect pool is especially poor everywhere in terms of top four or top six potential.

Among defensemen with realistic top four potential, we have Merkley, Knyazev, Laroque, Hävelid, and Fisher. Among forwards with realistic top six potential, we have Eklund, Bordeleau, Gushchin, and Lund, with Robins, Bystedt, Coe, and Wiesblatt having very small chances. Of the forwards, only Bordeleau, Bystedt, and maybe Lund have realistic hopes of sticking at center (Eklund really should be a winger).

Yes, it would be nice to have Lundqvist in the system, because Merkley has obvious warts and huge downside risk and Lundqvist at least gives us two bites at the young, pro-experienced, smallish, right-handed, offensively-focused defenseman apple (really three - Hävelid is in the same group, just younger). But trading Bordeleau is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and getting older in the process (Lundqvist is a lot closer to being "what you see is what you get" than Bordeleau is). In fact, it's worse - we have two centers in the system and four right-handed defensemen.

Neither are a lock to make an NHL dent. Both have chances to be significant future NHL players. All a Bordeleau-Lundqvist trade would do is weaken one pool to strengthen another, and the one getting stronger is actually a strength relative to the rest of the (overall weak) pool.

The only way that trade would make sense is if you are absolutely, positively certain that Bordeleau does not have any kind of NHL future, and given his obvious skill set and performance, I think that's not a good argument to make.

 

[Gecklund]

And if Bordeleau is as useless as Hodge thinks he is, then the rangers have zero reason to trade for him

If the Sharks prospects are as useless as Hodge says then there’s no point in trading for Lundkvist since they’re going to be icing 12 13th forwards, 6 7th Dmen, and an AHL goalie

While I can understand the idea, the fact is that the Sharks prospect pool is especially poor everywhere in terms of top four or top six potential.

Among defensemen with realistic top four potential, we have Merkley, Knyazev, Laroque, Hävelid, and Fisher. Among forwards with realistic top six potential, we have Eklund, Bordeleau, Gushchin, and Lund, with Robins, Bystedt, Coe, and Wiesblatt having very small chances. Of the forwards, only Bordeleau, Bystedt, and maybe Lund have realistic hopes of sticking at center (Eklund really should be a winger).

Yes, it would be nice to have Lundqvist in the system, because Merkley has obvious warts and huge downside risk and Lundqvist at least gives us two bites at the young, pro-experienced, smallish, right-handed, offensively-focused defenseman apple (really three - Hävelid is in the same group, just younger). But trading Bordeleau is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and getting older in the process (Lundqvist is a lot closer to being "what you see is what you get" than Bordeleau is). In fact, it's worse - we have two centers in the system and four right-handed defensemen.

Neither are a lock to make an NHL dent. Both have chances to be significant future NHL players. All a Bordeleau-Lundqvist trade would do is weaken one pool to strengthen another, and the one getting stronger is actually a strength relative to the rest of the (overall weak) pool.

The only way that trade would make sense is if you are absolutely, positively certain that Bordeleau does not have any kind of NHL future, and given his obvious skill set and performance, I think that's not a good argument to make.

I wish I could like this twice. Exactly what my thoughts are.

 

[DG93]

Lundkvist doesn’t have some so much higher potential or chance of making it than Merkley, Laroque, or Havelid though. Bordeleau again is our only C with top 6 potential.

Bordeleau has a lot of work to do to be in the 2C conversation...right now he's looking a lot more like a future 3C or middle-6 winger.

 

[hohosaregood]

Bordeleau has a lot of work to do to be in the 2C conversation...right now he's looking a lot more like a future 3C or middle-6 winger.

I said it elsewhere but a middle 6 forward is still a tremendously valuable player to have or to trade. Could easily bring back a 1st round pick or be part of a package for better player.

 

[Gecklund]

Bordeleau has a lot of work to do to be in the 2C conversation...right now he's looking a lot more like a future 3C or middle-6 winger.

That’s kind of unfair to him. Everyone has a lot to do to be a top sixer in the nhl. Bordeleau put up a PPG in the NCAA playing with awful linemates and deployed in a more defensive role. He had 3 points in 2 games on the AHL and 5 in his first 8 in the NHL. Like yeah he has things to work on but everyone does. This dude definitely has 2C potential and to say otherwise like you’re the one with the contrary opinion.

For reference Beniers who people say is a potential 1C scored 6 more points than him playing more offensive minutes and with another top 5 pick and another first rounder. Bordeleau played with two guys who will never be NHLers.

 

[Hodge]

Claiming Merkley, Knyazev, Laroque and Fisher have “realistic top four potential” is exactly the kind of delusional optimism I’m repeatedly told nobody here actually believes. If even one of those players makes the NHL in a bottom pairing role it’ll be a win.

 

[DG93]

That’s kind of unfair to him. Everyone has a lot to do to be a top sixer in the nhl. Bordeleau put up a PPG in the NCAA playing with awful linemates and deployed in a more defensive role. He had 3 points in 2 games on the AHL and 5 in his first 8 in the NHL. Like yeah he has things to work on but everyone does. This dude definitely has 2C potential and to say otherwise like you’re the one with the contrary opinion.

For reference Beniers who people say is a potential 1C scored 6 more points than him playing more offensive minutes and with another top 5 pick and another first rounder. Bordeleau played with two guys who will never be NHLers.

Fair enough, we'll have to see how he develops.

 

[TheBeard]

Claiming Merkley, Knyazev, Laroque and Fisher have “realistic top four potential” is exactly the kind of delusional optimism I’m repeatedly told nobody here actually believes. If even one of those players makes the NHL in a bottom pairing role it’ll be a win.

I’m actually convinced that you truly believe that once a player gets drafted here he no longer is capable of being an NHLer