Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[coooldude]

I made a very rough tree for the granlund situation that looked something like:

Bad year for Granlund -> likely move him for peanuts, 2nd at best

Great year for Granlund AND great year for Celebrini and Smith -> hard to say, could move him for assets because we don't need him, or could look like our window is starting sooner than we thought so re-sign him for 4 years like Toffoli... His game could translate to 3rd line depth or up-and-down lineup on a good team IMHO as he gets older.

Great year for Granlund AND bad year for Smith and Celebrini -> hard to say, move him for assets most likely but could also be a decision to keep him as a mentor/shelter for the kids for another few transition years. Moving a top 6 F just pushes the rebuild back until we sign another one or the kids establish themselves.

Mediocre year for Granlund AND great year for Celebrini and Smith -> trade him, hopefully for a late 1st and target fallers or one more D

Mediocre year for everyone -> probably trade him but again depends on how much you want to shelter the youth and how the other F youth are developing in the system.

 

[Hodge]

It depends on how close Trethaway or Hensler is to Schaefer by draft time.

You need to remember at the start of last year, Hensler was ranked above Schaefer. Rankings bounce a lot based on a single tournament or playoff series just before the draft. For all we know, Hensler could be back to projected 2nd-3rd overall again by year end like he was last year or Trethaway could rise like Beckett Senneke
Schaefer could drop like Cole Eiserman, who was universally thought of as 2nd overall starting last year.

It's nice to have guys to watch, but we shouldn't be falling in lust for any of them yet

Sure, my point was just that if Schaefer remains the top defensive prospect and we have a chance to draft him it would be silly not to just because he's left handed.

 

[wickedwitch]

Sure, my point was just that if Schaefer remains the top defensive prospect and we have a chance to draft him it would be silly not to just because he's left handed.

Agreed. No team needs a 1D who is RH. They need a 1D and two RD who can play top 4. (See the Tampa model.) Worrying about handed-ness when acquiring a potential 1D is beyond stupid.

(I'm a Caps fan who lurks here because the Sharks are one of my West Coast teams. But I feel very strongly about this so I had to chime in.)

 

[coooldude]

Agreed. No team needs a 1D who is RH. They need a 1D and two RD who can play top 4. (See the Tampa model.) Worrying about handed-ness when acquiring a potential 1D is beyond stupid.

(I'm a Caps fan who lurks here because the Sharks are one of my West Coast teams. But I feel very strongly about this so I had to chime in.)

In general I agree - if Schaefer is a clear #1D and nobody else is close, and we have the chance to take him, and we don't think one of the F's is head and shoulders better... then you take him. But it also depends on context. If by the end of the year, Schaefer is seen as #1 D on the board, but Hensler had a great year too and isn't far off, maybe 1-2 slots behind, you still could choose to go with the RD over the "slightly better" prospect, especially depending on how Mukh and Dickinson are looking. There's still so much noise in development, team context matters and all the pros have over and over again debunked the idea of "BPA".

 

[weastern bias]

all the pros have over and over again debunked the idea of "BPA".

May I ask what you mean by this? I've never heard anything going against the idea of drafting for talent over fit when you're at the top of the draft order, I would be intrigued to see an argument to the contrary

Obviously every team is going to have a different evaluation when projecting the future of an 18 year old talent, so the "BPA" tag is a bit of a misnomer, but I just haven't heard an argument against selecting at the top of your draft board without regard for position

 

[Juxtaposer]

May I ask what you mean by this? I've never heard anything going against the idea of drafting for talent over fit when you're at the top of the draft order, I would be intrigued to see an argument to the contrary

Obviously every team is going to have a different evaluation when projecting the future of an 18 year old talent, so the "BPA" tag is a bit of a misnomer, but I just haven't heard an argument against selecting at the top of your draft board without regard for position

Teams have clearly shown preferences for centers and right-handed D over wingers and left-handed D at the top of the draft lately. Fantilli/Carlsson/Smith/Reinbacher over Michkov, Yakemchuk/Parekh over Dickinson/Silayev/Buium and Luchenko going so high, etc.

 

[weastern bias]

Teams have clearly shown preferences for centers and right-handed D over wingers and left-handed D at the top of the draft lately. Fantilli/Carlsson/Smith/Reinbacher over Michkov, Yakemchuk/Parekh over Dickinson/Silayev/Buium and Luchenko going so high, etc.

The RD>LD preference is true to an extent, but I think these choices are still largely occurring within a tiered structure based on the projections the teams making the selections have for the prospects in general

2021 was a few years ago now, but in that draft 3 LD went in Power (#1), Hughes (#4), and Edvinsson (#6) before the first RD in Clarke at #8

In 2024 outside of Levshunov who happened to be a RHD basically every other D in a certain tier was seen to be around the same caliber of prospect so it did go RD, RD, RD, LD, LD, LD, but all 3 of those LD went before Jiricek did at #16, so I still think this points to teams valuing projected ceiling over positional value, especially at the very top of the draft order

 

[Barrie22]

Why would right handed defensemen be more coveted over left handed defensemen?

 

[Alaskanice]

Why would right handed defensemen be more coveted over left handed defensemen?

Fewer right hand shot defenseman.

 

[coooldude]

The RD>LD preference is true to an extent, but I think these choices are still largely occurring within a tiered structure based on the projections the teams making the selections have for the prospects in general

2021 was a few years ago now, but in that draft 3 LD went in Power (#1), Hughes (#4), and Edvinsson (#6) before the first RD in Clarke at #8

In 2024 outside of Levshunov who happened to be a RHD basically every other D in a certain tier was seen to be around the same caliber of prospect so it did go RD, RD, RD, LD, LD, LD, but all 3 of those LD went before Jiricek did at #16, so I still think this points to teams valuing projected ceiling over positional value, especially at the very top of the draft order

I'm just referring to a bunch of interviews in the last year with various pundits, comments from scouts, comments from Grier and Chris Morehouse that basically say "BPA as the fan concept is not how we think about it." I don't want to tell you stuff you already know as an extremely knowledgeable poster, but what they all more or less said is that
1) there's no consensus list, "best" can be vastly different team to team
2) development profile matters too
3) what else you already have on your team and in your pipeline does play a role

So whenever I see folks saying "doesn't matter draft BPA" I think it's not nuanced enough of a take. There is no such thing as this simple BPA concept and the pros have said as much.

That said - what they decided at 33 last year aligned perfectly with BPA. We needed D, but Chernyshov was next on their list and on many lists. What they did at 11 arguably did not align with HFB or pundit consensus which might have been Buium, but from their POV they wanted defense and Dickinson was next up, probably next up overall.

 

[OrrNumber4]

My goodness the handedness discussion has gotten too much. Not blaming the fans, but the league. Back in my day everyone shot with their natural side, and that meant a couple of lefties had to play on the right.

 

[Patty Ice]

I made a very rough tree for the granlund situation that looked something like:

Bad year for Granlund -> likely move him for peanuts, 2nd at best

Great year for Granlund AND great year for Celebrini and Smith -> hard to say, could move him for assets because we don't need him, or could look like our window is starting sooner than we thought so re-sign him for 4 years like Toffoli... His game could translate to 3rd line depth or up-and-down lineup on a good team IMHO as he gets older.

Great year for Granlund AND bad year for Smith and Celebrini -> hard to say, move him for assets most likely but could also be a decision to keep him as a mentor/shelter for the kids for another few transition years. Moving a top 6 F just pushes the rebuild back until we sign another one or the kids establish themselves.

Mediocre year for Granlund AND great year for Celebrini and Smith -> trade him, hopefully for a late 1st and target fallers or one more D

Mediocre year for everyone -> probably trade him but again depends on how much you want to shelter the youth and how the other F youth are developing in the system.

With Couture's future looking bleak, I would hold onto Granlund and re-sign him to another 2 to 3 years using some of the savings of Couture if he is LTIR.

 

[Juxtaposer]

The RD>LD preference is true to an extent, but I think these choices are still largely occurring within a tiered structure based on the projections the teams making the selections have for the prospects in general

2021 was a few years ago now, but in that draft 3 LD went in Power (#1), Hughes (#4), and Edvinsson (#6) before the first RD in Clarke at #8

In 2024 outside of Levshunov who happened to be a RHD basically every other D in a certain tier was seen to be around the same caliber of prospect so it did go RD, RD, RD, LD, LD, LD, but all 3 of those LD went before Jiricek did at #16, so I still think this points to teams valuing projected ceiling over positional value, especially at the very top of the draft order

Bob McKenzie's final list in 2021 had it (1) Power, (3) Edvinsson, (7) Clarke, and (8) Hughes. Clear separation from Power/Edvinsson to Clarke/Hughes and you can say that the 'Hughes factor' had some impact on how high Luke went. Clarke has serious questions about his skating that held him back from being drafted higher.

Meanwhile, 2024 was (3) Levshunov, (4) Silayev, (6) Dickinson, (7) Buium, (8) Parekh, (13) Yakemchuk, and (16) Jiricek. Yet other than Jiricek (who was a consensus step down from the top six D) all the LHD were taken after the RHD despite them being ranked higher than Parekh/Yakemchuk.

Not saying teams will take a RHD who is a whole tier lower than an available LHd when given the chance (ie no one was taking Jiricek over Silayev/Dickinson/Buium), but if there isn't a huge separator then the RHD is preferred.

Why would right handed defensemen be more coveted over left handed defensemen?

Scarcity. Even at forward, there is some value in a right-handed centerman over a left-handed centerman.


I want to take this back to Granlund: I actually am feeling less like we should re-sign him. He was very ineffective as 3C with Pittsburgh because he needs TOI and opportunity to thrive. He doesn't play well in a depth role. I'd prefer to trade him unless there's no market for him AND he is willing to take a one year extension. I have no interest in Granlund past next season.

 

[weastern bias]

I'm just referring to a bunch of interviews in the last year with various pundits, comments from scouts, comments from Grier and Chris Morehouse that basically say "BPA as the fan concept is not how we think about it." I don't want to tell you stuff you already know as an extremely knowledgeable poster, but what they all more or less said is that
1) there's no consensus list, "best" can be vastly different team to team
2) development profile matters too
3) what else you already have on your team and in your pipeline does play a role

So whenever I see folks saying "doesn't matter draft BPA" I think it's not nuanced enough of a take. There is no such thing as this simple BPA concept and the pros have said as much.

That said - what they decided at 33 last year aligned perfectly with BPA. We needed D, but Chernyshov was next on their list and on many lists. What they did at 11 arguably did not align with HFB or pundit consensus which might have been Buium, but from their POV they wanted defense and Dickinson was next up, probably next up overall.

Okay, I think we're largely aligned on this, I just wasn't sure if there was some analytical study I hadn't seen that pointed towards drafting for need and fit over projected ceiling to be beneficial

I agree that "BPA" is too simplistic of a term for what is being advocated, but I think we also both agree that drafting for the highest projected ceiling based on your internal organizational evaluation without regard for position, especially with really high picks, is better than selecting for current need because that kind of high end talent is incredibly difficult to aquire through trade and free agency

 

[coooldude]

Okay, I think we're largely aligned on this, I just wasn't sure if there was some analytical study I hadn't seen that pointed towards drafting for need and fit over projected ceiling to be beneficial

I agree that "BPA" is too simplistic of a term for what is being advocated, but I think we also both agree that drafting for the highest projected ceiling based on your internal organizational evaluation without regard for position, especially with really high picks, is better than selecting for current need because that kind of high end talent is incredibly difficult to aquire through trade and free agency

I think it makes sense at the top end, but the only quibble I have is that "development profile" point. Like, Eiserman is a controversial but informative example. He probably has a higher ceiling than many/all of the players drafted 14+, but the risk profile is rough. So drafting BPA for ceiling didn't make sense until he fell to the Isles and the delta was just so huge. Honestly Dickinson probably has a lower ceiling than Buium and so the Sharks didn't draft for ceiling at 11, but it was still a solid pick because his profile screams "will play a part of a winning team, might not be the #1 or 2 but will be a big part".

So maybe to align with what you wrote, just saying "draft for the highest projected organizational impact based on your internal organization evaluation without regard for position/current need or pipeline, especially with really high picks,"

 

[67 others]

Sure, my point was just that if Schaefer remains the top defensive prospect and we have a chance to draft him it would be silly not to just because he's left handed.

Maybe. Depends how much further ahead he is over the best Righty.

If it's a miniscule difference like Chara vs Weber, I'm leaning righty. If it's the difference between Lidstrom and Chara, I'm leaning lefty

 

[67 others]

Bob McKenzie's final list in 2021 had it (1) Power, (3) Edvinsson, (7) Clarke, and (8) Hughes. Clear separation from Power/Edvinsson to Clarke/Hughes and you can say that the 'Hughes factor' had some impact on how high Luke went. Clarke has serious questions about his skating that held him back from being drafted higher.

Meanwhile, 2024 was (3) Levshunov, (4) Silayev, (6) Dickinson, (7) Buium, (8) Parekh, (13) Yakemchuk, and (16) Jiricek. Yet other than Jiricek (who was a consensus step down from the top six D) all the LHD were taken after the RHD despite them being ranked higher than Parekh/Yakemchuk.

Not saying teams will take a RHD who is a whole tier lower than an available LHd when given the chance (ie no one was taking Jiricek over Silayev/Dickinson/Buium), but if there isn't a huge separator then the RHD is preferred

Almost every list of scouts had Yakemchuk last of the big 6, and most had flagged Parekh as below Dickenson/Buium

 

[67 others]

My goodness the handedness discussion has gotten too much. Not blaming the fans, but the league. Back in my day everyone shot with their natural side, and that meant a couple of lefties had to play on the right.

Back in my day if you swung a bat and golf club right, you shot right handed.

Junior hockey in Canada some time in the late 90s, early 2000s started forcing kids to learn to shoot opposite their instinctive batting side so they could one hand with their dominant hand without switching

Simultaneously, goaltender focus switched from athleticism first and learning positioning last to the opposite in Canada. They drill position into your head at a younger age now and discourage the former. Not so Comically, it's lead to less greatness at NA goaltending. All the best goalies are coming from abroad now.

 

[Hodge]

Maybe. Depends how much further ahead he is over the best Righty.

If it's a miniscule difference like Chara vs Weber, I'm leaning righty. If it's the difference between Lidstrom and Chara, I'm leaning lefty

If the lefty is even a little bit better than the best righty you take the lefty.

Maybe I'd feel differently if we had Rasmus Dahlin, Owen Power and Bowen Byram but we have absolutely nothing set in stone on our defense. Mukhamadullin and Dickinson could both bust outright. None of the other defense prospects are even worth thinking about.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Maybe. Depends how much further ahead he is over the best Righty.

If it's a miniscule difference like Chara vs Weber, I'm leaning righty. If it's the difference between Lidstrom and Chara, I'm leaning lefty

Maybe this is a matter of opinion, I would EASILY take prime Chara over prime Weber.

Personally, I absolutely do think that balancing righties and lefties on D is actually important to some degree. But I don't think having a top pairing RHD is important and I'm completely fine with my three best defensemen all being lefties. That's why I'd have a lot of interest in, say, Dante Fabbro as a UFA next year. Solid #4, nothing spectacular, but can hold his own alongside a legit #1D in top pairing minutes. Get a couple of those and you're golden.

If I could design a defense moving forward based on what's actually in our system and out there, I'd do something like:

Matthew Schaefer (#1D)-Dante Fabbro (#4D)
Sam Dickinson (#2-3D)-[John
Marino type of RD trade target] (#4D)
Shakir Mukhamadullin(#4D)-Cody Ceci/Matt Benning (#5-6D)

Almost every list of scouts had Yakemchuk last of the big 6, and most had flagged Parekh as below Dickenson/Buium

Yup, that's very much my point. Insane to me, and I do like Parekh.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I want to take this back to Granlund: I actually am feeling less like we should re-sign him. He was very ineffective as 3C with Pittsburgh because he needs TOI and opportunity to thrive. He doesn't play well in a depth role. I'd prefer to trade him unless there's no market for him AND he is willing to take a one year extension. I have no interest in Granlund past next season.

I would only keep Granlund if it's determined by the trade deadline that we need more time for Celebrini or Smith to establish themselves as the 1 and 2C's on this team. Maybe one of them gets injured and doesn't get a real shot at proving it. If they show themselves to be worthy of committing to them in those spots by then, there doesn't seem to be a spot for Granlund moving forward and we should just take the draft capital we can get for him. A 2nd would still prove very valuable for our bottom-five team going into the 2025 draft. We only have six picks in the draft next year and we only have six expiring contracts with a real chance at getting draft picks back in Granlund, Kunin, Sturm, Ceci, Rutta, and Blackwood. I think they can get picks back for all these guys but Ceci and Granlund could get us a 2nd if we're lucky. The rest are probably in that 4th round-ish area which could mean nothing if they have awful years.

 

[weastern bias]

I think it makes sense at the top end, but the only quibble I have is that "development profile" point. Like, Eiserman is a controversial but informative example. He probably has a higher ceiling than many/all of the players drafted 14+, but the risk profile is rough. So drafting BPA for ceiling didn't make sense until he fell to the Isles and the delta was just so huge. Honestly Dickinson probably has a lower ceiling than Buium and so the Sharks didn't draft for ceiling at 11, but it was still a solid pick because his profile screams "will play a part of a winning team, might not be the #1 or 2 but will be a big part".

So maybe to align with what you wrote, just saying "draft for the highest projected organizational impact based on your internal organization evaluation without regard for position/current need or pipeline, especially with really high picks,"

This is far more succinctly stated than I had originally posted, thank you, agreed on all counts

 

[coooldude]

Back in my day if you swung a bat and golf club right, you shot right handed.

Junior hockey in Canada some time in the late 90s, early 2000s started forcing kids to learn to shoot opposite their instinctive batting side so they could one hand with their dominant hand without switching

My dad played college club in Canada, so grew up in the 50's and 60's playing. Right handed, bats right, shoots left (dominant R hand on top). I think that's traditional and it's why there are so many left shots. My uncle played on the Canadian Junior Ntl team as a goalie, same timeframe -- right handed, catches left (normal), but I think weirdly shoots right when skating out, that one I'm not sure about.

I am left handed, but I shoot left because it's "swing natural." Should have shot right, would have had a better chance at one league up in the beer league tiers. You're right it all goes in cycles though.

 

[67 others]

If the lefty is even a little bit better than the best righty you take the lefty.

Maybe I'd feel differently if we had Rasmus Dahlin, Owen Power and Bowen Byram but we have absolutely nothing set in stone on our defense. Mukhamadullin and Dickinson could both bust outright. None of the other defense prospects are even worth thinking about.

Uh, you may want to look at how good Cagnoni is.

If the lefty is even a little bit better than the best righty you take the lefty.

Maybe I'd feel differently if we had Rasmus Dahlin, Owen Power and Bowen Byram but we have absolutely nothing set in stone on our defense. Mukhamadullin and Dickinson could both bust outright. None of the other defense prospects are even worth thinking about.

You may want to look at how good Cagnoni is. Dan Boyle reborn is the vibe. We are loaded up on D as much as C on LHD in terms of prospects.

Every other D prospect we have is LHD aside from Pohlkamp. We are loaded on the left side.

Yes not every one will be Brent Burns expectations, but we likely get some Doug Murray's, Christien Ehrhoff's and Matt Carle's with the Leo Wallenius level picks.We need that one both sides

Also, Dickenson is a near guaranteed NHLer, certainly too 4 and likely top 2. He's not going to bust. I'll avatar bet that with anyone

Playing off side sucks at pro level. Everyone, every dman, mentions how hard and unnatural it is. There are studies and long expositions on why, and they are scientifically proven. It reduces effectiveness of even practiced pros to play off side, and this is universally agreed upon.

 

[Star Platinum]

Agreed. No team needs a 1D who is RH.