Speculation: 2022-23 Sharks Roster Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.

STL Shark

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
4,401
5,462
Duclair-Hertl-Guschin
Eklund-Couture-Zadina
Peterson-Granlund-Barabanov
Hoffman-Sturm-Zetterlund
Guschin would be a terrible fit there given neither he nor Duclair are playmakers, but rather shoot first second and third types. That's why I have Barabanov up there with Duclair. I also don't see Guschin making the roster and the Sharks just waiving Kunin, Lindblom, and Labanc to have $10M being scratched or playing for the Cuda.
 

PacificOceanPotion

Registered User
Jun 19, 2009
6,191
5,018
Guschin would be a terrible fit there given neither he nor Duclair are playmakers, but rather shoot first second and third types. That's why I have Barabanov up there with Duclair. I also don't see Guschin making the roster and the Sharks just waiving Kunin, Lindblom, and Labanc to have $10M being scratched or playing for the Cuda.
I agree with ya . It’s a fun idea to have his skill paired with Hertl and Duclair. And if Guschin outplays Kunin, Lindblom and Labanc, which I think he can, just trade them for whatever you can.
 

Barrie22

Shark fan in hiding
Aug 11, 2009
25,623
7,117
ontario
I agree with ya . It’s a fun idea to have his skill paired with Hertl and Duclair. And if Guschin outplays Kunin, Lindblom and Labanc, which I think he can, just trade them for whatever you can.
Labanc i feel like has been shopped for 2 years now and nobody else wants him either. Lindholm i am sure would not be picked up even on waivers.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,532
15,213
Folsom
Duclair-Hertl-Guschin
Eklund-Couture-Zadina
Peterson-Granlund-Barabanov
Hoffman-Sturm-Zetterlund
As pro-Gushchin as I am, I don't see him getting top line winger out of this camp. I'll be surprised if they have him make the team. Grier doesn't seem to have a favorable outlook on the prospects of the old regime outside of Eklund to some degree. My guess is more veterans higher in the lineup to try and extract some value at the trade deadline.

Duclair-Hertl-Labanc
Hoffman-Couture-Barabanov
Zadina-Granlund-Kunin
Lindblom-Sturm-Zetterlund

Vlasic-Benning
Ferraro-Rutta
Simek-Burroughs

Though I think they're better off going younger, I don't think Grier believes the same thing.
 

weastern bias

worst team in the league
Feb 3, 2012
11,620
8,448
SJ
I don't think Labanc escapes his 4th line exile, he's been in the doghouse under 3 straight coaches now

I do think we're prioritizing vets over prospects though, Eklund is the only young player likely to make the team

Duclair-Hertl-Barabanov
Eklund-Couture-Hoffman
Granlund-Sturm-Zadina
Labanc-Carpenter-Kunin

Vlasic-Benning
Ferraro-Rutta
Simek-Burroughs

MacDonald/Simek/Thrun/Zetterlund/Peterson/Lindblom/G. Smith

Blackwood
Kahkonen
 

DG93

Registered User
Jun 29, 2010
4,802
2,988
San Jose
I got Duclair (up his trade value)-Hertl-Eklund, Zadina-Couture-Barabanov, Hoffman-Granlund-Zetterlund, Lindblom-Sturm-Kunin

All top-9 lines have a scorer (Duclair, Couture, Hoffman), a playmaker (Eklund, Barabanov, Granlund), and a forechecker (Hertl, Zadina, Zetterlund). 4th line has 3 PKers/energy guys. If Eklund starts in the AHL, Labanc takes his playmaker spot in the top-9 (probably on the Couture line and Barabanov moves up). Smith is the 14th guy as the face puncher, Peterson is in the AHL.
 

Sharkz4Fun

Registered User
Feb 8, 2023
859
867
As pro-Gushchin as I am, I don't see him getting top line winger out of this camp. I'll be surprised if they have him make the team. Grier doesn't seem to have a favorable outlook on the prospects of the old regime outside of Eklund to some degree. My guess is more veterans higher in the lineup to try and extract some value at the trade deadline.

Duclair-Hertl-Labanc
Hoffman-Couture-Barabanov
Zadina-Granlund-Kunin
Lindblom-Sturm-Zetterlund

Vlasic-Benning
Ferraro-Rutta
Simek-Burroughs

Though I think they're better off going younger, I don't think Grier believes the same thing.
I get they may be extremely hard to move, but both Labanc/Hoffman in the top 6 would be pretty inexcusable, tanking or not. There's a higher chance of Eklund/Gushchin becoming irritated with the organization than there is either of those two cans extracting higher than a 5th rounder.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
16,798
6,264
I get they may be extremely hard to move, but both Labanc/Hoffman in the top 6 would be pretty inexcusable, tanking or not. There's a higher chance of Eklund/Gushchin becoming irritated with the organization than there is either of those two cans extracting higher than a 5th rounder.
If Eklund and Gushchin show that they can earn it, the Sharks will rush to play them over Labanc (who the organization is clearly fed up with) and Hoffman (who's obviously a declining player). Maybe in the past, they didn't play Eklund because they wanted his contract to slide, but this season if they can play, they will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: landshark

PacificOceanPotion

Registered User
Jun 19, 2009
6,191
5,018
Could anyone else see Zadina attached to Hertl?
A Duclair-Hertl-Zadina line could potentially be money. You have a playmaker, a possession monster, playmaker and scorer at center, and a sniper. Pretty well rounded 1st line.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,532
15,213
Folsom
I get they may be extremely hard to move, but both Labanc/Hoffman in the top 6 would be pretty inexcusable, tanking or not. There's a higher chance of Eklund/Gushchin becoming irritated with the organization than there is either of those two cans extracting higher than a 5th rounder.
Labanc in the top six seems the least likely out of the two to me given his drop with the current management. But if he's not dealt on the 15th for Myers, I don't see what else they can do. If they end up benching him for stretches of the season, they only make certain that they should've just bought him out when they had the chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: landshark

landshark

They'll paint the donkey teal if you pay.
Sponsor
Mar 15, 2003
3,786
3,204
outer richmond dist
ATO > PTO

only a psychopath implements unlimited PTO at their company
We have unlimited PTO at the company I work for. It's merely a way to cap risk.

Unlimited PTO means not having to pay out ATO when saying goodbye to an employee. It doesn't mean I can just go on paid vacation indefinitely. It's pretty weird.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
16,798
6,264
We have unlimited PTO at the company I work for. It's merely a way to cap risk.

Unlimited PTO means not having to pay out ATO when saying goodbye to an employee. It doesn't mean I can just go on paid vacation indefinitely. It's pretty weird.

A little off-topic, but I wanted to clarify...you can take unlimited time off and still get paid for the time you missed? Or you can take indefinite leave and come back to work with no issues?
 

WTFetus

Marlov
Mar 12, 2009
17,924
3,600
San Francisco
A little off-topic, but I wanted to clarify...you can take unlimited time off and still get paid for the time you missed? Or you can take indefinite leave and come back to work with no issues?
May be mistaken, but I think they're using "PTO" and "vacation" interchangeably here. "Unlimited PTO" essentially meaning there is no cap on how much vacation time you can accrue, and I guess at the caveat that you can't cash it out when you retire. As opposed to having a set cap of how much vacation you can accrue, any extra gets cashed out annually, and you get paid for any leftover when you retire.

To make things more confusing, I have both "Vacation" and "ATO". The former cash-able, the latter not.

Discussions likes this, one would think we're in the July off-season. :laugh:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: landshark and DG93

Cas

Conversational Black Hole
Sponsor
Jun 23, 2020
5,932
8,571
May be mistaken, but I think they're using "PTO" and "vacation" interchangeably here. "Unlimited PTO" essentially meaning there is no cap on how much vacation time you can accrue, and I guess at the caveat that you can't cash it out when you retire.
I would be shocked if this is legal (at least in the US and certainly in CA). I've done payroll before, and the law is that you have to pay out accrued PTO (but not sick time), no matter what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PacificOceanPotion

landshark

They'll paint the donkey teal if you pay.
Sponsor
Mar 15, 2003
3,786
3,204
outer richmond dist
A little off-topic, but I wanted to clarify...you can take unlimited time off and still get paid for the time you missed? Or you can take indefinite leave and come back to work with no issues?
So, the key phrase is "you have to get your work done or covered by someone else."

Meaning if you take time off someone has to cover your duties/meetings/etc. If you're gone long enough they'll just replace you. It's been made pretty clear in that oh-so-vague HR way.

All PTO use has to be approved, meaning you call in sick long enough w/o a doctor's note you'll get a pink slip just like any other place. Anything more than a couple weeks straight for a planned vacation (aside from p/maternity/bereavement/etc leave) and you probably won't have a job when you come back and your boss will make that clear when you ask to have the time approved. So there's a limit to the unlimited, just like anything else that's allegedly unlimited.

It's literally a way for the company to not have someone like me sandbagging accrued time off to the limit and having to pay it out should I decide to leave the company. I think there are some other benefits for the company, that's the one that jumps out at me. I've been there so long I still have 80 hours of PTO from back before we went "unlimited." I wasn't paid nearly as much when I accrued it as I am now...

I work for a smallish company. I think we're at about 70-80 peeps. I imagine there are other larger companies that do this. It's a weird self-policing situation based on the theory that folks want to keep their job.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad