Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[KarlssonsGroin]

I don't know if he's done anything to really improve his value. I'd offer no more than Kovalenko/Gushchin/Bordeleau + DAL 1st.

Only way I'd even do that is if you can't use the Dallas 1st in a deal to get a proven NHL D-Man. I wouldn't be using Musty unless it was a straight 1 for 1 and I wouldn't include Chernyshov even for that. Probably include Haltunnen in the Kovalenko/Gushchin/Bords bucket as well.

i think id go a prospect tier above and say id do Halttunen/Bystedt/Lund + Dal/EDM 1st OR Musty + Ott 2nd

 

[gaucholoco3]

I wouldn't unless Hughes promises to sign an extension, otherwise he's going to NJ to join his brothers. Then you've traded a Misa or Martone for a year or two of Hughes, and during two years where we are not in serious playoff contention. So the end result is not only do you not have Misa/Martone/Hagens/whoever, you also have worse prospects from the McKenna and Dupont drafts, you didn't make the playoffs, and you are back to needing a #1 dman right when our contention window should be opening.

Vancouver really should try to extract whatever they can from NJ to send them Hughes this summer and also sell off Petterson to completely rebuild. They don’t have any long term pieces - I’m almost certain Hughes will leave to NJ in FA - that would be core pieces on a cup team. Especially with McKenna the local kid it might be something the fan base could sell.

 

[gaucholoco3]

i think id go a prospect tier above and say id do Halttunen/Bystedt/Lund + Dal/EDM 1st OR Musty + Ott 2nd

I agree. I think Willander would be the perfect long term compliment to a Schaefer or Dickinson.

I was thinking of Nemec as a target for young RHD but I would pay a lot more for Willander.

 

[Gecklund]

I think the only issue with Willander is that Canucks want win now and we can’t offer that. I mean look at the miller trade. It was younger guys but still guys who can contribute now. I don’t think we have that at a level that I’d be comfortable giving it up for Willander. Like do you take Willander+Canucks first for Eklund? I don’t think so.

 

[Yummyshark]

Vancouver really should try to extract whatever they can from NJ to send them Hughes this summer and also sell off Petterson to completely rebuild. They don’t have any long term pieces - I’m almost certain Hughes will leave to NJ in FA - that would be core pieces on a cup team. Especially with McKenna the local kid it might be something the fan base could sell.

Absolutely. Vancouver should tank and rebuild but they can't and won't until Hughes is gone, and Hughes is not only a fan favorite, he might very well be one of the most beloved Canucks in Vancouver history, so trading him will be hard for management to do. And not to mention they just had an amazing run last season so how do you sell a complete teardown to the fan base?

But yeah if they wanted what was best for the team long term, you trade him to NJ and get all you can from them - NJ will do it because guaranteeing the best dman in the league (along with Makar) will be worth a large price. Then trade off Petterson, DeBrusk, anyone with value, collect a bunch of assets, and tank hard for a shot at McKenna and Dupont.

Instead they'll probably try and retool, attempt to sign someone like Ehlers, and be a low level playoff team until Hughes walks. At which point the team will completely suck and there will be some dark days, much like the end of the DW days on the Sharks.

 

[Star Platinum]

I have been thinking about the Dickinson conundrum (where should he play next year) and I think the move is to keep him in the OHL next year.
I don’t think you can shelter a defenseman like you can a forward making it hard to do what we did with will smith this year.

You definitely can't protect them, but if you put him on a bottom pairing with someone who is very responsible and will watch his back, it might work. They can test it out for 9 games and if it's not working, they can send him back.

 

[Star Platinum]

1) Not my point
2) That's a good pace; far from "core-player" production (especially given his age)
3) 30 points in 49 games is ~50 point pace. Celebrini, Eklund, and Toffoli beat that outright, and Granlund/Smith/Walman did on a ppg basis.

Yeah, somehow I did bad math on that one. I blame Windows calculator.

 

[ThePlanet]

Pending a decent showing in camp, I would advocate for giving Dickinson 9 games before sending him back to London. That way he can see for himself what will and will not work on the NHL. Playing against lesser completion should allow him to more easily shift his focus towards specific skill-sets/habits, rather than just focusing on what is already working in juniors, and give him plenty of time build confidence in what he's doing.

 

[The McMafia]

Vancouver really should try to extract whatever they can from NJ to send them Hughes this summer and also sell off Petterson to completely rebuild. They don’t have any long term pieces - I’m almost certain Hughes will leave to NJ in FA - that would be core pieces on a cup team. Especially with McKenna the local kid it might be something the fan base could sell.

The one season implosion within that organization has been fascinating. Their winning ways last year may have been the only thing preventing the meltdown. Now with the GM going out and throwing fire on the entire situation, they have to blow it up.

I think the only issue with Willander is that Canucks want win now and we can’t offer that. I mean look at the miller trade. It was younger guys but still guys who can contribute now. I don’t think we have that at a level that I’d be comfortable giving it up for Willander. Like do you take Willander+Canucks first for Eklund? I don’t think so.

If they blow it up, maybe the Sharks can work a deal there. I'd definitely be open to trade a couple prospects (up to say a combo of Halltunen/Bystedt and Gushchin) and a low first or high second for Willander and a third/fourth.

If they don't blow it up, the team is going to be mid for two years and then very bad for a very long time, which also will help the Sharks.

 

[weastern bias]

Who could have seen this coming?

 

[OrrNumber4]

Who could have seen this coming?

Wow

 

[Friday]

EK has the most empty calorie point shit ever. Even more annoying is he seems like he could truly be amazing but doesn't have the drive to be a 200 foot player

 

[sampler]

I remember when the sharks sucked in 2014-15. The boards were saying that it was time to blow it up and rebuild. Thornton and marleau were 35 years old and in clear decline. Pavelski was already 30. They had no goalie. They had just one Defenseman (burns) to exceed 23 points. They had Tommy Wingels in the top SIX forwards with Melker karlsson and matt nieto in the top 9. The team was looking like they were toast. I remember everyone taking about tanking...

But, Doug Wilson did not believe in tanking. He simply did not believe in making losing OK. Ever. So, when everyone was counting the sharks out, looking at their to-be-36 year old twin stars in clear decline, doug wilson took the exact opposite approach.

he traded a 1st for to acquire a then-backup goalie in Jones. He brought in character guys who could play in Joel Ward. He signed the top player in the Finnish league, Joonas Donskoi. He brought in a proven vet in Paul martin to be the Burns' whisperer. he also brought in james Reimer at the deadline to be a quality tandem for Jones, just in case it didnt work out well with the unproven jones in the PO's. he also chose Pete Deboer as the new coach and facilitated Donning the C on joe pavelski, who became not just C of the sharks, but captain america himself.

In Summer 2015, Doug Wilson had two pathways. he could have followed the pathway of moving on from his two again big stars by trading them for a nice package of picks/prospects, trading away pavs and all the other guys, and just rebuilding from the ground up. OR, he could strategically add some quality guys, tweak and retool, and continue the culture of cup or bust. He chose the latter....

In short, for bargain basement prices due to pure GM genius, he added two top 9 forwards who were great character and key contributors, a top 4 quality vet Defenseman, and a quality backup goalie, and a new coach and captain, and just like that, the sharks were back and marched within two wins of the stanley cup, and competed for the cup in '17, '18' and '19 too.

A bad year does not mean a team is dead and should trade everyone with talent and start over. In fact, rebuilds are categorically not good. They should be avoided at all costs unless absolutely impossible. Rebuilds often take a whole decade of stinking, a culture of losing, an acceptability of losing, a dcline in UFA desire to come, etc. Also, teams that succeed find their players attractive to other teams. This allows successful teams to strategically trade a player or two for a nice futures package while maintaining a high level of competition. Successful teams also integrate young players in slowly, with less pressure and setting them up to succeed, maximizing their value and maintaining the high quality of play. Rebuilding teams often do what we did. throw young kids to the wolves, lose lots of games, create aculture of losing, sell off all talent, have to massively overpay to get anyone to come... And, crucially, our lack of success earns us less returns in trade on players we do move.

In vancouver is wise, they will strategically plug holes. One bad year does not mean a player should be moved. Also, one bad year does not mean a team should be blown up. Strategic additions can revolutionize a team and alot a retool on the fly instead of a decade+ of pain.

 

[Gecklund]

The one season implosion within that organization has been fascinating. Their winning ways last year may have been the only thing preventing the meltdown. Now with the GM going out and throwing fire on the entire situation, they have to blow it up.



If they blow it up, maybe the Sharks can work a deal there. I'd definitely be open to trade a couple prospects (up to say a combo of Halltunen/Bystedt and Gushchin) and a low first or high second for Willander and a third/fourth.

If they don't blow it up, the team is going to be mid for two years and then very bad for a very long time, which also will help the Sharks.

I mean look at it from a Vancouver perspective. This is a young RHD prospect that many are projecting to be at least second pair. He just had another good to great season in NCAA. Why are you moving that for a low first, a big winger that has a shot and not much else, a guy who projects to be a 3C at best, and/or a small scoring winger who can’t crack a team that regularly played guys like Kovalenko and Graf in their top 6? I think if we are looking at a prospect swap it’s closer to Dickinson for Willander.

 

[Juxtaposer]

From Vancouver's perspective, the only reason they trade Willander in the first place is if there's some issue between the team and the player. Which would depress his value into something palatable for us.

 

[weastern bias]

A bad year does not mean a team is dead

Please come to grips with reality

This is not "a bad year", this team has won 61 total games over the last 3 seasons

2015 was a team with a proven playoff core faltering for one year that just needed some adjustments, 2025 is a team with no history of finishing anywhere other than dead last in wins for three straight years

We don't need to make subtle additions to get back to our regular level of playoff appearances, we're building the foundation from the ground up of what we can only hope will be a competitive team, these two situations are not remotely comparable

 

[sampler]

Dick is a shark next year. yes, give him the 9 game tryout, but I see no possible reason to send him back to junior unless he just looks completely out of place and nowhere in the ballpark of competitive. Given his size and the year he just had, I find that rather unlikely. Yes, hes just 19, but he's man-sized and bullied the kids. He'll struggle for sure, but I think it's NHL time for him.

Depending on what happens this summer, it seems to all of us like Grier is not building a winner. So, if they are going to stink either way, then giving Dick some PP time, and 12-14 mins of sheltered duty to start makes sense. Basically the Smith treatment. He'll learn on the fly. hopefully, they can add a quality vet with cup experience to pair him with, who might be a good mentor.

But, giving him another year in junior at age 19/20 to score 100 points against little children is just a total waste. he dominated this year in every aspect. It was a joke. He has nothing to gain going back. He belongs in the AHL or NCAA, but if those aren't possible, then NHL it is.

the more interesting question to me is Cagnoni. He liekly needs to start in the AHL, but if he is not dealt, he is knocking on the NHL door. Also, I think he has the right mental game and character to play in the NHL. He was a 4th round pick. undersized and has every reason to be a nothing. Instead, at every level, he works super hard and has excelled beyond expectations and distinguished himself. I mean possible AHL rookie of the year? T-3rd leading D scorer in the entire AHL straight out of junior at 19? He has been amazing, hands down. Yes, hes small. Yes, he has much to learn and improve on especially in his own zone. But holy crap! He has thrust himself into the conversation like no sharks prospect has. I, for one, hope he has a great summer building some muscle, because guys like Hughes, Hutson, and Spurgeon have proven that undersized Dmen can still be stars in this league. To me, Cagnoni has established himself as a having similar potential as those names, and if he learns the D side of the game a bit, his skating, quickness, shot, and vision are NHL quality already. Im excited about him...

 

[sampler]

Please come to grips with reality

This is not "a bad year", this team has won 61 total games over the last 3 seasons

2015 was a team with a proven playoff core faltering for one year that just needed some adjustments, 2025 is a team with no history of finishing anywhere other than dead last in wins for three straight years

We don't need to make subtle additions to get back to our regular level of playoff appearances, we're building the foundation from the ground up of what we can only hope will be a competitive team, these two situations are not remotely comparable

I was referring to vancouver... and comparing them to the 2015 sharks. Sorry for the confusion...

 

[weastern bias]

I was referring to vancouver... and comparing them to the 2015 sharks. Sorry for the confusion...

Lol, Vancouver is the inverse of the 2015 Sharks, last year was a mirage and they were riding an unsustainable PDO bender all year, they're a mediocre playoff-bubble team that doesn't actually have a proven track record of success that had a lucky division win but they tricked themselves into thinking they're actually good

Vancouver really SHOULD blow it all up, but they probably won't because they're in denial about the actually quality of their team and their rabid fanbase is craving success

 

[sampler]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think Cagnoni is something serious to consider. We talk Schaefer. We talk Dickinson. But, most of our projected lineups exclude Cagnoni. I think Cagnoni might end up better than both of those guys.

Like, he might end up a legit star. If he starts in the NHL next year, getting #1PP time from the get go, with practice and all, he could go for 60+. He could be a calder candidate, ala hutson, by years end. Hes almost a year younger than hutson (feb 2004 vs dec 2004) and had an top end, all star AHL season. Like hutson, he got a small taste of NHL action at the end of the year. his production has been very parallel, and he proved last year than he can definitely hold his own against men as a 19 year old. I think his size causes us to brush him off, but when I lessen that preconceived bias, I am starting to think he is the real deal. I wanna see him in teal next year.

 

[weastern bias]

It will be a miracle if Cagnoni has a Jason Demers level career, he will not be a better NHL player than Schaefer or Dickinson, both of whom have legit top-pairing potential

 

[Yummyshark]

I was referring to vancouver... and comparing them to the 2015 sharks. Sorry for the confusion...

I think the problem with the Canucks isn't the 'just one bad year' which yeah they can retool out of and get back into contention. The BIG issue is that their BY FAR best player is likely going to leave in 2 years. Just today Rutherford made a laughable comment about how 'yeah we know Quinn wants to play with his brothers, so what we can do is get his brothers on our team' which anyone with half a brain cell know won't happen. This isn't like needing to get a Bronny Jr to make your star happy, this is trying to grab two elite tier players/prospects. He basically all but admitted they are f***ed but wanted to pass some hopium to the Nuck fan base 'oh yeah, don't worry, Quinn will stay because we will trade for Luke and Jack! I'm sure Tom will take our shit sandwich worth of prospects, our overpaid forwards, and a bunch of trash picks for those two!'

If you know you can keep Quinn long term then yeah you strategically plug holes and retool and stay in contention. But if you know Quinn's gone, then you are trading two years of contention for the worst rebuilding situation in hockey when he leaves. I suppose win now types would prefer that, but anyone with a long term vision and dreams of an actual cup would realize they could jumpstart the rebuild now. If DW did that during the end of the fun days (after 2019) we wouldn't be where we are now, which was only having 1 prospect worth anything prior to the start of the rebuild (the Smith draft year).

 

[Saskatoon]

And we need guys that aren't stars too since it's a cap league and all

Be interesting to see who rises to be regular NHLers in the next few years..

 

[TheBeard]

And we need guys that aren't stars too since it's a cap league and all

Be interesting to see who rises to be regular NHLers in the next few years..

I have high hopes for Wetsch and Bystedt. Graf as well.

 

[sampler]

Lol, Vancouver is the inverse of the 2015 Sharks, last year was a mirage and they were riding an unsustainable PDO bender all year, they're a mediocre playoff-bubble team that doesn't actually have a proven track record of success that had a lucky division win but they tricked themselves into thinking they're actually good

Vancouver really SHOULD blow it all up, but they probably won't because they're in denial about the actually quality of their team and their rabid fanbase is craving success

I disagree. Pettersson had a terrible year, but he's 25, and averages over a point per game the last three seasons prior. He had ONE bad year. if he has a normal year of 80-90 pts inclsuing 35 goals, instead of 15 goals and 45 pts, vancouver makes the PO's. On just that alone.

Also, I think that the concept that playoff bubble teams are not true contenders is false to me. I think if you make the tourney, you have a legit chance. only one of the last 9 president's trocky winners made it past the second round and none of the last 11 even made to the stanley cup finals, let alone won it. In fact, only ONE presidents trocky winner won the cup since 2009 (chicago in 2013). Thus, being a playoff bubble team, if you mostly make it, is not bad.

Van had some injury bad luck and some cultural issues that hurt them this year. If they are healthy and get their locker room in order, they are a PO quality team. They'd be nuts to sell everyone and decide to stink for a decade.

As I said, being a mid level team that competes for the playoffs every year is not that bad a place to be. tanking and sucking for a decade also doesnt guarantee you anything. See Buffalo. Edmonton hasnt won it yet despite FOUR #1 picks, seveal other top 10 picks, and the greatest player in hockey. Since 2002, Columbus has picked top 10 SEVENTEEN times, including a #1 overall (nash). They havent sniffed a cup.

Competing for the POs, even if you dont make it, is exciting for fans. and when you do make it, its doubly exciting and you never know who will win the cup. Almost never does the favorite actually win it. So, the job of a GM should be much more about competing for and making the tourney than stinking for a decade for a higher possible chance of winning it someday.

If I gave you two choices over a 15 year period:
a) your team competes for the PO's every year making it, say 10 of the 15 years. Each time they make it, they have just a 3% (1/2 the avg) chance of winning the cup.
b) your team stinks for a decade never sniffing the POs. Then, they make it to the PO's for 5 straight years having a 18% (3x avg) chance of winning it each time.

Which do you take? To me, I take option (a). Your chance of winning at least one cup in those 15 years in just 29%, but its exciting every year. And, if you had just an average chance of winning it each time (6%), it would be approximate 50% chance of at least one cup in those 15 years. For option (b), you suffer terribly for a decade, although your chance of winning at least one cup is 63%. (if its double the average:12%, then its 48% chance of a cup). In other words, even if you have a lower probability of winning each time you make the tourney, making the tourney 10 times in a 15 year period instead of 5 comes away with a similarly probability of winning a cup.

The sharks' failure to win the cup in the 14 PO appearances from 2003-2019 was actually a statistical anomaly. yes, people say its personnel, and maybe thats true, but statistically, the sharks should have won at least one cup. many of those years, they were a favorite to win, but even if they were just average likelihood to win (1/16: 6.25%), the chances they walk away without a single win are .9375^14= 40.5%... In other words, the sharks chances of winning at least one cup were approx 60%, with approx 37% chance of 2+ cups. Making the PO's is key, and if you do, any team can win it.