Speculation: 2022-23 Sharks Roster Discussion Part II

[KirbyDots]

He’s going to be the best player in the trade. They’ll win.

They still win if they give up a blue chip prospect. Karlsson is the reigning Norris winner. They're competing now. Who cares if they get the best current player and win the trade. Trading Karlsson is a different animal than trading Burns. Not expecting the moon, but Grier is smart if he's trying to maximize value.

That seems crazy but like another poster mentioned, maybe it’s; let me show what I can do on a bad team, pad my stats, and then you can get a pick for me at the deadline and deal me to a contender.

It’s honestly a great plan for all involved, unless he’s really good and ruins the tank. But Tarasenko and Duclair are significantly worse than Karlsson and Meier. We’d still be awful with that defense.

Tarasenko was someone I thought made sense going into free agency. Get someone who has offensive pop that can be flipped at the deadline, lure them with big minutes. He isn't good enough to ruin the tank but should be productive enough to garner a 2nd-1st.

 

[gaucholoco3]

Unlike EK it seemed like Burns was a lot more selective of the teams he would go to.

 

[LadyStanley]

 

[tiburon12]

Is this just another filler article that provides no new information? or is there some movement on this front beyond "the deal fell through a few days ago"?

 

[Jargon]

Bored and just for fun question: say Bystedt and Bordeleau come in and blow the doors off in the preseason. Do you pencil them into the lineup? And if so, how?

Would it be:

Eklund - Hertl - Duclair
Bordeleau - Couture - Barabanov
Peterson - Bystedt - Zetterlund
Lindblom - Sturm - Kunin

If those guys can hang, it actually makes for a significantly more talented lineup. Big if though, and Bystedt is almost definitely being sent to the AHL or SHL for one more year. Still, fun to think about it - it immediately changes the look and capability of our forwards. Also SO MANY SWEDES.

 

[WTFetus]

Is this just another filler article that provides no new information? or is there some movement on this front beyond "the deal fell through a few days ago"?

The former

 

[tiburon12]

The former

Sad. I know Sheng has to pump out content, but articles like those are hurting his cause

 

[landshark]

Sad. I know Sheng has to pump out content, but articles like those are hurting his cause

Everyone's all like "do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life" But that was before peeps were expected to churn out content on a regular basis.

 

[Gecklund]

Bored and just for fun question: say Bystedt and Bordeleau come in and blow the doors off in the preseason. Do you pencil them into the lineup? And if so, how?

Would it be:

Eklund - Hertl - Duclair
Bordeleau - Couture - Barabanov
Peterson - Bystedt - Zetterlund
Lindblom - Sturm - Kunin

If those guys can hang, it actually makes for a significantly more talented lineup. Big if though, and Bystedt is almost definitely being sent to the AHL or SHL for one more year. Still, fun to think about it - it immediately changes the look and capability of our forwards. Also SO MANY SWEDES.

On the off chance they come in and show they deserve a spot, I’d probably move Couture to the wing and have Bordeleau play C.

 

[Selachimorpha]

Bored and just for fun question: say Bystedt and Bordeleau come in and blow the doors off in the preseason. Do you pencil them into the lineup? And if so, how?

Would it be:

Eklund - Hertl - Duclair
Bordeleau - Couture - Barabanov
Peterson - Bystedt - Zetterlund
Lindblom - Sturm - Kunin

If those guys can hang, it actually makes for a significantly more talented lineup. Big if though, and Bystedt is almost definitely being sent to the AHL or SHL for one more year. Still, fun to think about it - it immediately changes the look and capability of our forwards. Also SO MANY SWEDES.

Starting to wonder if we're taking Eklund playing the majority of games with the Sharks next season for granted. Seems like Grier's philosophy is to season prospects and make them earn their spots away from vets, ie, prove it over a full AHL season+ before you get your spot in the lineup.

With that in mind, I wonder if Eklund tweens next year between the two - maybe starts with the Sharks for 10-20 games, play 60 with the Cuda, then finishes the season with the Sharks after the trade deadline. Stick Eklund with Bystedt (if they keep him here) and build some chemistry.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Sharks start the season like:

Duclair - Hertl - Barbie
Peterson - Couture - Kunin
Lindblom - Sturm - Zetterlund
Smith - UFA/Trade - Kaut
Labanc

Lots of spots open up next season after the trade deadline (Duclair, Barbie, Kunin [RFA], Peterson [RFA], Lindblom, Labanc [if not already traded]). Give these guys minutes and opportunity to pump values and trade off as many as you can, fill in spots after with prospects who have (hopefully) had a good season. Or, if not, the Carpenter's and Sabourin's we have hanging around.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Starting to wonder if we're taking Eklund playing the majority of games with the Sharks next season for granted. Seems like Grier's philosophy is to season prospects and make them earn their spots away from vets, ie, prove it over a full AHL season+ before you get your spot in the lineup.

With that in mind, I wonder if Eklund tweens next year between the two - maybe starts with the Sharks for 10-20 games, play 60 with the Cuda, then finishes the season with the Sharks after the trade deadline. Stick Eklund with Bystedt (if they keep him here) and build some chemistry.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Sharks start the season like:

Duclair - Hertl - Barbie
Peterson - Couture - Kunin
Lindblom - Sturm - Zetterlund
Smith - UFA/Trade - Kaut
Labanc

Lots of spots open up next season after the trade deadline (Duclair, Barbie, Kunin [RFA], Peterson [RFA], Lindblom, Labanc [if not already traded]). Give these guys minutes and opportunity to pump values and trade off as many as you can, fill in spots after with prospects who have (hopefully) had a good season. Or, if not, the Carpenter's and Sabourin's we have hanging around.

I don't see a good reason to keep Eklund in the minors at this stage when he's clearly one of the top nine forwards in the organization and there's no contractual benefit for doing so. He needs to play extensively in the NHL with the travel and the competition and get better. I also don't think that if they're going to have a more vet-focused lineup, Labanc would be in there over even someone like Peterson. But I think that sort of lineup would look more like...

Barabanov-Hertl-Labanc
Duclair-Couture-Kunin
Peterson-Sturm-Zetterlund
Smith-Carpenter/Todd-Sabourin/MacDonald

We'd also see Thrun sent down as part of this especially with the overload of defensemen currently.

Vlasic-Karlsson
Ferraro-Benning
Simek-Knyzhov/Burroughs/Gawanke

I honestly hope that the Gawanke trade means they're going to utilize the second buyout window and get rid of a lot of their extra players like Labanc and Simek.

 

[Selachimorpha]

I don't see a good reason to keep Eklund in the minors at this stage when he's clearly one of the top nine forwards in the organization and there's no contractual benefit for doing so. He needs to play extensively in the NHL with the travel and the competition and get better. I also don't think that if they're going to have a more vet-focused lineup, Labanc would be in there over even someone like Peterson. But I think that sort of lineup would look more like...

Barabanov-Hertl-Labanc
Duclair-Couture-Kunin
Peterson-Sturm-Zetterlund
Smith-Carpenter/Todd-Sabourin/MacDonald

We'd also see Thrun sent down as part of this especially with the overload of defensemen currently.

Vlasic-Karlsson
Ferraro-Benning
Simek-Knyzhov/Burroughs/Gawanke

I honestly hope that the Gawanke trade means they're going to utilize the second buyout window and get rid of a lot of their extra players like Labanc and Simek.

I think the first part can be boiled down to two main things:

1) Eklund didn't dominate the AHL like you'd want a top-6 forward to do before you bring him up. In the "old-days", rule of thumb seemed to be PPG in the AHL for a top-6 role in the NHL. Eklund was about 0.75. From this perspective, there's room for improvement. Eklund will also be coming off surgery, so throwing him immediately back into the NHL lineup might be aggressive.

2) If you keep Bystedt in the AHL, you can start to build chemistry between those two. This might help determine, long term, if you have a future second line comprised of those two guys.

Of course, if the organization's assessment is that the things you mentioned (NHL travel, competition, etc) outweigh the one's here, you do that. But I don't think it's as black and white for Eklund as NHL=good, AHL=pointless.

 

[OffSydes]

So this is either IR65 related or they have no other options

 

[Jargon]

I think the first part can be boiled down to two main things:

1) Eklund didn't dominate the AHL like you'd want a top-6 forward to do before you bring him up. In the "old-days", rule of thumb seemed to be PPG in the AHL for a top-6 role in the NHL. Eklund was about 0.75. From this perspective, there's room for improvement. Eklund will also be coming off surgery, so throwing him immediately back into the NHL lineup might be aggressive.

2) If you keep Bystedt in the AHL, you can start to build chemistry between those two. This might help determine, long term, if you have a future second line comprised of those two guys.

Of course, if the organization's assessment is that the things you mentioned (NHL travel, competition, etc) outweigh the one's here, you do that. But I don't think it's as black and white for Eklund as NHL=good, AHL=pointless.

Eklund was a basically PPG in the second half though. He also looked good in the NHL and played in almost any scenario. I think at this point, having him in the AHL is going to provide marginal growth (as opposed to the NHL) and also probably hurt his confidence quite a bit. Kid could’ve made the Sharks twice now and was sent back, I think it’s time to let him be an NHLer.

I can actually see Bystedt making the team and being pretty good - he had a good season in the SHL, he’s used to playing against men. I don’t think he will - they like seeing their guys flourish in the AHL like you said - but I think he could do pretty well. I imagine he’ll get a 9 game NHL run and then be sent to the AHL as the top center.

But who knows — maybe in preseason, he and Eklund develop insane chemistry…

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think the first part can be boiled down to two main things:

1) Eklund didn't dominate the AHL like you'd want a top-6 forward to do before you bring him up. In the "old-days", rule of thumb seemed to be PPG in the AHL for a top-6 role in the NHL. Eklund was about 0.75. From this perspective, there's room for improvement. Eklund will also be coming off surgery, so throwing him immediately back into the NHL lineup might be aggressive.

2) If you keep Bystedt in the AHL, you can start to build chemistry between those two. This might help determine, long term, if you have a future second line comprised of those two guys.

Of course, if the organization's assessment is that the things you mentioned (NHL travel, competition, etc) outweigh the one's here, you do that. But I don't think it's as black and white for Eklund as NHL=good, AHL=pointless.

To respond to that first part, that may be true as it's tough to say where Grier is on this specifically but you still have a third line there where similar issues are attached to Peterson and Kunin. Before Peterson's trade to San Jose, he had 17 points in 66 games in Dallas. Peterson's time in San Jose includes 6 points in 8 games with the Barracuda and 8 points in 11 games with the Sharks. There's just not enough track record there to put Peterson in any different position than Eklund. I think your concern is valid but if Grier does follow through with Eklund starting in the AHL then so be it but I don't feel it's necessary. Training camp and preseason games should suffice in terms of rehabbing his surgery.

As for the Bystedt point, I'm not overly concerned about building chemistry there. Bystedt is not someone I view as someone who will play all that much with Eklund moving forward. Eklund is a top liner down the road and Bystedt may get to the second line level but probably on the wing until we're ready to part ways with Couture and Hertl.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I think there is a decent chance Eklund starts in the AHL but I think it would be more about him not being available for training camp and he is eased into the season in the AHL.

 

[Selachimorpha]

To respond to that first part, that may be true as it's tough to say where Grier is on this specifically but you still have a third line there where similar issues are attached to Peterson and Kunin. Before Peterson's trade to San Jose, he had 17 points in 66 games in Dallas. Peterson's time in San Jose includes 6 points in 8 games with the Barracuda and 8 points in 11 games with the Sharks. There's just not enough track record there to put Peterson in any different position than Eklund. I think your concern is valid but if Grier does follow through with Eklund starting in the AHL then so be it but I don't feel it's necessary. Training camp and preseason games should suffice in terms of rehabbing his surgery.

As for the Bystedt point, I'm not overly concerned about building chemistry there. Bystedt is not someone I view as someone who will play all that much with Eklund moving forward. Eklund is a top liner down the road and Bystedt may get to the second line level but probably on the wing until we're ready to part ways with Couture and Hertl.

I think the difference between Eklund and Peterson/Kunin is age and expectations. Peterson and Kunin are 23 and 25 respectively - they're either ready for their NHL role or not. Give them time, see what you have in them. If they don't work out, move on, you don't lose out on much. With Eklund, you have a potential staple in the lineup for a decade - you develop him to be that staple instead of rushing him.

Peterson/Kunin are very short-term pieces. They're dime-a-dozen players who might contribute here and there, some may even turn out to diamonds in the rough - and if so, great! Eklund is a long-term piece. Someone you plan on doing what is in his best interest 3-5 years down the line. And if that's to put him in the NHL, then so be it - but again, I just don't think it's black and white.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think there is a decent chance Eklund starts in the AHL but I think it would be more about him not being available for training camp and he is eased into the season in the AHL.

He's expected to be ready for training camp so if he isn't then yeah probably but I don't see that being the case yet.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think the difference between Eklund and Peterson/Kunin is age and expectations. Peterson and Kunin are 23 and 25 respectively - they're either ready for their NHL role or not. Give them time, see what you have in them. If they don't work out, move on, you don't lose out on much. With Eklund, you have a potential staple in the lineup for a decade - you develop him to be that staple instead of rushing him.

Peterson/Kunin are very short-term pieces. They're dime-a-dozen players who might contribute here and there, some may even turn out to diamonds in the rough - and if so, great! Eklund is a long-term piece. Someone you plan on doing what is in his best interest 3-5 years down the line. And if that's to put him in the NHL, then so be it - but again, I just don't think it's black and white.

It's not necessarily rushing him when he's spent two years developing and getting his audition time where he's not looking out of place. Plus, if you're worried about not rushing him then having him on the 3rd line is a good way to get him started in the NHL over the long term just like Hertl did when they started to convert him to a center. The point is that you have nine forward spots that one should be okay with having someone of Eklund's potential fill while he figures it out at the NHL level...something he's only going to do at the NHL level. It's also not a good idea for development to have someone who is clearly one of their top nine forwards in the organization held down because of some arbitrary standard. It was one thing when there was a contractual benefit to doing so. That's just the business of contracts in this league but now that's not on the table. It may not be black and white but I think it's pretty clear that Eklund warrants an NHL spot as his to lose until shown otherwise.

 

[Selachimorpha]

It's not necessarily rushing him when he's spent two years developing and getting his audition time where he's not looking out of place. Plus, if you're worried about not rushing him then having him on the 3rd line is a good way to get him started in the NHL over the long term just like Hertl did when they started to convert him to a center. The point is that you have nine forward spots that one should be okay with having someone of Eklund's potential fill while he figures it out at the NHL level...something he's only going to do at the NHL level. It's also not a good idea for development to have someone who is clearly one of their top nine forwards in the organization held down because of some arbitrary standard. It was one thing when there was a contractual benefit to doing so. That's just the business of contracts in this league but now that's not on the table. It may not be black and white but I think it's pretty clear that Eklund warrants an NHL spot as his to lose until shown otherwise.

For Eklund, I think the question should be more about "what path would make this player the best NHL version of themselves in 3 years?" not "are you a top-9 forward in our organization today?" The answer to that question might be the same. If the answer differs though, I hope the Sharks take a long-term approach then. If you don't think you're rushing him, then so be it.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

For Eklund, I think the question should be more about "what path would make this player the best NHL version of themselves in 3 years?" not "are you a top-9 forward in our organization today?" The answer to that question might be the same. If the answer differs though, I hope the Sharks take a long-term approach then. If you don't think you're rushing him, then so be it.

Maybe but I also think that a rebuilding team like ours needs to start showing the youth movement where possible as well. It was one thing last year when you're still dealing with contractual things with the youth but after last year on top of the previous three seasons, they need to start showing their market some progress on that front which can't really occur through signing fringe free agent veterans that aren't helping you compete in any meaningful way.

 

[Cas]

Per Sheng Peng, Pulli is staying in San Jose whether he makes the Sharks or Barracuda, while Hävelid is returning to Linkoping for the season.

 

[LadyStanley]

Termination

 

[Friday]

Per Sheng Peng, Pulli is staying in San Jose whether he makes the Sharks or Barracuda, while Hävelid is returning to Linkoping for the season.

Forgot he signed. Wonder if hell be any good

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

Forgot he signed. Wonder if hell be any good

Was talking to a fan of his Finnish team and he said Pulli will probably need a few months to a year in the A, but has relatively good chance at NHL bottom pairing potential.