Value of: Mikael Granlund to a contender
- Thread starter jonlin
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
I agree they won't be breaking down the doors but I think the Sharks can make it happen. They may have to add a draft pick on top of Granlund to soften the blow but I think it's doable since he's doing so well and can fill in as a center and playoff caliber teams are pretty consistently looking for center depth. I would take a 2nd+something minor for Granlund if that was the best that was on the table but they should be able to offer something like Granlund and a 3rd for a playoff team's 1st round pick either this year or next year.
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 27,137
- 12,283
Absolutely. I think there's a very strong argument to be made that Granlund is exactly the sort of guy that makes sense for a team in San Jose's situation. He can be exactly what they need him to be while the kids develop and sort out who is going to make it or not. Seems like a situation that's beneficial for him as well, in that it gives him opportunities to play minutes and take on a leadership role that he wouldn't otherwise get on a "contender".
Due to his poor reputation as a mid-season acquisition, i think there's a very strong chance it makes more sense for the Sharks to just sign him to an extension and keep him around for a while. The offers probably aren't going to be that strong and if the Sharks are that satisfied with what they're getting from him, why not just keep him?
Fallacious stabs at reductio ad absurdum just kind of makes it seem like you're still not grasping what is being said about Granlund here.
Nobody is arguing anything like what you're saying tongue in cheek here.
The actual point being made, is that the level of drop-off in his play and production is greater than average, when moving from 1st line and PP1 minutes to 3rd line and significantly lesser PP2 minutes. Production modes are not linear and directly scalable as you seem to believe. Bulk production vs rate and modes matters contextually.
Some players players are very resilient in their production and will carry through at a fairly linear rate with reduced quality of minutes and opportunities, even though their bulk production will drop off accordingly. Other players have a pretty "hard cap" on their bulk production capability but fare better in their rate with inversely scaled quality of minutes. ie. guys like Brandon Sutter always was. Where he'd produce more or less the same bulk stats regardless of quality of minutes, which means a better rate of production when pushed down the lineup. Then you have guys like Granlund who are the opposite. He has a relatively high bulk production "ceiling" if you can afford to feed him primo minutes...but his performance is decidedly non-resilient when it comes to scaling minutes downward.
And at the end of the day...Granlund isn't a guy that a "contender" is going to want playing absolutely top minutes. So the context of his production matters, and makes him less "desirable" to contending teams than his bulk production in a better fitting situation like San Jose would otherwise superficially suggest.
Gecklund
Registered User
He’d be the second leading scorer on PIT, my brother.
ah yes we should just completely ignore what guys say cause it doesn’t fit your argument.
That 2nd should have more than something minor coming back. Not anything huge but I’m thinking a Jack Thompson type prospect.
Basically, either an RHD prospect like Thompson or a 3rd rounder like what he was would be fine by me. I'd be happy with a 2nd and a 3rd for Granlund. I wouldn't prioritize any other position though.
Grinner
Registered User
- May 31, 2022
- 1,851
- 1,424
smakki
Registered User
- Oct 8, 2021
- 38
- 44
I was just thinking center like Granlund with 5m contract would be nice for Colorado/Carolina, but don't know if they have anything to move other way... Kotkaniemi(?) Nikuschkin(?). I bet he likes to play in San Jose though, sunshine everyday and all, no pressure and he is a clear number 1 there.
Would be nice to see him in contender team.
Would be nice to see him in contender team.
TotalHomer
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2022
- 3,076
- 3,902
Well you really should because guys talk out of their ass especially when they are about to be UFAs. Happens all the time.
Razamanaz
Registered User
Why on Earth should he stay in deep, deep sea 
San Jose Sharks; and that year in and year out - if the options are (way) better?!
A NHL-career is rather short. Most ot the times, that is.
Move on, move on Mikael G. if you got the chance - and that fast as a shark!
Saw him - Mikael Granlund - live in action at the Worldchampionships in Czechia in May.
And he was the Finland boss - until he got suspended. Then it went downhill for Finland in the quaters against Sweden ...
San Jose Sharks; and that year in and year out - if the options are (way) better?!A NHL-career is rather short. Most ot the times, that is.
Move on, move on Mikael G. if you got the chance - and that fast as a shark!
Saw him - Mikael Granlund - live in action at the Worldchampionships in Czechia in May.
And he was the Finland boss - until he got suspended. Then it went downhill for Finland in the quaters against Sweden ...
Razamanaz
Registered User
Granlund is only good because he plays for the Sharks. Don't let his stats or great play fool you.
Lex Erik Karlsson all over again?!
Terrible in Pissburgh nowadays ...
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Karlsson was clearly in it for the points so he could get traded. Granlund is good in all situations and is working his butt off. Not the same.
The Oil could badly use all of Granlund, Blackwood, and Ferraro. That's probably two separate deals, but what would a deal look like drawing on our (meager) assets like O'Reilly, Savoie, STL 2025 2nd, 2026 1st, Phil Kemp/Max Wanner etc.?
It depends on what is needed from a cap perspective from Edmonton. Those three combine for 10.6 mil in cap where the Sharks don't have a retention slot. The Oilers only have about 5 mil in space. If retention is needed, a third team will have to be involved. We can obviously take back cap.
It would definitely need a broker team for the deal/deals. Fortunately we have enough of the later picks and third-tier level prospects most teams look for when retaining cap. Anaheim is one I expect to be a willing partner there, Columbus too (and they owe us now after the dirty shit the other night).
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
I would do Granlund 1 for 1 for O'Reilly or the 2026 1st. Ferraro + Blackwood is probably worth a 2nd combined. Like PF said we'd probably have to give up a couple late round picks to other teams to broker cap retention. But I think there's a deal to be made here. I'd rather keep Granlund around until the deadline, but I'd be open to moving Ferraro/Blackwood now.
I agree with you regarding Granlund in terms of what I'd want and preferring to keep him until the deadline especially because I don't see anyone meeting a 1st round pick ask until then. Ferraro is a tough one for me. If a team like Edmonton wants him off our hands sooner rather than later, they have to make it worth our while. Ferraro should be worth a 2nd on his own. That should be achievable as a return pretty much regardless of when they could decide to move him whether that's now, trade deadline, draft, FA day, or next year's trade deadline. I would want them to make a better offer than that to move him now-ish. I wouldn't say no to a 1st but I wouldn't be expecting one. However, a 2nd and say Beau Akey would probably get me to move Ferraro now. Blackwood, I would take a 3rd or 4th now.
