2025 NHL Draft: Lose a ton for Porter Martone

[Cas]

Top 6 RWers are nit a dime a dozen. It's easily one if not our top need

Our top need is "talent." Position does not yet enter into it.

 

[Grinner]

Our top need is "talent." Position does not yet enter into it.

The two aren't exclusive
We need to build a winning team and not just assemble a collection of talent

 

[Cas]

The two aren't exclusive
We need to build a winning team and not just assemble a collection of talent

We are nowhere near needing to decide whether we should draft a center versus a right winger. We pick the one most likely to have an impact and deal with position later.

It's not like we have our center position locked down - Celebrini is likely to stick, but we don't know about Smith and everyone else is a lottery ticket. We also don't know that we have our top six playmaker/two-way forward roles filled either and can now look for a power forward, for the same reason.

 

[Grinner]

We are nowhere near needing to decide whether we should draft a center versus a right winger. We pick the one most likely to have an impact and deal with position later.

It's not like we have our center position locked down - Celebrini is likely to stick, but we don't know about Smith and everyone else is a lottery ticket. We also don't know that we have our top six playmaker/two-way forward roles filled either and can now look for a power forward, for the same reason.

It's also not like our cabinets are so bare anymore.
Look at where the need is and weigh it against who's available and where.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It's also not like our cabinets are so bare anymore.
Look at where the need is and weigh it against who's available and where.

And how many wingers, centers, and defensemen do we really have? Not really enough of any of them so whoever is the best at the time we pick should be fine.

 

[Hangemhigh]

Chicago's GM sucks if all he got for Hall was a 3rd and half of Rantanen retained. GMMG will have the Sharks in the playoffs before Chicago gets out of the lottery.

 

[Grinner]

And how many wingers, centers, and defensemen do we really have? Not really enough of any of them so whoever is the best at the time we pick should be fine.

I'd say we could still use a couple of top 6 RWers. Perhaps a top line LW that could push everyone else down a line.
As far as defense? It largely depends on what they think of Dic. Otherwise, a couple of top 4 RD.
I think we're pretty well set for the bottom 6.

 

[Gecklund]

The more I look into this draft the more I’m not loving it. I’m getting awfully close to just saying use our top 4 pick and the trade the rest

 

[JotAlan]

If Martone hits you get a Matthew Tkachuk/Corey Perry type power forward with soft hands and elite offensive skill. That's way more valuable than Hagens developing into Cooley 2.0 or Misa becoming a slightly better Couture.

Martone is good, I agree. But your love for him is funny. A Cooley 2.0 and especially a better Couture would be infinitely better than a soft Brady Tkachuk. Do you forget that Logan was a near career ppg center in the playoffs and led a late scoring run in 2016? Imagine having this "slightly better" like 2C plus Celebrini. wow

 

[Hodge]

Martone is good, I agree. But your love for him is funny. A Cooley 2.0 and especially a better Couture would be infinitely better than a soft Brady Tkachuk. Do you forget that Logan was a near career ppg center in the playoffs and led a late scoring run in 2016? Imagine having this "slightly better" like 2C plus Celebrini. wow

You're comparing Hagens and Misa's ceilings to something that's probably closer to the median outcome for Martone (Brady Tkachuk). Even still, I would absolutely take Brady Tkachuk over Logan Cooley on this Sharks team. Misa would be a great addition to our core and I'd understand the Sharks picking him over Martone even if I'm not 100% on board.

 

[Gecklund]

You're comparing Hagens and Misa's ceilings to something that's probably closer to the median outcome for Martone (Brady Tkachuk). Even still, I would absolutely take Brady Tkachuk over Logan Cooley on this Sharks team. Misa would be a great addition to our core and I'd understand the Sharks picking him over Martone even if I'm not 100% on board.

No you’re comparing Martone’s ceiling to Hagens and Misa’s ceiling. It’s actually hilarious you don’t see that.

 

[Cas]

It's also not like our cabinets are so bare anymore.
Look at where the need is and weigh it against who's available and where.

Our cabinets are full of lottery tickets.

 

[Hodge]

No you’re comparing Martone’s ceiling to Hagens and Misa’s ceiling. It’s actually hilarious you don’t see that.

Even if that's true, like I said, I would rather add Brady Tkachuk than Logan Cooley to a core that already has Celebrini, Smith and Eklund. I would take Brady over Couture as well but I can at least see the other side of the argument there.

 

[Grinner]

Our cabinets are full of lottery tickets.

That's the nature of building through the draft. At least in the early years of a rebuild.
Aren't they all lottery tickets?

 

[Hodge]

That's the nature of building through the draft. At least in the early years of a rebuild.
Aren't they all lottery tickets?

They're all lottery tickets except for Celebrini, Smith and Eklund who have more or less proven they will be top six NHL forwards for a long time.

IMO that should be a major consideration when deciding who to draft with the top pick. We have three guys locked into our future core who are all of below average size and we can't depend on Musty, Bystedt, Chernyshov, Halttunen, whoever else to fix the size issue because those guys are absolutely lottery tickets.

Of course you can draft Hagens and then trade Eklund or Smith but those trades are difficult to win. Why would another team give up a bigger forward of similar skill in exchange for those guys, let alone a young defenseman of similar caliber.

 

[Grinner]

They're all lottery tickets except for Celebrini, Smith and Eklund who have more or less proven they will be top six NHL forwards for a long time.

IMO that should be a major consideration when deciding who to draft with the top pick. We have three guys locked into our future core who are all of below average size and we can't depend on Musty, Bystedt, Chernyshov, Halttunen, whoever else to fix the size issue because those guys are absolutely lottery tickets.

Of course you can draft Hagens and then trade Eklund or Smith but those trades are difficult to win. Why would another team give up a bigger forward of similar skill in exchange for those guys, let alone a young defenseman of similar caliber.

They are as draft picks and prospects.
Yes, until they prove otherwise

 

[weastern bias]

I would take Brady over Couture as well but I can at least see the other side of the argument there.

This is bad talent evaluation

 

[Cas]

That's the nature of building through the draft. At least in the early years of a rebuild.
Aren't they all lottery tickets?

Yes, and my point is we don't have enough certainty to say "look at where the need is," because the need is literally everywhere.

We appear to have a 1C (Celebrini) and top six LW (Eklund). We believe we will have a top six C/RW (Smith) and a 1G (Askarov), but both remain sizable question marks.

Outside of that, we have lottery tickets - LD Dickinson is a very good prospect, LW Musty is a pretty good one, but both are probably more likely to bust or top out as depth players than they are to succeed. Even if they do make it, we need two more top six forwards and three top four defensemen, covering C, RW, LD, and RD.

Our 1st is going to be very high, so we will not be in a position to pick one of the top goalie prospects this draft (barring them dropping into the #33 range or our acquiring another, late 1st).

We can spend that 1st on a LD, a C, or a RW, and we need all three, because Smith is not a sure thing (either as a top six NHL forward or as a center). We do probably have greater need for a legitimate 1D, Schaefer looks like he can be one, and we still need LD (Dickinson not a sure thing as an NHL defenseman, let alone as a top four guy, though he is a very good prospect and I think he'll be a good player), so all else being equal I'd go with Schaefer, but he also appears to be the best prospect in the draft period.

The same goes when you consider roles. Celebrini is a two-way, all-situations forward, but Smith is likely to be an offensively-focused playmaker and Eklund looks like a two-way playmaking winger. However, Smith isn't a sure thing and we may still need a top six playmaker anyway, or a two-way center like Misa (if Celebrini and Eklund are on the same line going forward). We don't need to pick a potential power forward/goalscorer because we're full up on playmakers or two-way guys, because we're not (unless everything goes right for us, and it never does).

Point is, we should absolutely not be looking at this draft and saying "we're short on right wings/power forwards in the system" and picking Martone on that basis, because we're short on everything. We should be going into this draft saying "who is the best prospect, period." If we wind up with "too many" centers, we have a good problem.

 

[Star Platinum]

The more I look into this draft the more I’m not loving it. I’m getting awfully close to just saying use our top 4 pick and the trade the rest

There's always hidden value in every draft, but not every longshot hits

Our cabinets are full of lottery tickets.

No team has 10 Sam Dickinson level prospects in their top 10 though

 

[weastern bias]

we should absolutely not be looking at this draft and saying "we're short on right wings/power forwards in the system" and picking Martone on that basis, because we're short on everything. We should be going into this draft saying "who is the best prospect, period." If we wind up with "too many" centers, we have a good problem.

Quoted for emphasis

We don't have any certainty of depth at any position and we're the single worst pro level roster in the league, drafting for positional need/fit is premature if you like another prospect more but see them as "redundant"

Literally no player is redundant, we aren't close to being stocked at any position/role in the organization, we should just be trying to accumulate a much high-end talent as possible now, fit can be addressed later

 

[Star Platinum]

They're all lottery tickets except for Celebrini, Smith and Eklund who have more or less proven they will be top six NHL forwards for a long time.

IMO that should be a major consideration when deciding who to draft with the top pick. We have three guys locked into our future core who are all of below average size and we can't depend on Musty, Bystedt, Chernyshov, Halttunen, whoever else to fix the size issue because those guys are absolutely lottery tickets.

Of course you can draft Hagens and then trade Eklund or Smith but those trades are difficult to win. Why would another team give up a bigger forward of similar skill in exchange for those guys, let alone a young defenseman of similar caliber.

It doesn't have to be a forward for a forward though. It could be a forward for a defenseman and then you get your other forward in a trade or free agency. The important thing is to always keep getting the best guy, regardless of measureables. Taking Bedard #1 was always the right move, even if Chicago had a whole village of smurfs on their team.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I think some of us are taking "building through the draft" a little too seriously, in that we're expecting the entire team to be comprised of Sharks' draftees/prospects.

To me, building through the draft means getting your core through the draft. To me, core is typically 1C, 1D, 1G, 1W, 2C. Celebrini, [TBD], Askarov, Eklund [?], Smith [?] seems to be how we are at current state. So of what we have as "core", we're missing a 1D and maybe a 2C (if Smith isn't, he's 1W). Anything outside those needs can comfortably be acquired through trade/FA.

Colorado's "homegrown" core was basically 1C, 1D, 1W, 2W. Tampa's was 1C, 1D, 1W, 2W, 1G. So there's some wiggle room even from my definition. And everything else was acquired via trade. Getting depth pieces from your own draft picks is great, since they tend to be cheaper than acquiring and paying for them elsewhere, but that's just gravy. Getting useful pieces from Dickinson, Musty, Halttunen, Cagnoni, etc. would be extremely useful, but they aren't going to make or break this rebuild. It's the pieces that you cannot acquire any other way that you absolutely must acquire via the draft. Nobody is trading you a Macklin Celebrini. No one is trading you a Cale Makar or Quinn Hughes. But you can always acquire Devon Toews and Yanni Gourde and Nazem Kadri with the proper pro-scouting.

All that's to say, there is some merit to targeting players whom teams do not trade, like Brady Tkachuk. When I think "guy teams do not trade", I do think of "franchise center", "true #1D", and "real top line power forward". Where a Martone truther would lose me is that I don't think you need a Brady Tkachuk to win a Cup and I don't think Martone is Brady Tkachuk to begin with.

All this to say, if we ended up with the 2nd overall pick, and team #1 said "will you give me 2OA plus [insert asset]?", I would do it if that asset was anything other than the four core guys I listed. Dickinson, whatever, done. Positional need does actually matter, non-elite assets do not.