Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[weastern bias]

He wasn’t worth it for us but he’s been a mainstay on that Carolina blue line since traded there. He was overused on the sharks and at a time we were clearly on the downside, his bloated salary served no purpose. But he’s one of the few players I can think of who will actually play out his 8th year without being an absolute anchor.

He also only tils $5.28M on their cap rather than the full $8M he made here and is just one piece of a very deep D core rather than being the lynch-pin he was for us in his prime, the situation is entirely different and he's a useful player as a part of a good defense but he's not close to being worth $8M anymore which is why we had to move his deal

 

[TheBeard]

He also only tils $5.28M on their cap rather than the full $8M he made here and is just one piece of a very deep D core rather than being the lynch-pin he was for us in his prime, the situation is entirely different and he's a useful player as a part of a good defense but he's not close to being worth $8M anymore which is why we had to move his deal

I think the last couple of years he’s been close to one. He’s still playing 21 minutes a game, was 13th among all d-men in PP points and is still very much a top line pairing even if he’s on the second line. My point is he didn’t fall off the cliff the way most, including myself, expected.

 

[weastern bias]

I think the last couple of years he’s been close to one. He’s still playing 21 minutes a game, was 13th among all d-men in PP points and is still very much a top line pairing even if he’s on the second line. My point is he didn’t fall off the cliff the way most, including myself, expected.

A player's performance doesn't need to completely crater for their contract to be a problem

In 6 years Leon Draisaitl might be playing more like a $9M player than a $14M player, and that means he's still very valuable and useful, but it also means the Oilers have $5M less to spend on their cap to supplement the roster to offset his decline, either way it points to my point that you want to be paying out bigger money to younger players with long term so you actually get to take advantage of their true prime years

 

[Patty Ice]

Man it sounds like Couture is done. That's a bummer

Damn. We need a sad face reaction button. End of an era.

Can someone good at player comparisons please measure up Kasper Haltunen to Jonathan Cheechoo?

Great Value Patrik Laine

 

[STL Shark]

A player's performance doesn't need to completely crater for their contract to be a problem

In 6 years Leon Draisaitl might be playing more like a $9M player than a $14M player, and that means he's still very valuable and useful, but it also means the Oilers have $5M less to spend on their cap to supplement the roster to offset his decline, either way it points to my point that you want to be paying out bigger money to younger players with long term so you actually get to take advantage of their true prime years

It's also about how good are they at the beginning of the deal to offset that difference. Burns was a Norris caliber D-Man for at least half of that deal, top pairing guy for a quarter, and a great #3 for a quarter. That's a great deal every single day of the week.

Even in the Draisatl example, even if he's less productive at the end, that's still better than giving up 5-6 years where he's a top 5 player in the league and replacing it with a bunch of meh.

Overall, you rarely get into cap trouble paying superstars like superstars. The deals that get you in trouble are the middle line players coming off a great year that get paid like top line players or bottom line players doing the same and getting paid like middle line players. The $4-5M deals (in relative terms of the cap that we're all used to) are the deals that haunt you more than paying your top line guys.

 

[Hodge]

My point is that I'm not willing to part with 1st rounders right now to go fill a position that might already be sufficiently filled internally when we have very glaring holes on the right side of the defense. If we had a Cernak, Shattenkirk, Bogosian group on the right side, then sure go ahead and move some stuff around and go get a guy.

We currently have nothing close to that guy and that should be the focus if you're moving assets and spending money. I don't feel overly inclined to pay a top 10 pick plus more to go and acquire a non-#1 when we have nobody on the right side of the defense right now.

It's not that there is a limit on good players on the left side, it's that there are no good players on the right side and there is a limit on available assets to trade. Right now, those assets should go to addressing the most pressing needs, of which another top 4 but not bonafide #1 LHD is not one of right now. If it was merely cap space, go ahead. It's just going to be so much more than that required to get any of those three players that makes the juice not worth the squeeze given where we're at right now at that position and our competitive window.

So you wouldn't draft Matthew Schaefer with our 1st round pick just because he's a left shot? After all, that would be parting with a 1st rounder to fill a position "that might already be sufficiently filled internally" (which is just another way of saying the position is not currently filled and might never be).

I like Shak and Dickinson as prospects. The key words being "as prospects." They've played 3 combined NHL games. For all we know neither guy will even be able to hack it in a third pairing role. Hopefully not, but the fact is we have zero evidence that either one can play in the NHL let alone at a high enough level to warrant consideration when making moves to improve the team.

We need quality defensemen, period, and it's always going to be easier to find quality left-handed defensemen than right-handed defensemen given the disparity between how many LHD vs. RHD play in the league.