Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[Crewouse]

I think we sign Ekblad this offseason. Florida won't have cap space for him, we can offer $8M a year for 7 years (something most others can't) and he can continue to play in a quieter hockey market where he can age gracefully as opposed to Detroit/Toronto where the media scrutiny will be far worse (even though it's home).

Not saying it is the best addition we could possibly make, but it makes a lot of sense given what I'd imagine is his desire to continue playing top pairing minutes and getting paid on a long-term deal. Add in our need for a big minute munching RHD and I think there is a definite fit.

ooh a scary short story, very spooky. Thanks for sharing

 

[mogambomoroo]

I think the plan should be to find a gem from some team that has a deep defensive prospect pool that you can help with our forward prospect depth. Then try to add a veteran defencemen next free agency.

 

[coooldude]

Speculation on our 5th line problem is that Gush or Dellandrea, probably Dellandrea first, will get the press box tomorrow for grundstrom and/or Kostin... If Gush sits, Kostin since he can play PP2, if Dellandrea sits, probably Grundstrom. Don't think G. Smith is needed vs Anaheim but we'll see.

 

[Grinner]

Speculation on our 5th line problem is that Gush or Dellandrea, probably Dellandrea first, will get the press box tomorrow for grundstrom and/or Kostin... If Gush sits, Kostin since he can play PP2, if Dellandrea sits, probably Grundstrom. Don't think G. Smith is needed vs Anaheim but we'll see.

Thell need someone to take punches to the face from Ross Johnson

 

[WSS11]

I think we sign Ekblad this offseason. Florida won't have cap space for him, we can offer $8M a year for 7 years (something most others can't) and he can continue to play in a quieter hockey market where he can age gracefully as opposed to Detroit/Toronto where the media scrutiny will be far worse (even though it's home).

Not saying it is the best addition we could possibly make, but it makes a lot of sense given what I'd imagine is his desire to continue playing top pairing minutes and getting paid on a long-term deal. Add in our need for a big minute munching RHD and I think there is a definite fit.

Signing Ekblad for 7 years with his injury history would be a giant mistake.

 

[one2gamble]

Speculation on our 5th line problem is that Gush or Dellandrea, probably Dellandrea first, will get the press box tomorrow for grundstrom and/or Kostin... If Gush sits, Kostin since he can play PP2, if Dellandrea sits, probably Grundstrom. Don't think G. Smith is needed vs Anaheim but we'll see.

Dellandrea doesnt look long for the nhl

 

[Juxtaposer]

Burns, Karlsson, and Boyle weren't true #1 defensemen, now I've heard it all.

 

[weastern bias]

A true #1D is someone you feel comfortable putting in any pressure situation late, down a goal, up a goal, tied, whatever

None of those 3 were ever reliable if called upon to defend a lead late, they were all-go, full-send, defense-be-damned kind of players, EXCEPTIONAL top pairing defensemen, but not real-deal #1s

 

[Juxtaposer]

A true #1D is someone you feel comfortable putting in any pressure situation late, down a goal, up a goal, tied, whatever

None of those 3 were ever reliable if called upon to defend a lead late, they were all-go, full-send, defense-be-damned kind of players, EXCEPTIONAL top pairing defensemen, but not real-deal #1s

I felt extremely comfortable putting all those players in all those situations.

 

[hotcabbagesoup]

Boyle I would be comfortable with.

Burns would starfish or shoot wide, have the puck rim around the boards really hard, free breakout for the other team.

Karlsson would always always be too overaggressive offensively and look there's another odd-man rush against.

 

[Hodge]

A true #1D is someone you feel comfortable putting in any pressure situation late, down a goal, up a goal, tied, whatever

None of those 3 were ever reliable if called upon to defend a lead late, they were all-go, full-send, defense-be-damned kind of players, EXCEPTIONAL top pairing defensemen, but not real-deal #1s

Agreed. Peak Vlasic (~2013-2016) is the closest thing we've ever had to a true #1 defenseman.

 

[weastern bias]

Agreed. Peak Vlasic (~2013-2016) is the closest thing we've ever had to a true #1 defenseman.

Vlasic was the other side of the coin, unbelievable defensive player but no offense to speak of, he was the ideal #2D but if you were down a goal and needed a strong puck mover on the ice he would be one of the last players you want out there

I felt extremely comfortable putting all those players in all those situations.

And I disagree, I wouldn't want any of those players defending a lead late

 

[Hodge]

Vlasic was the other side of the coin, unbelievable defensive player but no offense to speak of, he was the ideal #2D but if you were down a goal and needed a strong puck mover on the ice he would be one of the last players you want out there


And I disagree, I wouldn't want any of those players defending a lead late

I would rather have a defenseman who plays lockdown defense and doesn't contribute to offense than the other way around. After all, the position is called defenseman. Also even though Vlasic didn't rack up points he moved the puck well enough and just killed opposing plays consistently enough that the Sharks created a ton of offense when he was on the ice.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Vlasic was the other side of the coin, unbelievable defensive player but no offense to speak of, he was the ideal #2D but if you were down a goal and needed a strong puck mover on the ice he would be one of the last players you want out there


And I disagree, I wouldn't want any of those players defending a lead late

Name all D you think are legit #1 defenseman in the NHL right now. I'm very curious what this list will look like.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

As much shit as you can give Burns and Karlsson for their defensive play, the reality is that in a pressure defensive situation, you absolutely need someone that you can depend on to make a play with the puck on their stick. Relying on Vlasic to defend in perpetuity can let you sneak out with a win, sure. But too many times, the bend but don't break style of defending a lead late led to blowing said lead because you couldn't get the puck out of the zone reliably. Burns and Karlsson did do that many times over the years.

 

[Barrie22]

I would rather burns icing the puck 10 times in a row, instead of the vlasic flipping the puck to the opposing defensemen every day of the week.

 

[weastern bias]

I would rather have a defenseman who plays lockdown defense and doesn't contribute to offense than the other way around. After all, the position is called defenseman. Also even though Vlasic didn't rack up points he moved the puck well enough and just killed opposing plays consistently enough that the Sharks created a ton of offense when he was on the ice.

In general I agree, if I have to choose one I prefer lockdown defense, but the true-blue unicorn in my opinion is the rare player who can do both at an elite level

Name all D you think are legit #1 defenseman in the NHL right now. I'm very curious what this list will look like.

It's very rare, I'm not the kind of person who thinks there's 32 #1D/#1C ect because there's that many teams, in my mind that distinction belongs to players who are the ideal version of fitting that role

Probably not a comprehensive list but I'll take a shot at it in no particular order, just sorted by even strength ice time the last couple years and combed through the names

Heiskanen
Dobson (short track record but he's tracking for it)
McAvoy
Hedman (declining now, was basically the prototype for a decade)
Fox
Makar

That might be it

There are a lot of great defenseman who provide either offense or defense at an elite level but are lacking on the other side of the puck like a Josi or a Slavin, who are excellent players, but they aren't truly the best option in all situations

There are also very well rounded D who are really great at both but are a touch below the elite of the league like Lindholm and Morrisey, I wouldn't call them #1s either

I'm pretty exclusive with this designation, it's a short list

 

[Juxtaposer]

In general I agree, if I have to choose one I prefer lockdown defense, but the true-blue unicorn in my opinion is the rare player who can do both at an elite level


It's very rare, I'm not the kind of person who thinks there's 32 #1D/#1C ect because there's that many teams, in my mind that distinction belongs to players who are the ideal version of fitting that role

Probably not a comprehensive list but I'll take a shot at it in no particular order, just sorted by even strength ice time the last couple years and combed through the names

Heiskanen
Dobson (short track record but he's tracking for it)
McAvoy
Hedman (declining now, was basically the prototype for a decade)
Fox
Makar

That might be it

There are a lot of great defenseman who provide either offense or defense at an elite level but are lacking on the other side of the puck like a Josi or a Slavin, who are excellent players, but they aren't truly the best option in all situations

There are also very well rounded D who are really great at both but are a touch below the elite of the league like Lindholm and Morrisey, I wouldn't call them #1s either

I'm pretty exclusive with this designation, it's a short list

Noah Dobson is extremely mediocre defensively, McAvoy is prone to brain farts in critical moments, and Hedman has always been overrated defensively. Prime Burns was better defensively than all those guys. Arguably better than Fox and Makar too.

By your definition, I think Miro Heiskanen is the only real #1D in the league. So my next question would be, if the argument is that you don't need a true #1D to win a Stanley Cup, why is your definition so arbitrary?

I'm also not a "32 #1 defensemen exist by definition" person, but I judge based on overall impact more than being elite in every facet. I think that every great team needs a defenseman who can eat tons of minutes in all situations comfortably. I think every great team needs a defenseman who is dynamic offensively and can put up 60+ points regularly. And I think that every great team needs a defenseman who can lock down leads, win tough matchups, and generally shut down opposing star forwards. The catch is that I don't think all those roles need to be (or even should!) be packaged into one player. In fact, I would argue that the only NHL defensemen who can do all those things is Miro Heiskanen, but he isn't top-10 at any of them. I would personally argue for Josh Morrissey's inclusion if you're including Heiskanen.

My argument for defining a "true #1D" is that they fulfill two of those archetypes (typically the offense or defense plus minute-munching) and the archetype that they don't fulfill is drowned out by them being elite at the one that they do.

Burns could eat 30 minutes comfortably and was elite in a singular way offensively. Sure, he had his defensive shortcomings, but his impact on the ice was overwhelmingly positive and he could be counted on in all situations even if he wasn't elite defensively. Karlsson in his prime was the same way. I can buy arguments that Sharks Karlsson wasn't a true #1D but Senators Karlsson absolutely was.

I don't care if you win the game 6-3, 4-2, or 2-1. Just win the game.

 

[weastern bias]

Noah Dobson is extremely mediocre defensively, McAvoy is prone to brain farts in critical moments, and Hedman has always been overrated defensively. Prime Burns was better defensively than all those guys. Arguably better than Fox and Makar too.

I'm sorry, I can't take the idea that Brent Burns was a better defensive player than Hedman, Fox and Makar seriously, it's just not true

Perhaps I need more viewings of Dobson but I've always been personally impressed and McAvoy may be a bit of wishcasting because I personally like his play style, but Brent Burns has been an abhorrent defensive player at every stage of his career, he was an incredible offensive engine who should have won the Norris in 2019 and got screwed over for Giordano's lifetime achievement award, but his value lied entirely on his offensive prowess, he was a consistent negative in his own end

In the end our disagreement is largely built more upon semantics than player evaluation, I don't share the opinion that D men who's value lies mostly on one side of the puck should be called #1s, but that difference of opinion is largely immaterial

 

[OrrNumber4]

It feels like the age of the truly dominant 2-way defenseman (the Lidstrom/Niedermayer/Pronger/Keith era) is done...maybe Doughty is the last one remaining and was never that good defensively.

 

[Hodge]

It feels like the age of the truly dominant 2-way defenseman (the Lidstrom/Niedermayer/Pronger/Keith era) is done...maybe Doughty is the last one remaining and was never that good defensively.

Lol if you're saying Drew Doughty was never that good defensively your standards are way too high.

Doughty, Weber and Hedman were all dominant 2-way defensemen in their primes. Sure none of them were Lidstrom or Pronger but who is?

Makar, McAvoy and Heiskanen are elite offensively and defensively. They're the linchpins of Stanley Cup worthy bluelines.

I wouldn't count on the Sharks being able to acquire that level of defenseman. We used up our luck to land Celebrini.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I'm sorry, I can't take the idea that Brent Burns was a better defensive player than Hedman, Fox and Makar seriously, it's just not true

Perhaps I need more viewings of Dobson but I've always been personally impressed and McAvoy may be a bit of wishcasting because I personally like his play style, but Brent Burns has been an abhorrent defensive player at every stage of his career, he was an incredible offensive engine who should have won the Norris in 2019 and got screwed over for Giordano's lifetime achievement award, but his value lied entirely on his offensive prowess, he was a consistent negative in his own end

In the end our disagreement is largely built more upon semantics than player evaluation, I don't share the opinion that D men who's value lies mostly on one side of the puck should be called #1s, but that difference of opinion is largely immaterial

I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I take strong issue with calling prime Burns' defense abhorrent. There were some very bad aspects of his defense, like his odd-man rush defense (aka the starfish) and his tendency to ice the puck for no good reason, but he also had a lot of aspects of his defensive game that were average to good. And at the end of the day, the best part about Burns' defense is that he hardly ever had to play defense because his offensive impact was so incredibly elite. That matters to me more than anything else.

How can you say Burns should have won a Norris in 2019 while also saying he wasn't a true #1D?

Moreover, I just don't think there are very many legitimately good defensive defensemen anymore. The game of hockey is changing to favor high end speed, skill, and scoring. I can't name a defenseman developed in the last five or six years that I would describe as "great" defensively, never mind "good".

 

[Hodge]

Abhorrent is the correct word to describe Brent Burns' defense. He never had the brain for it. There's a reason the Sharks weren't fully convinced he should even be playing the position until he was almost 30 years old.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Lol if you're saying Drew Doughty was never that good defensively your standards are way too high.

Doughty, Weber and Hedman were all dominant 2-way defensemen in their primes. Sure none of them were Lidstrom or Pronger but who is?

You know what, that's fair. What I said was out of line; Doughty hasn't been that good defensively since 2016ish, but he was that for a good 4-5 years.

Hedman just slipped my mind, but it is similar to Doughty...very good defensively, but hasn't been that since 2021.

Makar, McAvoy and Heiskanen are elite offensively and defensively. They're the linchpins of Stanley Cup worthy bluelines.

I'm biased in that 98% of my viewing of them is in the playoffs, but I wouldn't call any of those players elite defensively.

It's almost like the game has changed too much to allow defensemen like that. Nowadays, being an elite offensive contributor on the blueline means being a puck rusher, a creative force that attacks and disrupts the other team's defenses. That kind of player is on his toes so much that he inevitably will sacrifice on the defensive end.

 

[weastern bias]

How can you say Burns should have won a Norris in 2019 while also saying he wasn't a true #1D?

The Norris has an amorphous definition that changes year by year because hockey writers are legitimately terrible at evaluating the sport (and don't watch nearly as much as they pretend to) so I've always seen it as more "which player who plays the position had the best season" rather than "which player best fits my personal ideals for what I desire in a defenseman"

Brent Burns deserved Hart votes in 2019, it was the best year of his career and he was legitimately outstanding, I was always one of his most vocal critics on this board even in his prime but that was the year where I just couldn't say a negative thing about him, I was in awe

Of course it coincided with the Kucherov coming out party so he was never gonna with the MVP but in my opinion no defenseman in the league had a better season than him, but an old guy in a Canadian market was pretty good on a deep team that year so the brain dead morons in the writers association tripped over their own dicks to be first in line to slob on Mr. Bean's knob, the Norris is usually a dumb trophy (like every award those idiots vote on) but that one really bothered me