Speculation: 2022-23 Sharks Roster Discussion Part II

[Gecklund]

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.

I don’t think anyone does have a problem with Lorentz and Sturm. I think the issue is more all of the other FAs and acquisitions and what was given up.

I like Lorentz but we got a goalie prospect, a 3rd, and a 4th liner for a top pairing D AND kept part of his salary. I have an issue with that.

Sturm has been fine. Not great but fine. Worth the 2M? Probably not but whatever. Definitely worth at least 1.5 so it’s fine.

Kunin has looked fine but 2.75M good? No probably not. Especially when you throw in that it took a 3rd to get him.

Lindblom is a huge mistake. He’s got a great story but guy has barely been worth the minimum salary and he’s making 2.5 for the next 2 years. Garbage signing.

Benning has looked better the past few games but better than a massive negative isn’t good. He’s barely worth minimum salary but signed for over that for the next 4 years. Horrible signing

Nutivaara is kind of whatever. I’m okay with it because he’s only signed for one year and that’s probably why his salary was a bit higher. Obviously he hasn’t played but that also means he hasn’t been a negative.

Harrington and Svechnikov I kind of lump them together. Both were nothing signings that have slightly exceeded expectations.

 

[Cas]

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.

Lorentz and Sturm are fine.

Sturm is actually pretty good for what he is - he's kind of playing like we hoped Bonino would.

Lorentz was just a body in the Burns trade, which was really not a trade expected to return value for value, but he's been fine in a fourth-line role. He's not special and won't be part of the next good Sharks team, but he fills a role adequately. Makiniemi and the draft pick are hopefully where the value we may get come from, though both are lottery tickets.

Kunin was an overpayment, though I don't hate him as a player (I'm not enamored with him either, but I think he fills a role). Lindblom was a mistake, though. Benning is a tire fire. Nuttivara is just an acceptable miss.

 

[TheBeard]

I don’t think anyone does have a problem with Lorentz and Sturm. I think the issue is more all of the other FAs and acquisitions and what was given up.

I like Lorentz but we got a goalie prospect, a 3rd, and a 4th liner for a top pairing D AND kept part of his salary. I have an issue with that.

Sturm has been fine. Not great but fine. Worth the 2M? Probably not but whatever. Definitely worth at least 1.5 so it’s fine.

Kunin has looked fine but 2.75M good? No probably not. Especially when you throw in that it took a 3rd to get him.

Lindblom is a huge mistake. He’s got a great story but guy has barely been worth the minimum salary and he’s making 2.5 for the next 2 years. Garbage signing.

Benning has looked better the past few games but better than a massive negative isn’t good. He’s barely worth minimum salary but signed for over that for the next 4 years. Horrible signing

Nutivaara is kind of whatever. I’m okay with it because he’s only signed for one year and that’s probably why his salary was a bit higher. Obviously he hasn’t played but that also means he hasn’t been a negative.

Harrington and Svechnikov I kind of lump them together. Both were nothing signings that have slightly exceeded expectations.

The only one I have a real exception with is Kunin solely for what we gave up. I like his physical element but there are always guys like him available so it didn't seem necessary to pony up a pick for him. Sturm has absolutely been worth his salary, especially near the beginning of the season when he seemed to be the only forward stepping up on the ice and, more importantly, in the locker room. If we can somehow pull 17-20 goals from him with all the intangibles then he's a steal, not to mention what he may bring at the deadline if he keeps up a steady level of play. Benning is what you're going to get for 1.25 a year so anything remotely close to a positive is a net gain even if the term is stupid. Lindblom has been a massive disappointment to me as that was the one move I was most excited about.

In terms of Burns, this has been dicussed ad nauseum. I don't know what kind of market there was for an aging, declining defenceman with a lot of term in a flat cap era. Getting picks and prospects for minimal retention is about as good as it's going to get. If that was the only offer on the table, what would you have done, kept him?

The others signings? Yeah, just merely low-risk/low-reward darts at a dartboard, but if it keeps the kids down so they can develop without the lofty expectations of being major contributors right out of the gate then I'm all for it. If I'm gonna gripe about anything, it's not trading Reimer in the offseason but if he can still bring back something of value at the deadline then it's no big deal.

 

[TheBeard]

Lorentz was just a body in the Burns trade, which was really not a trade expected to return value for value, but he's been fine in a fourth-line role. He's not special and won't be part of the next good Sharks team, but he fills a role adequately. Makiniemi and the draft pick are hopefully where the value we may get come from, though both are lottery tickets.

Guys like him are always valued around the deadline push. A big body that will maybe give you 7-10 goals but, more importantly, excels on the PK. Players like him tend to be the kind of players most often moved to contenders simply because, at worst, they're useable plug-in players for injuries. At 26 and signed for another season after this at barely over a million dollar hit, he's someone that ends up getting more than you would expect.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

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.

I've only had a problem with Lorentz when he's been moved up the lineup. He's fine on the 4th line maybe even the 3rd but he's out of place playing alongside Couture when that has happened. Sturm has earned his money to me. A lot of this is just dealing with the fact that they're not a rebuilding franchise yet. They're still transitioning to that to a large degree. And because a lot of the kids coming up here aren't Grier's picks, he simply may not care to give them opportunities until he feels like they've forced him to do so. While a couple may be better than what we have up here to some minor degree, it's hard to say any have forced his hand.

The Coyotes aren't moving to smaller arenas because of how their hockey ops is being run. They're in that situation because of the original decision to move to Glendale in the first place and the fallout from that mess.

 

[Gecklund]

The only one I have a real exception with is Kunin solely for what we gave up. I like his physical element but there are always guys like him available so it didn't seem necessary to pony up a pick for him. Sturm has absolutely been worth his salary, especially near the beginning of the season when he seemed to be the only forward stepping up on the ice and, more importantly, in the locker room. If we can somehow pull 17-20 goals from him with all the intangibles then he's a steal, not to mention what he may bring at the deadline if he keeps up a steady level of play. Benning is what you're going to get for 1.25 a year so anything remotely close to a positive is a net gain even if the term is stupid. Lindblom has been a massive disappointment to me as that was the one move I was most excited about.

In terms of Burns, this has been dicussed ad nauseum. I don't know what kind of market there was for an aging, declining defenceman with a lot of term in a flat cap era. Getting picks and prospects for minimal retention is about as good as it's going to get. If that was the only offer on the table, what would you have done, kept him?

The others signings? Yeah, just merely low-risk/low-reward darts at a dartboard, but if it keeps the kids down so they can develop without the lofty expectations of being major contributors right out of the gate then I'm all for it. If I'm gonna gripe about anything, it's not trading Reimer in the offseason but if he can still bring back something of value at the deadline then it's no big deal.

Kunin yes agree with, we are on the same page there.

Sturm like I said I’m okay with. I don’t love the signing but I don’t hate it either and I don’t know how many other Cs they could have gotten for that price that wanted to go to a rebuilding team.

Benning that’s just not true. Guys who are at a similar cap hit (or less) and better than Benning: Clifton, Meloche, Braun, Stralman, Bortuzzo, TVR, Bjork, Schenn. Basically all this to say he’s easily replaceable and giving him any sort of term is dumb as shit.

Lindblom we agree on.

Burns it’s already for sure that wasn’t the only offer. Ideally what I would have done is take back more cap dumps for a better return. Stars were interested and had an offer on the table. I would have tried to take back let’s say Faksa, Khudobin. Stars pivoted to Miller after so let’s say they didn’t sign him either. That’s 1.85+3.25+3.33 or just over 8M for Dallas. That is over Burns’ cap hit. Is it perfect? No but I think it was on the table (or we could have put it on the table). From the way the reporting sounded on that day was Burns said he wanted to go to CAR over other teams so SJ made it happen.

We agree on Reimer too. I thought they’d move him in the off-season. That’s why I was so open to taking back Khudobin for Burns. We still could have moved Hill for that fourth from VGK and suddenly we have Kahkonen and Khudobin in goal with an extra 2nd and 4th or something like that.

 

[TheBeard]

I've only had a problem with Lorentz when he's been moved up the lineup. He's fine on the 4th line maybe even the 3rd but he's out of place playing alongside Couture when that has happened. Sturm has earned his money to me. A lot of this is just dealing with the fact that they're not a rebuilding franchise yet. They're still transitioning to that to a large degree. And because a lot of the kids coming up here aren't Grier's picks, he simply may not care to give them opportunities until he feels like they've forced him to do so. While a couple may be better than what we have up here to some minor degree, it's hard to say any have forced his hand.

The Coyotes aren't moving to smaller arenas because of how their hockey ops is being run. They're in that situation because of the original decision to move to Glendale in the first place and the fallout from that mess.

The Coyotes debacle is a variety of reasons and getting fans to show up is one of them. The team, despite constantly rebuilding and retooling with high picks, have broken through the 82 point threshold twice in 12 seasons and things don’t exactly look rosy. It happens in every non-traditional market as we’re seeing it in SJ despite as recently as 4 years ago being one of the consistent sellers.

 

[TheBeard]

Kunin yes agree with, we are on the same page there.

Sturm like I said I’m okay with. I don’t love the signing but I don’t hate it either and I don’t know how many other Cs they could have gotten for that price that wanted to go to a rebuilding team.

Benning that’s just not true. Guys who are at a similar cap hit (or less) and better than Benning: Clifton, Meloche, Braun, Stralman, Bortuzzo, TVR, Bjork, Schenn. Basically all this to say he’s easily replaceable and giving him any sort of term is dumb as shit.

Lindblom we agree on.

Burns it’s already for sure that wasn’t the only offer. Ideally what I would have done is take back more cap dumps for a better return. Stars were interested and had an offer on the table. I would have tried to take back let’s say Faksa, Khudobin. Stars pivoted to Miller after so let’s say they didn’t sign him either. That’s 1.85+3.25+3.33 or just over 8M for Dallas. That is over Burns’ cap hit. Is it perfect? No but I think it was on the table (or we could have put it on the table). From the way the reporting sounded on that day was Burns said he wanted to go to CAR over other teams so SJ made it happen.

We agree on Reimer too. I thought they’d move him in the off-season. That’s why I was so open to taking back Khudobin for Burns. We still could have moved Hill for that fourth from VGK and suddenly we have Kahkonen and Khudobin in goal with an extra 2nd and 4th or something like that.

Most of the D guys you mentioned are guys over the hill or guys that just wanted to play for contenders. There still has to be a mutual interest and at least with Benning at 4 years at 1.25, at 28 if there’s a chance he kicks his game up a notch then suddenly we have a massive trade chip. It’s a low risk high reward signing that may or not pan out. The term is the only aspect I question but the money? You’re talking about the difference of 2 or 300,000.

I do believe that with Burns you are correct in that they essentially allowed him to pick and choose where he wanted to play. It’s a gesture that other players appreciate and probably holds more value than whatever minimal increase we could have gotten in other trade packages. Either way at the end of the day you’re asking for lotto tickets in return so no one knows the end result for a while.

Is Khudobin even playing?

 

[Gecklund]

Most of the D guys you mentioned are guys over the hill or guys that just wanted to play for contenders. There still has to be a mutual interest and at least with Benning at 4 years at 1.25, at 28 if there’s a chance he kicks his game up a notch then suddenly we have a massive trade chip. It’s a low risk high reward signing that may or not pan out. The term is the only aspect I question but the money? You’re talking about the difference of 2 or 300,000.

I do believe that with Burns you are correct in that they essentially allowed him to pick and choose where he wanted to play. It’s a gesture that other players appreciate and probably holds more value than whatever minimal increase we could have gotten in other trade packages. Either way at the end of the day you’re asking for lotto tickets in return so no one knows the end result for a while.

Is Khudobin even playing?

I’d agree Benning’s money isn’t really the issue and it is the term. Hell I would have been more okay with say a 2M deal for him if it meant it was only one year. My point is that there’s guys that are at least similar to Benning available at that cost every year. So why lock ourselves into one for 4?

I mean Burns technically has to give 3 teams. That’s his contract. If Stars were one of those teams, he needs to be okay with it.

Yes in the AHL. He’s not very good so even more of a reason to take him on over Reimer.

 

[TheBeard]

I’d agree Benning’s money isn’t really the issue and it is the term. Hell I would have been more okay with say a 2M deal for him if it meant it was only one year. My point is that there’s guys that are at least similar to Benning available at that cost every year. So why lock ourselves into one for 4?

I mean Burns technically has to give 3 teams. That’s his contract. If Stars were one of those teams, he needs to be okay with it.

Yes in the AHL. He’s not very good so even more of a reason to take him on over Reimer.

I agree about Reimer, but if he wasn't on the table I don't know why Dallas would trade him simply for the security of what he has proven he can do in the playoffs. I suppose they could use his adjusted cap number.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The Coyotes debacle is a variety of reasons and getting fans to show up is one of them. The team, despite constantly rebuilding and retooling with high picks, have broken through the 82 point threshold twice in 12 seasons and things don’t exactly look rosy. It happens in every non-traditional market as we’re seeing it in SJ despite as recently as 4 years ago being one of the consistent sellers.

The last 12 seasons excluding this current one has them breaking through 82 points more than twice. It's actually four times. Granted, that isn't great either but for a cash-strapped team going through numerous ownership changes, they've got limited options on what they can actually do to improve their team moving forward. I happen to think they have a good amount of young talent and they're going in the right direction even though they've had some setbacks. They're more likely to compete for a playoff spot before we are.

 

[Gecklund]

I agree about Reimer, but if he wasn't on the table I don't know why Dallas would trade him simply for the security of what he has proven he can do in the playoffs. I suppose they could use his adjusted cap number.

I don’t think you keep Khudobin for the playoffs after Oettinger just had godly numbers last year and looks like it’s legit this year. I think you’d take that upgrade on Miller.

 

[TheBeard]

I don’t think you keep Khudobin for the playoffs after Oettinger just had godly numbers last year and looks like it’s legit this year. I think you’d take that upgrade on Miller.

Sure, but if something happens to Jake then I’m sure they’d feel better with the experience of Anton than Wedgewood.

The last 12 seasons excluding this current one has them breaking through 82 points more than twice. It's actually four times. Granted, that isn't great either but for a cash-strapped team going through numerous ownership changes, they've got limited options on what they can actually do to improve their team moving forward. I happen to think they have a good amount of young talent and they're going in the right direction even though they've had some setbacks. They're more likely to compete for a playoff spot before we are.

They may have limited options but that has nothing to do with how poorly they’ve drafted and developed talent over that time. Have they even developed anyone since the 2016 Keller/Chychurn draft??

 

[Gecklund]

Sure, but if something happens to Jake then I’m sure they’d feel better with the experience of Anton than Wedgewood.


They may have limited options but that has nothing to do with how poorly they’ve drafted and developed talent over that time. Have they even developed anyone since the 2016 Keller/Chychurn draft??

I actually have a few buddies who are Stars fans and they think the opposite. Wedgewood has been pretty good for DAL.

 

[NewMuzu24]

I’m agnostic towards Benning’s existence. But he’s only -4 on a bad team and on pace for 34 points.

The contract is puzzling but not anything that cripples moves in the future.

Is that not a decent value for $1.25M? I know those are counting stats and it’s never that simple, but when I think of the team’s problems, Benning doesn’t jump to the front.

Management philosophy and contract structure are certainly debatable, but for a 6D on a bad team in the abstract? I think he’s been fine.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Sure, but if something happens to Jake then I’m sure they’d feel better with the experience of Anton than Wedgewood.


They may have limited options but that has nothing to do with how poorly they’ve drafted and developed talent over that time. Have they even developed anyone since the 2016 Keller/Chychurn draft??

It does if their ownership with extremely limited resources chooses poorly to run the ship like they did with Chayka. They haven't developed anyone since that draft but they've also been in great turmoil in the front office since then too.

 

[TheBeard]

It does if their ownership with extremely limited resources chooses poorly to run the ship like they did with Chayka. They haven't developed anyone since that draft but they've also been in great turmoil in the front office since then too.

The point STILL stands that no one goes out to see them because they're the most inept organization in the league both on and off the ice. But it's the product on the ice that decides the Ws and Ls in the standings. Creating a culture that almost encourages an indifference by being essentially a broker between contending teams sends an awful message.

 

[tiburon12]

I’m agnostic towards Benning’s existence. But he’s only -4 on a bad team and on pace for 34 points.

The contract is puzzling but not anything that cripples moves in the future.

Is that not a decent value for $1.25M? I know those are counting stats and it’s never that simple, but when I think of the team’s problems, Benning doesn’t jump to the front.

Management philosophy and contract structure are certainly debatable, but for a 6D on a bad team in the abstract? I think he’s been fine.

Benning was visibly bad to start the year, no question. Bad turnovers, failed assignments, weak in front of the net.

But in the last 15 games he's been fine. Steady-Eddie on the back side with far fewer obvious mistakes and bad turnovers, if any (some games). The narrative has changed.

We can acknowledge that he was bad, has been much better, and is playing to his contract value. It was not looking good to start, but credit to him for improving and being a useful player.

 

[Pavelski2112]

Benning was visibly bad to start the year, no question. Bad turnovers, failed assignments, weak in front of the net.

But in the last 15 games he's been fine. Steady-Eddie on the back side with far fewer obvious mistakes and bad turnovers, if any (some games). The narrative has changed.

We can acknowledge that he was bad, has been much better, and is playing to his contract value. It was not looking good to start, but credit to him for improving and being a useful player.

Benning looks fine-to-ok everywhere except his own zone, in which he is still a complete disaster

 

[tiburon12]

Benning looks fine-to-ok everywhere except his own zone, in which he is still a complete disaster

You think so? Maybe I have low expectations, but I havent seen much disaster play like I did in the first chunk of games.

I also generally think the team is bad on in-zone D support and on breakouts not lead by Karlsson.

 

[Sharksrule04]

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.

I have no issue with Sturm or Lorentz. They are welcome additions to the franchise, but to call them “home runs” in the same post as calling a 30-40 goal or ppg player a problem is ridiculous. There is this obsession with a few posters here that age automatically equals decline/being terrible and that you immediately need to dispense of any player you will pay beyond the age of 30 regardless of the return.

Disagree on the stockpiling picks comment though. Plenty of teams do it. It’s part of rebuilding.

 

[TheBeard]

You think so? Maybe I have low expectations, but I havent seen much disaster play like I did in the first chunk of games.

I also generally think the team is bad on in-zone D support and on breakouts not lead by Karlsson.

Probably because everyone in the blue line is a disaster in their own zone so his “disaster-ing” doesn’t really stand out.

He’s adequate. Nothing more nothing less but that’s what you hope for at his cap number.

I have no issue with Sturm or Lorentz. They are welcome additions to the franchise, but to call them “home runs” in the same post as calling a 30-40 goal or ppg player a problem is ridiculous. There is this obsession with a few posters here that age automatically equals decline/being terrible and that you immediately need to dispense of any player you will pay beyond the age of 30 regardless of the return.

Disagree on the stockpiling picks comment though. Plenty of teams do it. It’s part of rebuilding.

Well that poster certainly has a history of hypocritical declarations so not sure why anyone takes him seriously. I think he does it to cover all his bases so he can quote himself down the road.

Also, while plenty of teams do it, most don’t succeed .

 

[Cas]

You think so? Maybe I have low expectations, but I havent seen much disaster play like I did in the first chunk of games.

I'd agree - he regularly gets walked in all three zones (because he's quite slow) and regularly makes poor decisions about where to be and look. He's fine when he's not under pressure, but if you challenge him he wilts. I suspect he's only looking as good as he does because other teams are challenging Vlasic more because he's even easier to blow past or give up the puck.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Benning is prone to dumb mistakes and can't seem to handle physicality, but he's very good at moving the puck, even under pressure. He's not super mobile but does pass very well.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The point STILL stands that no one goes out to see them because they're the most inept organization in the league both on and off the ice. But it's the product on the ice that decides the Ws and Ls in the standings. Creating a culture that almost encourages an indifference by being essentially a broker between contending teams sends an awful message.

When Arizona was competing for a short burst a while ago, attendance was still an issue because of the ownership status. The Sharks suck and are seeing attendance issues without this sort of encouraging indifference point you're making. For the Sharks, losing will cause attendance issues regardless of how you get there and what you do in that time period.