Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[Juxtaposer]

Isn't Sahlin Wallenius' main strength considered his skating? I think Grier has valued skating in defenseman but does not seem to value it as highly with forwards.

I guess I did forget about LSW, but I just don't think he's a guy. I think he'll be a waste of a pick like Havelid before him. We'll see, hope I'm wrong.

My point is that skating has been pretty damn far down the list of attributes Grier seems to value. Size is by far his most valued attribute. Raw skill, hands, IQ, and shot are all things I think he values before skating. But I will concede that while he hasn't drafted a bunch of great skaters, he also hasn't drafted any truly mechanically problematic skaters like Clarke and Jiricek, so maybe @gaucholoco3 does have a point.

 

[coooldude]

I guess I did forget about LSW, but I just don't think he's a guy. I think he'll be a waste of a pick like Havelid before him. We'll see, hope I'm wrong.

My point is that skating has been pretty damn far down the list of attributes Grier seems to value. Size is by far his most valued attribute. Raw skill, hands, IQ, and shot are all things I think he values before skating. But I will concede that while he hasn't drafted a bunch of great skaters, he also hasn't drafted any truly mechanically problematic skaters like Clarke and Jiricek, so maybe @gaucholoco3 does have a point.

I would say the only minus skater he's drafted is Halts. Everyone else at least holds serve with their size and compete. As we've talked about, if a player has the size/skill/compete our staff values AND is a plus skater, they're going higher in the draft.

 

[Cas]

Grier's philosophy appears to be that, if you don't have absolutely top-tier skill (Celebrini, Smith) and thus an extremely high chance to hit as an impact player, then I need you to have size and hope that we get lucky and you turn into something useful.

Basically, outside of the absolute best, I think Grier is largely drafting to minimize downside, hoping that if something clicks on his lottery tickets (but doesn't hit the jackpot) he gets a useful player somewhere in the lineup. This is in contrast to Wilson Jr.'s philosophy, which was to draft guys with an emphasis on "playing above the sum of their parts" and turning into top of the lineup guys (but with the downside that if they don't click and reach their absolute ceiling, you get nothing useful).

Sure, there's a universe where Carson Wetsch turns into a perennial 30-goal guy, but what Grier is betting on is that Wetsch has a reasonable chance to turn into a 4th line grinder who scores 20 points a season for about five years. This is in contrast to hoping that Ozzy Wiesblatt turns into a legitimate top-six forward.

The only small guys drafted by Grier have been low-level lottery tickets - maybe one of the scouts was adamant about Cagnoni or Pohlkamp and Grier decided to use a low-level pick on them (it's not like the odds of a 6'3" defenseman picked at #123 succeeding are much higher than the odds of Cagnoni succeeding anyway, almost all of those picks will bust no matter what your philosophy is).

 

[sampler]

I guess I did forget about LSW, but I just don't think he's a guy. I think he'll be a waste of a pick like Havelid before him. We'll see, hope I'm wrong.

My point is that skating has been pretty damn far down the list of attributes Grier seems to value. Size is by far his most valued attribute. Raw skill, hands, IQ, and shot are all things I think he values before skating. But I will concede that while he hasn't drafted a bunch of great skaters, he also hasn't drafted any truly mechanically problematic skaters like Clarke and Jiricek, so maybe @gaucholoco3 does have a point.

Yep, no doubt about it. Grier and Co clearly favor size and strength over pure skill or skating. I would be surprised to see him go any other way. And, to be honest, the proof is in the pudding. teams with lots of bigger players are playing well.

WSH top 10: 6'3, 6'6, 6'4, 6'3, 6'4, 6'0, 6'2, 6'3, 6'3, 6'1
WPG Top 3 scorers are 6'1, 6'3 and 6'3.
TOR top 7: 6'0, 6'0, 6'1, 6'3, 6'3, 6'2, 6'1.
TBL top 10: 6'0, 6'2, 5'11, 5'11, 6'7, 6'1, 6'4, 6'1, 6'2, 6'4
DAL top 5: 5'11, 6'3, 6'1, 6'3, 6'3
VGK top 10: 6'2, 6'3, 6'2, 6'3, 6'1, 6'0, 6'2, 6'3, 6'3, 6'2
EDM top 7: 6'2, 6'1, 6'3, 6'1, 6'1, 6'5, 6'4.

Minny is the one of the only main exceptions with smaller top players with karipzov at 5'10, rossi 5'9, and zuccarello 5'8 and 5'9 spurgeon as a top pairing D.

Contrast this with the bottom feeding teams:
Sharks: top 5 scorers all 6'0 or smaller.
Pitt: top 8 scores feature ll 6'0 or less except for one at 6'1 and one 6'3.
Chicago: top 3 scorers are 5'10, 5'11, and 6'.
Nashville: none of their top 5 exceed 6'1, and one 1 of their top 12 exceed 6'1.
Montreal: top 3 scorers all 5'11 or smaller.

Buffalo has respectable size as an exception.

In short, while not 100% true, the top teams in the league tend to be bigger. WSH, WPG, EDM, DAL and VGK are the top 5 teams in the league. among their top 3 scorers, the only player under 6'1 is Matt Duchene at 5'11, though weighing 212 lbs.

That's 14 out of 15 players on the top 5 teams in the league all 6'1 or taller.

Size matters. Its not 100% everything, but it really matters. The sharks lack size and for that reason, they cannot win physical battles on the boards. They lack the strength to make certain small but key plays and also wear down opponents. I think this is partly why our third periods are so bad. Part of it is between the ears, but part of it may be fatigue from matching up against players bigger and stronger than you night after night.

The great sharks teams of the past were big. In the 2016 cup team, here are the top scorers and size:
Top scoreres: Jumbo: 6'4, patty: 6'2, pavs: 6'1, burns: 6'5, hertl: 6'3, Ward 6'1, Pickles 6'1, cooch 6'1, donskoi 6'0, braun 6'2, tierney 6'1, Martin 6'1...

That means the top 8 scorers on that team were all 6'1 or taller. And in fact, no player in the top 12 was under 6'0 with 11 of 12 6'1 or taller.

The sharks need to get bigger. Pure and simple. Skating, hands, hockey sense... all important. but, size is underrated. The sharks need size and size with skill is a force. The sharks need to acquire size, and if choosing between size with moderate skill, and high skill but small (sub 6'0), I would actually go for size at this point. The last 3 top 10 picks were eklund (5'11), smith (6'0) and celebrini (6'0). They have selected for skill. Thats all well and good, but not if the rest of your team is also undersized. If you are gunna spend top picks for skill>size, then you better acquire size either by UFA or trade or later in the draft.

For this reason, Hagens whould be on a no draft list for the sharks and Martone might be preferred over Misa. (of course, misa is 6'1, so hes not that small, and drafting him is fine).

They should also focus more on size with their other picks too, especially at forward.

 

[coooldude]

Yep, no doubt about it. Grier and Co clearly favor size and strength over pure skill or skating. I would be surprised to see him go any other way. And, to be honest, the proof is in the pudding. teams with lots of bigger players are playing well.

WSH top 10: 6'3, 6'6, 6'4, 6'3, 6'4, 6'0, 6'2, 6'3, 6'3, 6'1
WPG Top 3 scorers are 6'1, 6'3 and 6'3.
TOR top 7: 6'0, 6'0, 6'1, 6'3, 6'3, 6'2, 6'1.
TBL top 10: 6'0, 6'2, 5'11, 5'11, 6'7, 6'1, 6'4, 6'1, 6'2, 6'4
DAL top 5: 5'11, 6'3, 6'1, 6'3, 6'3
VGK top 10: 6'2, 6'3, 6'2, 6'3, 6'1, 6'0, 6'2, 6'3, 6'3, 6'2
EDM top 7: 6'2, 6'1, 6'3, 6'1, 6'1, 6'5, 6'4.

Minny is the one of the only main exceptions with smaller top players with karipzov at 5'10, rossi 5'9, and zuccarello 5'8 and 5'9 spurgeon as a top pairing D.

Contrast this with the bottom feeding teams:
Sharks: top 5 scorers all 6'0 or smaller.
Pitt: top 8 scores feature ll 6'0 or less except for one at 6'1 and one 6'3.
Chicago: top 3 scorers are 5'10, 5'11, and 6'.
Nashville: none of their top 5 exceed 6'1, and one 1 of their top 12 exceed 6'1.
Montreal: top 3 scorers all 5'11 or smaller.

Buffalo has respectable size as an exception.

In short, while not 100% true, the top teams in the league tend to be bigger. WSH, WPG, EDM, DAL and VGK are the top 5 teams in the league. among their top 3 scorers, the only player under 6'1 is Matt Duchene at 5'11, though weighing 212 lbs.

That's 14 out of 15 players on the top 5 teams in the league all 6'1 or taller.

Size matters. Its not 100% everything, but it really matters. The sharks lack size and for that reason, they cannot win physical battles on the boards. They lack the strength to make certain small but key plays and also wear down opponents. I think this is partly why our third periods are so bad. Part of it is between the ears, but part of it may be fatigue from matching up against players bigger and stronger than you night after night.

The great sharks teams of the past were big. In the 2016 cup team, here are the top scorers and size:
Top scoreres: Jumbo: 6'4, patty: 6'2, pavs: 6'1, burns: 6'5, hertl: 6'3, Ward 6'1, Pickles 6'1, cooch 6'1, donskoi 6'0, braun 6'2, tierney 6'1, Martin 6'1...

That means the top 8 scorers on that team were all 6'1 or taller. And in fact, no player in the top 12 was under 6'0 with 11 of 12 6'1 or taller.

The sharks need to get bigger. Pure and simple. Skating, hands, hockey sense... all important. but, size is underrated. The sharks need size and size with skill is a force. The sharks need to acquire size, and if choosing between size with moderate skill, and high skill but small (sub 6'0), I would actually go for size at this point. The last 3 top 10 picks were eklund (5'11), smith (6'0) and celebrini (6'0). They have selected for skill. Thats all well and good, but not if the rest of your team is also undersized. If you are gunna spend top picks for skill>size, then you better acquire size either by UFA or trade or later in the draft.

For this reason, Hagens whould be on a no draft list for the sharks and Martone might be preferred over Misa. (of course, misa is 6'1, so hes not that small, and drafting him is fine).

They should also focus more on size with their other picks too, especially at forward.

I agree with all this except with a top 3 overall pick. Personally I think Misa fits the Sharks vision / pipeline and Grier style more than Hagens anyway, but I don't think size is going to be a determining factor for 1-3OA. Style and fit, yes, but not purely size.

However, they definitely prioritize size down the draft, and I agree they should. BUT, they have shown they don't lock into simple rules, e.g. Cagnoni was just too much value to pass up, and they must have felt the same about LSW.

I personally vibe with what @Cas ID'd as the strategy - go for high end "skilled compete" in the top 35 picks, but afterward you're looking to minimize risk rather than hit home runs. I'd rather a Wetsch than a Wiesblatt style pick (obv not same round), or Roberts/Misskey versus some potential future Marchesseault.

 

[sampler]

I agree with all this except with a top 3 overall pick. Personally I think Misa fits the Sharks vision / pipeline and Grier style more than Hagens anyway, but I don't think size is going to be a determining factor for 1-3OA. Style and fit, yes, but not purely size.

However, they definitely prioritize size down the draft, and I agree they should. BUT, they have shown they don't lock into simple rules, e.g. Cagnoni was just too much value to pass up, and they must have felt the same about LSW.

I personally vibe with what @Cas ID'd as the strategy - go for high end "skilled compete" in the top 35 picks, but afterward you're looking to minimize risk rather than hit home runs. I'd rather a Wetsch than a Wiesblatt style pick (obv not same round), or Roberts/Misskey versus some potential future Marchesseault.

Obviously Schaefer (6'2") is option one. I am Ok with Misa anyways as it's not like he is undersized or anything. I don't think being 6'4+ is necessary. In fact, looking at the top teams, Only washington has a player who is 6'4 or taller among their top 3 scorers. 6'1 to 6'3 seem to be the magic size. Even the sharks had only two guys above 6'3 (jumbo and burns) in their top 12 when they made the cup run.

I like the idea of size focus late in the draft too. You can actually see the sharks smaller draft strategy backfiring. Gush, Bordy, Cardwell, Cagnoni, Robins... All sub 6'0 and doing reasonably well on the cuda, but none made the leap to the NHL nicely (cags hasnt had his chance yet). In fact, Bystedt is the only guy above 6'1 on the top 11 scorers for the Cuda. They need a lot more size in the system too. Ironically, looking at +/- on the cuda, you can see the size advantage. Among the top 10 players in +/- (min 10 gp), 7 of 10 are 6'1+ and even 5 are 6'2+. Meanwhile, the bottom 8 in +/- feature 4 players 5'11' or smaller, with only sabourin shak and bailey with size.

I think, even at the top of the draft, you gotta top the scales to size unless a clear exception arises (like celebrini or bedard type).

 

[GettingYourMoms]

Yeah yeah, Jiricek big, Nemec smurf. Jiricek won't be an NHLer with his current skating ability.

Jiricek looked great in his short stint with Wild, Iowa just suck. His skating ability is absolutely more than enough for NHL.

 

[Cas]

I don't think there's necessarily any real benefit to being bigger than 6' in and of itself (as in, I wouldn't worry about someone being 6'1" compared to someone at 6'4"), it's just much harder if you don't reach a certain minimum stature (mitigated by body type and weight somewhat, but it's rarer to overcome that).

 

[sampler]

BTW, I would prefer size at forward even more than D, even though that goes against alot of traditional wisdom. Great teams can control the puck in the ozone for long periods of time. Part of that is off puck movement, part is skill, part is effective systems, but a big part is sheer size and strength. The great sharks teams of old would cycle and possess pucks for 1 or 2 minutes at a time, ultimately waiting patiently for that grade A chance to arise. Jumbo was, of course, the ultimately master of puck possession and the reason was his sheer size and strength and his knowledge of how to use that ASSet.

To play a puck possession game, you need big forwards more than big D. Obviously size helps in every position, but big D do not help a cycle or possession game that much. But three big forwards with some skill make it nearly impossible for the other team to get the puck. When the puck comes to the point, even if the D is small, it doesnt matter, and if they dont have a shot, they will dump it back down low and the forwards go back to work. Big forwards make a D just dumping a puck back down low into a good play as they can keep posession. Small forwards make that play almost a turnover.

You see this effect with the current sharks all the time. Sometimes a good work forecheck succeeds to win the puck, then plays it up to the D, but a person in the lane or pressure might cause the D to dump it back down low. Undersized shark forwards now have to battle again, and they usually lose since they are giving up 3-4 inches and 20-40 pounds to the oppositon. Then the offensive push dies and the puck goes the other way. If the sharks forward was 6'2, 220 lbs instead of 5"11, 180 lbs, the end result of that play is wholly different. This is why the sharks seem to have virtually no sustained O zone time.

For this reason, I don't mind taking a swing at a very highly skilled but undersized D (cagnoni). Still prefer size, but I'm ok with the undersized D if its too good to pass up. But, at forward, GO BIG!

If the sharks keep all their late 1st and early 2nd, and htey decide to go for forwards (say, if they get schaefer at #1), they should target guys like Nesbitt, Zonnon, Moore, Ihs-Wozniak.... No smaller than 6'2.

 

[sampler]

I don't think there's necessarily any real benefit to being bigger than 6' in and of itself (as in, I wouldn't worry about someone being 6'1" compared to someone at 6'4"), it's just much harder if you don't reach a certain minimum stature (mitigated by body type and weight somewhat, but it's rarer to overcome that).

perhaps you are referring to a zetterlund type. Short, but built like a tank. Rather than even a graf, who might be taller but slender?

I get th whole fram argument, but I think weight is far more flexible than height. You can take protein shakes and hit the gym hard and turn a 5'11 frame into 220 pounds like zetterlund has. Even eklund, smith, and celebrini can add 10-20 lbs of muslce with hard gym work.

But, no matter how much eight you lift, you cannot get taller. And while zetterlund is built a bit tank-like, his possession game still isnt that great. If zetterlund has his build on a 6'2 body, he'd be a true beast. At the end of the day, you can usually add a lot of muscle to a good height, but if the height is not there, the muscle building reaches its limit and the posession game falters.

BTW, I am not arguing that a team should have no short players no matter what. Obviously, great talent, even if small, is great talent. But a team that is nearly all based on skill with minimal size is going to get manhandled and will not get much opportunity to use the skill as they wont have the puck much due to all the lost battles. this is the sharks of the last couple years. This is why I think you take a celebrini or smith who may max out at 6' 200lbs or less, but you give them a chernyshov, musty, haltunnen type wingers, and they can be very effective in transition and in puck possession.

I do think there is a big difference between 5'11' 190 and 6'2, 220. Even 6'200 vs 6'3, 225. We need more BEEF!

 

[Juxtaposer]

I would say the only minus skater he's drafted is Halts. Everyone else at least holds serve with their size and compete. As we've talked about, if a player has the size/skill/compete our staff values AND is a plus skater, they're going higher in the draft.

Musty and Smith are minus skaters. Chernyshov is average. Lund and Bystedt are average too.

I don't think skating is an end-all-be-all trait personally--it's about playing fast more than moving fast.

Jiricek looked great in his short stint with Wild, Iowa just suck. His skating ability is absolutely more than enough for NHL.

You're seriously cramping my style.

 

[coooldude]

Musty and Smith are minus skaters. Chernyshov is average. Lund and Bystedt are average too.

Do you think Musty is a minus skater on the order of Halts (may not be NHL level at all), or just in terms of "NHL average"?

In that regard, I don't think Smith is a minus skater writ large -- he is definitely minus in the speed department. And Musty seems like he might be a bit sloppy but that he can get around at an NHL level with continued development. May be wrong on this one.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Do you think Musty is a minus skater on the order of Halts (may not be NHL level at all), or just in terms of "NHL average"?

In that regard, I don't think Smith is a minus skater writ large -- he is definitely minus in the speed department. And Musty seems like he might be a bit sloppy but that he can get around at an NHL level with continued development. May be wrong on this one.

I don't think Musty gets around better than Halttunen except the 5% of the time he really tries. Is that an indictment on his skating or on his character? I couldn't tell you that. I think he'll be a below average skater by NHL standards, at any rate.

Smith has solid skating technique, but his power is way, way lacking and you can't be sure it'll ever improve all that much.

 

[wickedwitch]

I get th whole fram argument, but I think weight is far more flexible than height. You can take protein shakes and hit the gym hard and turn a 5'11 frame into 220 pounds like zetterlund has. Even eklund, smith, and celebrini can add 10-20 lbs of muslce with hard gym work.

It's much harder than this to add good weight (aka muscle and strength). Also, just based on genetics, there are some people for whom putting on muscle is really challenging; for some it's much easier.

The vast majority of professional hockey players are already hitting the gym hard and drinking protein shakes. And yet, many of them aren't huge.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I guess I did forget about LSW, but I just don't think he's a guy. I think he'll be a waste of a pick like Havelid before him. We'll see, hope I'm wrong.

My point is that skating has been pretty damn far down the list of attributes Grier seems to value. Size is by far his most valued attribute. Raw skill, hands, IQ, and shot are all things I think he values before skating. But I will concede that while he hasn't drafted a bunch of great skaters, he also hasn't drafted any truly mechanically problematic skaters like Clarke and Jiricek, so maybe @gaucholoco3 does have a point.

I will concede that size has been more important than skating when drafting forwards but for D it has been skating first then size. Cagnoni, Pohlkamp, LSW are all smaller but good skaters.

 

[hohosaregood]

Grier's philosophy appears to be that, if you don't have absolutely top-tier skill (Celebrini, Smith) and thus an extremely high chance to hit as an impact player, then I need you to have size and hope that we get lucky and you turn into something useful.

Basically, outside of the absolute best, I think Grier is largely drafting to minimize downside, hoping that if something clicks on his lottery tickets (but doesn't hit the jackpot) he gets a useful player somewhere in the lineup. This is in contrast to Wilson Jr.'s philosophy, which was to draft guys with an emphasis on "playing above the sum of their parts" and turning into top of the lineup guys (but with the downside that if they don't click and reach their absolute ceiling, you get nothing useful).

Sure, there's a universe where Carson Wetsch turns into a perennial 30-goal guy, but what Grier is betting on is that Wetsch has a reasonable chance to turn into a 4th line grinder who scores 20 points a season for about five years. This is in contrast to hoping that Ozzy Wiesblatt turns into a legitimate top-six forward.

The only small guys drafted by Grier have been low-level lottery tickets - maybe one of the scouts was adamant about Cagnoni or Pohlkamp and Grier decided to use a low-level pick on them (it's not like the odds of a 6'3" defenseman picked at #123 succeeding are much higher than the odds of Cagnoni succeeding anyway, almost all of those picks will bust no matter what your philosophy is).

I feel like he's taken a bit of a football mentality to some of his scouting with position value, or more role value in this case. Like going for the guys like Wetsch and Pohlkamp and Svoboda who don't really have the skillset to be a top 6 guy but have the baseline to be a good depth player in the later rounds rather than going for homerun swings on boom/bust guys.