Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[The Nemesis]

And speaking of the Giants, Colton Roberts has an assist this afternoon against Prince George. He's played well.

I'll put this in the right thread later.

 

[Eklund72]

Nothing wrong with Byram as the #1D until Schaefer matures, and then running Byram on the 2nd pairing.

With Schaefer, Dickinson, Muhammadullin and Cagnoni we would be fine on the left side without Byram

 

[Cas]

With Schaefer, Dickinson, Muhammadullin and Cagnoni we would be fine on the left side without Byram

I think it's a bit early to assume that.

 

[Juxtaposer]

With Schaefer, Dickinson, Muhammadullin and Cagnoni we would be fine on the left side without Byram

The bigger point is that if we did land Schaefer, we no longer have a need for a top-pairing LHD, and therefore are not an appealing destination for Byram.

 

[Hodge]

The bigger point is that if we did land Schaefer, we no longer have a need for a top-pairing LHD, and therefore are not an appealing destination for Byram.

In that case sign Byram for 2 years then make a decision before the 2027 deadline depending on where the team is at, how Schaefer and Dickinson are progressing, whether Byram has been a good fit, etc.

 

[The McMafia]

If the worst case scenario occurs and the Sharks finish last but pick third (and are not going to get Schaefer) and say, Buffalo picks fifth or sixth, do you try to trade down with them and get Byram in the process?

Buffalo would get one of the top 3 forwards and some other futures (Dallas 1st+), Sharks walk out of the draft with the BPA in the second tier plus Byram. Balancing value there may be tricky.

 

[Juxtaposer]

In that case sign Byram for 2 years then make a decision before the 2027 deadline depending on where the team is at, how Schaefer and Dickinson are progressing, whether Byram has been a good fit, etc.

Sure, that could be possible. But I feel like giving up assets for a guy you essentially plan to flip in two years is unnecessarily risky, especially with Byram's injury history. If we don't get Schaefer, then I would feel like it's a necessary risk.

 

[OrrNumber4]

With Schaefer, Dickinson, Muhammadullin and Cagnoni we would be fine on the left side without Byram

Hmm, perhaps. I will think about it. On an unrelated note, if I have a dozen eggs, I will definitely have 12 chickens, correct?

Sure, that could be possible. But I feel like giving up assets for a guy you essentially plan to flip in two years is unnecessarily risky, especially with Byram's injury history. If we don't get Schaefer, then I would feel like it's a necessary risk.

Hmm...let's say the Sharks could get Byram for a very reasonable cost. Then, the Sharks still have the first overall. Do you want them to draft Schaefer, or go for someone else?

 

[Jargon]

If the worst case scenario occurs and the Sharks finish last but pick third (and are not going to get Schaefer) and say, Buffalo picks fifth or sixth, do you try to trade down with them and get Byram in the process?

Buffalo would get one of the top 3 forwards and some other futures (Dallas 1st+), Sharks walk out of the draft with the BPA in the second tier plus Byram. Balancing value there may be tricky.

I don’t actually hate that.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Hmm...let's say the Sharks could get Byram for a very reasonable cost. Then, the Sharks still have the first overall. Do you want them to draft Schaefer, or go for someone else?

Still Schaefer. And if the cost is reasonable, I would be on board with trading for Byram anyway, depending on the definition of 'reasonable'.

 

[tiburon12]

If he doesnt resign in FLA, I see Grier giving Bennett a healthy contract offer.

 

[Sharksfan66]

If the worst case scenario occurs and the Sharks finish last but pick third (and are not going to get Schaefer) and say, Buffalo picks fifth or sixth, do you try to trade down with them and get Byram in the process?

Buffalo would get one of the top 3 forwards and some other futures (Dallas 1st+), Sharks walk out of the draft with the BPA in the second tier plus Byram. Balancing value there may be tricky.

Absolutely not. You take whoever of Misa or Hagens is left and you walk away laughing at how stacked our forward group will before the next 10+ years.

I'm all for targeting Byram, but not at that cost.

 

[Eklund72]

Choosing Misa over Schaefer could be interesting. We would be probably be set with forwards if not overloaded. Especially if Chernyshov continues to dominate. In this situation I think it would be essential to trade for a top young defenseman.

Does Chernyshov make Musty available? Does Misa make Eklund available? Zetteund? I really would be against moving Eklund but if we get a #1 D in return it could make sense.

 

[Sharksfan66]

If he doesnt resign in FLA, I see Grier giving Bennett a healthy contract offer.

My initial reaction was that it feels a little early in the process for a singing like this, BUT with the cap going way up in the next 3 years, there is an argument to be made that you grab any good players you can. So I like it.

I hope Grier goes big game hunting this offseason. Marner, Bennett, Ekblad, Pionk. I assume none are likely to want to sign here at a reasonable rate, but you never know when you have your Chara situation.

And if none want to sign at a reasonable rate, I'd offer Granny $9 million or something crazy for 2 years to come back. Or like that one idea someone had to offer Marner max $ for the next 2 years.

Maybe none of these moves work, but I hope Grier at least tries being aggressive.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

Zetterlund and Cam Lund for Byram

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Choosing Misa over Schaefer could be interesting. We would be probably be set with forwards if not overloaded. Especially if Chernyshov continues to dominate. In this situation I think it would be essential to trade for a top young defenseman.

Does Chernyshov make Musty available? Does Misa make Eklund available? Zetteund? I really would be against moving Eklund but if we get a #1 D in return it could make sense.

Misa would be an excellent consolation prize if we miss out on Schaefer but there’s no choosing Misa over Schaefer. Chernyshov’s performance shouldn’t really influence that.

Chernyshov doesn’t make Musty available until he makes the Sharks. Misa shouldn’t make Eklund available because we could end up needing both. We still need a legit top six and we need a legitimate 3rd line to compete also.

If we’re trading for blue liners, any of them are available for a top pairing caliber guy.

 

[tiburon12]

My initial reaction was that it feels a little early in the process for a singing like this, BUT with the cap going way up in the next 3 years, there is an argument to be made that you grab any good players you can. So I like it.

I hope Grier goes big game hunting this offseason. Marner, Bennett, Ekblad, Pionk. I assume none are likely to want to sign here at a reasonable rate, but you never know when you have your Chara situation.

And if none want to sign at a reasonable rate, I'd offer Granny $9 million or something crazy for 2 years to come back. Or like that one idea someone had to offer Marner max $ for the next 2 years.

Maybe none of these moves work, but I hope Grier at least tries being aggressive.

I've mentioned it before, I think the sharks need to be aggressive this year in order to be aggressive in the future. If they miss this opportunity to add when the cap is going up, they have lost any first mover advantage and will be playing catch up. Contentding teams with established and signed cores will now have flexiblity to add over the next 3+ years, so if say in 3 years the Sharks have enough homegrown etc talent that they are sniffing the playoffs, we wont be as attractive as other teams. I really think we have to start showing we;re serious about winning.

I dont think Bennett is a major needle mover, but he has that tenacity and gamesmanship that I think Grier likes and wants his team identity to have.

 

[Star Platinum]

Choosing Misa over Schaefer could be interesting. We would be probably be set with forwards if not overloaded. Especially if Chernyshov continues to dominate. In this situation I think it would be essential to trade for a top young defenseman.

Does Chernyshov make Musty available? Does Misa make Eklund available? Zetterlund? I really would be against moving Eklund but if we get a #1 D in return it could make sense.

Musty27 is available as a name....

 

[OrrNumber4]

If he doesnt resign in FLA, I see Grier giving Bennett a healthy contract offer.

Hmm...any biggish-name free agent will want a contract that ages poorly. How many of these should the Sharks have? I'd personally a defenseman (Pionk/Ekblad) and then a winger (Ehlers)...there's still space for a player like Bennett, but then it's very conceivable to imagine a team a couple of years down the line with 3 terrible contracts...

My thinking is that next year, run Celebrini-Wennberg-Smith down the middle. Then the year after, Smith is the #2C and you can find someone for the 3rd line, probably on the cheap.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

The need is clear to improve our defense and especially our RHD. Even just a "solid guy" type like Kovacevic would be a massive improvement. But IMO, this team is not ready to make long-term, big-money commitments to solid guy defensemen who do not project to be core pieces at the same time as our current core. It's okay to sign a player like Kovacevic to a $7x7 if you expect to contend with him in year 1 of the deal, but if you don't see your window opening up until years 3-4, it's a suboptimal move since the player will likely have declined and may no longer even be a solid guy, and you'd be better off just waiting until you're ready to invest in somebody who is. And I don't see any of the upcoming UFA RHD any differently - I think Kovacevic is actually the best of the bunch. Pionk and Ekblad are hard nos for me.

Right now, I'd much rather invest trade capital than long-term money into defensemen who don't project to ever be more than solid guys. There are some interesting RHDs on the trade market: Ristolainen, Murphy, Hamilton if you don't want to pay too much, Nemec and Dobson if you want to invest in somebody who may be a future core piece, etc. There's also UFAs like Burns, Petry, and Perbix who are intriguing but wouldn't command max term for different reasons. These are where I would look to improve our RHD.

I'd actually steer clear of "solid guy" type LHDs. Even if we don't get Schaefer, we still have Dickinson, Cagnoni, and Mukhamadullin; none of them are sure bets to make it, but the first 2 are quite promising, and we’re much better off having them become solid guys for us if we can. And next year is probably the time for each of those guys to get their shot. Walman is IMO a reasonable bet to be a solid 2nd pair guy next year who doesn’t get killed on the first pair. So I think it makes sense to trade Ferraro and leave 2 spots open for the kids (that can also be shared with vets like Vlasic/Thrun, or an early season acquisition like an LHD type Liljegren if the kids all flop) - especially if you can support them with two solid RHD.

I would, however, keep an eye open for potential core pieces on LHD. Gavrikov is the only UFA who fits that bill. He is 28 which is not ideal but he is posting great results as LA's #1D and has a history as a strong defensive defenseman playing top pair minutes. I'd consider giving him something like $9M/7Y. Byram, Power, etc. on the trade market are also intriguing.

We’ll be in a much better position to build the D after next year when we have a better idea of what we have in our guys (including Walman who we could keep or trade, and even our forwards whose growth determines our timeline). We shouldn’t make a big commitment to solving a problem we don’t fully understand the severity of yet unless that commitment is robust to being a good one under many different outcomes.