Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

STL Shark

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
4,397
5,456
It's reasonable to think it's too early in the rebuild to pay that sort of price for a guy in his mid 20s but I would argue actual in zone defending is our biggest issue and Cernak definitely addresses that. Of course no single player is going to turn that around himself.

3rd round pick for an established 26yo top 4 defenseman on that contract is absurd. Tampa will want to replenish all those draft picks they've dealt away if they trade Cernak. Maybe PIT 1st + our 2nd could do it if you don't want to trade a prospect.
Thing is that I would not categorize "mid 20's" to a 27 year old. He's much more quickly getting into the late 20's group with a lot of years of term. I'd happily sign that contract as a UFA, but throwing the assets that you're suggesting at it doesn't make sense. If you want to add some traits similar to what Cernak brings, go sign Dumba to a 4 year deal at $5.5M AAV. You can get him for free and still improve the in-zone defense and physicality (plus we were rumored to be in on him last offseason as well so that suggests that the interest is already there).

Dropping a 1st for Cernak is a move that puts the perpetual rebuild stuff into motion. Not implying that every draft pick needs to be utilized to draft a player, but if you're handing over a top 15 draft pick at this stage it needs to be for someone that better matches the age curve of the core group or has top line/pairing skills if they're in the Cernak age group. Spending 14th overall for a #3/4 D-Man that's going to be over 30 (with 4 years left on his deal) when we are ready to start trying to win just isn't good value.
 

tiburon12

Registered User
Jul 18, 2009
5,040
5,101
Thing is that I would not categorize "mid 20's" to a 27 year old. He's much more quickly getting into the late 20's group with a lot of years of term. I'd happily sign that contract as a UFA, but throwing the assets that you're suggesting at it doesn't make sense. If you want to add some traits similar to what Cernak brings, go sign Dumba to a 4 year deal at $5.5M AAV. You can get him for free and still improve the in-zone defense and physicality (plus we were rumored to be in on him last offseason as well so that suggests that the interest is already there).
Nah dumba sucks and that contract offer would be a fireable offense.

Cernak is a target if he's a distressed asset and we can get him without giving up anything of value, like ufa rights or a depth depth player.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,443
15,123
Folsom
Nah dumba sucks and that contract offer would be a fireable offense.

Cernak is a target if he's a distressed asset and we can get him without giving up anything of value, like ufa rights or a depth depth player.
Pretty much. That's why we shouldn't expect to get Cernak. He may be a cap dump to Tampa but someone will be willing to give them a 2nd round pick at least and we should avoid that since our 2nd round picks will be in the 30's for now. Utah makes a lot of sense for Cernak since they have a lot of draft picks and are trying to be competitive.
 

tiburon12

Registered User
Jul 18, 2009
5,040
5,101
Pretty much. That's why we shouldn't expect to get Cernak. He may be a cap dump to Tampa but someone will be willing to give them a 2nd round pick at least and we should avoid that since our 2nd round picks will be in the 30's for now. Utah makes a lot of sense for Cernak since they have a lot of draft picks and are trying to be competitive.
Our 2nd, if we're trying to add, should be used on a offer sheet
 

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,642
7,901
Dumba is cooked. There's a reason Tampa was able to acquire him at the deadline for just a 5th round pick (while also getting a 7th back).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan

STL Shark

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
4,397
5,456
Dumba is cooked. There's a reason Tampa was able to acquire him at the deadline for just a 5th round pick (while also getting a 7th back).
And he's still a better cost-benefit addition than trading 14th overall for Cernak... That is quite literally the point.
 

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,642
7,901
  • Like
Reactions: Sendhelplease

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,443
15,123
Folsom

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
17,891
20,587
Vegass
I think for a team actually picking 14th Cernak makes sense, but for a team trading its pieces for the 14th, it makes no sense to just turn around and trade for someone that doesn't fit the timeline. Same for just trading Edstrom for him. You just moved the only beloved star on the team and the piece you got in return you turn around and trade for a middle pairing D-man doesn't exactly excite fans.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,443
15,123
Folsom
Of course not. His status as a bona fide top 4 defenseman signed at an excellent AAV for the next 7 years is what makes him worth a 14th overall pick.

Sure but who cares if it ends up being a Cal Foote or Julius Honka or Girgensons.
The problem is that that's only true for certain teams. A team that would traditionally hold the 14th overall pick would view a top four defenseman as worth it if that was the hole in their lineup they could fill that would push them into the playoffs. Pittsburgh would be an excellent example of that if they still had this pick. That's not us and we need to hope that management treats this pick accordingly. Paying futures for now players is being wildly impatient even if we land Celebrini.
 

gaucholoco3

Registered User
Jun 22, 2015
1,461
1,852
The problem is that that's only true for certain teams. A team that would traditionally hold the 14th overall pick would view a top four defenseman as worth it if that was the hole in their lineup they could fill that would push them into the playoffs. Pittsburgh would be an excellent example of that if they still had this pick. That's not us and we need to hope that management treats this pick accordingly. Paying futures for now players is being wildly impatient even if we land Celebrini.
I think #14 is too rich but you could also trade down.

I was already looking at Chicago as a trade down partner. If it looks like nobody will fall to 14 that is worth taking.

14 and 81 for 20 and 34

Then trade 20 for Cernak and still get 3 chances to find a player between 33 and 42.
 

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,642
7,901
I think for a team actually picking 14th Cernak makes sense, but for a team trading its pieces for the 14th, it makes no sense to just turn around and trade for someone that doesn't fit the timeline. Same for just trading Edstrom for him. You just moved the only beloved star on the team and the piece you got in return you turn around and trade for a middle pairing D-man doesn't exactly excite fans.

The problem is that that's only true for certain teams. A team that would traditionally hold the 14th overall pick would view a top four defenseman as worth it if that was the hole in their lineup they could fill that would push them into the playoffs. Pittsburgh would be an excellent example of that if they still had this pick. That's not us and we need to hope that management treats this pick accordingly. Paying futures for now players is being wildly impatient even if we land Celebrini.

I don't think you guys are wrong and I completely see the argument that it's too early in the rebuild to move an asset like this but my reasoning is basically:

A) 14th OA will probably be a NHLer but there's almost no chance of drafting a star with this pick and even finding a Cernak level player is unlikely.

B) 27yo 6'3" 230lb right handed top 4 defenseman with two rings already is a rare asset. If Cernak was heading to free agency he would definitely command a lot more than $5.2M/year and there's basically no chance he would sign with the Sharks. Acquiring him between now and July 1st means he can't veto a trade to SJ and we get him with cost certainty.

C) The timeline thing really only matters for your core. You want your core players to be around the same age. Cernak is not a core player but an excellent complementary piece who would instantly be our best defenseman by a mile and has as much recent big game experience as any player in the league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sendhelplease

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
17,891
20,587
Vegass
I don't think you guys are wrong and I completely see the argument that it's too early in the rebuild to move an asset like this but my reasoning is basically:

A) 14th OA will probably be a NHLer but there's almost no chance of drafting a star with this pick and even finding a Cernak level player is unlikely.

B) 27yo 6'3" 230lb right handed top 4 defenseman with two rings already is a rare asset. If Cernak was heading to free agency he would definitely command a lot more than $5.2M/year and there's basically no chance he would sign with the Sharks. Acquiring him between now and July 1st means he can't veto a trade to SJ and we get him with cost certainty.

C) The timeline thing really only matters for your core. You want your core players to be around the same age. Cernak is not a core player but an excellent complementary piece who would instantly be our best defenseman by a mile and has as much recent big game experience as any player in the league.
Honestly the money thing should be that much of an issue now and if we end up with someone in Free agency at around the same or slightly more money without giving up assets then I would rather go that route. Hell, see what the Rangers want for Lindgren who's an RFA. Maybe something around Goodrow and Lindgren.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,443
15,123
Folsom
I think #14 is too rich but you could also trade down.

I was already looking at Chicago as a trade down partner. If it looks like nobody will fall to 14 that is worth taking.

14 and 81 for 20 and 34

Then trade 20 for Cernak and still get 3 chances to find a player between 33 and 42.
I mean, if you can trade 20 for Cernak, you can trade 14 for Cernak. The difference there is more a matter of degree than a matter of doing it or having it on the table or not. I'm open to the possibility of trading back from 14 though it's not my preference as of now. My thinking is that when you go through a rebuild, there are certain benchmarks you need to hit before you start moving these types of assets for now players and we're just not there yet. I don't think we will be there until we have at least Celebrini at the very earliest but more realistically at least two gamebreakers but ideally a gamebreaker up front and a gamebreaker on the back end.
I don't think you guys are wrong and I completely see the argument that it's too early in the rebuild to move an asset like this but my reasoning is basically:

A) 14th OA will probably be a NHLer but there's almost no chance of drafting a star with this pick and even finding a Cernak level player is unlikely.

B) 27yo 6'3" 230lb right handed top 4 defenseman with two rings already is a rare asset. If Cernak was heading to free agency he would definitely command a lot more than $5.2M/year and there's basically no chance he would sign with the Sharks. Acquiring him between now and July 1st means he can't veto a trade to SJ and we get him with cost certainty.

C) The timeline thing really only matters for your core. You want your core players to be around the same age. Cernak is not a core player but an excellent complementary piece who would instantly be our best defenseman by a mile and has as much recent big game experience as any player in the league.
I think the only thing that's going to convince you with the way you see things is the probability of leveraging that pick for a better future result than what Cernak can realistically provide our team with the talent we're probably going to have in the short and long term future of the team. I just don't see Cernak being a guy that you do this sort of thing for when he's not a core addition. You can draft core players at 14 even if that specific pick hasn't hit on that very often there are core players past that pick that have been core players like Hertl. Even with how certain pundits now view our prospect pool, the team still needs to make meaningful additions to hedge their bets. Right now, the future of our blue line looks something like Mukhamadullin, Thrun, and Cagnoni on the left side with only Fisher and Havelid as top-100 picks on the right side. Realistically, most of those guys aren't going to make anything of themselves. They need blue line prospects and that pick is in line with acquiring a pretty solid one. If all that's on the board by the time 14 comes up is snagging someone like Jiricek, I can at least understand trading down but trading off the pick entirely for a now player when our lineup would look like this with him is probably not the most effective way to leverage that pick...

Eklund-Granlund-Zetterlund
Zadina-Celebrini-Kunin
Bordeleau-Sturm-Kostin
Smith-Studnicka-Carpenter/Bailey

Ferraro-Cernak
Thrun-Rutta
Mukhamadullin-Burroughs/Emberson/Benning

That sort of team even with certain reasonable additions like Will Smith or a free agent or trade because of needing to spend cap is probably better than last year's team but not playoff competitive. Cernak was bad on a playoff team in a depth role. We'd almost certainly ask him to play higher and it's not likely to yield positive results with his specific deficiencies, the team's specific deficiencies, and the talent that's going to be around him. A player like Cernak is not someone we need to have right now and we can bide our time on acquiring him if it makes sense somewhere down the line to do so because 2nd or 3rd pairing defensemen that are solid defensively are typically in good supply. When this team potentially starts competing three years or so down the road and Cernak hits 30 and his NTC opens up to a 16 team trade list, his contract then has 4 years left with likely a much higher cap. Then it may make sense to take a run at him but now? Still too early while we're trying to develop a new core.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
17,891
20,587
Vegass
I mean, if you can trade 20 for Cernak, you can trade 14 for Cernak. The difference there is more a matter of degree than a matter of doing it or having it on the table or not. I'm open to the possibility of trading back from 14 though it's not my preference as of now. My thinking is that when you go through a rebuild, there are certain benchmarks you need to hit before you start moving these types of assets for now players and we're just not there yet. I don't think we will be there until we have at least Celebrini at the very earliest but more realistically at least two gamebreakers but ideally a gamebreaker up front and a gamebreaker on the back end.

I think the only thing that's going to convince you with the way you see things is the probability of leveraging that pick for a better future result than what Cernak can realistically provide our team with the talent we're probably going to have in the short and long term future of the team. I just don't see Cernak being a guy that you do this sort of thing for when he's not a core addition. You can draft core players at 14 even if that specific pick hasn't hit on that very often there are core players past that pick that have been core players like Hertl. Even with how certain pundits now view our prospect pool, the team still needs to make meaningful additions to hedge their bets. Right now, the future of our blue line looks something like Mukhamadullin, Thrun, and Cagnoni on the left side with only Fisher and Havelid as top-100 picks on the right side. Realistically, most of those guys aren't going to make anything of themselves. They need blue line prospects and that pick is in line with acquiring a pretty solid one. If all that's on the board by the time 14 comes up is snagging someone like Jiricek, I can at least understand trading down but trading off the pick entirely for a now player when our lineup would look like this with him is probably not the most effective way to leverage that pick...

Eklund-Granlund-Zetterlund
Zadina-Celebrini-Kunin
Bordeleau-Sturm-Kostin
Smith-Studnicka-Carpenter/Bailey

Ferraro-Cernak
Thrun-Rutta
Mukhamadullin-Burroughs/Emberson/Benning

That sort of team even with certain reasonable additions like Will Smith or a free agent or trade because of needing to spend cap is probably better than last year's team but not playoff competitive. Cernak was bad on a playoff team in a depth role. We'd almost certainly ask him to play higher and it's not likely to yield positive results with his specific deficiencies, the team's specific deficiencies, and the talent that's going to be around him. A player like Cernak is not someone we need to have right now and we can bide our time on acquiring him if it makes sense somewhere down the line to do so because 2nd or 3rd pairing defensemen that are solid defensively are typically in good supply. When this team potentially starts competing three years or so down the road and Cernak hits 30 and his NTC opens up to a 16 team trade list, his contract then has 4 years left with likely a much higher cap. Then it may make sense to take a run at him but now? Still too early while we're trying to develop a new core.
If we go into the season with this lineup i'm gonna puke.
 

spintops

Registered User
Sep 13, 2013
1,765
1,156
Based on what?


I encourage everyone to look at the list of players selected 14th over the past 20 years or so. Not many guys better than Cernak on there.
Ehh I really hate this logic, even when you used it for as a reason we should trade #11 for Puljujarvi. I don't think safe floor low ceiling players are how we should be using our top picks. We need some elite talent so I would rather they take a swing at getting a Kopitar at #11 then trading the picks for bottom of the lineup NHL players you can acquire any way with the amount of capspace we have.
 

landshark

They'll paint the donkey teal if you pay.
Sponsor
Mar 15, 2003
3,780
3,195
outer richmond dist
If we go into the season with this lineup i'm gonna puke.
This stuff is really good:


1714601137313.png


EDIT: I'm not a pharmacist, nor do I play one on TV. But for real, this stops it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sandisfan

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,443
15,123
Folsom
If we go into the season with this lineup i'm gonna puke.
We won't. The floor will necessitate them to spend more on the lineup than what is there but it was a rough draft of that sort of scenario. I don't see a way where we acquire something that makes it make sense to acquire Cernak. For us to utilize Cernak effectively is to make it to where he's not already the best player at his position. lol
 

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,642
7,901
I mean, if you can trade 20 for Cernak, you can trade 14 for Cernak. The difference there is more a matter of degree than a matter of doing it or having it on the table or not. I'm open to the possibility of trading back from 14 though it's not my preference as of now. My thinking is that when you go through a rebuild, there are certain benchmarks you need to hit before you start moving these types of assets for now players and we're just not there yet. I don't think we will be there until we have at least Celebrini at the very earliest but more realistically at least two gamebreakers but ideally a gamebreaker up front and a gamebreaker on the back end.

I think the only thing that's going to convince you with the way you see things is the probability of leveraging that pick for a better future result than what Cernak can realistically provide our team with the talent we're probably going to have in the short and long term future of the team. I just don't see Cernak being a guy that you do this sort of thing for when he's not a core addition. You can draft core players at 14 even if that specific pick hasn't hit on that very often there are core players past that pick that have been core players like Hertl. Even with how certain pundits now view our prospect pool, the team still needs to make meaningful additions to hedge their bets. Right now, the future of our blue line looks something like Mukhamadullin, Thrun, and Cagnoni on the left side with only Fisher and Havelid as top-100 picks on the right side. Realistically, most of those guys aren't going to make anything of themselves. They need blue line prospects and that pick is in line with acquiring a pretty solid one. If all that's on the board by the time 14 comes up is snagging someone like Jiricek, I can at least understand trading down but trading off the pick entirely for a now player when our lineup would look like this with him is probably not the most effective way to leverage that pick...

Eklund-Granlund-Zetterlund
Zadina-Celebrini-Kunin
Bordeleau-Sturm-Kostin
Smith-Studnicka-Carpenter/Bailey

Ferraro-Cernak
Thrun-Rutta
Mukhamadullin-Burroughs/Emberson/Benning

That sort of team even with certain reasonable additions like Will Smith or a free agent or trade because of needing to spend cap is probably better than last year's team but not playoff competitive. Cernak was bad on a playoff team in a depth role. We'd almost certainly ask him to play higher and it's not likely to yield positive results with his specific deficiencies, the team's specific deficiencies, and the talent that's going to be around him. A player like Cernak is not someone we need to have right now and we can bide our time on acquiring him if it makes sense somewhere down the line to do so because 2nd or 3rd pairing defensemen that are solid defensively are typically in good supply. When this team potentially starts competing three years or so down the road and Cernak hits 30 and his NTC opens up to a 16 team trade list, his contract then has 4 years left with likely a much higher cap. Then it may make sense to take a run at him but now? Still too early while we're trying to develop a new core.
Hertl is an extreme outlier in terms of what you can expect in the 11-20 range. I don't care what our defense prospect pool looks like because we don't have to draft or develop our defense. It's going to be much easier to trade picks and prospects for top four defensemen and then pray that we hit on a dman with either this year's 1st or next. Mix in UFAs and waiver claims as necessary.

Cernak wasn't in a "depth role" this season, he was 3rd among Bolts defensemen in ice time. Barring serious injuries I would expect Cernak to be a solid middle pair guy for at least the next 5 years. Acquiring him now instead of 4 years from now makes sense because he's an ideal player to help rebuild the team culture coming from a winning organization.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad