Expecting every game. Carlsson was always iffy on whether he was NHL ready as a prospect in Year 1. Celebrini is ready for NHL hockey, though I'd expect an injury absence since it seems common for rookie centers that were first overall picks (McDavid, Hughes, and Bedard).It'll be interesting to see if they go the Berdard (every game) or Carlson (segmented off days) route with Celly.
Seeing as pretty much every all-star level defensive player in the last ~15 years was acquired via trade or UFA (Boyle, Burns, Blake, Karlsson, etc), it feels good to have a solid crop of offensive prospects to build around again. Here's hoping Grier can pull some magic for our D line when our window is starting to crack open to compete if we don't draft any major D prospects. What we do with that 14th pick will be super pivotal.
Probably no better time to come in as a new player (Smith, Muk, Celebrini, Eklund) and step into a leadership role. With Couture seemingly on the tail end of his career, the locker room stuff is hopefully easier to transition to a new young leadership core. I. am. excite.
Acquisitions | Financials | Roster | Special Teams |
---|---|---|---|
|
If Celebrini does sign, I'm down to sign Stamkos and pay him whatever he wants for 2-3 years.Maybe I’m just coming off the high of the lottery win and winning the Celebrini sweepstakes, but after really digging in to what’s maybe available via UFA I’m thinking maybe there is a way to get this team competitive much quicker. Here’s the pipe dream I came up with:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TH]Acquisitions[/TH]
[TH]Financials[/TH]
[TH]Roster[/TH]
[TH]Special Teams[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]View attachment 867230[/TD]
[TD]View attachment 867232[/TD]
[TD]View attachment 867233[/TD]
[TD]View attachment 867235[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
We already have Eklund and Musty at LW. I like Farabee but he’s nothing we don’t already have in Eklund. If the price is really low, sure, but I don’t think it will be.Farabee being speculated to be on the move in Philly again. BU guy, scoring LW, and fits the age range we want. I don't really know where Bordeleau fits long-term as a small LW, so would be willing to do Bordeleau and NJD 2nd for Farabee and Johansen or Petersen's contract.
The sharks were fortunate to escape from EK65 and his contract. Absolutely zero interest in seeing him in teal again. He’s not the player the sharks need.My never-gonna-happen dream scenario, cause a boy can dream.
View attachment 867289
View attachment 867290
I believe a defenseman with elite offensive and puck-moving capabilities is something that the Sharks need. I just don't think Karlsson would accept a trade back nor would Pittsburgh want to retain to make that work. This team needs at least three defensemen that have puck skills where we can't even really claim yet to have one.The sharks were fortunate to escape from EK65 and his contract. Absolutely zero interest in seeing him in teal again. He’s not the player the sharks need.
I believe a defenseman with elite offensive and puck-moving capabilities is something that the Sharks need. I just don't think Karlsson would accept a trade back nor would Pittsburgh want to retain to make that work. This team needs at least three defensemen that have puck skills where we can't even really claim yet to have one.
Yes that type of player is needed by the sharks, but EK himself is not the player they should target even if possible. He’s 33 now. Would prefer someone younger who can grow with the team, or someone cheaper than ek.I believe a defenseman with elite offensive and puck-moving capabilities is something that the Sharks need. I just don't think Karlsson would accept a trade back nor would Pittsburgh want to retain to make that work. This team needs at least three defensemen that have puck skills where we can't even really claim yet to have one.
Which is why I am suggesting moving a piece that also probably doesn't fit at LW in Bordeleau plus a low likelihood pick in the 40's.We already have Eklund and Musty at LW. I like Farabee but he’s nothing we don’t already have in Eklund. If the price is really low, sure, but I don’t think it will be.
I have high hopes that Muhk can come in next year and be a #4 puck moving guy for us. But we definitely need 2 more guys.
I don't think Philadelphia would be all that interested in doing a deal like that. From my discussions with their fans, the dead weight contracts like Johansen and Petersen aren't a worry for them in the sense of using them to deflate another's value as they can buy them out and be fine. I think the only player that they'd deflate another's value to get rid of would be Couturier and I don't think anyone here wants that contract even if it meant getting Farabee for nothing. If we're going to trade for Farabee, it's probably going to cost either the #14 or the Vegas 1st round pick. And while I like Farabee as a potential option since he can play the right side as well, I'm inclined to hold off on that. Scoring wingers aren't things we should be looking to pay futures for. The only spot I'd pay futures for is puck-moving defensemen.Which is why I am suggesting moving a piece that also probably doesn't fit at LW in Bordeleau plus a low likelihood pick in the 40's.
Musty might be really good, but not going to turn down 24 year old NHLers because Musty might be good. We're a team that can absorb Farabee's $5M for the next 4 years and lower the asking price by taking a negative value contract.
Taking Petersen's buried contract is worth the 38th overall, Bordeleau is probably still worth around a mid-2nd, and then we'd be adding a mid-2nd of our own. Essentially a trio of 2nd rounders for a proven NHL scorer. Using PuckPedia's draft pick value feature, 38th, 42nd, and 48th (value I assigned to Bordeleau) is equal to 18th /19th overall (a pick that I'd imagine that Philly would take for Farabee).
Why on earth would Philadelphia do that deal though. There’s almost no value for them.Which is why I am suggesting moving a piece that also probably doesn't fit at LW in Bordeleau plus a low likelihood pick in the 40's.
Musty might be really good, but not going to turn down 24 year old NHLers because Musty might be good. We're a team that can absorb Farabee's $5M for the next 4 years and lower the asking price by taking a negative value contract.
Taking Petersen's buried contract is worth the 38th overall, Bordeleau is probably still worth around a mid-2nd, and then we'd be adding a mid-2nd of our own. Essentially a trio of 2nd rounders for a proven NHL scorer. Using PuckPedia's draft pick value feature, 38th, 42nd, and 48th (value I assigned to Bordeleau) is equal to 18th /19th overall (a pick that I'd imagine that Philly would take for Farabee).
Distressed asset with 4 years left at $5M that hates the coach and the coach doesn't much care for the player either. Also get to move off another bad contract without cap penalty. That said, I agree that there is probably more value out there to be had if they strictly want the highest asset in return that they can get as opposed to a prospect/pick/cap package (i.e. a 1st rounder in the late teens as opposed to a package that about equals a pick in the late teens).Why on earth would Philadelphia do that deal though. There’s almost no value for them.