NEW: Marco Sturm on Being Interviewed for Sharks Head Coach + Ceci Trade Reaction, Askarov Rumors

[Pinkfloyd]

And all this is perfectly fine, because who wants their team to be TML 2.0?

I'd like for the team to at least have the opportunity that Toronto has had in the past few years. I just don't think we're built on the backend nor in net to perform the same sort of feat as the Leafs in 2017. The Leafs had 106 points from their three top defensemen. I just don't see our top three which is probably Walman, Ferraro, and Rutta pulling that off. And our goaltending doesn't really compare to Andersen then though I do think Blackwood could be that good if the defense plays well in front. I just don't expect our defense to do that in year one.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I'd like for the team to at least have the opportunity that Toronto has had in the past few years. I just don't think we're built on the backend nor in net to perform the same sort of feat as the Leafs in 2017. The Leafs had 106 points from their three top defensemen. I just don't see our top three which is probably Walman, Ferraro, and Rutta pulling that off. And our goaltending doesn't really compare to Andersen then though I do think Blackwood could be that good if the defense plays well in front. I just don't expect our defense to do that in year one.

For the Sharks to replicate the 2027 leafs it would be Muk or Thrun that is that 3rd D putting up 30-40 points.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

For the Sharks to replicate the 2027 leafs it would be Muk or Thrun that is that 3rd D putting up 30-40 points.

I think they would need at least two defensemen putting up at least 30 points to replicate the Leafs. That part seems like a stretch to me. Whoever wins the spot on the top power play unit may end up doing that whether that's Walman or Thrun or Muk. The issue is the second one and the 3rd defenseman that got 27 points like Zaitsev did for them that year. Our next highest defensive scorer had 21 points where nobody looks like they'll take a real offensive step to improve their numbers from last year.

 

[Sheng Peng]

Was pretty disappointing to hear Sheng not realize why his Clickbait article about the Sharks not leaving was poorly written and caused panic amongst the fans. It wasn't the tweet or people not listening to the pod. It was the article.

The lede is literally: "The Sharks could leave San Jose in four years."

Does that sound like it represents what Becher said? And on top of that it directly contradicts the title and the following H2 (which itself was grammatically poor).

Why wasn't the lede "Things are looking good for the Sharks to stay at SAP Center"???

Reading it really bothered me because I listened to the interview first, and now hearing him miss the mark entirely is doubly disappointing.

From my vantage point, it was the tweet that got most of the negative reaction.

I understand that you reacted negatively to the story itself, based on the first sentence. And I can see why you didn't like it, I'll address that in a second.

But from what I saw, I did a Facebook post on the SJHN Facebook, which just used the title of the story. Not a lot of comments, that I saw.

The story itself on SJHN, in the comments, didn't see much of any upset reaction.

For Twitter, believe me or not, I really took the quote I pulled in the positive sense, that there was no threat of the Sharks leaving the Bay Area. From my memory, a couple years ago, when there was a lot of talk about the Google project, I don't recall any concrete commitment from Becher about staying in the Bay Area. So I thought it was a positive news-worthy quote.

But like I said, I do see why fans took that the way that they did.

Anyway, these are the main three areas where I check reactions to a story that I wrote. It's not a foolproof way of circling back, but FB/Twitter are my main drivers of traffic, and of course, the commenters on my site, they're often the subscribers, the backbone of my business.

As for the story itself, the first sentence, and I'm not claiming journalistic reasons or I got this from J-school (I don't have a journalism degree), I like to get people's attention, as long as it stays in bounds of accuracy and what the story is about. Yes, it's to keep you reading. But it's also accurate, I argue.

There's also a reason that I pulled back from the first sentence in my second sentence...what's said in the first sentence is certainly a possibility, it's factual, Becher says it himself, but it's highly, highly unlikely. So I wanted to let readers know that immediately too, after I got their attention.

It's also worth noting, this story, though it appeared on SJHN, was actually an exclusive article that I wrote for NBC. What those are, those are full Sharks stories that I write just for NBC. NBC pays for these exclusives (they don't pay me for the pod or for stories that appear on NBC that lead into SJHN articles). So my audience wasn't necessarily people that had listened to the pod, it was to refashion the pod for a brand-new, often more casual audience.

Those stories do go through editors, though I stress, I'm not blaming them for that first sentence. I wrote it, I own it.

Anyway, you can argue, I tried a scare tactic first, albeit a factually correct one, to keep this audience reading...and yes, I did. But I also pulled it back in the second sentence on purpose too. I hoped that the first two sentences would get people's attention, they read on, listen to the pod, and/or read the rest of the story. I think if you either read the whole story or listen to the pod, you get the entirety of what Becher is trying to say.

I will add too, in my experience, readers most commonly react to the promotional posts or the title of the story. So that's why I kept the title of the story catchy but with full sense of what the story is about, at least best I can in limited characters. And I sincerely thought I did that with my Twitter post, but I was clearly wrong in that.

There's a balance in all this, of course, of getting people's attention but not putting out clickbait.

So I do take greater pains in those areas to not write clickbait. I'm not always right, but I do try, my reputation matters there. So it was discouraging that I messed up on my Twitter post (I get why Sharks/Bay Area fans were mad) and that content aggregators took the quote a way different place than intended (not so much my fault, in my opinion).

In the story itself, there's more space to be creative, have creative misdirection (like my first sentence) and stuff like that. I think you called it "scroll bait", which sure, I can see that.

If I was writing a straight news story, where the lede is supposed to summarize the story, you would be 100 percent correct in your criticism. But this was not a straight news story, I was trying to present the meat of the podcast to new readers and keep them reading until the end (but not deceptively).

Even in more of a news story, I like to be more clever with my first sentence, case in point, this story:

Chernyshov Talks Saginaw, Playing With Celebrini

The future’s so bright for Igor Chernyshov…he’s gotta wear sunblock? That’s what the 2024 second-round pick, who just signed with the San Jose Sharks, learned recently when he was at agent Dan Milstein’s pre-Draft showcase in Florida. According to an exclusive interview, in Russian, with Sergey...

sanjosehockeynow.com

This may also be my Creative Writing background probably coming to the fore too. Honestly, when writing, I often spend more time on first sentences than anything else. I do try to be clever, but I can see why it backfired on me here.

Anyway, I get why you didn't like the first sentence. In a vacumn, I agree that it is a poor and misleading representation of the Becher interview.

What I've taken from this, this applies to the tweet and the first sentence, it's a very meaningful topic to the fans, so I should be doubly, triply careful with how I treat it. And I wasn't. No one cares about what I call a creative misdirection in say an Igor Chernyshov signing story.

I promise you, the tweet and the first sentence isn't worth any money made from it -- the money I do rely on to keep doing this is from subscribers, ad money, as some of you have noted here, is very fickle, so I don't bother chasing that as much. I also don't want to chase that, because I believe that would cost me my hard-earned reputation, and for little reward, anyway.

Anyway, bigger picture, I'm just trying to explain what I saw and what I was trying to do.

Please PM me (or we can continue the discussion here) if you have any questions or critiques. I'm happy to keep talking about it.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for caring.

 

[weastern bias]

 

[coooldude]

From my vantage point, it was the tweet that got most of the negative reaction.

I understand that you reacted negatively to the story itself, based on the first sentence. And I can see why you didn't like it, I'll address that in a second.

But from what I saw, I did a Facebook post on the SJHN Facebook, which just used the title of the story. Not a lot of comments, that I saw.

The story itself on SJHN, in the comments, didn't see much of any upset reaction.

For Twitter, believe me or not, I really took the quote I pulled in the positive sense, that there was no threat of the Sharks leaving the Bay Area. From my memory, a couple years ago, when there was a lot of talk about the Google project, I don't recall any concrete commitment from Becher about staying in the Bay Area. So I thought it was a positive news-worthy quote.

But like I said, I do see why fans took that the way that they did.

Anyway, these are the main three areas where I check reactions to a story that I wrote. It's not a foolproof way of circling back, but FB/Twitter are my main drivers of traffic, and of course, the commenters on my site, they're often the subscribers, the backbone of my business.

As for the story itself, the first sentence, and I'm not claiming journalistic reasons or I got this from J-school (I don't have a journalism degree), I like to get people's attention, as long as it stays in bounds of accuracy and what the story is about. Yes, it's to keep you reading. But it's also accurate, I argue.

There's also a reason that I pulled back from the first sentence in my second sentence...what's said in the first sentence is certainly a possibility, it's factual, Becher says it himself, but it's highly, highly unlikely. So I wanted to let readers know that immediately too, after I got their attention.

It's also worth noting, this story, though it appeared on SJHN, was actually an exclusive article that I wrote for NBC. What those are, those are full Sharks stories that I write just for NBC. NBC pays for these exclusives (they don't pay me for the pod or for stories that appear on NBC that lead into SJHN articles). So my audience wasn't necessarily people that had listened to the pod, it was to refashion the pod for a brand-new, often more casual audience.

Those stories do go through editors, though I stress, I'm not blaming them for that first sentence. I wrote it, I own it.

Anyway, you can argue, I tried a scare tactic first, albeit a factually correct one, to keep this audience reading...and yes, I did. But I also pulled it back in the second sentence on purpose too. I hoped that the first two sentences would get people's attention, they read on, listen to the pod, and/or read the rest of the story. I think if you either read the whole story or listen to the pod, you get the entirety of what Becher is trying to say.

I will add too, in my experience, readers most commonly react to the promotional posts or the title of the story. So that's why I kept the title of the story catchy but with full sense of what the story is about, at least best I can in limited characters. And I sincerely thought I did that with my Twitter post, but I was clearly wrong in that.

There's a balance in all this, of course, of getting people's attention but not putting out clickbait.

So I do take greater pains in those areas to not write clickbait. I'm not always right, but I do try, my reputation matters there. So it was discouraging that I messed up on my Twitter post (I get why Sharks/Bay Area fans were mad) and that content aggregators took the quote a way different place than intended (not so much my fault, in my opinion).

In the story itself, there's more space to be creative, have creative misdirection (like my first sentence) and stuff like that. I think you called it "scroll bait", which sure, I can see that.

If I was writing a straight news story, where the lede is supposed to summarize the story, you would be 100 percent correct in your criticism. But this was not a straight news story, I was trying to present the meat of the podcast to new readers and keep them reading until the end (but not deceptively).

Even in more of a news story, I like to be more clever with my first sentence, case in point, this story:

Chernyshov Talks Saginaw, Playing With Celebrini

The future’s so bright for Igor Chernyshov…he’s gotta wear sunblock? That’s what the 2024 second-round pick, who just signed with the San Jose Sharks, learned recently when he was at agent Dan Milstein’s pre-Draft showcase in Florida. According to an exclusive interview, in Russian, with Sergey...

sanjosehockeynow.com

This may also be my Creative Writing background probably coming to the fore too. Honestly, when writing, I often spend more time on first sentences than anything else. I do try to be clever, but I can see why it backfired on me here.

Anyway, I get why you didn't like the first sentence. In a vacumn, I agree that it is a poor and misleading representation of the Becher interview.

What I've taken from this, this applies to the tweet and the first sentence, it's a very meaningful topic to the fans, so I should be doubly, triply careful with how I treat it. And I wasn't. No one cares about what I call a creative misdirection in say an Igor Chernyshov signing story.

I promise you, the tweet and the first sentence isn't worth any money made from it -- the money I do rely on to keep doing this is from subscribers, ad money, as some of you have noted here, is very fickle, so I don't bother chasing that as much. I also don't want to chase that, because I believe that would cost me my hard-earned reputation, and for little reward, anyway.

Anyway, bigger picture, I'm just trying to explain what I saw and what I was trying to do.

Please PM me (or we can continue the discussion here) if you have any questions or critiques. I'm happy to keep talking about it.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for caring.

Appreciate the thoughtful post here, Sheng! Your job isn't easy, we appreciate the work you put in.

 

[Pavelski2112]

From my vantage point, it was the tweet that got most of the negative reaction.

I understand that you reacted negatively to the story itself, based on the first sentence. And I can see why you didn't like it, I'll address that in a second.

But from what I saw, I did a Facebook post on the SJHN Facebook, which just used the title of the story. Not a lot of comments, that I saw.

The story itself on SJHN, in the comments, didn't see much of any upset reaction.

For Twitter, believe me or not, I really took the quote I pulled in the positive sense, that there was no threat of the Sharks leaving the Bay Area. From my memory, a couple years ago, when there was a lot of talk about the Google project, I don't recall any concrete commitment from Becher about staying in the Bay Area. So I thought it was a positive news-worthy quote.

But like I said, I do see why fans took that the way that they did.

Anyway, these are the main three areas where I check reactions to a story that I wrote. It's not a foolproof way of circling back, but FB/Twitter are my main drivers of traffic, and of course, the commenters on my site, they're often the subscribers, the backbone of my business.

As for the story itself, the first sentence, and I'm not claiming journalistic reasons or I got this from J-school (I don't have a journalism degree), I like to get people's attention, as long as it stays in bounds of accuracy and what the story is about. Yes, it's to keep you reading. But it's also accurate, I argue.

There's also a reason that I pulled back from the first sentence in my second sentence...what's said in the first sentence is certainly a possibility, it's factual, Becher says it himself, but it's highly, highly unlikely. So I wanted to let readers know that immediately too, after I got their attention.

It's also worth noting, this story, though it appeared on SJHN, was actually an exclusive article that I wrote for NBC. What those are, those are full Sharks stories that I write just for NBC. NBC pays for these exclusives (they don't pay me for the pod or for stories that appear on NBC that lead into SJHN articles). So my audience wasn't necessarily people that had listened to the pod, it was to refashion the pod for a brand-new, often more casual audience.

Those stories do go through editors, though I stress, I'm not blaming them for that first sentence. I wrote it, I own it.

Anyway, you can argue, I tried a scare tactic first, albeit a factually correct one, to keep this audience reading...and yes, I did. But I also pulled it back in the second sentence on purpose too. I hoped that the first two sentences would get people's attention, they read on, listen to the pod, and/or read the rest of the story. I think if you either read the whole story or listen to the pod, you get the entirety of what Becher is trying to say.

I will add too, in my experience, readers most commonly react to the promotional posts or the title of the story. So that's why I kept the title of the story catchy but with full sense of what the story is about, at least best I can in limited characters. And I sincerely thought I did that with my Twitter post, but I was clearly wrong in that.

There's a balance in all this, of course, of getting people's attention but not putting out clickbait.

So I do take greater pains in those areas to not write clickbait. I'm not always right, but I do try, my reputation matters there. So it was discouraging that I messed up on my Twitter post (I get why Sharks/Bay Area fans were mad) and that content aggregators took the quote a way different place than intended (not so much my fault, in my opinion).

In the story itself, there's more space to be creative, have creative misdirection (like my first sentence) and stuff like that. I think you called it "scroll bait", which sure, I can see that.

If I was writing a straight news story, where the lede is supposed to summarize the story, you would be 100 percent correct in your criticism. But this was not a straight news story, I was trying to present the meat of the podcast to new readers and keep them reading until the end (but not deceptively).

Even in more of a news story, I like to be more clever with my first sentence, case in point, this story:

Chernyshov Talks Saginaw, Playing With Celebrini

The future’s so bright for Igor Chernyshov…he’s gotta wear sunblock? That’s what the 2024 second-round pick, who just signed with the San Jose Sharks, learned recently when he was at agent Dan Milstein’s pre-Draft showcase in Florida. According to an exclusive interview, in Russian, with Sergey...

sanjosehockeynow.com

This may also be my Creative Writing background probably coming to the fore too. Honestly, when writing, I often spend more time on first sentences than anything else. I do try to be clever, but I can see why it backfired on me here.

Anyway, I get why you didn't like the first sentence. In a vacumn, I agree that it is a poor and misleading representation of the Becher interview.

What I've taken from this, this applies to the tweet and the first sentence, it's a very meaningful topic to the fans, so I should be doubly, triply careful with how I treat it. And I wasn't. No one cares about what I call a creative misdirection in say an Igor Chernyshov signing story.

I promise you, the tweet and the first sentence isn't worth any money made from it -- the money I do rely on to keep doing this is from subscribers, ad money, as some of you have noted here, is very fickle, so I don't bother chasing that as much. I also don't want to chase that, because I believe that would cost me my hard-earned reputation, and for little reward, anyway.

Anyway, bigger picture, I'm just trying to explain what I saw and what I was trying to do.

Please PM me (or we can continue the discussion here) if you have any questions or critiques. I'm happy to keep talking about it.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for caring.

The fact that you came here to explain everything is more than most sports writers would do, and we very much appreciate your transparency. You do great work and having someone who truly cares makes such a huge difference.

 

[tiburon12]

From my vantage point, it was the tweet that got most of the negative reaction.

I understand that you reacted negatively to the story itself, based on the first sentence. And I can see why you didn't like it, I'll address that in a second.

But from what I saw, I did a Facebook post on the SJHN Facebook, which just used the title of the story. Not a lot of comments, that I saw.

The story itself on SJHN, in the comments, didn't see much of any upset reaction.

For Twitter, believe me or not, I really took the quote I pulled in the positive sense, that there was no threat of the Sharks leaving the Bay Area. From my memory, a couple years ago, when there was a lot of talk about the Google project, I don't recall any concrete commitment from Becher about staying in the Bay Area. So I thought it was a positive news-worthy quote.

But like I said, I do see why fans took that the way that they did.

Anyway, these are the main three areas where I check reactions to a story that I wrote. It's not a foolproof way of circling back, but FB/Twitter are my main drivers of traffic, and of course, the commenters on my site, they're often the subscribers, the backbone of my business.

As for the story itself, the first sentence, and I'm not claiming journalistic reasons or I got this from J-school (I don't have a journalism degree), I like to get people's attention, as long as it stays in bounds of accuracy and what the story is about. Yes, it's to keep you reading. But it's also accurate, I argue.

There's also a reason that I pulled back from the first sentence in my second sentence...what's said in the first sentence is certainly a possibility, it's factual, Becher says it himself, but it's highly, highly unlikely. So I wanted to let readers know that immediately too, after I got their attention.

It's also worth noting, this story, though it appeared on SJHN, was actually an exclusive article that I wrote for NBC. What those are, those are full Sharks stories that I write just for NBC. NBC pays for these exclusives (they don't pay me for the pod or for stories that appear on NBC that lead into SJHN articles). So my audience wasn't necessarily people that had listened to the pod, it was to refashion the pod for a brand-new, often more casual audience.

Those stories do go through editors, though I stress, I'm not blaming them for that first sentence. I wrote it, I own it.

Anyway, you can argue, I tried a scare tactic first, albeit a factually correct one, to keep this audience reading...and yes, I did. But I also pulled it back in the second sentence on purpose too. I hoped that the first two sentences would get people's attention, they read on, listen to the pod, and/or read the rest of the story. I think if you either read the whole story or listen to the pod, you get the entirety of what Becher is trying to say.

I will add too, in my experience, readers most commonly react to the promotional posts or the title of the story. So that's why I kept the title of the story catchy but with full sense of what the story is about, at least best I can in limited characters. And I sincerely thought I did that with my Twitter post, but I was clearly wrong in that.

There's a balance in all this, of course, of getting people's attention but not putting out clickbait.

So I do take greater pains in those areas to not write clickbait. I'm not always right, but I do try, my reputation matters there. So it was discouraging that I messed up on my Twitter post (I get why Sharks/Bay Area fans were mad) and that content aggregators took the quote a way different place than intended (not so much my fault, in my opinion).

In the story itself, there's more space to be creative, have creative misdirection (like my first sentence) and stuff like that. I think you called it "scroll bait", which sure, I can see that.

If I was writing a straight news story, where the lede is supposed to summarize the story, you would be 100 percent correct in your criticism. But this was not a straight news story, I was trying to present the meat of the podcast to new readers and keep them reading until the end (but not deceptively).

Even in more of a news story, I like to be more clever with my first sentence, case in point, this story:

Chernyshov Talks Saginaw, Playing With Celebrini

The future’s so bright for Igor Chernyshov…he’s gotta wear sunblock? That’s what the 2024 second-round pick, who just signed with the San Jose Sharks, learned recently when he was at agent Dan Milstein’s pre-Draft showcase in Florida. According to an exclusive interview, in Russian, with Sergey...

sanjosehockeynow.com

This may also be my Creative Writing background probably coming to the fore too. Honestly, when writing, I often spend more time on first sentences than anything else. I do try to be clever, but I can see why it backfired on me here.

Anyway, I get why you didn't like the first sentence. In a vacumn, I agree that it is a poor and misleading representation of the Becher interview.

What I've taken from this, this applies to the tweet and the first sentence, it's a very meaningful topic to the fans, so I should be doubly, triply careful with how I treat it. And I wasn't. No one cares about what I call a creative misdirection in say an Igor Chernyshov signing story.

I promise you, the tweet and the first sentence isn't worth any money made from it -- the money I do rely on to keep doing this is from subscribers, ad money, as some of you have noted here, is very fickle, so I don't bother chasing that as much. I also don't want to chase that, because I believe that would cost me my hard-earned reputation, and for little reward, anyway.

Anyway, bigger picture, I'm just trying to explain what I saw and what I was trying to do.

Please PM me (or we can continue the discussion here) if you have any questions or critiques. I'm happy to keep talking about it.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for caring.

Cheers, Sheng. Thanks for spending the time to write. I regret a small piece of criticism got unintentionally out of hand, as well as the aggressive nature of my subsequent posts when defending my statement against someone arguing in bad faith.

To get something out in the open first: I read and listen to everything you put out, so despite my criticism, I appreciate your work and effort without waiver. And on top of that, i think we all appreciate you give this tiny corner of rabid Sharks fandom some of your time. If your stats show readership/downloads from Thailand, that's me! You're the best reporter we've had since Pollak.

I also appreciate the look into your writing process. As mentioned, I am a writer with an educational background in creative writing as well, now being forced to strip creativity out of my writing to fit with SaaS marketing lol. Writing for clicks and engagement has killed a piece of the joy I got from writing, so I truly understand your position with every article. All of that is to say that I am a fan of a creative hook because it's really hard to nail one within the confines of non-creative work, and i certainly don't bemoan the effort to jazz up a story; it's like trying to hit a winner in tennis instead of keeping it in play.

W/r/t the article, I read it and listened to the pod, so personally I wasn't confused or upset. In fact, I thought it was pretty obvious to anyone who took the time to get into the story that the news was positive, so I additionally had a gripe with headline readers who commented with one eye closed. That said, I understood why there was confusion and saw that line as the clear "problem", so I was a bit surprised over the "how did this happen?" angle on the podcast. To me that segment felt like "hey i just reported the facts" (which i agree was technically accurate) instead of an acknowledgement.

I think part of what compelled me to comment here, assuming you and Keegan would see it, is that the clickbait angle has not been part of your MO for as long as I've followed. Sure there are some things that warrant click bait, like "i spoke to a scout and he really likes this Sharks prospect", but other than that your work has largely been devoid of that (unlike other Sharks reporters) to our delight. The contrast was a bit jarring.

Anyway, thanks for the response and not calling us stupid (like a former Sharks journo liked coming on here and doing )

 

[Shark Finn]

The fact that you came here to explain everything is more than most sports writers would do, and we very much appreciate your transparency. You do great work and having someone who truly cares makes such a huge difference.

Yeah, like... who the f*ck cares about hfboards and us whining morons anyway?

 

[Kcoyote3]

In seeing what people would want to ask Joe Will from this forum I just searched "Joe Will" using HF's internal search function. Every 2nd or 3rd post was about the Hertl extension, so I asked him about it. Fun episode overall with Joe though on the Barracuda

 

[Hobocop]

In seeing what people would want to ask Joe Will from this forum I just searched "Joe Will" using HF's internal search function. Every 2nd or 3rd post was about the Hertl extension, so I asked him about it. Fun episode overall with Joe though on the Barracuda

Gave this one a listen last night and liked it, there was some interesting stuff there.

-Said I wanted another forward for the Barracuda and it sounds like that's something they're looking at doing. Will says here they're looking for more depth down the middle whereas I was hoping for a wing. I'm actually pretty good with what the Cuda have at center currently (presumably Poturalski, Bystedt, Robins, Vanroboys).

But he said it could be someone who could fill in on the wing, too, so it sounds more or less like they're just looking to replace Nathan Todd. The forwards aren't bad, but it's a thin group. Couple injuries (at either the NHL or AHL level, mind) and our middle six would be dire. Curious who they get, the situation with the veteran rule is an interesting one with who is currently projected to be on the Cuda.

-Sounds like they've changed course on the whole 3rd goalie thing? Will says here they're always looking for goalies and makes it sound like they might just look to add to the prospect goalie ranks. Doesn't really sound like they're looking to add anyone significant.

-A gripe with what he said though: He said part of our struggles last season was due to us having so many first-year players on the roster. As in, rookies? No we didn't. Here's the list of rookies on the Cuda who played 50+ games last season: Cardwell, Frisch, Pulli. You could include Mukhamadullin, but that'd be a stretch. The goalies were rookies, sure. I just don't buy that argument.

-I think Guryev and Laroque are going to struggle for ice time this coming season, again. Laroque's had his injury troubles. Guryev to a lesser extent too, and he's also got his own... unique limitations. And now the defense is even deeper than it was previously. I'd love it if they could turn it around, but I can also see them both starting in Wichita again.

 

[Kcoyote3]

I'm not too jazzed about the Ceci trade + Marco is a cool guy

 

[Munnyro]

I'm not too jazzed about the Ceci trade + Marco is a cool guy

This podcast was full of tomfoolery and wild speculation! Get it together guys!

 

[Kcoyote3]

This podcast was full of tomfoolery and wild speculation! Get it together guys!

How dare we suggest Edstrom and VGK first for Askarov!

 

[OrrNumber4]

Would be a shame if you started talking about McDavid to the Sharks...

 

[Munnyro]

How dare we suggest Edstrom and VGK first for Askarov!

2 for 2 in a handful of weeks. Tip of the cap.