Speculation: - 2023-24-25-26 Sharks Roster Discussion | Page 1341 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Speculation: 2023-24-25-26 Sharks Roster Discussion

  • If you are having issues logging in, we have found opening the log in page in a new tab/window rather than using the pop out should resolve these issues. We are working to get this resolved and thank you for patience.
  • Due to the increased volume of league transactions, the Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk section is temporarily restricted to where threads may only be started by moderators and sponsors. We anticipate that this restriction will be lifted some time after the first round of the draft.
Hodge said:
Good trade by Davidson for once. Like I said you’re lucky if any of these defensemen become as good as Byram and you’ll be waiting 3-5 years to find out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I do think people not only overrate picks in general they also forget that the picks have variable value from year to year. If a GM is looking at this draft and thinking it's weak and full of lottery tickets rather than sure-things, then the 4th is less valuable in a year with a deeper draft. And defensemen are finnicky and notoriously hard to project.

I personally don't like the trade for Chicago because I think Byram is not the answer to their woes, but, if they're really convinced he is, then good for them I guess. People here have been going on and on about how we need to draft defense because the cost is prohibitive to acquire it in a trade, but this is precisely why it's expensive: a defensemen drafted at 4th overall is not guarenteed to end up as good as Byram (certainly not as good right out the gate), and Chicago is probably starting to feel some heat that they're still completely in the toilet year after year while teams like us are starting to get better and better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pavelskiTips
OverTheLine said:
Yeah, I do think people not only overrate picks in general they also forget that the picks have variable value from year to year. If a GM is looking at this draft and thinking it's weak and full of lottery tickets rather than sure-things, then the 4th is less valuable in a year with a deeper draft. And defensemen are finnicky and notoriously hard to project.

I personally don't like the trade for Chicago because I think Byram is not the answer to their woes, but, if they're really convinced he is, then good for them I guess. People here have been going on and on about how we need to draft defense because the cost is prohibitive to acquire it in a trade, but this is precisely why it's expensive: a defensemen drafted at 4th overall is not guarenteed to end up as good as Byram (certainly not as good right out the gate), and Chicago is probably starting to feel some heat that they're still completely in the toilet year after year while teams like us are starting to get better and better.
Click to expand...
Byram is a defensive liability and pairing him with Levshunov who is also a defensive liability is just asking for Bedard to ask for a trade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan, BaybayShark and OverTheLine
Palaeontologists said:
Byram is a defensive liability and pairing him with Levshunov who is also a defensive liability is just asking for Bedard to ask for a trade.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I don't like it for Chicago either because I'm low on Byram, but maybe they think he's a better bet than Reid or Carels. They absolutely should've just drafted Smits though, he's a great fit for what they need.
 
"Hey Kyle, Grier here. Hey listen, congratulations on whatever you're doing over there. Super cool. I've got this kid, great kid. Hard worker, doesn't do anything particularly well but Bedard might like him. Goodrow for Rinzel seems like a no brainer. Anyway, just fax over the papers and we'll get it done. Do you have a fax machine? Listen, I'll throw in a lifetime supply of paper here."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sandisfan
Hodge said:
Assuming Cam isn't making shit up as usual I have a feeling we're trying to trade 2OA+ for Jason Robertson.

He's in his prime and already what Stenberg's realistic ceiling is. Dallas doesn't want to pay him more than Rantanen but we can.
Click to expand...
I feel like Knies is more Grier's flavor than Robertson. Plus, he already has cost certainty rather than costing $12M to be a 1 trick pony on the wing (that we don't really need). That said, feels odd that we'd move our best assets for wingers given how major the need is on the backend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vortexx and rsteen
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 11 more.
    • Total: 82 (members: 57, guests: 25)

    Latest posts

    Ad

    Ad

    Top Bottom