He's top 5 for me. I wanted him back simply because the team's window was short and a three year deal would have been ideal for that time frame. He's also too smart a player to just disappear. His game isn't predicated on the skills that fail first.
Speculation: 2022-23 Sharks Roster Discussion Part II
- Thread starter WTFetus
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
My reasoning for being okay with letting Pavelski go was because it didn't seem like he fit in with any of the lines moving forward. Even when that team was winning in 2019, he was floating about the lineup not really clicking with anyone.
Shark Finn
uɐℲ ɥʇ8 ,sǝıddn⅁
I hated it simply because he wasn't looking for long term and considering he was coming off his second best goal scoring season ever and then that awful injury in the playoffs it seemed like it was worth keeping the band together.
I would've been alright with keeping Pavs if they made the necessary moves to free up the cap space needed to do so but it was understandable not to give him three years too. It would've been understandable to give him three years as well.
tahoesharksfan
Old Timer
I've asked this before and I'll ask it again...why do you all continue to feed the local troll?
Let's move on and have a meaningful discussion about the roster....
Let's move on and have a meaningful discussion about the roster....
What else am I gonna do on the pooper?
timorous me
Gristled Veteran
- Apr 14, 2010
- 2,516
- 4,267
I can't wait until Marvel makes their blockbuster Captain Hindsight film. f***ing box office gold. We all know who's starring in it.
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 17,076
- 6,659
Not a fair critique of @Hodge. He's not just criticizing these moves in hindsight, but was quite critical at the time they happened.
The criticisms were made then but they can be overstated then, now, and in the future. That’s what it likely will be. Hertl is the least of their concerns when it comes to the long term deals.
tiburon12
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 5,221
- 5,413
Yea, for sure I think it was the covid break. He had two major head injuries and not enough time to recover before going to Dallas, where his timing looked noticeably off. He made a career on high iq timing and it clearly wasn't there.
I was on the "let him walk" camp because I thought he was physically cooked.
Yes, we all know you default to the least risky option in decision making. You're like Ben Stiller's character in Along Came Polly
The last page and a half of this thread has been dominated by one person trying to convince people who have pointed out a current problem they are stupid for having done so because there *may be* another, bigger problem 3 or 5 years from now. Get a life man.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
The Sharks should have let go of Vlasic, Pavelski, Kane, Couture, and Jones when their contracts came up (specifically, Couture and Vlasic should have been traded at the peaks of their value). Although they aren’t great contracts and the only one I would have personally given out is Burns, I understand keeping Burns, Karlsson, and Hertl at the numbers they signed to.
Don’t know why everything has to be so black and white around here.
Don’t know why everything has to be so black and white around here.
I actually had no issue with Logan’s contract. He’s still a decent point producer that does a lot of other things well. He definitely had a streak of bad luck with unfortunate injuries (how many times was he hit in the face by a puck??) but he was never a burner that goes with age. I don’t think his grit gets praised enough but the dude has no issues getting his nose dirty.
Vlasic though was a bad extension however no one could have predicted he would have declined so steeply and so quickly (although I’m sure Hodge will say otherwise).
I hated the Karlsson extension though. It was clearly a boom or bust move for two or three years.
Vlasic’s extension was very much contested at the time. I think we all knew his decline was already starting but it was more pronounced than anticipated.
No one could have predicted the COVID pandemic and the impact it would have on the salary cap. That magnified the impact of a number of these contracts.
Eh. There's no real correlation in terms of the deals and covid in terms of the repercussions. They weren't going to age well and the team collapsed long before the pandemic was a thing.
Mr Fahrenheit
Valar Morghulis
- Oct 9, 2009
- 7,923
- 4,094
Because of the pandemic and flat cap, these contracts take up a higher % of the salary cap than they would have if there was no flat cap these past few seasons
hotcabbagesoup
"I'm going to get what I deserve" -RutgerMcgroarty
Pavelski2112
Bold as Boognish
Sure but by the time it happened we were already bad and it’s not like cap space is a major issue for us now nor the last couple of seasons.
An $8M cap hit looks very different under an $81.5M cap than an $87.5M cap (CapFriendly projection for 24-25 to account for the 2 flat years due to COVID).
That difference may very well drive the Sharks' hand with Meier. So yeah, there are real repercussions as to where the cap will be next year based on where Sharks management projected it would be at the time those contracts were signed.
- Status
