2025 NHL Draft: Lose a ton for Porter Martone

[Zarzh]

Yeah, the Florida Panthers definitely win the Cup without trading for Tkachuk. And the Knights would have without trading for Eichel. And the Avs without Toews. And the Bolts without Sergachev. And the Blues without O'Reilly. Definitely none of those teams were built on trades.

Again, reading comprehension. No team is built on remotely fair trades.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Again, reading comprehension. No team is built on remotely fair trades.

So you're saying that smart teams make good trades instead of "fair trades"? Wow, what a novel breakthrough, you've really found a ground-breaking team-building philosophy. Smart teams make good trades. Wow.

 

[Barrie22]

Again, reading comprehension. No team is built on remotely fair trades.

Tampa won with 6 players being drafted by the lightning.

 

[Zarzh]

So you're saying that smart teams make good trades instead of "fair trades"? Wow, what a novel breakthrough, you've really found a ground-breaking team-building philosophy. Smart teams make good trades. Wow.

Smart teams make rare trades, dumb teams make many trades.

There will almost always be undervalued prospects, there will rarely be lopsided trades or pro scouting gems.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Smart teams make rare trades, dumb teams make many trades.

There will almost always be undervalued prospects, there will rarely be lopsided trades or pro scouting gems.

You're simply making this up. Get some statistics if you're going to make insane statements like that so confidently.

I just listed how the last FIVE Cup winners all had a core player acquired via trade and you just said "well none of those count because they were one trade instead of many trades". Totally lost the plot here.

 

[Zarzh]

Tampa won with 6 players being drafted by the lightning.

First of all, wrong it was more on both cup teams and their entire top 6 was homegrown. Secondly, disingenuous because of UDFAs and players who only played for Tampa Bay. Thirdly, look at the impact of the players drafted compared to traded for.

 

[Juxtaposer]

First of all, wrong it was more on both cup teams and their entire top 6 was homegrown. Secondly, disingenuous because of UDFAs and players who only played for Tampa Bay. Thirdly, look at the impact of the players drafted compared to traded for.

So now you're saying it is possible for smart teams to make many trades because they aren't for core players? Make up your mind.

 

[Zarzh]

So now you're saying it is possible for smart teams to make many trades because they aren't for core players? Make up your mind.

I didn't know I had to explain the concept of playoff rentals to the board.

No smart team is going to trade for a non-core piece if they aren't seriously contending. No smart team is going to trade away a core piece for a package which doesn't benefit them.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I didn't know I had to explain the concept of playoff rentals to the board.

No smart team is going to trade for a non-core piece if they aren't seriously contending. No smart team is going to trade away a core piece for a package which doesn't benefit them.

You’re being too rigid for what rebuilding is supposed to look like.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I didn't know I had to explain the concept of playoff rentals to the board.

No smart team is going to trade for a non-core piece if they aren't seriously contending. No smart team is going to trade away a core piece for a package which doesn't benefit them.

You're just saying words at this point.

As there are always undervalued prospects to pick, there are always dumb teams to take advantage of. Good teams combine drafting, trading, and signing free agents to build a winning combination of players. Suggesting that trading for good players is bad unless you're a serious contender is simply an insane thing to say.

Are you suggesting that we just let Celebrini toil in this mess until Sam Dickinson saves us? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

You cannot build a Cup-winning team that is fully home-grown. It is simply not possible.

 

[WSS11]

I was going to be bummed if we lost out on Schaefer, but if a Misa-Chernyshov line is our consolation prize, I’m good with it.

 

[matt trick]

I was going to be bummed if we lost out on Schaefer, but if a Misa-Chernyshov line is our consolation prize, I’m good with it.

He's certainly not as good (nor anywhere near as smart despite +hockey IQ), nor is his competition, but he really does look like Celebrini. Prototypical center-committed defensively, smart in the offensive zone, skates fast, plays fast. Eklund-Celebrini and Misa-Cherny taking top 6 lines and letting Musty-Smith feast third line opponents sounds pretty appetizing. Not many teams have a three headed monster like that. The defense is still a problem, but I'd say there's a 65-75% chance we're taking a forward.

 

[Zarzh]

You're just saying words at this point.

As there are always undervalued prospects to pick, there are always dumb teams to take advantage of. Good teams combine drafting, trading, and signing free agents to build a winning combination of players. Suggesting that trading for good players is bad unless you're a serious contender is simply an insane thing to say.

Are you suggesting that we just let Celebrini toil in this mess until Sam Dickinson saves us? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

You cannot build a Cup-winning team that is fully home-grown. It is simply not possible.

There are rarely teams to take advantage of, LA isn't going to sell Clarke for peanuts (even if they do it won't be to a team in the same division), and if they don't fit the proper timeline it really doesn't matter. Trading an early 2nd for a 25 year old #4 while refusing to play young defensemen would be a fireable offense.

People see teams with excellent pro-scouting and act as if it is the norm to find a Forsling for cheap or without really trying different players who may not work. No, in the meantime the coach should focus on developing prospects and making the team more fun to play for.

 

[Juxtaposer]

There are rarely teams to take advantage of, LA isn't going to sell Clarke for peanuts (even if they do it won't be to a team in the same division), and if they don't fit the proper timeline it really doesn't matter. Trading an early 2nd for a 25 year old #4 while refusing to play young defensemen would be a fireable offense.

People see teams with excellent pro-scouting and act as if it is the norm to find a Forsling for cheap or without really trying different players who may not work. No, in the meantime the coach should focus on developing prospects and making the team more fun to play for.

What young defenseman are we refusing to play? You keep moving the goal posts every time you respond because you keep getting disproven.

I repeat: are you suggesting that Mike Grier do absolutely nothing to improve the team except draft 18 year olds? Are you suggesting we keep this abominable defense group together until it's saved by a teenager?

 

[Zarzh]

What young defenseman are we refusing to play? You keep moving the goal posts every time you respond because you keep getting disproven.

I repeat: are you suggesting that Mike Grier do absolutely nothing to improve the team except draft 18 year olds? Are you suggesting we keep this abominable defense group together until it's saved by a teenager?

No, I keep trying to explain the concept of expected value and process-oriented thinking to people pedantically focused on rather simple results-oriented thinking.

No, I'm suggesting that it's far better to claim players like Koylachonok and play Muhk and Thompson than it is to impatiently trade for the next Nils Lunqvist.

 

[Juxtaposer]

No, I keep trying to explain the concept of expected value and process-oriented thinking to people pedantically focused on rather simple results-oriented thinking.

No, I'm suggesting that it's far better to claim players like Koylachonok and play Muhk and Thompson than it is to impatiently trade for the next Nils Lunqvist.

Yeah, you're just saying words.

1. No one is advocating trading for the next Nils Lundqvist. You're fighting someone who doesn't exist.

2. You haven't answered my question. How do you expect the Sharks to improve without trading for good players?

 

[Zarzh]

Yeah, you're just saying words.

1. No one is advocating trading for the next Nils Lundqvist. You're fighting someone who doesn't exist.

2. You haven't answered my question. How do you expect the Sharks to improve without trading for good players?

So people are just unrealistic about the trade value of picks, or want to trade for a 30 year old for some reason?

Better internal development, better coaching, and better pro scouting.

 

[Sendhelplease]

So people are just unrealistic about the trade value of picks, or want to trade for a 30 year old for some reason?

Better internal development, better coaching, and better pro scouting.

Saying that the Sharks should improve by "better internal development, better coaching, and better pro scouting" is meaningless. It is tautological and you might as well say the Sharks should improve by playing better.

 

[Juxtaposer]

So people are just unrealistic about the trade value of picks, or want to trade for a 30 year old for some reason?

Better internal development, better coaching, and better pro scouting.

If that 30 year old is a good player and has term and is a fit for what this team needs, why not trade non-premium assets for him? God, you can't have a team of 20 year olds and expect to win in this league. It doesn't matter if that 30 year old isn't in the picture when we're competitive if he helped us get there.

You want "better pro scouting" but don't want to make trades? Please explain that one to me.

 

[Hodge]

So people are just unrealistic about the trade value of picks, or want to trade for a 30 year old for some reason?

Better internal development, better coaching, and better pro scouting.

If I'm understanding your argument correctly, it's that we shouldn't be paying "sticker price" (in terms of picks/prospects) for 25yo+ NHL players in the near future and should instead focus on nailing those picks and properly developing our prospects.

I think that's defensible but you're underrating the need to improve the defense in the short term to avoid a third straight last place season. We need to show Celebrini, Smith and Askarov that the team is moving in the right direction. UFA options are scarce and the vast majority will have no interest in signing with the Sharks anyway (another reason we should be trying to at least show incremental improvement in the years to come). So trading some of the more expendable picks and prospects for immediate help may be necessary.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

It’s all but guaranteed that we’re locked into the top 4, which means (in my preferred order) Schaefer, Misa, Hagens, or Martone. Any are great options and it’s starting to get exciting being a sharks fan again.

 

[Grinner]

It’s all but guaranteed that we’re locked into the top 4, which means (in my preferred order) Schaefer, Misa, Hagens, or Martone. Any are great options and it’s starting to get exciting being a sharks fan again.

Another race to the bottom

 

[Star Platinum]

I was going to be bummed if we lost out on Schaefer, but if a Misa-Chernyshov line is our consolation prize, I’m good with it.

Long as we're assured of being no worse than a Top 3 pick going into the lottery, I'm fine with however it shakes out. One way or another, we'll get another infusion of skill which is sorely lacking on this team.

 

[Celly4Celebrini]

Should have been. The easiest way to build a contender is taking advantage of teams who don't understand who they should pick, and there were far more of those 10 years ago than now.

Again, video game logic is assuming everyone is going to stay, will work well together, and will develop.

no video game logic is hoarding picks and prospects because rather than top 6 players because mystery players could even be top 6 forwards.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

no video game logic is hoarding picks and prospects because rather than top 6 players because mystery players could even be top 6 forwards.

No team only hoards picks or prospects for an extended period of time. Everyone makes trades as part of their turnover. Video game logic just paints too broad of a brush to be a meaningful critique to me.