Speculation: 2022-23 Sharks Roster Discussion Part II

[Gecklund]

Grier needs to hold the line, the tank is off to a great start and this team does not need any upgrades. Bedard is the goal, otherwise what is the point of watching this team play like crap

I think there’s options out there to improve the team in the medium-ish term. We shouldn’t claim a Mike Reilly type because at 29 with 2 years left on his deal, he won’t be a long term option. Someone like Mahura at 24, Myers at 25, Bemstrom at 23, Carlsson at 25, Heponiemi at 23, Moverare at 24, Koivula at 24, Gauthier at 24, Larsson at 25, Borgstrom at 25, Johansen at 24, Jonsson-Fjallby at 24, Leason at 23, Harkins at 25. All of these guys won’t be some immediate top 6/4 talent but all offer chances at that to varying degrees. All come from different backgrounds and play various positions and might end up as something better than what we have now. I think Heponiemi is probably the best of the bunch but just a bunch of under the radar guys who could bust but also could be bottom 6, bottom 4 guys in the near future while some of our higher potential guys work their way into the lineup.

Because not everyone is cheering for this team to play terribly. I watch them to cheer them on to victory.
To me, that is the essence of watching sports. Not to hope that they lose and suck. If that was my thinking, I’d go watch musicals or go to the art gallery.

Personally, it depresses me that people come to this site to post that we need to lose.

There isn’t a single person on waivers that would improve our team enough to make them not play like shit.

 

[landshark]

Wow the waiver list is crazy. Some familiar names... Alex True. Chris Tierney. Grosenick...

 

[Kcoyote3]

Also fun is Rourke Chartier got called UP to the Sens a few days ago. Not sure how that works. Also haven't heard his name in awhile.

 

[Gecklund]

Also fun is Rourke Chartier got called UP to the Sens a few days ago. Not sure how that works. Also haven't heard his name in awhile.

He was already sent back down. They had an injury and just called him up for a game.

 

[Kcoyote3]

He was already sent back down. They had an injury and just called him up for a game.

ah damn. Thanks

 

[SjMilhouse]

I think there’s options out there to improve the team in the medium-ish term. We shouldn’t claim a Mike Reilly type because at 29 with 2 years left on his deal, he won’t be a long term option. Someone like Mahura at 24, Myers at 25, Bemstrom at 23, Carlsson at 25, Heponiemi at 23, Moverare at 24, Koivula at 24, Gauthier at 24, Larsson at 25, Borgstrom at 25, Johansen at 24, Jonsson-Fjallby at 24, Leason at 23, Harkins at 25. All of these guys won’t be some immediate top 6/4 talent but all offer chances at that to varying degrees. All come from different backgrounds and play various positions and might end up as something better than what we have now. I think Heponiemi is probably the best of the bunch but just a bunch of under the radar guys who could bust but also could be bottom 6, bottom 4 guys in the near future while some of our higher potential guys work their way into the lineup.

There isn’t a single person on waivers that would improve our team enough to make them not play like shit.

Don't disagree with this line of thinking. Acquisitions (trade, waivers, signings) should be young guys with upside that can provide long term value. Short term additions, especially this year, don't move the needle enough when the opportunity cost is getting a better pick.

 

[fasterthanlight]

Boston goes on to win the cup, cup clinching goal in game 7 OT from Reilly. NHL: "Yea, so San Jose actually got him off waivers. But we're going to let Boston keep the cup."

If the cup winning goal-scorer is technically on our roster... Ironically, this is our best shot at winning the cup in the next half decade.

 

[Hodge]

It boggles the mind that a roster this devoid of talent at every position could be at the salary cap ceiling. Doug Wilson was awful at his job.

 

[fasterthanlight]

It boggles the mind that a roster this devoid of talent at every position could be at the salary cap ceiling. Doug Wilson was awful at his job.

He got pretty unlucky imo. While it's obvious in retrospect these contracts are awful, at the time, one could have envisioned a world 1) without covid where the cap continued to rise; 2) where vlasic didn't immediately fall off a cliff, and instead maintained a few extra years where 7M would be reasonable; 3) where ek didn't get continuously injured; 4) where ek9 actually fit; 5) where martin jones didn't fall off a cliff.

 

[OrrNumber4]

He got pretty unlucky imo. While it's obvious in retrospect these contracts are awful, at the time, one could have envisioned a world 1) without covid where the cap continued to rise; 2) where vlasic didn't immediately fall off a cliff, and instead maintained a few extra years where 7M would be reasonable; 3) where ek didn't get continuously injured; 4) where ek9 actually fit; 5) where martin jones didn't fall off a cliff.

He's gotten plenty lucky too, but people held up that as accomplishment.

Besides, except for 1) and 5), all those things were possible. And regardless of Jones crashing hard, his contact was still much too lucrative; DW paid him for future performance.

 

[TheBeard]

DW paid him for future performance.

Which is what you're supposed to do.

 

[DG93]

He got pretty unlucky imo. While it's obvious in retrospect these contracts are awful, at the time, one could have envisioned a world 1) without covid where the cap continued to rise; 2) where vlasic didn't immediately fall off a cliff, and instead maintained a few extra years where 7M would be reasonable; 3) where ek didn't get continuously injured; 4) where ek9 actually fit; 5) where martin jones didn't fall off a cliff.

The Simek, Labanc, Vlasic, and Jones contracts were awful from day 1. The Karlsson deal was terrifying but he had the superstar potential. The Couture and Burns deals are fine. Hertl's is fine too for the value he brings (ignoring that it was signed when the team was entering a long rebuild).

 

[timorous me]

He got pretty unlucky imo. While it's obvious in retrospect these contracts are awful, at the time, one could have envisioned a world 1) without covid where the cap continued to rise; 2) where vlasic didn't immediately fall off a cliff, and instead maintained a few extra years where 7M would be reasonable; 3) where ek didn't get continuously injured; 4) where ek9 actually fit; 5) where martin jones didn't fall off a cliff.

Kane still being under contract with the Sharks certainly wouldn't help the cap situation, though!

 

[fasterthanlight]

The Simek, Labanc, Vlasic, and Jones contracts were awful from day 1. The Karlsson deal was terrifying but he had the superstar potential. The Couture and Burns deals are fine. Hertl's is fine too for the value he brings (ignoring that it was signed when the team was entering a long rebuild).

Labanc was definitely a cap circumvention situation --- the handshake deal was he would do 1 year quite cheap and then, yes, the awful 4 year one with too high of a cap hit.

I don't think many foresaw that the level of overpayment that they would end up being --- it's shocking how quickly Vlasic and Jones' value fell off entirely --- not the ~1M overpay that the average person may have thought.

 

[TheBeard]

Labanc was definitely a cap circumvention situation --- the handshake deal was he would do 1 year quite cheap and then, yes, the awful 4 year one with too high of a cap hit.

I don't think many foresaw that the level of overpayment that they would end up being --- it's shocking how quickly Vlasic and Jones' value fell off entirely --- not the ~1M overpay that the average person may have thought.

The funny thing is I honestly don’t think anyone would have had an issue with the Labanc deal if it were signed right after he broke out.

 

[tiburon12]

He got pretty unlucky imo. While it's obvious in retrospect these contracts are awful, at the time, one could have envisioned a world 1) without covid where the cap continued to rise; 2) where vlasic didn't immediately fall off a cliff, and instead maintained a few extra years where 7M would be reasonable; 3) where ek didn't get continuously injured; 4) where ek9 actually fit; 5) where martin jones didn't fall off a cliff.

DW also made the bridge deal his bread and butter, and unfortunately the bills came due on those players just as the general consensus was to instead pay young players the big bucks with term. It was his own doing, but he got handcuffed with Burns, Couture, and Vlasic because he gave them bridges.

Burns - 2011, 26yo signs a 5x5.76 starting in 2012, needed new contract at age 32
Vlasic - 2012, 25yo signs a 5x4.25 starting in 2013, needed new contract at age 31
Couture - 2013, 24yo signs a 5x6 starting in 2014, needed new contract at age 30

If the contract playbook was similar to today's playbook, and they all get 8-year deals, those contracts would have expired and we could have let those players walk or traded them last year.

Same with Hertl:

Hertl - 2018, 25yo signs a 4x5.625 starting in 2018, needed new contract at age 29

The Sharks arent the only team to have this happen to them, but they certainly are affected by it more than other teams.

 

[OrrNumber4]

DW also made the bridge deal his bread and butter, and unfortunately the bills came due on those players just as the general consensus was to instead pay young players the big bucks with term. It was his own doing, but he got handcuffed with Burns, Couture, and Vlasic because he gave them bridges.

Burns - 2011, 26yo signs a 5x5.76 starting in 2012, needed new contract at age 32
Vlasic - 2012, 25yo signs a 5x4.25 starting in 2013, needed new contract at age 31
Couture - 2013, 24yo signs a 5x6 starting in 2014, needed new contract at age 30

If the contract playbook was similar to today's playbook, and they all get 8-year deals, those contracts would have expired and we could have let those players walk or traded them last year.

Same with Hertl:

Hertl - 2018, 25yo signs a 4x5.625 starting in 2018, needed new contract at age 29

The Sharks arent the only team to have this happen to them, but they certainly are affected by it more than other teams.

The flip side is that DW got them at bargain value for several years.

 

[Hodge]

DW also made the bridge deal his bread and butter, and unfortunately the bills came due on those players just as the general consensus was to instead pay young players the big bucks with term. It was his own doing, but he got handcuffed with Burns, Couture, and Vlasic because he gave them bridges.

Burns - 2011, 26yo signs a 5x5.76 starting in 2012, needed new contract at age 32
Vlasic - 2012, 25yo signs a 5x4.25 starting in 2013, needed new contract at age 31
Couture - 2013, 24yo signs a 5x6 starting in 2014, needed new contract at age 30

If the contract playbook was similar to today's playbook, and they all get 8-year deals, those contracts would have expired and we could have let those players walk or traded them last year.

Same with Hertl:

Hertl - 2018, 25yo signs a 4x5.625 starting in 2018, needed new contract at age 29

The Sharks arent the only team to have this happen to them, but they certainly are affected by it more than other teams.

None of those were bridge deals. A bridge deal is a short term contract that ends with that player still under team control as an RFA. By definition a bridge has to lead somewhere, you can’t “bridge” a player to UFA status.

Vlasic, Couture and Hertl should have all been traded or allowed to walk as UFAs. There are statistical studies in the public domain that are now a decade old demonstrating that NHL players peak at 24 and fall off a cliff at 29 (on average). There was no excuse for signing those players to those contracts when he did. Burns was at least justifiable since he was an elite offensive player in the midst of a Norris season and the cap hit was fair value but of course even that contract ended up being dumped with salary retained.

Doug Wilson made the exact same mistake over and over and over again and wiped out any hope of this franchise being competitive this decade.

 

[Gecklund]

None of those were bridge deals. A bridge deal is a short term contract that ends with that player still under team control as an RFA. By definition a bridge has to lead somewhere, you can’t “bridge” a player to UFA status.

Vlasic, Couture and Hertl should have all been traded or allowed to walk as UFAs. There are statistical studies in the public domain that are now a decade old demonstrating that NHL players peak at 24 and fall off a cliff at 29 (on average). There was no excuse for signing those players to those contracts when he did. Burns was at least justifiable since he was an elite offensive player in the midst of a Norris season and the cap hit was fair value but of course even that contract ended up being dumped with salary retained.

Doug Wilson made the exact same mistake over and over and over again and wiped out any hope of this franchise being competitive this decade.

Genuine question: is that an actual definition? Because I don’t agree with it at all. Pretty sure you made that up.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

Doug Wilson kept rolling the dice because the owners insisted and so did most of the fanbase.

We sat on veterans past their prime for too long, lost a lot of value and traded too much of the future to keep up pretences.

If we'd reset when we should have done, the downside wouldn't have become so long.

 

[Hodge]

Genuine question: is that an actual definition? Because I don’t agree with it at all. Pretty sure you made that up.

Yes, a bridge contract has literally always referred to the contract signed after a player's ELC that expires when they are RFA with arb rights. It doesn't matter whether you "agree with it" or not.

From the first google result for "nhl bridge contract":

What is a bridge deal in hockey? A bridge deal in hockey is a contract a player signs as a restricted free agent that has a short term (typically 2 to 3 years) and ends while the players is still a restricted free agent and not when they become an unrestricted free agent.

 

[Gecklund]

Yes, a bridge contract has literally always referred to the contract signed after a player's ELC that expires when they are RFA with arb rights. It doesn't matter whether you "agree with it" or not.

From the first google result for "nhl bridge contract":

Well that’s really dumb. That’s a horrible definition and is not what has been used by hockey media.

 

[Hodge]

Well that’s really dumb. That’s a horrible definition and is not what has been used by hockey media.

What? That is always what hockey media people who know what they are talking about use the term "bridge deal" to refer to. Using "bridge deal" to refer to any RFA contract shorter than max term is what's dumb.

Just to use Vancouver as an example, Elias Pettersson is on a bridge deal. Quinn Hughes is not.

 

[Gecklund]

What? That is always what hockey media people who know what they are talking about use the term "bridge deal" to refer to. Using "bridge deal" to refer to any RFA contract shorter than max term is what's dumb.

Just to use Vancouver as an example, Elias Pettersson is on a bridge deal. Quinn Hughes is not.

Well no shit. Hughes signed a long term contract. The media uses Bridge deal and prove it deal interchangeably. I think that’s the issue.

 

[OffSydes]

The new marketing stuff is popping up around SAP and Labanc is no longer featured. They dropped Kane last season and he was off the team by the end of the season.

Does this mean something? Probably not but will I speculate? Yes.