If the team was genuinely worried they wouldn't have used all of the money they freed up from Burns then. the 5.2 alone for Kunin and Lindblom would have more than covered that.
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
Hodge
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2021
- 7,151
- 8,629
What will the NHL standings look like in three years? We predict the future
What will the NHL standings look like in three years? Our panel rates every franchise in five key categories to make projections.
theathletic.com
The Athletic projects the Sharks to be the worst team in the league as far out as four years from now.
More evidence that I’m not overly negative, just a realist about the uniquely dismal position this franchise is in. If anything I’m probably too optimistic.
You keep telling yourself that's what all this has been about. lolWhat will the NHL standings look like in three years? We predict the future
What will the NHL standings look like in three years? Our panel rates every franchise in five key categories to make projections.
The Athletic projects the Sharks to be the worst team in the league as far out as four years from now.
More evidence that I’m not overly negative, just a realist about the uniquely dismal position this franchise is in. If anything I’m probably too optimistic.
While I understand the idea behind the article, it's a total waste of time. Everyone already knows the problematic contracts on the Sharks. Using that as a basis to say the Sharks will be the worst team in the league in 4 years is pointless. Too many things can change in the next 4 years.What will the NHL standings look like in three years? We predict the future
What will the NHL standings look like in three years? Our panel rates every franchise in five key categories to make projections.
The Athletic projects the Sharks to be the worst team in the league as far out as four years from now.
More evidence that I’m not overly negative, just a realist about the uniquely dismal position this franchise is in. If anything I’m probably too optimistic.
tiburon12
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 5,221
- 5,413
yea "experts" can't even get preseason predictions correct, i'm not putting any stock in to 4-year-out thoughts
While the conclusion that the Sharks are still going to be in a very tough spot in 4 years is spot on, that article comes across as super low quality. Incredible lazy and honestly the worst published by the Athletic since I joined up there a year ago.
It's just summing up some existing stats and models and attempts to project them out to three years into the future, with very little insight into the team's prospect systems.
It's just summing up some existing stats and models and attempts to project them out to three years into the future, with very little insight into the team's prospect systems.
Gecklund
Registered User
Alaskanice
Registered User
Gecklund
Registered User
I think there’s also a level of “they’re young and might have that potential but aren’t there yet” but even then that would be Bedard/Fantilli’s third year and Kiviharju’s 2nd. We also have a pretty good prospect pool now with multiple guys who should be good NHL players.
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 17,076
- 6,660
Yeah, I mean the point would be to get Bedard/Fantilli and Kivharju as cornerstones, let them get up to speed in the NHL for another 2 years (and probably draft top-10 in the meantime), hope that Eklund pans out, and maybe get a few top-6/top-4 pieces from someone unexpectedly hitting (like Bystedt), blue chip prospect and/or 1st round pick obtained for Meier, those extra two top-10 picks, or pieces they get for Karlsson if they somehow trade him this year. Then you have your new nucleus + a few leftover veteran like Hertl, Couture, and FA/trade additions to help them out. Seems like a solid plan for a 5 year rebuild,
tahoesharksfan
Old Timer
But we knew that already…GMMG doing someone a much deserved solid!
tiburon12
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 5,221
- 5,413
While the return was obviously not a player of equal value, Lorentz has been playing a responsible and high-effort bottom six role on a cost-appropriate contract. In that sense, especially since we aren't competing and Burns was redundant and expensive, I like the trade. Plus now CAR is a team to have rooting interest in
one2gamble
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 17,676
- 9,058
Alaskanice
Registered User
Stewie Griffin
What the deuce
I think the big part of the Burns deal was like others have said we got out of most of that contract, but more importantly it made us a worse team. Although it's opened the door for Karlsson to step up, we're far more likely to finish bottom 5 without Burns than with him.
To add to some of the other conversation, I'll try and be a little more pessimistic. We're definitely over 4 years away from competing...I mean none of our young prospects are currently on the roster, and when they come over is when we should really expect to be at Anaheim level. Anaheim drafted Zegras 9, Drysdale 6, and McTavish 3 while having guys like Lindholm, Gibson, Getzlaf, Fowler, etc. on their roster. I'd say that's comparable to us finishing 3rd last in 2020, 7th in 21, and 11th last year, with all our current vets on the roster. Once we start selling guys like Meier, and plugging young players/depth guys like Barabanov to fill his shoes, things are going to get real ugly.
I've said this before but let's look at the Toronto rebuild, which I think is one of the fastest in recent memory. They were able to draft a franchise talent 1st overall (Matthews) right after drafting 7 and 4. A year later they signed Tavares to that deal to further accelerate things. Now, comparing this to the sharks, we have our 7th overall pick Eklund to compare to Nylander (guys who can comfortably play on a top line, but don't expect him to become an absolute superstar in the league) but we lack a couple more pieces. Hopefully this year we get our "Marner" which could come in Fantilli/Carlsson/Michkov or we luck out and get our Matthews in Bedard. From there we would have to hope they explode out of the gates like Matthews/Marner, and open up a ton of cap space to sign a Tavares level free agent. Now the worst part about this blueprint is it's been 6 1/2 years and they haven't won a playoff series, but we still need to worry about building a playoff caliber team so yeah.
To add to some of the other conversation, I'll try and be a little more pessimistic. We're definitely over 4 years away from competing...I mean none of our young prospects are currently on the roster, and when they come over is when we should really expect to be at Anaheim level. Anaheim drafted Zegras 9, Drysdale 6, and McTavish 3 while having guys like Lindholm, Gibson, Getzlaf, Fowler, etc. on their roster. I'd say that's comparable to us finishing 3rd last in 2020, 7th in 21, and 11th last year, with all our current vets on the roster. Once we start selling guys like Meier, and plugging young players/depth guys like Barabanov to fill his shoes, things are going to get real ugly.
I've said this before but let's look at the Toronto rebuild, which I think is one of the fastest in recent memory. They were able to draft a franchise talent 1st overall (Matthews) right after drafting 7 and 4. A year later they signed Tavares to that deal to further accelerate things. Now, comparing this to the sharks, we have our 7th overall pick Eklund to compare to Nylander (guys who can comfortably play on a top line, but don't expect him to become an absolute superstar in the league) but we lack a couple more pieces. Hopefully this year we get our "Marner" which could come in Fantilli/Carlsson/Michkov or we luck out and get our Matthews in Bedard. From there we would have to hope they explode out of the gates like Matthews/Marner, and open up a ton of cap space to sign a Tavares level free agent. Now the worst part about this blueprint is it's been 6 1/2 years and they haven't won a playoff series, but we still need to worry about building a playoff caliber team so yeah.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Check out this Podcast: Stock Up, Stock Down: With Kyle Demetrius Stock Up, Stock Down: With Kyle Demetrius
Locked on Sharks podcast (ep 700) looks at some trade stuff
Locked on Sharks podcast (ep 700) looks at some trade stuff
LadyStanley
Registered User
Sharksrule04
Registered User
Imagine paying a Norris & MVP candidate 5.75M per year not to play on your team. Smart asset management right there.
I swear this world gets crazier and crazier every day.
Sharksrule04
Registered User
Lol, like all those great players we signed with cap space from the Burns trade? Also, you literally ridiculed everyone who questioned Grier for not taking on cap dumps earlier this year in exchange for extra picks, now you're saying the Sharks could do that as a way of supporting a Karlsson trade? Which is it?
Sharksrule04
Registered User
The guys on pace for over or near a point per game are the problem, but sure Lorentz, Benning and Sturm are "home runs". Let me ask you this, if Hertl, Couture and Karlsson are putting up the numbers they are, and all these bottom lineup players are "home runs", why is the team so awful? Sure, go ahead and tell me the guys on pace for 30-40 goals suck but the 3rd and 4th liners with a handful are amazing. Just like how Barabanov isn't an NHL player in your eyes.
Your blindness to the fact that Grier probably hasn't made a single good move following his draft day trade down from 11 is fairly impressive. I will accept signing Sturm as a decent move, but not a single other move has been a "win".
This team that is rostering all these bottom 6 studs is performing worse than last years with those AHL losers you speak of which was the argument made from many of us months ago. Signing or trading for the guys that Grier acquired doesn't move the needle for a team like the Sharks and it wasted cap space that could have been used to acquire dumps and extra draft picks. I'd much rather pay Gregor, Reedy or Dahlen under $1M to suck than pay Lindblom or Kunin closer to $3M to play slightly better. We are a bottom team chasing a top pick, who the hell cares whether we have AHL or NHL talent in the bottom 6. Get as many picks as you can and the best lottery odds you can get.
Sharksrule04
Registered User
What will the NHL standings look like in three years? We predict the future
What will the NHL standings look like in three years? Our panel rates every franchise in five key categories to make projections.
The Athletic projects the Sharks to be the worst team in the league as far out as four years from now.
More evidence that I’m not overly negative, just a realist about the uniquely dismal position this franchise is in. If anything I’m probably too optimistic.
Don't think anyone has argued otherwise here. I personally think (and most fans inside know) the Sharks are in for a looooooong rebuild. We have very little draft capital, no elite prospects and cap issues, not to mention a rookie GM who so far has been less than impressive. Only way this speeds up to even a 3-4 year rebuild is if Grier makes some smart trades (not retaining 50% on EK65) and the Sharks win the draft lottery.
sharski
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2012
- 5,889
- 5,189
Sharks winning the cup 4 years from now confirmed
Not sure how anyone can have a problem with Lorentz and especially Sturm. It’s also a really shitty cultural shift when you become the team purposely taking on cap space to help others get better. There’s a reason Arizona keeps moving to smaller and smaller arenas with no real end game in sight.
- Status
