Toggle sidebar

2025 NHL Draft: Lose a ton for Porter Martone

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it.
Pinkfloyd said:
So you’d rather move up than get more chances this year?
Click to expand...
I think so. My philosophy is that the closer you are to the end of your rebuild, the more it makes sense to consolidate later picks into one higher pick to target a guy who really fits what you're building.

Sort of the anti-Bystedt trade. In 2022, it made sense to trade down to get a bunch of shots instead of being beholden to one guy to start your rebuild. We didn't pick the right guys, so it was a bad move, but if we had picked even two of the right guys it would have been a stroke of brilliance. Starting the rebuild with something like Maveric Lamoureux, Seamus Casey, and Lane Hutson would have been incredible, especially given that our prospect pool at the time consisted of William Eklund and nothing else.

Now, we have a deep prospect pool and don't need quantity. It makes sense to target a guy who fits what we need, and that's a steady defensive RHD with size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STL Shark, Forlan, MackAttack71 and 8 others
Grinner said:
Definitely
Click to expand...
My expectations are that Granlund gets us a playoff 2nd as the highest piece we get for this next draft. I think that and our 2nd probably only gets the team into the 25 range. I’m not sure a targetable player needs us to get into there for them as they may just drop to 33 or 34. Then you can consider giving that extra 2nd for an established player that can help bolster the blue line. We’ll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StanleyCup2035 and Star Platinum
Grinner said:
Definitely
Click to expand...
The state of a team's rebuild shouldn't factor in as much on whether moving up or down in a draft makes sense. Regardless of whether the rebuild was starting this season or 5 seasons ago, taking Celebrini with the #1 pick instead of trading down always was the right decision because the dropoff from him to the #2 pick was significant.

In trying to decide whether to move up or not, I think you have to decide whether the guy you're moving up to get 1) addresses a critical need for your team 2) is significantly better than the guy you can pick by staying where you are. Last year, moving up to #11 to take a defenseman made sense because the Sharks desperately needed a high-level defensive prospect and the guys who were available if the Sharks stood pat at #14 weren't nearly as good.

I haven't really bothered studying this year's prospects outside of the top four guys because the Sharks are very likely to be in position to pick one of those players and their next pick won't be until the second round. The little bit I've read says that the quality of the prospects drops off quite a bit past the early part of the draft and if that's the case, I'd probably be more on the side of having more lottery tickets. The only two things I might be inclined to move up for is for a large forward or a right-handed defenseman that clearly distinguishes himself from the other guys available at his area of the draft, but I think we're gonna have to attach a player to a pick if we want to make that kind of a move (unless they somehow manage to get a first round pick from trading Granlund).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Star Platinum said:
In trying to decide whether to move up or not, I think you have to decide whether the guy you're moving up to get 1) addresses a critical need for your team 2) is significantly better than the guy you can pick by staying where you are. [...]
The little bit I've read says that the quality of the prospects drops off quite a bit past the early part of the draft and if that's the case, I'd probably be more on the side of having more lottery tickets. The only two things I might be inclined to move up for is for a large forward or a right-handed defenseman that clearly distinguishes himself from the other guys available at his area of the draft, but I think we're gonna have to attach a player to a pick if we want to make that kind of a move (unless they somehow manage to get a first round pick from trading Granlund).
Click to expand...
The quality does seem to fall off quickly (even more quickly than usual) in this draft, but there are enough RD's like Amico, Fiddler, (probably not Mrtka but one can dream) who may slip due to injury or otherwise, that we might be able to sneak into the 20-25 range without giving up anything major in order to snag one. Would be like our Solberg trade. Our prospect pool is flush in terms of numbers, so it's time to try to snipe some higher-chance talent rather than keeping the pipeline full, imho, and I think this meets both of your criteria pretty clearly this year.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Forlan, Sandisfan and NiWa
coooldude said:
The quality does seem to fall off quickly (even more quickly than usual) in this draft, but there are enough RD's like Amico, Fiddler, (probably not Mrtka but one can dream) who may slip due to injury or otherwise, that we might be able to sneak into the 20-25 range without giving up anything major in order to snag one. Would be like our Solberg trade. Our prospect pool is flush in terms of numbers, so it's time to try to snipe some higher-chance talent rather than keeping the pipeline full, imho, and I think this meets both of your criteria pretty clearly this year.
Click to expand...
You know someone really liked a prospect when they refer to the trade not as the Dickinson trade, but as the guy who got drafted 9 picks after our original pick trade. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Star Platinum said:
You know someone really liked a prospect when they refer to the trade not as the Dickinson trade, but as the guy who got drafted 9 picks after our original pick trade.
Click to expand...
While I am indeed the Solberg guy, I am referring to it as our Solberg trade specifically because it's targeting a second-tier D in the mid 1st round, and not a top-tier D like Dick :) ... I don't think we'll have the assets to move up to target a Jackson Smith or Radim Mrtka, which I would have referred to as a Dickinson pick.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Great Makohead Shork and Star Platinum
coooldude said:
While I am indeed the Solberg guy, I am referring to it as our Solberg trade specifically because it's targeting a second-tier D in the mid rounds, and not a top-tier D like Dick :) ... I don't think we'll have the assets to move up to target a Jackson Smith or Radim Mrtka, which I would have referred to as a Dickinson pick.
Click to expand...
Not to speak specifically about Solberg per se, but we could really use someone who plays physically and effectively in our defensive prospect pool (as opposed to a guy who ends up out of position chasing a hit).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Great Makohead Shork
coooldude said:
While I am indeed the Solberg guy, I am referring to it as our Solberg trade specifically because it's targeting a second-tier D in the mid 1st round, and not a top-tier D like Dick :) ... I don't think we'll have the assets to move up to target a Jackson Smith or Radim Mrtka, which I would have referred to as a Dickinson pick.
Click to expand...
Please, Dickinson Pick was my father. Call me Dick Pic.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: bullslugg, CHALUPA, Le Grand Quebecois and 12 others
Gecklund said:
I think it is always going to be too early to make a thread with that title.
Click to expand...
At least Roasted Nuts liked my title.

OK, let's make it PG: For Gavin's Greatness, Sharks Are Craving, A Draft Day Miracle, We're Paving!
On a serious note, I won't make another NHL draft thread unless we win 1st or 2nd pick in the 2025 NHL Draft lottery.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gecklund
Pinkfloyd said:
So you’d rather move up than get more chances this year?
Click to expand...
Let's pretend you can move up to 11 for spare parts like Arizona did to get one of Mrkta, Hensler, or maybe even Bear. That's an easy choice.

There's not even many high upside 2nd rounders this year, Zonnon is putting up good stats and you have a couple guys who could technically boom but there's no one playing above their age bracket or putting up monster stats (like Hutson).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Zarzh said:
Let's pretend you can move up to 11 for spare parts like Arizona did to get one of Mrkta, Hensler, or maybe even Bear. That's an easy choice.

There's not even many high upside 2nd rounders this year, Zonnon is putting up good stats and you have a couple guys who could technically boom but there's no one playing above their age bracket or putting up monster stats (like Hutson).
Click to expand...
We may not have that option. That trade was 11 for 27, 34, and 45. We have 34 at this point. We could hypothetically get the other two pieces if Granlund gets us a late 1st and Ferraro gets us a 2nd but I don't think we should be expecting such a return.
 
Pinkfloyd said:
We may not have that option. That trade was 11 for 27, 34, and 45. We have 34 at this point. We could hypothetically get the other two pieces if Granlund gets us a late 1st and Ferraro gets us a 2nd but I don't think we should be expecting such a return.
Click to expand...
You can easily get a 2nd for Ferraro, probably another pick as well, that's the market rate for defensemen if not slightly cheaper. The hard part is finding a team dumb enough to trade down.
 
Zarzh said:
You can easily get a 2nd for Ferraro, probably another pick as well, that's the market rate for defensemen if not slightly cheaper. The hard part is finding a team dumb enough to trade down.
Click to expand...
I think it's easy to get a 2nd for Ferraro. The difficulty is in whether or not Grier thinks that actually makes sense to do. Grier sees value in holding on to veterans while letting prospects develop. Defensemen also don't necessarily get 2nd round picks in the upcoming draft. Very often they are a year or two down the road. The Blues are probably the only team in that range with a possible desperation to trade back for a bunch of picks.,
 
Cas said:
THANK YOU

Seriously, the Sam Dickinson stuff is creepy enough.
Click to expand...
Dick-related puns are kinda borderline, but I think they're acceptable so long as they aren't specifically about Sam Dickinson the person.

Anything specifically discussing the genitalia of teenagers or sexual acts around teenagers (ie get hard for Bedard) is extremely gross.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coooldude
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom