hotcabbagesoup
"I'm going to get what I deserve" -RutgerMcgroarty
If Sasha had zero in 7 games to start the Sharks season this year, would we even allow him to get ito 36 games to get 29 points?
Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion
- Thread starter WTFetus
- Start date
If Sasha had zero in 7 games to start the Sharks season this year, would we even allow him to get ito 36 games to get 29 points?
Hodge
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2021
- 6,860
- 8,173
Because it was a completely pointless trade that cost us a 2nd round pick for no reason.
Gecklund
Registered User
I wouldn’t say that. Hill showed a ton of promise in Arizona. Looked like he could be a legit starter. Yeah it didn’t work out but pretending that it was a bad trade at the time is revisionist history. It was pretty universally liked.
I would have liked that trade better if the Sharks gave up a 3rd rather than a 2nd.
I want Jones' pads to be measured. He's got to be playing with the old size. lol
Hodge
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2021
- 6,860
- 8,173
It's not revisionist history when I repeatedly posted that it was a bad trade at the time.
It was a bad trade because a team coming off 26th and 29th place finishes whose best players are in their 30s should not be trading a 2nd round pick for a goalie. Any goalie.
Gecklund
Registered User
I mean yeah. I would have liked it better if they gave up a 7th instead of a 2nd but that’s not really how trades work.
Well yeah. But that’s not that the Sharks overpaid.
Hodge
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2021
- 6,860
- 8,173
They should have never made the trade. That's why it was a bad trade that deserved criticism. Another draft pick set on fire not only for no benefit but arguably to the team's detriment - keep Jones as part of the tandem for another year instead of Hill's .906 and we very likely draft higher than 11th in 2022 and have someone like Mintyukov, Savoie or Korchinski in our system right now.
Just a stupid trade on every level.
Gecklund
Registered User
There’s lots of things we can say about that. Trade Hertl or Barabanov and keep Hill and that is also true.
I think Hill was 24 (I think) at the time. Although you and I (and probably most of this board) fully don’t agree with this, the team thought they were only retooling and didn’t need a full rebuild. The idea was that he could be the goalie now and in the future. Yes it didn’t work out but I mean Hill looks good now with Vegas. Wasn’t necessarily a wrong bet. The wrong bet was our defense.
7th is just ridiculous since Vegas said Hill was worth a 4th. Notice they didn't say he was worth a 2nd?
Gecklund
Registered User
This is also very revisionist.
1. Hill was injured when traded or just coming back from injury
2. Hill had worse stats than he did in ARI
3. Sharks had 3 NHL goalies
4. Sharks moved Hill at a time when most teams had their goaltending figured out so all time low value that they needed to capitalize on
Hill was 25 at the time of the deal. I agree the team likely thought what you said but I know I was saying at the time that they weren't good enough defensively to make it work with someone like Hill. It was a bad bet because they didn't improve defensively in any meaningful way. I don't like them giving up that draft pick and the recoup to a 4th isn't a huge loss but it's enough to lose out on decent odds of success compared to a lottery ticket in the 4th round. They should've been in rebuild mode then and it was a choice that set them back a bit. Getting another prospect in the Lund/Havelid range would be really good for this team right now.
Gecklund
Registered User
Yeah I mean I mostly agree with this. I don’t think the Hill trade itself was bad, I think the thinking that we were fine defensively was bad.
One could also argue that we could have say Lekkerimaki or Mateychuk instead of Bystedt and then one of Lund/Havelid if we had that second and everything else stayed the same. Basically we wouldn’t have traded back (although I still loved that trade back even if I didn’t like who we picked)
I would hope the trade back still happens but it's certainly possible it doesn't with the original 2nd still in their pocket. But a rebuilding team like ours should trade back if one of their guys isn't there at their pick.
one2gamble
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 17,552
- 8,869
LadyStanley
Registered User
one2gamble
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 17,552
- 8,869
Pavelski2112
Bold as Boognish
I wonder if anyone outside of the SJ media actually pays attention to the Sharks, like legitimately
Hopefully that means trading some of the older guys like Burns and Karlsson and also trading guys with good value who probably aren't part of the future. guys like Meier.
timorous me
Gristled Veteran
- Apr 14, 2010
- 2,360
- 3,942
The list has always seemed to both start and end with LeBrun, even in the good old days.
Alaskanice
Registered User
I was going to say that. You beat me to it.
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 33,244
- 13,980
Hasn't Frank been weirdly spiteful about the Sharks, and the other California teams, for the last couple years
Probably has something to do with some of the swings and misses that he's had like the Labanc on waivers claim that was false.
Hodge
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2021
- 6,860
- 8,173
Frank is such a f***ing dipshit. I mean just look at this nonsense:
Who the hell is he referring to here? Duclair, an expiring contract acquired for cheap from a cap strapped team in order to flip at the deadline? The three cap dumps forced on us in the Karlsson trade? Leon Gawanke? Because that's the entire list of players we traded for last summer.
He also criticizes us for only having one salary retention slot left as if there was any chance of moving Karlsson or Burns without eating money. Between this bullshit and the Labanc incident it feels like he has an axe to grind against this front office for whatever reason.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Friedman mentions Sharks from time to time.
