Value of: Mikael Granlund to a contender

[BKarchitect]

Granlund, Bordeleau and a 3rd to Columbus for David Jiricek.

You’re gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than Bordeleau and a third as the “futures” in this offer. Bordeleau gets blown over by a stiff breeze let alone NHL defensemen.

Granlund is pretty redundant on the Jackets once they get healthy. They are feisty right now but that doesn’t mean they want to liquidate a key defensive building block into a forward who will be 33 before this season is out.

 

[TheBeard]

The only way I'd do that is if they'd immediately flip Granlund somewhere else.

Granlund is an empty calorie point scorer that won't provide any value to a team unless they're giving him the kind of usage he has in San Jose, but good teams wouldn't be giving him the kind of usage he has in San Jose. The only value I'd see in Granlund is immediately flipping him to some other sucker who buys into his inflated production.

That being said, I'm absolutely growing more and more concerned that Karlsson is the same kind of player. But I'm at least willing to wait and see on him rather than trading for Granlund who I know is that.

Considering the Sharks have 1 line that resembles anything close to a scoring line, the fact he's producing at a greater than PPG pace is impressive. The blueprint to stopping the sharks (if one is actually needed) is stop Granlund and Toffoli and the team won't score (I believe the bottom two lines have three 5-on-5 goals all season). I think the fact you're basing what he can do on the small, albeit disappointing sample size in Pitts is disingenuous.

You’re gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than Bordeleau and a third as the “futures” in this offer. Bordeleau gets blown over by a stiff breeze let alone NHL defensemen.

Granlund is pretty redundant on the Jackets once they get healthy.

Ok, Bordeleau a third and a conditional 7th in 2028.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Considering the Sharks have 1 line that resembles anything close to a scoring line, the fact he's producing at a greater than PPG pace is impressive. The blueprint to stopping the sharks (if one is actually needed) is stop Granlund and Toffoli and the team won't score (I believe the bottom two lines have three 5-on-5 goals all season). I think the fact you're basing what he can do on the small, albeit disappointing sample size in Pitts is disingenuous.

No, his entire career suggests this is the case.

A good team isn't playing him 21 minutes a night, which is what Granlund needs to put up good numbers. It was the same exact way in Nashville as it is in San Jose. Granlund provides value by playing huge minutes and putting up points due to his usage, but good teams aren't going to use him like bad teams use him.

He's pretty much the definition of a "good bad team player". Like I said, I'm sure as hell concerned Karlsson is one of those as well, but I know Granlund is that.

 

[BKarchitect]

Ok, Bordeleau a third and a conditional 7th in 2028.

Cool. So you don’t actually have a point to make except to offer a poor deal with no reason for the other side to consider it?

That’s a nonsense offer for the Jackets.

 

[TheBeard]

Cool. So you don’t actually have a point to make except to offer a poor deal with no reason for the other side to consider it?

That’s a nonsense offer for the Jackets.

Well, with that attitude, that conditional 7th just got pushed to 2029.

 

[Juxtaposer]

No, his entire career suggests this is the case.

A good team isn't playing him 21 minutes a night, which is what Granlund needs to put up good numbers. It was the same exact way in Nashville as it is in San Jose. Granlund provides value by playing huge minutes and putting up points due to his usage, but good teams aren't going to use him like bad teams use him.

He's pretty much the definition of a "good bad team player". Like I said, I'm sure as hell concerned Karlsson is one of those as well, but I know Granlund is that.

First liners need first line minutes to put up first line production. In other news, water is wet!

Certainly, Granlund wouldn't be on pace for 90 points on a contender. But he absolutely could put up 60 points as a 2C. You really underestimate how good he's been playing for the last calendar year. He's not the player he was on the Penguins, not even close.

 

[TheBeard]

No, his entire career suggests this is the case.

A good team isn't playing him 21 minutes a night, which is what Granlund needs to put up good numbers. It was the same exact way in Nashville as it is in San Jose. Granlund provides value by playing huge minutes and putting up points due to his usage, but good teams aren't going to use him like bad teams use him.

He's pretty much the definition of a "good bad team player". Like I said, I'm sure as hell concerned Karlsson is one of those as well, but I know Granlund is that.

This season and last are the only times he's played at or near 21 minutes a game. In fact, his best years he was playing 18 a game. In Nashville, he only ecliped 20 a game one year.

Also, news flash, top line players for their teams play the most minutes. You're acting as if the Sharks are playing him that much for his own individual stat sheet.

 

[Empoleon8771]

First liners need first line minutes to put up first line production. In other news, water is wet!

Certainly, Granlund wouldn't be on pace for 90 points on a contender. But he absolutely could put up 60 points as a 2C. You really underestimate how good he's been playing for the last calendar year. He's not the player he was on the Penguins, not even close.

Granlund has not put up 60 points in 2C usage in literally any season in his career. Every year he has of 60+ points is with him playing 19 or more minutes a night.

 

[TheBeard]

First liners need first line minutes to put up first line production. In other news, water is wet!

Certainly, Granlund wouldn't be on pace for 90 points on a contender. But he absolutely could put up 60 points as a 2C. You really underestimate how good he's been playing for the last calendar year. He's not the player he was on the Penguins, not even close.

It legit sounds like they're still bitter over his lackluster showing with Pitts. I don't blame them for loathing the player though.

 

[Empoleon8771]

This season and last are the only times he's played at or near 21 minutes a game. In fact, his best years he was playing 18 a game. In Nashville, he only ecliped 20 a game one year.

Also, news flash, top line players for their teams play the most minutes. You're acting as if the Sharks are playing him that much for his own individual stat sheet.

And that year was the only year that he had even moderately acceptable production with Nashville. In his 2 other years in Nashville, he had 30 points in 63 games while playing 17:48 a night and 27 points in 51 games playing 19:28 a night.

It legit sounds like they're still bitter over his lackluster showing with Pitts. I don't blame them for loathing the player though.

No, I just know that the player Mikael Granlund has been his entire career is who he is, and him doing what he has always done (put up points in huge usage on bad teams) doesn't change who he is.

He's the exact kind of player as guys like Boedker (who Sharks fans saw first hand) and Tatar.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Granlund has not put up 60 points in 2C usage in literally any season in his career. Every year he has of 60+ points is with him playing 19 or more minutes a night.

So to be clear, he can put up a 90 point pace while averaging 20 minutes a night, but he can't put up 60 points in 17 minutes a night? The math isn't mathing.

Certainly, he's a player whom you need to put in the right situation to succeed. But that situation is literally just "top-six minutes with half-way decent linemates". He's making things happen constantly. Just because the Penguins horribly mismanaged him, doesn't mean he's difficult to manage or whatever.

 

[Empoleon8771]

So to be clear, he can put up a 90 point pace while averaging 20 minutes a night, but he can't put up 60 points in 17 minutes a night? The math isn't mathing.

Certainly, he's a player whom you need to put in the right situation to succeed. But that situation is literally just "top-six minutes with half-way decent linemates". He's making things happen constantly. Just because the Penguins horribly mismanaged him, doesn't mean he's difficult to manage or whatever.

If he could, he would have in literally any season in his NHL career. But he hasn't because he can't. A 32 year old Granlund isn't going to magically do something that he has never done in his career, especially when he was a hell of a lot better in Minnesota than he is now.

Also, what is this "90 point pace" nonsense? He has 10 points in 9 games this year, that doesn't magically mean he can play at a 90 point pace. His career best is what he got last year with a 71 point pace.

 

[Juxtaposer]

If he could, he would have in literally any season in his NHL career. But he hasn't because he can't.

Also, what is this "90 point pace" nonsense? He has 10 points in 9 games this year, that doesn't magically mean he can play at a 90 point pace. His career best is what he got last year with a 71 point pace.

What aren't you getting? He's playing some of the best hockey of his career right now, maybe THE best hockey of his career. Just because he hasn't done it before doesn't mean that he never will. Guys sometimes have career best seasons in their 30's. See: Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, Joe Pavelski, etc.

He's literally playing at a 90 point pace right now. That's literally a fact that you cannot dispute. I never claimed that he was going to score 90 points this season, just that he is playing at a 90 point pace right now on a f***ing horrific hockey team and looks really f***ing good doing it. Those are indisputable facts.

 

[Empoleon8771]

What aren't you getting? He's playing some of the best hockey of his career right now, maybe THE best hockey of his career. Just because he hasn't done it before doesn't mean that he never will. Guys sometimes have career best seasons in their 30's. See: Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, Joe Pavelski, etc.

There is zero reason to think a 32 year old player is somehow going to do something he has never done in his career. What are you talking about with Thornton, Marleau and Pavelski? Thornton's best seasons in his 20s completely smokes his best season in his 30s, he put up 125 points at age 26 and his highest point total in his 30s was 89 (at age 30).

He's literally playing at a 90 point pace right now. That's literally a fact that you cannot dispute. I never claimed that he was going to score 90 points this season, just that he is playing at a 90 point pace right now on a f***ing horrific hockey team and looks really f***ing good doing it. Those are indisputable facts.

Damn Mark Stone is playing at a 150 point pace right now, I guess he's the best player in hockey.

It's a 9 game sample size. Teams aren't going to see "wow he has 10 points in 9 games this year, I guess he's a 90 point player now". They'll look at him and say "oh, Mikael Granlund is still the same exact player he has been his entire career".

 

[biturbo19]

First liners need first line minutes to put up first line production. In other news, water is wet!

Certainly, Granlund wouldn't be on pace for 90 points on a contender. But he absolutely could put up 60 points as a 2C. You really underestimate how good he's been playing for the last calendar year. He's not the player he was on the Penguins, not even close.

The crux of what you're missing here, is that Granlund as a "1st liner" he needs to produce like that, isn't a team going anywhere. No "contender" is going to want him on their 1st line because he's not good enough for that, and production just isn't always linearly scalable like that. So 2C Granlund is going to score at a significantly lesser rate, while also not bringing a lot of anything else to the table.

 

[Juxtaposer]

There is zero reason to think a 32 year old player is somehow going to do something he has never done in his career. What are you talking about with Thornton, Marleau and Pavelski? Thornton's best seasons in his 20s completely smokes his best season in his 30s, he put up 125 points at age 26 and his highest point total in his 30s was 89 (at age 30).



Damn Mark Stone is playing at a 150 point pace right now, I guess he's the best player in hockey.

It's a 9 game sample size. Teams aren't going to see "wow he has 10 points in 9 games this year, I guess he's a 90 point player now". They'll look at him and say "oh, Mikael Granlund is still the same exact player he has been his entire career".

Joe Thornton's best season was at age 36 where he was 4th in the NHL in scoring AND played elite defense. Try era-adjusting scoring.

I don't know what your beef is with Granlund but I genuinely don't know why you're so invested here. He's playing excellent hockey in all three zones in all situations right now and would improve any contender. Obviously people aren't going to think that Granlund is a superstar, because if they did, then everyone would be lining up to trade for him. But he's going to be by far the best center available at the trade deadline, and that's what this thread is about.

The crux of what you're missing here, is that Granlund as a "1st liner" he needs to produce like that, isn't a team going anywhere. No "contender" is going to want him on their 1st line because he's not good enough for that, and production just isn't always linearly scalable like that. So 2C Granlund is going to score at a significantly lesser rate, while also not bringing a lot of anything else to the table.

No, the crux of the issue is that Granlund is literally the only player who is not a problem on the Sharks right now. I would be more than happy to keep giving him 1st line minutes if the rest of our team was even a little decent, because he deserves it.

If you think he doesn't bring anything but scoring, then you just haven't watched him as a Shark. He's on the PK, he's soaking up hard defensive minutes, and he's showed immense leadership value.

 

[Empoleon8771]

The crux of what you're missing here, is that Granlund as a "1st liner" he needs to produce like that, isn't a team going anywhere. No "contender" is going to want him on their 1st line because he's not good enough for that, and production just isn't always linearly scalable like that. So 2C Granlund is going to score at a significantly lesser rate, while also not bringing a lot of anything else to the table.

And it's not just at ES, he also requires #1 powerplay minutes because a huge percentage of his points come on the powerplay. From 2019-2020 to today, 82 of his 232 points have come on the powerplay. That 35.3% PP point% is an insane fraction.

He needs both 1st line minutes and PP1 minutes to put up good numbers, and there is simply no reason to think that a contender would trade for him to be that. Maybe he can put up good enough ES numbers if you put him with 2 good linemates, but you're simply not a good team if Granlund is on your #1 PP unit.

 

[TheBeard]

It's a 9 game sample size. Teams aren't going to see "wow he has 10 points in 9 games this year, I guess he's a 90 point player now". They'll look at him and say "oh, Mikael Granlund is still the same exact player he has been his entire career".

No, they're actually going to watch footage and see what he's doing out there with at best 2nd line linemates. I suggest you do the same instead of dictating a narrative solely off numbers.

 

[TheBeard]

And it's not just at ES, he also requires #1 powerplay minutes because a huge percentage of his points come on the powerplay. From 2019-2020 to today, 82 of his 232 points have come on the powerplay. That 35.3% PP point% is an insane fraction.

He needs both 1st line minutes and PP1 minutes to put up good numbers, and there is simply no reason to think that a contender would trade for him to be that. Maybe he can put up good enough ES numbers if you put him with 2 good linemates, but you're simply not a good team if Granlund is on your #1 PP unit.

So much to dissect but I'll keep it short. He's actually averaging a third of his points on the PP during his time with the sharks, which coincidentally has been his best stretch in terms of PPG, so no he isn't relying on the PP to boost up his point totals.

Secondly, literally everything you said refers to 95% of top line guys.

Thirdly, contending teams bolster their lineups on the TDL to counter the weakest aspects. If a team has a weak powerplay or a weak second line he'd be an ideal fit. On a stacked team he'd probably be the best 3C in the league.

 

[biturbo19]

No, the crux of the issue is that Granlund is literally the only player who is not a problem on the Sharks right now. I would be more than happy to keep giving him 1st line minutes if the rest of our team was even a little decent, because he deserves it.

If you think he doesn't bring anything but scoring, then you just haven't watched him as a Shark. He's on the PK, he's soaking up hard defensive minutes, and he's showed immense leadership value.

Nobody else is scoring, because the Sharks are a bad, rebuilding team and Granlund is scooping up all sorts of prime opportunities including boatloads of top Powerplay time.

He may not be a "problem" on the Sharks right now...while riding a hot streak, with no better options...but if you have Granlund playing those sort of minutes, it's a problem for your team as a whole. If that's the best option you have to efficiently turn those sort of opportunities into points...you're simply not a very good team.

 

[Hodge]

Can't get around the fact that Granlund has stunk up the joint the last two times he was traded midseason. Maybe it's just a coincidence but I wouldn't want to bet a 1st round pick on his immediate productivity as a contender. Sharks might be best served to extend him.

 

[Armourboy]

Nobody else is scoring, because the Sharks are a bad, rebuilding team and Granlund is scooping up all sorts of prime opportunities including boatloads of top Powerplay time.

He may not be a "problem" on the Sharks right now...while riding a hot streak, with no better options...but if you have Granlund playing those sort of minutes, it's a problem for your team as a whole. If that's the best option you have to efficiently turn those sort of opportunities into points...you're simply not a very good team.

No one that he has played for in the past really wants him back, because we've already seen it. He's kind of a better version of a guy like Jarnkrok. Decent enough of a player but if you are depending on him for top line minutes, umm you probably aren't in a real good spot.

 

[Empoleon8771]

So much to dissect but I'll keep it short. He's actually averaging a third of his points on the PP during his time with the sharks, which coincidentally has been his best stretch in terms of PPG, so no he isn't relying on the PP to boost up his point totals.

Secondly, literally everything you said refers to 95% of top line guys.

Thirdly, contending teams bolster their lineups on the TDL to counter the weakest aspects. If a team has a weak powerplay or a weak second line he'd be an ideal fit. On a stacked team he'd probably be the best 3C in the league.

That is a ton of points for a guy that wouldn't be on any good team's #1 PP unit. Granlund going from #1 PP on San Jose to #2 PP on most contending teams alone is going to cost him about 15-20 points a season alone. Look what he was producing for Nashville when he was on their 2nd PP unit, he had 6 PP points in 2019-2020 and 7 PP points in 2020-2021. If he's not putting up 25 PP points a season, he's topping out at about 45 points while still getting 1st line minutes at ES. Which is what he has shown with literally every team he has been with in his career.

And the idea that he'd be the "best 3C in the league on a stacked team" has been proven factually untrue when he was brought to the Penguins to be a 3C behind Crosby and Malkin was was horrendous in the role.

Last year with San Jose, Granlund was 29 of 308 in the NHL in 5v5 ice time per game (among forwards with more than 700 minutes TOI) but was 151 of 308 in 5v5 points/60 (among forwards with more than 700 minutes TOI). And that was his best 5v5 performance in years, it was a middle of the pack production rate that just had him producing points with a ton of ice time. In 2022-2023, he was 259 of 301 in 5v5 points/60.

 

[TheBeard]

That is a ton of points for a guy that wouldn't be on any good team's #1 PP unit. Granlund going from #1 PP on San Jose to #2 PP on most contending teams alone is going to cost him about 15-20 points a season alone. Look what he was producing for Nashville when he was on their 2nd PP unit, he had 6 PP points in 2019-2020 and 7 PP points in 2020-2021. If he's not putting up 25 PP points a season, he's topping out at about 45 points while still getting 1st line minutes at ES. Which is what he has shown with literally every team he has been with in his career.

And the idea that he'd be the "best 3C in the league on a stacked team" has been proven factually untrue when he was brought to the Penguins to be a 3C behind Crosby and Malkin was was horrendous in the role.

Last year with San Jose, Granlund was 29 of 308 in the NHL in 5v5 ice time per game (among forwards with more than 700 minutes TOI) but was 151 of 308 in 5v5 points/60 (among forwards with more than 700 minutes TOI). And that was his best 5v5 performance in years, it was a middle of the pack production rate that just had him producing points with a ton of ice time. In 2022-2023, he was 259 of 301 in 5v5 points/60.

This is such a dumb and pointless argument because you're arguing the most obvious things. Obviously if you take a team's best offensive weapon off of power plays his numbers are going to decrease. Obviously, like EVERY first line player on every team who plays on the first power play they're going to have a lot of points from there. This isn't some secret fact that only you know.

You know who could have used someone getting a third of their points on the power play last year?

The Penguins.

 

[CanadienShark]

No, his entire career suggests this is the case.

A good team isn't playing him 21 minutes a night, which is what Granlund needs to put up good numbers. It was the same exact way in Nashville as it is in San Jose. Granlund provides value by playing huge minutes and putting up points due to his usage, but good teams aren't going to use him like bad teams use him.

He's pretty much the definition of a "good bad team player". Like I said, I'm sure as hell concerned Karlsson is one of those as well, but I know Granlund is that.

Sounds like the perfect type to lead a rebuilding team. He's valuable in all situations and helps take a load off the young guys. And he is a leader. I still would be very happy to keep him until Smith, Musty, etc. develop into useful players and push Granlund out.