He’s mad the sharks didn’t trade Duclair a week after acquiring him?
Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion
- Thread starter WTFetus
- Start date
GM Frank "stop acquiring players" Seravalli's San Jose Sharks lineup:
Eklund - Hertl -
- -
Barabanov - - Labanc
- -
Ferraro -
Vlasic -
- Benning
(this lineup might still beat our lineup)
It's okay, we can fill those spots up front with Lindblom, Bordeleau, Gushchin, and Coe + Couture. On defense, you got Simek, Thrun, and MacDonald. Lmfao
sharski
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2012
- 5,843
- 5,090
The Hockey Guy: "Am I a joke to you?"
timorous me
Gristled Veteran
- Apr 14, 2010
- 2,360
- 3,942
He might just be obsessed with Mario.
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 33,244
- 13,980
We have too many bottom 6 forwards but Zohorna would be a good one to pick up if it weren't for the lack of roster spots.
tiburon12
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 5,124
- 5,225
Shark Finn
∀dministrator
Yeah but was it the old you or current you?
timorous me
Gristled Veteran
- Apr 14, 2010
- 2,360
- 3,942
Haha okay, it seems it was just a one-week fling with Elliotte (article, podcast, and HNIC!), but if Mario ends up getting traded to Toronto, it sounds like we could have a ménage à trois on our hands.
tiburon12
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 5,124
- 5,225
Yea i think Marek roped Friedman into his love affair hahah
tiburon12
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 5,124
- 5,225
Reading this highlights one of the things I was most afraid of with a scorched earth rebuild (or as much of one as the Sharks could feasibly do). We don't want Eklund's frustration cause him to lose confidence in his instinct & abilities and stunt his development.
He's -23, and while I agree that +/- is a flawed stat, it's certainly not a useless one. To a player, +/- means something, especially when you're on a points slump. We know that the Sharks losing is why his +/- is so low, but to him, it puts a spotlight on his personal lack of production. Even if his defensive play is good and improving, the team is bad enough that he'll be on the ice for many GAs. So when he isn't offsetting some of that with scoring, he's going to think about every "minus" game through a fully negative lens and question both his offensive and defensive game.
On one hand this worries me, but on the other, I like how Quinn is handling things and I trust him to keep Eklund mentally in as good of a space it can be. Still, you have to wonder how different his development would be if he was on a team like last year's, where even though they were losing and getting scored on, they were still scoring (Thanks, Erik).
Last edited:
No it's a fact. Refresh your memory and check the trade details for Hill to Vegas. Either Sharks overpaid or Vegas underpaid. The middle is a 3rd round pick.
Gecklund
Registered User
That’s not the way value works…. Unless you think just because I bought a new car I should only sell it for the exact same amount.
one2gamble
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 17,552
- 8,870
I was trying to figure out his logic and I just cant. They couldnt have filled the cuda and the sharks without aquiring players.
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,408
- 5,476
But he's good which is really all that matters when I said that I like Hill and people were spouting on and on about "Nedeljkovic only cost a 3rd rounder and he's way better."
Turns out I was right and he's not way better and Hill was a good acquisition that was given up on too soon in an injury riddled season.
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,408
- 5,476
Or, we use our brains and realize that there is nuance involved in trading during 1) an expansion draft and 2) when a new GM takes over.
We had to pay more because of the expansion draft. We also wound up with 3 goalies because of his injuries and trying to maximize value on Middleton to get a younger netminder in Kahkonen. The dumb move was Joe Will not trading Reimer when his value was highest at the 2022 trade deadline because he didn't get the 2nd round pick that he wanted.
What that led to was having 3 goalies, a new GM, and not enough cap space to carry 3 goalies and needing to move one during camp. Given everyone knew that we had to move a goalie and not many teams needed one, that drives leverage down and results in the 4th round pick.
This is the truth. Holding onto Reimer only to watch him walk away for nothing, all while trading a different goalie for peanuts helping Vegas win the cup was the ultimate screw up.
Joe Will being able to sign and make trades while looking for a new GM was the worst thing ever for this franchise.
Hodge
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2021
- 6,860
- 8,173
Single handedly set the franchise back several years with a few months of work. I don't understand how he still has a job f***ing up the Barracuda.
Shark Finn
∀dministrator
Couldn't kick out the good ol' Joe! The Barracuda needs a complete cleaning yester..decade.
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,408
- 5,476
Not sure that not having pick 29 and 63 really set the franchise back several years (the haul for Hertl most likely) or that not taking a 3rd for Reimer set us back several years. Not arguing that he was good, but a pretty hyperbolic with that take.
If an interim GM can set the franchise back multiple years by not trading a league average goalie and signing Tomas Hertl, the franchise was several years away to the point that the moves are insignificant to the trajectory anyway.
We don't have cap issues to the point that Hertl hurts there. We likely can't offload Karlsson without Hertl helping create an NHL caliber Top 6 line to funnel him points. We only accumulated 14 points the final 20 games of the year post TDL in 2022. Best/worst case, we could have maybe snuck into the 7th spot for Korchinski (rather than 11th) and had the 29th pick for Bystedt (without 34 and 45).
So basically saying the difference between Korchinski and Havelid + Lund is what Will cost us (though we probably still have the Karlsson contract and a lesser return for Meier as a result).
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,625
- 5,825
A well argued post, but a few points to contradict:
- Getting rid of Hertl means we start the rebuild a year earlier. Even if it was just a TDL trade, we might lose a few extra games draft better than 11th, making the trade back less likely. I am too lazy to look up why we were picking 11th, so if I'm wrong about this point because of some previous trade or whatever, then disregard. If the only thing that's true is the Korchinski draft rather than Nazar or the trade-down, that's still a significant upgrade in my opinion.
- Maybe last year we don't have EK putting up 100 points because there's no Hertl, but that means... we probably finish in the bottom 3! And would currently be talking about Carlsson, Fantilli, or even Bedard as our new centerpiece, and not hand-wringing over Smith's trajectory. We may still be stuck with EK, or get a worse return for him, but so what? It would be demonstrably better if we had Carlsson or Fantilli on the team.
- Less term for Hertl, if he were willing to agree to it, might have set us up better for him or us to move on this year or next. I don't remember what leaked out about the negotiations -- if he was only looking for 8x8, then maybe this isn't real, but if there was any chance not to sign him to a franchise linchpin contract, that would have been preferable.
Hodge
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2021
- 6,860
- 8,173
Trading Hertl at the 2022 deadline instead of extending him would mean:
- Very likely landing a higher pick than #11 in the 2022 draft and having one of Mintyukov, Savoie or Korchinski in our system right now
- Almost certainly landing a higher pick than #4 in the 2023 draft and having one of Bedard, Carlsson or Fantilli right now instead of Smith
- Last place finish this season on lock, guaranteeing a top 3 pick
- Additional 2022 1st rounder + an extra 2nd and/or equivalent value prospect from trade return
- Not having a player who already isn't worth his cap hit at 30 under contract through age 36
That's what I mean by set the franchise back years. I would gladly take a lesser return on Karlsson and/or Meier if it meant getting all of the above in exchange.
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,408
- 5,476
1) I literally hit on the point about drafting better than 11th and laid out the difference between Korchinski and Havelid plus Lund. Still hyperbolic.
2) Probably true, but it's also entirely too soon to know what the variance between Smith and Fantili/Carlson is.
3) The additional 1st rounder is a guy that's already in our system in 2022 in Bystedt. He's taken at the end of the 1st and instead of drafting 34th and 45th, we're drafting in the 60's. Overall, that's a net of literally no consequence.
4) You're the same person that is arguing time after time that the cap is meaningless for us at this juncture and will be for the next 3-4 years because of cap increases and ridding ourselves of most of the big contracts. Can't talk out of both sides of your mouth there and now pretend that it's impactful.
Overall, you're subbing out Havelid, Lund, Muk, and the Pittsburgh 1st in exchange for Korchinski, a 2022 pick in the 60's, and a Pittsburgh 2nd in the mid to late 40's in 2024. You also have cap space that you gain, but you've already established that is not an issue so it's not really factoring into the equation.
So I will double down that the idea that it set the franchise back several years is hyperbolic and inaccurate. It was not the correct move, but the impact will be marginal and nothing that should be consequential if Grier is competent.
Ad
Latest posts
-
Pre-Game Talk: Blackhawks @ Maple Leafs (Monday, December 2nd)- Latest: Darcy Tucker
