Speculation: 2022-23 Sharks Roster Discussion Part II

[Alwalys]

.

 

[Hodge]

Do you think the conditional 1st and conditional 4th are good value? Because I think Dallas made a horrible deal.

Switch the clubs around and say the Sharks were in Dallas’ position, do you honestly believe it would have been a good deal?

How is it a horrible deal? Dallas is up against the cap with a veteran laden roster surrounding a young core in its prime. They have to make the playoffs this season so trading a 1st for the highest upside cheap young RD available is a very shrewd gamble to try and replace Klingberg’s production. It might not work out but the 1st is unlikely to pan out as well barring a huge collapse.

 

[mogambomoroo]

2023 1st was going to be worth keeping imo for Dallas, it's a deep draft with a chance of getting a good to great player anywhere in the 1st round. Dallas made the playoffs by an inch last year, so in a best scenario NYR is going to get a pick #11 next year or unprotected pick in 2024 and still make a deep run this year/next year. That's good asset management by NYR.

 

[Sharksrule04]

2023 1st was going to be worth keeping imo for Dallas, it's a deep draft with a chance of getting a good to great player anywhere in the 1st round. Dallas made the playoffs by an inch last year, so in a best scenario NYR is going to get a pick #11 next year or unprotected pick in 2024 and still make a deep run this year/next year. That's good asset management by NYR.

100%. The player asked for a trade and the Rangers still got what will certainly be a higher pick than they originally used on Lundkvist (in what looks to be a very strong draft) and an additional later round pick. It seems like a major overpayment to me following what was just an "ok" season for Lundkvist.

Great move by the Rangers.

 

[Gecklund]

How is it a horrible deal? Dallas is up against the cap with a veteran laden roster surrounding a young core in its prime. They have to make the playoffs this season so trading a 1st for the highest upside cheap young RD available is a very shrewd gamble to try and replace Klingberg’s production. It might not work out but the 1st is unlikely to pan out as well barring a huge collapse.

So you’d be okay with trading a pick that is likely to be 10-20 on a player with worse production than Ryan Merkley? Damn man you are on a roll with shitty takes.

 

[Mattb124]

So you’d be okay with trading a pick that is likely to be 10-20 on a player with worse production than Ryan Merkley? Damn man you are on a roll with shitty takes.

If you thrown enough at the wall, some is bound to stick.

And then we all get to deal with the gloating for months….

 

[Hodge]

So you’d be okay with trading a pick that is likely to be 10-20 on a player with worse production than Ryan Merkley? Damn man you are on a roll with shitty takes.

I'm on a roll with accurately determining player value considering this is not a "take" it's a trade that actually happened. You thought Bordeleau was an overpayment for Lundkvist when in reality he ended up going for significantly more than that.

Clearly Dallas values Lundkvist a lot higher than Merkley considering there is no chance the Sharks could get a similar return for Merkley. Maybe you're the prospect genius who knows a lot more than Dallas' front office and scouting team but it's not hard to understand why they would be willing to give up a mid to late 1st for a 22 year old RHD who had excellent numbers in the SHL and was considered untouchable a year ago.

 

[Gecklund]

I'm on a roll with accurately determining player value considering this is not a "take" it's a trade that actually happened. You thought Bordeleau was an overpayment for Lundkvist when in reality he ended up going for significantly more than that.

Clearly Dallas values Lundkvist a lot higher than Merkley considering there is no chance the Sharks could get a similar return for Merkley. Maybe you're the prospect genius who knows a lot more than Dallas' front office and scouting team but it's not hard to understand why they would be willing to give up a mid to late 1st for a 22 year old RHD who had excellent numbers in the SHL and was considered untouchable a year ago.

Wow man. Can you go back where I said Bordeleau was an overpayment? Cause I said I wouldn’t move him not that he was an overpayment. Also 10-20 isn’t mid to late. We also considered Freddie Hamilton and Benn Ferreiro untouchable at times. Just because fans overvalue prospects doesn’t mean shit.

 

[Hodge]

Wow man. Can you go back where I said Bordeleau was an overpayment? Cause I said I wouldn’t move him not that he was an overpayment. Also 10-20 isn’t mid to late. We also considered Freddie Hamilton and Benn Ferreiro untouchable at times. Just because fans overvalue prospects doesn’t mean shit.

You said multiple times that you wouldn't trade Bordeleau for Lundkvist. Not sure how to interpret that other than you believing Bordeleau has more value than Lundkvist.

I don't care who fans consider untouchable. Larry Brooks reported that Rangers management made Lundkvist untouchable in Jack Eichel trade talks last summer. He's a highly regarded prospect by multiple organizations even if you want to insist on making this disingenuous argument that Merkley is better because he scored 0.1 more points per game in the AHL last season while ignoring everything Merkley and Lundkvist did prior to that.

 

[Gecklund]

You said multiple times that you wouldn't trade Bordeleau for Lundkvist. Not sure how to interpret that other than you believing Bordeleau has more value than Lundkvist.

I don't care who fans consider untouchable. Larry Brooks reported that Rangers management made Lundkvist untouchable in Jack Eichel trade talks last summer.

Lol. Clear you don’t read posts. I literally said value isn’t bad.

Can you link where Brooks said that? Because I never saw that.

 

[Hodge]

Lol. Clear you don’t read posts. I literally said value isn’t bad.

Can you link where Brooks said that? Because I never saw that.

It was Elliotte Friedman, not Larry Brooks (although I think he reported something similar):

 

[Gecklund]

It was Elliotte Friedman, not Larry Brooks (although I think he reported something similar):

Yep because someone repeating it is super reliable. Those have been noted to be shit.

 

[Hodge]

Yep because someone repeating it is super reliable. Those have been noted to be shit.

By all means go listen to the podcast episode and report back if that's not what he actually said.

 

[Gecklund]

By all means go listen to the podcast episode and report back if that's not what he actually said.

lol so you make the claim and refuse to back it up? Got it. Man you are a freaking riot.

 

[Hodge]

lol so you make the claim and refuse to back it up? Got it. Man you are a freaking riot.

How else do you expect me to back up a claim about something reported on a podcast? If you think the transcriber is lying, feel free to listen to the episode yourself.

 

[mogambomoroo]

To give my 2 cents on this conversation, I think Sharks need Thomas Bordeleau more than Lundkvist player position depth wise, that's why I wouldn't do that deal that you were talking about. We have Merkley, Laroque and Havelid on the pipeline for that RD position. In center we only have Bystedt behind Bordeleau.

I believe Hodge valued Lundkvist well, but I don't think trading 1st round or Bordeleau for him was a good idea right now. If straight up trade Merkley for Lundkvist, I would at least give it a chance.

 

[STL Shark]

To give my 2 cents on this conversation, I think Sharks need Thomas Bordeleau more than Lundkvist player position depth wise, that's why I wouldn't do that deal that you were talking about. We have Merkley, Laroque and Havelid on the pipeline for that RD position. In center we only have Bystedt behind Bordeleau.

I believe Hodge valued Lundkvist well, but I don't think trading 1st round or Bordeleau for him was a good idea right now. If straight up trade Merkley for Lundkvist, I would at least give it a chance.

Care less about the value and more about the fact that I don't value the the player for much of any acquisition cost and Hodge has actively campainged against smaller offensive D-men for months. Good on NYR extracting value out of a diminishing asset. Wish we could do the same for Merkley if the motivation and pre-draft concerns did not exist. K

 

[Gecklund]

How else do you expect me to back up a claim about something reported on a podcast? If you think the transcriber is lying, feel free to listen to the episode yourself.

Have you listened to the podcast? Because I’m doubting you have. Honestly doubt you’ve ever watched hockey. I’d be surprised if you do anything other than stat watch.

 

[Sharksrule04]

I'm on a roll with accurately determining player value considering this is not a "take" it's a trade that actually happened. You thought Bordeleau was an overpayment for Lundkvist when in reality he ended up going for significantly more than that.

Clearly Dallas values Lundkvist a lot higher than Merkley considering there is no chance the Sharks could get a similar return for Merkley. Maybe you're the prospect genius who knows a lot more than Dallas' front office and scouting team but it's not hard to understand why they would be willing to give up a mid to late 1st for a 22 year old RHD who had excellent numbers in the SHL and was considered untouchable a year ago.

I agree Merkley wouldn't get a first round pick but you posting it here doesn't make it true. You're bragging about "being right" about something you didn't even suggest. You suggested trading Bordeleau for Lundkvist. Lundkvist asked for a trade and you merely said the Sharks should trade Bords for him, nothing more nothing less. He was traded for a first round pick with Dallas. One has nothing to do with the other.

Separately, just because a team traded for Lundkvist doesn't mean it's not an overpayment. Overpayments happen all the time. I'm sure you'd argue Doug Wilson made plenty of overpayments (trade for Hill last year being an example). The only thing you could possibly be right about is if Lundkvist becomes some sort of star, but even then, no one is really disputing his upside they're simply expressing doubt which is fair after a mediocre season last year that in no way statistically (your favorite way to judge a player) was better than Merkley, another offensively skilled d-man who you express doubts over his future success.

 

[Sharksrule04]

To give my 2 cents on this conversation, I think Sharks need Thomas Bordeleau more than Lundkvist player position depth wise, that's why I wouldn't do that deal that you were talking about. We have Merkley, Laroque and Havelid on the pipeline for that RD position. In center we only have Bystedt behind Bordeleau.

I believe Hodge valued Lundkvist well, but I don't think trading 1st round or Bordeleau for him was a good idea right now. If straight up trade Merkley for Lundkvist, I would at least give it a chance.

Did he value Lundkvist well? He suggested trading Bordeleau who he expects to have no NHL future for Lundkvist who just went for a first round pick+.

 

[hohosaregood]

Did he value Lundkvist well? He suggested trading Bordeleau who he expects to have no NHL future for Lundkvist who just went for a first round pick+.

I just don't see why the Rangers would have wanted a trash player like Bordeleau. Frankly, I think Hodge was trying to rip off the Rangers. Clearly would've been one of those classic HFboards trash for gold trades. Terrible valuation from Hodge

 

[Hodge]

Have you listened to the podcast? Because I’m doubting you have. Honestly doubt you’ve ever watched hockey. I’d be surprised if you do anything other than stat watch.

If only I could pore over as much game tape as you did to reach the conclusion that every Sharks prospect has a 90% chance of making the NHL. Still waiting for you to prove Friedman didn't report that the Rangers refused to trade Lundkvist for Eichel btw.

Did he value Lundkvist well? He suggested trading Bordeleau who he expects to have no NHL future for Lundkvist who just went for a first round pick+.

It's more that everyone against trading Bordeleau for Lundkvist was overvaluing Bordeleau and/or undervaluing Lundkvist. My entire point in supporting that proposal, as I explicitly stated, was that I believe the Sharks would come out ahead not that it was fair value for the Rangers. The actual trade that went down only underscores how delusional fans who wouldn't even trade Bordeleau for Lundkvist were being. You had posters saying they would only offer Coe or Wiesblatt which is a complete joke in light of the real return.

 

[Gecklund]

If only I could pore over as much game tape as you did to reach the conclusion that every Sharks prospect has a 90% chance of making the NHL. Still waiting for you to prove Friedman didn't report that the Rangers refused to trade Lundkvist for Eichel btw.


It's more that everyone against trading Bordeleau for Lundkvist was overvaluing Bordeleau and/or undervaluing Lundkvist. My entire point in supporting that proposal, as I explicitly stated, was that I believe the Sharks would come out ahead not that it was fair value for the Rangers. The actual trade that went down only underscores how delusional fans who wouldn't even trade Bordeleau for Lundkvist were being. You had posters saying they would offer Coe or Wiesblatt which is a complete joke in light of the real return.

Why would I prove it? you’re the one that made the claim. Jesus you are a piece of work bud.

 

[Hodge]

Why would I prove it? you’re the one that made the claim. Jesus you are a piece of work bud.

And I backed it up but you're unsatisfied with a transcript. Either listen to the podcast episode and prove that I was wrong or accept that you were wrong.

 

[Gecklund]

And I backed it up but you're unsatisfied with a transcript. Either listen to the podcast episode and prove that I was wrong or accept that you were wrong.

Link the podcast at least bud you back nothing up ever.