Speculation: 2022-23 Sharks Roster Discussion Part II

[PacificOceanPotion]

Zetterlund is never going to be a top six forward. He just doesn't have the skill and should top out as a third line player. I'd be shocked if Pederson is a legitimate top six forward, as well.

You don’t think so? Zetters AHL numbers have been good. I think his short end of season stint with our club wasn’t indicative of his ceiling. I liked what I saw from Pederson. I actually forgot about Kaut so you could bump Pederson to the 4th line and have Kaut on Hertl’s hip.

 

[Cas]

You don’t think so? Zetters AHL numbers have been good. I think his short end of season stint with our club wasn’t indicative of his ceiling. I liked what I saw from Pederson. I actually forgot about Kaut so you could bump Pederson to the 4th line and have Kaut on Hertl’s hip.

The problem with players like Zetterlund, Peterson, and Kaut is that they do nothing particularly well at the NHL level. They're all fine - no obvious weaknesses - but none of them have a real plus NHL skill that allows them to fill a top six role. This allows them to be good at the AHL level, but not so much in the NHL.

Zetterlund was nothing special in his first two years in the AHL (combined 15 G - 23 A in 80 GP), and then had 24 G - 28 A in 58 games last season, at the age of 22. Dylan Gambrell had 20 G - 25 A in 51 games at exactly the same age in his AHL rookie year. Now, that's obviously cherry-picking, but Gambrell has sort of the same problem as Zetterlund, in that he just doesn't do anything particularly well - he's a decent skater but nothing special, doesn't have much of a shot, isn't strong, doesn't win faceoffs, not much of a passer or offensively creative. They're really not that dissimilar in this sense - they don't have anything that can fit in a top six role, they're just kind of there, taking up space and sometimes picking up points. On a good team, players like this are in the bottom six if they're not on the bench. They're not quite replacement level, but they're not far from it.

We shouldn't expect anything really interesting from any of them.

 

[OrrNumber4]

The problem with players like Zetterlund, Peterson, and Kaut is that they do nothing particularly well at the NHL level. They're all fine - no obvious weaknesses - but none of them have a real plus NHL skill that allows them to fill a top six role. This allows them to be good at the AHL level, but not so much in the NHL.

Zetterlund was nothing special in his first two years in the AHL (combined 15 G - 23 A in 80 GP), and then had 24 G - 28 A in 58 games last season, at the age of 22. Dylan Gambrell had 20 G - 25 A in 51 games at exactly the same age in his AHL rookie year. Now, that's obviously cherry-picking, but Gambrell has sort of the same problem as Zetterlund, in that he just doesn't do anything particularly well - he's a decent skater but nothing special, doesn't have much of a shot, isn't strong, doesn't win faceoffs, not much of a passer or offensively creative. They're really not that dissimilar in this sense - they don't have anything that can fit in a top six role, they're just kind of there, taking up space and sometimes picking up points. On a good team, players like this are in the bottom six if they're not on the bench. They're not quite replacement level, but they're not far from it.

We shouldn't expect anything really interesting from any of them.

The truthiness in this post is so spot-on.

 

[Pavelski2112]

The problem with players like Zetterlund, Peterson, and Kaut is that they do nothing particularly well at the NHL level. They're all fine - no obvious weaknesses - but none of them have a real plus NHL skill that allows them to fill a top six role. This allows them to be good at the AHL level, but not so much in the NHL.

Zetterlund was nothing special in his first two years in the AHL (combined 15 G - 23 A in 80 GP), and then had 24 G - 28 A in 58 games last season, at the age of 22. Dylan Gambrell had 20 G - 25 A in 51 games at exactly the same age in his AHL rookie year. Now, that's obviously cherry-picking, but Gambrell has sort of the same problem as Zetterlund, in that he just doesn't do anything particularly well - he's a decent skater but nothing special, doesn't have much of a shot, isn't strong, doesn't win faceoffs, not much of a passer or offensively creative. They're really not that dissimilar in this sense - they don't have anything that can fit in a top six role, they're just kind of there, taking up space and sometimes picking up points. On a good team, players like this are in the bottom six if they're not on the bench. They're not quite replacement level, but they're not far from it.

We shouldn't expect anything really interesting from any of them.

I don't agree re: Peterson. He does all the things a good complimentary player should and is a great third wheel in the top-6. Zetterlund and Kaut definitely though - Kaut is a solid defensive player but has next to no offense and Zetterlund basically only has a good shot and some speed.

 

[hohosaregood]

The problem with players like Zetterlund, Peterson, and Kaut is that they do nothing particularly well at the NHL level. They're all fine - no obvious weaknesses - but none of them have a real plus NHL skill that allows them to fill a top six role. This allows them to be good at the AHL level, but not so much in the NHL.

Zetterlund was nothing special in his first two years in the AHL (combined 15 G - 23 A in 80 GP), and then had 24 G - 28 A in 58 games last season, at the age of 22. Dylan Gambrell had 20 G - 25 A in 51 games at exactly the same age in his AHL rookie year. Now, that's obviously cherry-picking, but Gambrell has sort of the same problem as Zetterlund, in that he just doesn't do anything particularly well - he's a decent skater but nothing special, doesn't have much of a shot, isn't strong, doesn't win faceoffs, not much of a passer or offensively creative. They're really not that dissimilar in this sense - they don't have anything that can fit in a top six role, they're just kind of there, taking up space and sometimes picking up points. On a good team, players like this are in the bottom six if they're not on the bench. They're not quite replacement level, but they're not far from it.

We shouldn't expect anything really interesting from any of them.

Zetterlund's definitely a much higher paced player than Gambrell but your point on these guys not having top percentile NHL attributes is mostly true.

 

[LadyStanley]

Don't know the Sharks will buy out any, but there might be a few UFAs worth talking to.

 

[STL Shark]

Don't know the Sharks will buy out any, but there might be a few UFAs worth talking to.

Doubtful there are any buyouts, but probably time to get down to the nitty gritty on a Karlsson deal. Edmonton and NYI have buyout candidates that would potentially be included in a Karlsson deal (if not bought out), so could shed some light on who is in/out on EK65.

 

[Hodge]

I could see us buying out Labanc.

 

[one2gamble]

0 reason for the Sharks to buyout anyone

 

[Pinkfloyd]

0 reason for the Sharks to buyout anyone

I don't agree. There's a reason to buy out Simek. There's a reason to buy out Vlasic. There's a reason to buy out Labanc. It's just dependent on if they need the space created in Grier's mind or not. Whether that space is in the lineup or on the cap.

 

[STL Shark]

I could see us buying out Labanc.

National guys seem to claim he has trade value. Not sure what it is, but could see someone like Detroit or Winnipeg taking a low cost swing at him. Simek is the only one that I could see, but that is dependent upon him being healthy enough to be bought out (not sure that he is).

 

[one2gamble]

I don't agree. There's a reason to buy out Simek. There's a reason to buy out Vlasic. There's a reason to buy out Labanc. It's just dependent on if they need the space created in Grier's mind or not. Whether that space is in the lineup or on the cap.

Simek I can maybe see, though he should just LTIRetire at this point.

I dont see a timeline where a Vlasic buyout matters and Labanc has some value. I also dont have an issue letting any of this players sit around and do nothing.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Simek I can maybe see, though he should just LTIRetire at this point.

I dont see a timeline where a Vlasic buyout matters and Labanc has some value. I also dont have an issue letting any of this players sit around and do nothing.

If Simek is actually injured then sure but I don't see evidence that shows that he is. He was playing to finish the season. I'd buy him out for the lineup spot. He's unnecessary and the cap penalties by doing so are cheap and short.

If Labanc has trade value that involves not retaining on him then I'd be open to it but I have my doubts that he has real value. A hockey trade that involves extra years would be something I'd avoid as well unless it was one extra year at 2 mil or less. If they can't just get a late round pick or a nothing contract in return for Labanc, I'd buy him out too but he's a bit different than Simek in that there isn't a push from underneath to replace him with an equal or better player that is cheaper. Labanc can still be used as filler on the wing next year. The issue there is that it's likely that Labanc would like to move on and I'm sure the team would like to do the same.

I agree that a Vlasic buyout seems unlikely at this stage and the savings from doing so decreases if they choose not to do it this offseason. I don't think they'll have much of a choice but to eat his contract until his expiring year where they may be able to move him at that trade deadline at 50% for nothing when Burns' retention slot will be available.

 

[STL Shark]

If Simek is actually injured then sure but I don't see evidence that shows that he is. He was playing to finish the season. I'd buy him out for the lineup spot. He's unnecessary and the cap penalties by doing so are cheap and short.

If Labanc has trade value that involves not retaining on him then I'd be open to it but I have my doubts that he has real value. A hockey trade that involves extra years would be something I'd avoid as well unless it was one extra year at 2 mil or less. If they can't just get a late round pick or a nothing contract in return for Labanc, I'd buy him out too but he's a bit different than Simek in that there isn't a push from underneath to replace him with an equal or better player that is cheaper. Labanc can still be used as filler on the wing next year. The issue there is that it's likely that Labanc would like to move on and I'm sure the team would like to do the same.

I agree that a Vlasic buyout seems unlikely at this stage and the savings from doing so decreases if they choose not to do it this offseason. I don't think they'll have much of a choice but to eat his contract until his expiring year where they may be able to move him at that trade deadline at 50% for nothing when Burns' retention slot will be available.

Agree with this in total for the most part. Big thing that helps with MEV is that he goes from full NMC to 3 team trade list this offseason. Granted, still low odds that you can move him, but the chances are no longer zero (and you'd have to retain a full 50% assuredly and probably take bad money back, but at least maybe at a non-surplus position).

There is also the chance to launder $1.75M through to someone like Arizona, Chicago, etc. to make him only a $1.75M player to an acquiring team. Whether the juice is worth the squeeze in terms of return is TBD. From SJ's perspective, I'd say not having to hold a roster spot and saving $3.5M against the cap is worth taking basically nothing in return and giving the entire trade return to the laundering team (plus maybe a 3rd or 4th of our own).

 

[TheBeard]

I don't agree. There's a reason to buy out Simek. There's a reason to buy out Vlasic. There's a reason to buy out Labanc. It's just dependent on if they need the space created in Grier's mind or not. Whether that space is in the lineup or on the cap.

I think you could trade Simek for nothing with 50% retention and save a few bucks next year.

Also, without doing the math, whats Labanc’s buyout number? Is it something like 1.5 this year and next?

 

[Hodge]

We should keep our 2 retention slots open for Karlsson and squeezing as much value out of Barabanov at the deadline as possible.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Agree with this in total for the most part. Big thing that helps with MEV is that he goes from full NMC to 3 team trade list this offseason. Granted, still low odds that you can move him, but the chances are no longer zero (and you'd have to retain a full 50% assuredly and probably take bad money back, but at least maybe at a non-surplus position).

There is also the chance to launder $1.75M through to someone like Arizona, Chicago, etc. to make him only a $1.75M player to an acquiring team. Whether the juice is worth the squeeze in terms of return is TBD. From SJ's perspective, I'd say not having to hold a roster spot and saving $3.5M against the cap is worth taking basically nothing in return and giving the entire trade return to the laundering team (plus maybe a 3rd or 4th of our own).

I'm pretty sure the options for Vlasic are going to be a buyout now or hold onto him until Burns' retention expires which would be Vlasic's final season on his contract. I can't imagine Grier would tie up all retention slots even for just two seasons by moving all of Burns, Karlsson, and Vlasic. Under that set of circumstances, I'd probably just eat Vlasic's contract until Burns' retention is done then see what's there and if nothing then play out his last year.

I think you could trade Simek for nothing with 50% retention and save a few bucks next year.

Also, without doing the math, whats Labanc’s buyout number? Is it something like 1.5 this year and next?

That depends on what else is on the table for the Sharks. I think the Sharks need to deal Karlsson this offseason and likely retain to do so. After that, they ought to keep the final retention slot open. I think they can get something of worth out of Barabanov using that final retention slot. As for Labanc, his buyout would have his cap hit be a shade over 800k next season and about 1.96 mil the season after. I can deal with that second year increase when the Jones buyout is set to decrease at a similar rate.

 

[TheBeard]

That depends on what else is on the table for the Sharks. I think the Sharks need to deal Karlsson this offseason and likely retain to do so. After that, they ought to keep the final retention slot open. I think they can get something of worth out of Barabanov using that final retention slot. As for Labanc, his buyout would have his cap hit be a shade over 800k next season and about 1.96 mil the season after. I can deal with that second year increase when the Jones buyout is set to decrease at a similar rate.

I think you can get something from Barb but I also think you can pawn any retention onto another team at the cost of maybe a 5th

 

[themelkman]

Seems totally fake, but if so I wonder what they would give up to get 4. I would love this because then we could draft Michkov anyways

 

[Jargon]

Seems totally fake, but if so I wonder what they would give up to get 4. I would love this because then we could draft Michkov anyways

Fascinating. If Sharks like Michkov enough (or I guess Leonard or Reinbacher) and are willing to make the trade, what can Montreal offer? The 31st pick, 5th pick and a prospect?

 

[Alaskanice]

Fascinating. If Sharks like Michkov enough (or I guess Leonard or Reinbacher) and are willing to make the trade, what can Montreal offer? The 31st pick, 5th pick and a prospect?

Maybe throw another draft pick in, yes, I’m greedy.

 

[Hodge]

Seems totally fake, but if so I wonder what they would give up to get 4. I would love this because then we could draft Michkov anyways

I believe it. Kent Hughes was Smith’s youth coach in Boston. Seriously doubt we’d trade back though since it sounds like Smith is Grier’s guy too.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think you can get something from Barb but I also think you can pawn any retention onto another team at the cost of maybe a 5th

Probably but even though 5th round picks aren't much of anything, the Sharks probably should look to hold on to as many lottery tickets as they get their hands on unless it's to take a flier on a young player.

 

[TheBeard]

Probably but even though 5th round picks aren't much of anything, the Sharks probably should look to hold on to as many lottery tickets as they get their hands on unless it's to take a flier on a young player.

They had like 10 picks last year and something like 12 this season. They’ll probably get even more as they sell off other pieces like Karlsson and maybe even Ferraro. At a certain point it’s just overkill.

 

[Erep]

I believe it. Kent Hughes was Smith’s youth coach in Boston. Seriously doubt we’d trade back though since it sounds like Smith is Grier’s guy too.

Could be (most likely is), or could be a smokescreen working. Pretend you want Smith, bait Montreal into giving you more, and get the guy you wanted anyways.

Two weeks to the draft...