Speculation: 2022-23 Sharks Roster Discussion Part II

[hohosaregood]

Joe Thornton is loveable. But he's also a loser. If he's a part of the franchise, in any way, you have to take the good with the bad..

You know just because a person doesn't win a championship doesn't mean they're fundamentally useless over the course of their lives.

 

[Hodge]

You know just because a person doesn't win a championship doesn't mean they're fundamentally useless over the course of their lives.

Nobody said Jumbo was fundamentally useless over the course of his life. But his Sharks tenure was ultimately a failure at achieving the one thing that matters and it’s well past time to move on.

 

[TheBeard]

Imagine calling someone with Joe’s resume a loser because he didn’t win a cup.

People act so entitled nowadays.

 

[weastern bias]

You know just because a person doesn't win a championship doesn't mean they're fundamentally useless over the course of their lives.

*citation needed

 

[OrrNumber4]

Imagine calling someone with Joe’s resume a loser because he didn’t win a cup.

People act so entitled nowadays.

As @Hodge said, he is not all a loser in life. But yes, he is a loser in terms of being a Stanley Cup winner, which this whole endeavor is all about.

 

[hohosaregood]

As @Hodge said, he is not all a loser in life. But yes, he is a loser in terms of being a Stanley Cup winner, which this whole endeavor is all about.

Your implication is that he doesn't bring value to the organization hockeywise since he's a loser.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Your implication is that he doesn't bring value to the organization hockeywise since he's a loser.

It would depend on the role, but you'd be bringing in someone who doesn't have winning habits for a team that desperately needs them.

 

[Frosty415]

It would depend on the role, but you'd be bringing in someone who doesn't have winning habits for a team that desperately needs them.

Were not winning alot next year

 

[TheBeard]

As @Hodge said, he is not all a loser in life. But yes, he is a loser in terms of being a Stanley Cup winner, which this whole endeavor is all about.

So when you say take the good with the bad with him if he's part of the franchise in any way, if he got into coaching or in as an advisor, what is the bad? Are you saying he's got a loser mentality because he never got over the hump?

 

[OrrNumber4]

So when you say take the good with the bad with him if he's part of the franchise in any way, if he got into coaching or in as an advisor, what is the bad? Are you saying he's got a loser mentality because he never got over the hump?

Presumably, Thornton would try to instruct the team with his habits, which are not winning habits.

For example, Thornton always took a very "relax, don't get excited, keep things light" in his approach to the playoffs and big games. That wasn't a strategy that worked out. I don't want him passing that attitude on to the prospects.

Or, take his steadfast refusal to modify his game and add a shooting element to it; "I'm a passer", etc. I wouldn't want him telling Eklund to focus on his playmaking ability but would want someone who pushed Eklund to be a more well-rounded player.

 

[one2gamble]

It would depend on the role, but you'd be bringing in someone who doesn't have winning habits for a team that desperately needs them.

hes won a lot of games and a lot of playoff series in his time. You can disagree with how he plays the game but there are some things that remain true.

Nobody plays that long without being in shape
Nobody puts up those kinds of statistics without seeing the game well
Nobody wins that many regular season games or playoff series in a career without developing winning habits.

Do I think he brought the right amount of intensity and willingness to change his game when it mattered....f*** no

 

[TheBeard]

Presumably, Thornton would try to instruct the team with his habits, which are not winning habits.

For example, Thornton always took a very "relax, don't get excited, keep things light" in his approach to the playoffs and big games. That wasn't a strategy that worked out. I don't want him passing that attitude on to the prospects.

Or, take his steadfast refusal to modify his game and add a shooting element to it; "I'm a passer", etc. I wouldn't want him telling Eklund to focus on his playmaking ability but would want someone who pushed Eklund to be a more well-rounded player.

So the team never won because Thornton tried to keep the players loose?

Thornton was also one of the ten greatest passers of all time. He had a good shot, but he knew what he excelled at. I don't think there's anything wrong with maximizing your strongest attributes. I personally think his presense in a young lockerroom would be something every team in the NHL would value.

Joe gets the oddest bum rap around here.

 

[Pavelski2112]

So the team never won because Thornton tried to keep the players loose?

Thornton was also one of the ten greatest passers of all time. He had a good shot, but he knew what he excelled at. I don't think there's anything wrong with maximizing your strongest attributes. I personally think his presense in a young lockerroom would be something every team in the NHL would value.

Joe gets the oddest bum rap around here.

If Bryan Rust doesn't score two goals in Game 7 against Tampa, we aren't having this conversation at all and the narrative is totally flipped.

 

[TheBeard]

If Bryan Rust doesn't score two goals in Game 7 against Tampa, we aren't having this conversation at all and the narrative is totally flipped.

I'm interested to see McDavid's reputation when he never wins a cup in Edmonton while scoring 1500 points in 1100 games.

 

[Karl Prime]

If Thornton is a loser, then so are Iginla, Alfredsson, the Sedins, Dionne, Oates, Hawerchuk, Sundin, Luongo, Pe. Stastny, Price, and many others.

 

[OrrNumber4]

If Thornton is a loser, then so are Iginla, Alfredsson, the Sedins, Dionne, Oates, Hawerchuk, Sundin, Luongo, Pe. Stastny, Price, and many others.

With Iginla, Hawerchuk, Oates, and Sundin I think the case can be made that they just didn't have the horses; they too often didn't play on teams that were good enough to win.

But the rest of the players, yes, I think this is an accurate statement.

 

[TheBeard]

And to think, all these years I thought hockey was a team sport.

 

[Pavelski2112]

With Iginla, Hawerchuk, Oates, and Sundin I think the case can be made that they just didn't have the horses; they too often didn't play on teams that were good enough to win.

But the rest of the players, yes, I think this is an accurate statement.

We can go in circles about this (and we have, many times) but just think about how when the Sharks finally had depth worthy of a Cup team, they made it to a Cup Final where they just got beaten by a better and more well-coached team led by another all-time great.

 

[Mattb124]

Maybe those who are indignant that the Sharks would employ a former player who never won a cup will decide to follow another team?

 

[Karl Prime]

So if you don't bring in Thornton because he never won a Cup, who do you bring in? Most former players turned coaches that they can hire don't have Cups. We shouldn't be happy about the new assistant coaches because they haven't won Cups? Grier never won a Cup so he will automatically do terribly?

 

[Church Hill]

Joe Thornton is a winner and the Sharks would eagerly and gratefully accept him in any role in the organization he wants. All this blah blah about him being a loser is something you only read on the internet. It's not real. Nobody actually believes it. It highlights the limitation of anonymous online discussion and information-sharing.

 

[fasterthanlight]

olympic gold medalist = loser on hfboards , glad some folks here aren't writing performance reviews for me lol

 

[OrrNumber4]

We can go in circles about this (and we have, many times) but just think about how when the Sharks finally had depth worthy of a Cup team, they made it to a Cup Final where they just got beaten by a better and more well-coached team led by another all-time great.

You are correct that we've gone around in circles, so I will keep it brief.

Joe Thornton has a long history of underperforming in the playoffs. In big moments, in critical moments, in essential games, he's someone with a history of withering and falling short. Not from a lack of talent, but because of a mental block he could not find a way around.

That's not a person I want in a coaching/developmental role in the organization.

So if you don't bring in Thornton because he never won a Cup, who do you bring in? Most former players turned coaches that they can hire don't have Cups. We shouldn't be happy about the new assistant coaches because they haven't won Cups? Grier never won a Cup so he will automatically do terribly?

This seems like an unfair strawman of my argument. It's not that Thornton hasn't won a cup, but that his playoff play is historically bad. Relative to his RS numbers, he has historically awful drops in production.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

You can have winning habits and still always be a part of a team that doesn't win a Cup. It's a team sport still even if the top dogs are the ones that lead the way.

 

[sharski]

If Thornton is a loser, then so are Iginla, Alfredsson, the Sedins, Dionne, Oates, Hawerchuk, Sundin, Luongo, Pe. Stastny, Price, and many others.

With Iginla, Hawerchuk, Oates, and Sundin I think the case can be made that they just didn't have the horses; they too often didn't play on teams that were good enough to win.

But the rest of the players, yes, I think this is an accurate statement.

Keep Roberto "Clutch" Luongo's NAME

OUCH YO f***ING

MOUTH