Rumor: DW looking for another winger

[hockeyball]

They may tell the fans cup, but they are battling astronomically high odds against on this issue already. It is more about playoffs. Look to the teams that have rebuilt successfully and won. They had to tank for a year or two at least. TO is the classic case followed by StL. Philly is perpetually rebuilding on the fly yet fails repeatedly (although getting very close a couple of times).

I don't like most media narratives on how to build a team as they are skipping over key ingredients and commonalities. Whether the GMs know these ingredients and commonalities, who knows? Just a case in point, for how many years have we heard from Drew about how Edmonton will rise from the ashes with all of their high picks? Every year, it is next year and next year arrives and is follow by "next year" again.

Detroit didn't tank, nor did LA, nor did Boston. Hawks and Penguins did, but so have Edmonton, NYI, Panthers, etc etc and gotten nowhere. I don't think there is any formula to winning a cup. You can tank and still be terrible, or you can tank and win it all. You can slowly build through good drafting and trading while maintaining profitability. That's what the Sharks are trying to do.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Detroit didn't tank, nor did LA, nor did Boston. Hawks and Penguins did, but so have Edmonton, NYI, Panthers, etc etc and gotten nowhere. I don't think there is any formula to winning a cup. You can tank and still be terrible, or you can tank and win it all. You can slowly build through good drafting and trading while maintaining profitability. That's what the Sharks are trying to do.

LA picked 4-2-5 in consecutive years between 2007 and 2009. I'd call that a tank.

Detroit? Those guys called Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg.

Boston? Signed Chara as a UFA, got lucky with Thomas.

 

[hockeyball]

LA picked 4-2-5 in consecutive years between 2007 and 2009. I'd call that a tank.

I don't consider anything beyond 3rd overall worthy of a 'tank' label. After 3rd overall your odds of getting a star player go down dramatically. You are right though, they got Doughty in 08.

 

[hockeyball]

LA picked 4-2-5 in consecutive years between 2007 and 2009. I'd call that a tank.

Detroit? Those guys called Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg.

Boston? Signed Chara as a UFA, got lucky with Thomas.

Still not tanking. Proves my point.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Still not tanking. Proves my point.

We don't have Lidstrom, and we're not going to sign Chara. I guess that's my point, that we aren't capable of winning in those ways.

I think 4th overall qualifies as tank material. Top-5 is tank material for me.

 

[SJeasy]

LA picked 4-2-5 in consecutive years between 2007 and 2009. I'd call that a tank.

Detroit? Those guys called Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg.

Boston? Signed Chara as a UFA, got lucky with Thomas.

I am tagging onto you because you caught part of my response. It goes back to 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Boston did the non-tank method although they did tank to get JT and traded him. The 3 points are Vezina caliber goalie, Norris caliber dman and strong down the middle. Boston was missing strong down the middle although they somewhat compensated with quantity. It is easier to get Norris caliber and Vezina caliber late in the draft although by no means easy and they stretched it further by nailing the FA pool on the money.

Other secondary ingredients are coaching, development, etc. Both of them were spot on in nailing some key side issues. Both of them have failed to acknowledge those side issues in post-cup decisions. (I expect LA to fail hard this year. I had a suspicion about it over the off season and it seems to be coming to fruition.)

 

[SJeasy]

Still not tanking. Proves my point.

Top 5 pick is assuredly tanking.

And what in SJ drafting/development gives you confidence that they can come up with Norris or Vezina caliber late in the draft. The only thing that the Sharks have done is grab elite through firesale trades. And grabbing elite forwards through trade has really not been a key to winning cups.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Top 5 pick is assuredly tanking.

And what in SJ drafting/development gives you confidence that they can come up with Norris or Vezina caliber late in the draft. The only thing that the Sharks have done is grab elite through firesale trades. And grabbing elite forwards through trade has really not been a key to winning cups.

Well, Richards and Carter beg to disagree.

But yeah, I agree with your other points.

 

[hockeyball]

We don't have Lidstrom, and we're not going to sign Chara. I guess that's my point, that we aren't capable of winning in those ways.

I think 4th overall qualifies as tank material. Top-5 is tank material for me.

Uhm, we nearly signed Chara you realize right? He only didn't sign here because we would not promise him the captaincy, that's pretty well known.

We did get Thornton, Boyle, Burns, Heatley... traded up for Couture... I'm not terribly concerned about our ability to get good players, it could be better, but we do a lot better than a lot of teams.

I am tagging onto you because you caught part of my response. It goes back to 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Boston did the non-tank method although they did tank to get JT and traded him. The 3 points are Vezina caliber goalie, Norris caliber dman and strong down the middle. Boston was missing strong down the middle although they somewhat compensated with quantity. It is easier to get Norris caliber and Vezina caliber late in the draft although by no means easy and they stretched it further by nailing the FA pool on the money.

Other secondary ingredients are coaching, development, etc. Both of them were spot on in nailing some key side issues. Both of them have failed to acknowledge those side issues in post-cup decisions. (I expect LA to fail hard this year. I had a suspicion about it over the off season and it seems to be coming to fruition.)

While we have never had a true Norris caliber d-man, Boyle is about as close as you can get without winning. Nabby nearly did and should have won the Vezina. All that aside, a high draft pick is not a good way to get a vezina goalie, and most of the best defensemen were not top 5 picks (Chara, Weber, Keith, even Karlsson). That's good drafting, good development, and tanking doesn't help.

The only thing tanking can do is get you a Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin. It's not a guarentee though, those players are few and far between (Hall, RNH, etc are a step down). Getting Crosby worked for the Pens, but it's a huge risk, if the Sharks tanked and ended up with say Taylor Hall (who is good and all) it simply isn't going to make that big of a difference and the fans are not going to tolerate a season of tanking well, especially if its followed up by several seasons of mediocrity.

I absolutely do not think tanking is a good idea unless the Sharks know a super-elite NHL ready player is going to be available, and even then they only have a 25% chance of getting that player. It's not worth it.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

I don't consider anything beyond 3rd overall worthy of a 'tank' label. After 3rd overall your odds of getting a star player go down dramatically. You are right though, they got Doughty in 08.

The Kings finished second to last in the Conference twice and dead last once during those three seasons. The fact that they only had one top 3 pick is irrelevant, because they were certainly terrible enough to warrant one in each of those years. On top of that they were mediocre for almost twenty years before turning it around.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Uhm, we nearly signed Chara you realize right? He only didn't sign here because we would not promise him the captaincy, that's pretty well known.

Really? I had never heard that before.

 

[SJeasy]

Well, Richards and Carter beg to disagree.

Who were the top 2 scorers for LA in the playoffs? The answer matches my formula exactly. BTW, my take on LA doing not so well is what amounts to Patrick Kane disease (many other pros have the affliction with or without cups) and that is Carter and Richards in spades.

Edit:
Another fun one. How are the Rags doing? Replacing Dubie Do and Ants with Nash. Hmmmmm . . . . .

 

[Timos Death Stare]

Why, thats exactly what this team had on their top line for a long time. A quick borderline player.

Sure, and we had Wingels up there last year when Havlat was out - how'd that look? Have you seen Galiardi play? Useless... NOT fast.

And Sheppard (who has far exceeded what I was expecting) is still just back from 2 years off and being rushed to the NHL too early.

Could you please point out this "quick" borderline player out of the three I mentioned that is smart to bank on?

Maybe a long shot is Kennedy - he IS quick, fast, shifty, but size is a concern.

 

[hockeyball]

The Kings finished second to last in the Conference twice and dead last once during those three seasons. The fact that they only had one top 3 pick is irrelevant, because they were certainly terrible enough to warrant one in each of those years. On top of that they were mediocre for almost twenty years before turning it around.

The Kings won because they had one of the worst coaches in hockey, and I said so long before he was fired, and he was fired, and they immediately won a cup. They did that because they had a great roster, and fantastic goalie (I've always been a fan of Quick, long before he proved anything) and most of all a good coach.

I don't buy into tanking being a reliable method of building a team. It fails as often, or more often, than it works. Plus you guys are moving the goalposts around too, we picked Marleau 2nd overall, he's still on the team, doesn't that count as much as Doughty does at this point? They make the same amount of money...

If Tanking worked, Edm wouldn't still be looking at another lottery pick. Tanking is just one avenue to talent, it still requires good coaching, good development, and a lot of luck. We choose to rely on good scouting and timely trades to get our talent, and because of it we have more talent than the majority of teams in the league. What is holding us back is coaching and luck.

 

[SJeasy]

The Kings won because they had one of the worst coaches in hockey, and I said so long before he was fired, and he was fired, and they immediately won a cup. They did that because they had a great roster, and fantastic goalie (I've always been a fan of Quick, long before he proved anything) and most of all a good coach.

I don't buy into tanking being a reliable method of building a team. It fails as often, or more often, than it works. Plus you guys are moving the goalposts around too, we picked Marleau 2nd overall, he's still on the team, doesn't that count as much as Doughty does at this point? They make the same amount of money...

If Tanking worked, Edm wouldn't still be looking at another lottery pick. Tanking is just one avenue to talent, it still requires good coaching, good development, and a lot of luck. We choose to rely on good scouting and timely trades to get our talent, and because of it we have more talent than the majority of teams in the league. What is holding us back is coaching and luck.

You are correct about tanking not being a guarantee, but limp along doesn't work unless you are grabbing a superstar here or there with those late picks (Detroit method).

By the formulas. The Sharks are not grabbing superstars late. They have managed a couple of elite. They have won on quantity in drafting but their top end falls short in drafting.

I will repeat so my meaning is clear. Vezina caliber means top 3 in the voting. Norris, again top 3. Boyle is not top 3 although close maybe once or twice.

And again 2 out of 3. Nemo was the third wheel on a Chicago team, didn't qualify as one of the 3 prerequisities. The Hawks had Norris caliber, Keith, and strong down the middle, Bolland, Sharp, Toews. The Hawks had 2 out of 3 with Vezina caliber being the missing ingredient.

 

[hockeyball]

You are correct about tanking not being a guarantee, but limp along doesn't work unless you are grabbing a superstar here or there with those late picks (Detroit method).

By the formulas. The Sharks are not grabbing superstars late. They have managed a couple of elite. They have won on quantity in drafting but their top end falls short in drafting.

I will repeat so my meaning is clear. Vezina caliber means top 3 in the voting. Norris, again top 3. Boyle is not top 3 although close maybe once or twice.

And again 2 out of 3. Nemo was the third wheel on a Chicago team, didn't qualify as one of the 3 prerequisities. The Hawks had Norris caliber, Keith, and strong down the middle, Bolland, Sharp, Toews. The Hawks had 2 out of 3 with Vezina caliber being the missing ingredient.

Again though, we have been strong down the middle and had Vezina caliber at the same time. The year Nabby was 2nd in Vezina voting and we had Thornton (just coming off his MVP year too If I recall). We've never had a Norris d-man, but even right now Niemi is playing Vezina quality (if he keeps it up) and we are loaded down the middle. Boyle and Burns might not win the Norris, but few teams can boast that kind of defensive quality.

I get what you are saying, and having 2 of those 3 certainly helps, but without good coaching it doesn't mean a damn thing. I don't care if we drafted Gretzky next year, without proper coaching the team is sunk.

 

[SJeasy]

Again though, we have been strong down the middle and had Vezina caliber at the same time. The year Nabby was 2nd in Vezina voting and we had Thornton (just coming off his MVP year too If I recall). We've never had a Norris d-man, but even right now Niemi is playing Vezina quality (if he keeps it up) and we are loaded down the middle. Boyle and Burns might not win the Norris, but few teams can boast that kind of defensive quality.

I get what you are saying, and having 2 of those 3 certainly helps, but without good coaching it doesn't mean a damn thing. I don't care if we drafted Gretzky next year, without proper coaching the team is sunk.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I somewhat agree with your take. And I agree that few teams have it.

The Sharks get hit on the side issues meaning that they depend on top scoring from outside the org. That is another of those astronomical odds things. Coaching is another side issue and I am well aware that SJ coaching has holes in that regard. Creativity in coaching is a huge plus. IMO, TM is good but not elite. Grab another coach and it easily could be much worse. Sutter with this team would be a freakin' disaster. Lavi might work.

IMO, even at this rate, Nemo won't be in the Vezina race. He is playing better, but he is not close to Vezina quality (what gains votes, count the shutouts).

 

[hockeyball]

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I somewhat agree with your take. And I agree that few teams have it.

The Sharks get hit on the side issues meaning that they depend on top scoring from outside the org. That is another of those astronomical odds things. Coaching is another side issue and I am well aware that SJ coaching has holes in that regard. Creativity in coaching is a huge plus. IMO, TM is good but not elite. Grab another coach and it easily could be much worse. Sutter with this team would be a freakin' disaster. Lavi might work.

IMO, even at this rate, Nemo won't be in the Vezina race. He is playing better, but he is not close to Vezina quality (what gains votes, count the shutouts).

He won't win because he's not on the east coast, let's be real here

If the team was playing half decent he'd have another shutout or two, he certainly deserves to have had them. If they start playing better he might get them. He's certainly got the SV% and GAA needed so far.

I guess what I'm trying to say is it simply isn't that simple, having your 2 out of 3 doesn't guarantee a win, tanking for high picks doesn't guarentee a win, having a good coach doesnt even guarantee a win. Luck alone plays a huge part.

 

[SJeasy]

He won't win because he's not on the east coast, let's be real here

If the team was playing half decent he'd have another shutout or two, he certainly deserves to have had them. If they start playing better he might get them. He's certainly got the SV% and GAA needed so far.

I guess what I'm trying to say is it simply isn't that simple, having your 2 out of 3 doesn't guarantee a win, tanking for high picks doesn't guarentee a win, having a good coach doesnt even guarantee a win. Luck alone plays a huge part.

In terms of defense the team is playing great. Huge shell with huge collapse in their own zone. A formula that grants great GAA with all but the worst goalies. What shutouts measure is goalie focus. Can he sustain top end for 60 min? He always seems to have one little slip or one time where he can't make that stellar save. I don't think he would have another one or two shutouts if the team played better, Nemo himself screws it up. That's a valid criteria for the voters and Nemo has failed hard there even when doing well (a lot of one goal against games). That is why shutouts are part of Vezina voting. I do take a peek at teams GAA in the standings to see who will be in the running for Vezina and the Sharks are in a group of 5 or 6 teams for that (includes Boston, StL. and Ottawa). We'll have to get closer to season's end to get a real gauge (~36 games). Most years, I have an inkling by about 45-50 games. If I had to prognosticate now, I would say Rinne is the frontrunner. When the Sharks have done well in the past, they generally put their goalies just outside Vezina range, somewhere between #5 and #10.

 

[hockeyball]

In terms of defense the team is playing great. Huge shell with huge collapse in their own zone. A formula that grants great GAA with all but the worst goalies. What shutouts measure is goalie focus. Can he sustain top end for 60 min? He always seems to have one little slip or one time where he can't make that stellar save. I don't think he would have another one or two shutouts if the team played better, Nemo himself screws it up. That's a valid criteria for the voters and Nemo has failed hard there even when doing well (a lot of one goal against games). That is why shutouts are part of Vezina voting. I do take a peek at teams GAA in the standings to see who will be in the running for Vezina and the Sharks are in a group of 5 or 6 teams for that (includes Boston, StL. and Ottawa). We'll have to get closer to season's end to get a real gauge (~36 games). Most years, I have an inkling by about 45-50 games. If I had to prognosticate now, I would say Rinne is the frontrunner. When the Sharks have done well in the past, they generally put their goalies just outside Vezina range, somewhere between #5 and #10.

I disagree, there have been at least two OT's where it either went in off one of his team mates or was absolutely unstoppable because of a terrible give-away. If you don't count OT he's had what... 4 shutouts so far? I think, 3-4. Point being, he's getting it done for 60 minutes, but the complete and total lack of offense is screwing him over.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Who were the top 2 scorers for LA in the playoffs? The answer matches my formula exactly. BTW, my take on LA doing not so well is what amounts to Patrick Kane disease (many other pros have the affliction with or without cups) and that is Carter and Richards in spades.

Edit:
Another fun one. How are the Rags doing? Replacing Dubie Do and Ants with Nash. Hmmmmm . . . . .

I did call the Rangers one, I have to say. Arty and Dubinsky were two-thirds of a great shutdown line for the Rangers in 10-11.

As for the Kings, I think they're getting incredibly unlucky as far as shooting goes. They're still a top possession team, it's mostly Quick that's killing them.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I somewhat agree with your take. And I agree that few teams have it.

The Sharks get hit on the side issues meaning that they depend on top scoring from outside the org. That is another of those astronomical odds things. Coaching is another side issue and I am well aware that SJ coaching has holes in that regard. Creativity in coaching is a huge plus. IMO, TM is good but not elite. Grab another coach and it easily could be much worse. Sutter with this team would be a freakin' disaster. Lavi might work.

IMO, even at this rate, Nemo won't be in the Vezina race. He is playing better, but he is not close to Vezina quality (what gains votes, count the shutouts).

I've actually been really interested in Laviolette for a small time now. With things going badly in Philly maybe they pull the trigger on him. Or trade us a forward. Either way, I'm rooting for the world to burn in Philly, and not just because I can't stand Kevin Kurz.

 

[SJeasy]

I disagree, there have been at least two OT's where it either went in off one of his team mates or was absolutely unstoppable because of a terrible give-away. If you don't count OT he's had what... 4 shutouts so far? I think, 3-4. Point being, he's getting it done for 60 minutes, but the complete and total lack of offense is screwing him over.

The off one of his teammates thing is the stellar save thingy. Literally, he has to be responsible for everything, including teammate issues. Another old observation from someone else on shutouts is that it takes 3 stellar saves along with great team play to get a shutout. Again, I think he is playing fairly well this year, better than any prior with the Sharks, but it is still short. In prior years, he wasn't even in my top ten book. This year, he is. What he lacks is athleticism and some small technical.

 

[Lebanezer]

I did call the Rangers one, I have to say. Arty and Dubinsky were two-thirds of a great shutdown line for the Rangers in 10-11.

As for the Kings, I think they're getting incredibly unlucky as far as shooting goes. They're still a top possession team, it's mostly Quick that's killing them.



I've actually been really interested in Laviolette for a small time now. With things going badly in Philly maybe they pull the trigger on him. Or trade us a forward. Either way, I'm rooting for the world to burn in Philly, and not just because I can't stand Kevin Kurz.

I like several of the forwards on Philly. Hopefully they decide to give us one for Clowe.

Also, regarding Kurz, and I know this may not belong in this thread, but I always get the impression he roots against the Sharks.

 

[Kitten Mittons]

Also, regarding Kurz, and I know this may not belong in this thread, but I always get the impression he roots against the Sharks.

He's just mad that every single one of his "insider" statements turns out to be wrong.

 

[do0glas]

Kurz is just an hf board poster with a medium. Obviously there are posters here that do real research, but he falls for the confirmation bias every time, he plays favorites, and typically his stories are just fluff.

Much prefer David pollack.