NEW: Mega Mailbag 2: What Should Sharks Do With No. 2 Pick?

[209]

Should Sharks be looking at Ekblad/Provorov as free agents? I agree Grier needs some better and more experienced D in house. Whether its via free agency or trade... But no idea who they could trade for so I'll stick with the two i mention...

 

[Gecklund]

Should Sharks be looking at Ekblad/Provorov as free agents? I agree Grier needs some better and more experienced D in house. Whether its via free agency or trade... But no idea who they could trade for so I'll stick with the two i mention...

Of course they should. I think Ekblad is definitely better and while Provorov isn’t very good he’d still be at worst our third best D (if Shak takes a big step). The bigger question is why would either of those guys look at SJ.

 

[gaucholoco3]

Of course they should. I think Ekblad is definitely better and while Provorov isn’t very good he’d still be at worst our third best D (if Shak takes a big step). The bigger question is why would either of those guys look at SJ.

Money.

I think the Sharks can out bid others by a large margin. I know it might not be great in 5 years but I would go as high as 7x$10 million for Ekblad. I think he would be the perfect steady defensive #2 for the first 4 years and a #4 for the last 3 years.

 

[sampler]

Grier said quite clearly that he is not giving anyone any term (5+ yrs). Unless he changes his mind, I think he will stick to that. The long term D consists of Mukh, Dick, and hopefully Schaefer, with an outside chance of adding LSW, Pohlkamp, and/or Cagnoni. This means that he will likely try to acquire a top 4 D 25 or younger (preferably 23 or younger) who fits in the roster for the next 10 years. I don't think term and $$ for a 28-30 year old is coming, as much as I wish he did. The only UFA adds on D are likely to be depth guys (perbix =like), or veterans on short term deals. While this strategy sure surely suck next year (and likely the year after), a Long term top four of Schaefer, Dick, Dobson, and Mukh (with Pohlkamp and Perbix filling it out on RHD) is likely to be a top-of-the-league D in due course.

6'2, 6'3, 6'4, 6'4, 6'4, and 5'11, all eventually 200lb+.

Hopefully Bystedt can be the 3C (I hae zero faith in ostapchuk). Then, its just a matter of filling out the wings, which is usually quite doable with a combo of vets and rookie grads.

 

[coooldude]

Grier said quite clearly that he is not giving anyone any term (5+ yrs).

Not exactly. Last year he said he wasn't going to go beyond 4. This year, he said he'd likely want to stay around 5, but he didn't shut the door on longer term as hard as he did last year. What he did say is he wouldn't "go crazy, sign 3 guys to 7x9 and two of them don't work out and you're stuck with buyers remorse."

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Should Sharks be looking at Ekblad/Provorov as free agents? I agree Grier needs some better and more experienced D in house. Whether its via free agency or trade... But no idea who they could trade for so I'll stick with the two i mention...

I think Ekblad is worth a look but I'm expecting a 7x8 with a practically full NMC to convince him to come here. Provorov is just someone the team should avoid. I just don't think he's very good or would be a good fit. I think the team will probably target Fabbro. I think beyond that is anyone's guess.

 

[Hodge]

Should Sharks be looking at Ekblad/Provorov as free agents? I agree Grier needs some better and more experienced D in house. Whether its via free agency or trade... But no idea who they could trade for so I'll stick with the two i mention...

Watching Gavrikov in these playoffs I'm ready to give him a blank check (okay, keep it under $10M AAV).

 

[gaucholoco3]

Watching Gavrikov in these playoffs I'm ready to give him a blank check (okay, keep it under $10M AAV).

Gavrikov and Ekblad are my top 2 D targets. I prefer Ekblad for handedness. Signing Gavrikov would likely mean 4 LH D in the top 4 and Liljegren as the only RH D that should be playing.

 

[Hodge]

Gavrikov and Ekblad are my top 2 D targets. I prefer Ekblad for handedness. Signing Gavrikov would likely mean 4 LH D in the top 4 and Liljegren as the only RH D that should be playing.

My only concern with Ekblad is his injury history. Otherwise I agree he'd be a better fit although Gavrikov has some experience playing the right side too.

 

[matt trick]

Grier said quite clearly that he is not giving anyone any term (5+ yrs). Unless he changes his mind, I think he will stick to that. The long term D consists of Mukh, Dick, and hopefully Schaefer, with an outside chance of adding LSW, Pohlkamp, and/or Cagnoni. This means that he will likely try to acquire a top 4 D 25 or younger (preferably 23 or younger) who fits in the roster for the next 10 years. I don't think term and $$ for a 28-30 year old is coming, as much as I wish he did. The only UFA adds on D are likely to be depth guys (perbix =like), or veterans on short term deals. While this strategy sure surely suck next year (and likely the year after), a Long term top four of Schaefer, Dick, Dobson, and Mukh (with Pohlkamp and Perbix filling it out on RHD) is likely to be a top-of-the-league D in due course.

6'2, 6'3, 6'4, 6'4, 6'4, and 5'11, all eventually 200lb+.

Hopefully Bystedt can be the 3C (I hae zero faith in ostapchuk). Then, its just a matter of filling out the wings, which is usually quite doable with a combo of vets and rookie grads.

I think Grier walked back the term comment slightly. I took that to mean, we'll be sticking with 2-4 years with the unlikely but possible exception of pursuing Marner and Ekblad/Gavrikov.

So your 'preferably 23 and younger' got me thinking. How many RHD played 17+ minutes and 15+ games this year? The answer is 70 including Jan Rutta, Travis Hamonic, Jeff Petry, Erik Gudbranson, and Trevor van Riemsdyk- none of whom I'd be keen to bring in. Rizel, Levshunov, Brunicke, and Parekh also averaged more than 18 but in fewer games. These guys, Crevier, Seider, Raddysh, and Faber are the rare sub-25 inclusions. Aside from Crevier (who's hardly proven top 4, I don't see any being available. Clarke, Nemec may very well get there, but I don't see either being available.

He 'benefits' from being in SJ, but Liljigren is 48th. Ceci also benefited at 25th. There are a few left shot guys who play right that are excluded, but they're pretty rare.

Near the top of the list (top 18) are soft offenseman Kris Letang (in broken form), Karlsson, and Tony Deangelo. Current or soon to be $9M+ dmen with warts on he list include Bouchard, Dobson, and Jones.

RHD options are dire. Guys who might be available by minutes played (and ranked). I didn't account for NTCs, which is several, but bolded the under 28 crowd.

7. Andersson- 24:10 (UFA next year, hoping to extend)
13. Ekblad- 23:30 (UFA)
14. Bouchard- 23:28 (Must decide to commit $9-10M)
16. Dobson- 23:16 (Widely discussed)
18. Karlsson 23:14 (honestly, I'd be game!)
20. Faulk- 22:27 (2 years left, probably not available)
25. Ceci- 21:13 (UFA)
28. Pulock- 21:05 (Cap reduction?)
29. Burns- 20:57 (UFA)
30. Fabbro- 20:54 (UFA)
31. Myers- 20:48 (Rebuild?)
34. Murphy- 20:37 (UFA next year)
37. Risto- 20:31 (tank? Philly wanted 1st+)
44. Hamilton- 19:51 (5 RHD options)
49. Sverson- 19:30 (Cap reduction, team fit?)
55. Manson- 18:02 (UFA next year)
25. Ceci- 21:13 (UFA)
53. Peeke- 18:36 (tank?)
57. Jokiharju- 17:50 (UFA)
66. Crevier- 17:17 (lot's of RHD, but I think they'd move Murphy instead)
70. Mayfield- 17:00 (cap move?)

So, back up the brinks truck for Ekblad, and try and bring back Ceci or Perbix (not included with under 15:00 a night, but young)!

 

[Kcoyote3]

Second half of the mailbag

 

[weastern bias]

I know you guys could have outlasted the extended edition if you were motivated

Nobody wants to work anymore. . .

 

[sampler]

Alright, here's a strange but quite meaningful question:

If the sharks somehow re-acquired EK65, maybe getting assets along with him... Would the salary retention on him remain or would the sharks reopen another salary retention slot?

Here's the thought process:

1. two years of EK65 at 12M doesnt matter for the sharks. His salary comes off on the right timeline anyways.
2. He is still a respectable, right shot NHL defenseman so he can partner well with the left side kids (mukh or Dick... or schaefer)
3. Salary retention slots = top draft picks at the deadline. Right now, the sharks have just one, but the more retention slots they have, the bigger the return they can get at the TDL on vet rentals. I would LOVE to one up as many as possible.

 

[gaucholoco3]

Alright, here's a strange but quite meaningful question:

If the sharks somehow re-acquired EK65, maybe getting assets along with him... Would the salary retention on him remain or would the sharks reopen another salary retention slot?

Here's the thought process:

1. two years of EK65 at 12M doesnt matter for the sharks. His salary comes off on the right timeline anyways.
2. He is still a respectable, right shot NHL defenseman so he can partner well with the left side kids (mukh or Dick... or schaefer)
3. Salary retention slots = top draft picks at the deadline. Right now, the sharks have just one, but the more retention slots they have, the bigger the return they can get at the TDL on vet rentals. I would LOVE to one up as many as possible.

I believe Friedman reported after the first Rantannen trade that teams are not allowed to trade for players they have retained salary on. (Now I wrote back to the show because technically Chicago retained on Rantannen not Colorado but I didn’t get a response)

 

[fasterthanlight]

I believe Friedman reported after the first Rantannen trade that teams are not allowed to trade for players they have retained salary on. (Now I wrote back to the show because technically Chicago retained on Rantannen not Colorado but I didn’t get a response)

You can reacquire after a calendar year from the trade date I believe even if you were the retaining team, but I'm not sure if this removes the retention slot. My guess is no

 

[gaucholoco3]

You can reacquire after a calendar year from the trade date I believe even if you were the retaining team, but I'm not sure if this removes the retention slot. My guess is no

Are you sure that’s not the rule for offer sheet instead of retained salary?

 

[weastern bias]

Listening to the Craig Button episode where he argues we draft Martone over Misa

His very first point is asking "do you want to add a really skilled player? Or do you want to add a really skilled player with BITE?"

So he suggests we draft Martone, the softest of softies

I would really appreciate if these "talent evaluators" would actually watch these guys play and not just look at their height and weight on their elite prospects page

 

[weastern bias]

"If Victor Eklund was the same size as Martone they'd be in the same conversation, but they have similar types of games"

Incredibly lazy stuff from Button here, almost impressive how little insight he provides in this appearance

 

[Juxtaposer]

Listening to the Craig Button episode where he argues we draft Martone over Misa

His very first point is asking "do you want to add a really skilled player? Or do you want to add a really skilled player with BITE?"

So he suggests we draft Martone, the softest of softies

I would really appreciate if these "talent evaluators" would actually watch these guys play and not just look at their height and weight on their elite prospects page

So the funny thing about Button is that I guarantee he actually does watch these kids play, he’s just… really bad at talent evaluation and has a tendency to be hyperbolic about how good these kids will end up being.

Like while commentating on the U18, he was just absolutely gagging over Frondell, always trying to redirect the conversation to be about him… meanwhile Frondell was giving us absolutely nothing.

 

[weastern bias]

So the funny thing about Button is that I guarantee he actually does watch these kids play, he’s just… really bad at talent evaluation and has a tendency to be hyperbolic about how good these kids will end up being.

Like while commentating on the U18, he was just absolutely gagging over Frondell, always trying to redirect the conversation to be about him… meanwhile Frondell was giving us absolutely nothing.

That's the best thing about him, this guy lives and breathes the sport, he simply has no understanding of what he's looking at

It's a great reminder that someone can be completely consumed by their passion to the degree they've achieved the highest marks in their field and yet have no actual idea what they're doing or what they're talking about

 

[weastern bias]

Upon finishing the episode. . . I learned nothing today

 

[Star Platinum]

Listening to the Craig Button episode where he argues we draft Martone over Misa

His very first point is asking "do you want to add a really skilled player? Or do you want to add a really skilled player with BITE?"

So he suggests we draft Martone, the softest of softies

I would really appreciate if these "talent evaluators" would actually watch these guys play and not just look at their height and weight on their elite prospects page

I think Button actually does watch a lot of prospects play.

 

[weastern bias]

I think Button actually does watch a lot of prospects play.

He definitely does, you'd just never know it listening to him talk

 

[Star Platinum]

He definitely does, you'd just never know it listening to him talk

I think of him more as an enthusiast than an analyst. He was touting Celebrini big-time last year when the rest of the hockey world was more lukewarm on him relative to other recent #1 picks, though he did say Bedard would go before Celebrini if they were in the same draft. I doubt he'd say that now.

 

[anthonyyy]

Button is terrible; I stopped listening to him when he said Lafrenière would step in and immediately be a 30-30 guy and that Byfield is stylistically comparable to Kopitar.