Speculation: Sharks 2015-2016 Roster Talk: Rumors, Roster, Proposals. Part III ‎

[Limekiller]

I am using Stalock's 13 game sample size because that's his entire body of work this season. Players do not perform the same every season. Stalock has been terrible this season, and was already in decline last season. I don't know how anyone can defend a < 0.890 save%. That's AWFUL.

His career stats are also being skewed up by his really good first full year. He went downhill in year 2, when he finished with a save percentage of 0.902, a drop of 0.030. His GAA jumped from 1.87 to 2.62. This season, he has continued on the same downward trend that started last season. Now, he's at 0.884, with a 2.94 GAA. So, we have 35 games of noticeable steady decline as a sample size, compared to the 23 games when he was actually good. How is it so hard to accept that Stalock simply is not good at this point? If he ever regained his 2013-14 form, I'd be happy to have him. I see no signs whatsoever that he is trending in that direction, however, since the entire trend since then has been downhill.

It's also quite obvious the coaching staff trusts him less than in previous years, just by how many games he's played. Last year, he played in 22, the year before that, 24. This year, 13 so far. Do you really think he's going to get 9-11 games over our next 26 games after tonight to equal previous years? I'd be surprised if he got 5, if he stays as our backup. So, it's obvious they're playing him less often this year than last year, despite having a brand new goalie who has never played this many games, who probably should have gotten more rest. The question is why. I think the answer's obvious: they can't trust Stalock to be anything other than a complete dumpster fire back there.

We need a new backup. I'd even be happy if we sent Stalock back to the AHL and brought Dell up to play the role. But the team can't keep using Stalock going forward in that role. It's obvious the team doesn't trust him like they did in previous years, and I think it's pretty obvious why.

 

[OrrNumber4]

The new community manager is a dick. I won't ever go back.

All I did was suggest Patrick Kane is innocent until proven guilty, like everyone else in America, and he banned me from the site and blocked me on Twitter.

One of the reasons why I like it here is I don't have to worry about being banned for having the wrong opinions.

The author of that article at one time suggested that because of the rape statistics (few reported, very difficult to prosecute), the law should be changed so that in the case of rape, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. Common themes that racism/bigotry/homophobia/misogyny are rampant in life/hockey are common. Someone with that worldview sees what you did as incredibly shocking.

On the merits of the proposed trade, I have to imagine that the MTL brass is too smart to trade Subban just because he is struggling. Of course, they'd laugh if SJ offered that package. That being said, like in most cases when superstars are traded, the return will probably be less than what fans are speculating

Tell me how many games another backup will guarantee us we win. How do you know another backup won't also lose a bunch of his games for us, coming to a new team, at the end of the year.

How do you know that hockey won't be made illegal?

You are making a bet. Judging potential trades by the worst possible outcome will result in no trades being made.

Just for some more reasons why everyone is irrationally hating stalock, based on insanely small sample sizes, let's look at several potential goaltenders I've seen suggested we should trade for and see how they compare to stalock over the last three years.

Stalock- 2.37gaa .911sv%
Keumper- 2.47gaa .912sv%
Scrivens- 2.92gaa .904sv%
Bernier- 2.83gaa .915sv%
Khudobin- 2.52gaa .914sv%
Hiller-2.55gaa .910sv%
Johnson- 2.50 .913sv%
Ramo- 2.63gaa .911sv%
Berra- 2.82gaa .906sv%

So please, can everyone shut the hell up about how bad stalock is, he's having a horrible year, that's it, he's just fine overall as a backup, if you back the **** up and actually look at more than a 13 game sample size. The fact everyone except PF is ready to throw money and picks/prospects away for someone who will affect basically 6 games this year, simply because stalock's having a bad year, just proves how little some people look ahead, and behind and only focus on what makes them feel best right now.

Stalock has just as good a chance as any of those backup goaltenders to string together 6 good games to end the year.

Except that the 13 game sample size puts more emphasis on his recent play. Plus, people have pointed out that Stalock wasn't really a great AHL goalie in a very large sample size; that suggests that some of his early NHL games, where he was strong, are the real aberration, and he is "really" as good as he has been over the past two seasons.

Plus, of course, there is the potential factor. Stalock is small in a league where goaltenders are getting bigger and bigger. His famed puckhandling hasn't really manifested at all. He favours athleticism in a league where goaltenders are thriving on solid positioning.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Who cares if the backup makes $2M if the starter makes $3M? It's about helping the team win as much as possible (especially in our division when the winner avoids (LA/Anaheim). Resigning yourself to losing the 10% or 20% of the games Stalock starts is just dumb at this point.

Because that 2 million dollars can be better spent on a defenseman and addressing that issue in the off-season without trading anything. There isn't a resignation to losing five or six games that Stalock will be in. It's simply asset management. Five or six games that Stalock may play is not worth moving assets to address. Plain and simple. The only people resigning themselves to losing those games are fans.

The winner avoiding LA/Anaheim isn't that big of a deal when that team is going to get Nashville, Colorado, or Minnesota and none of those teams are going to be cakewalks.

 

[Limekiller]

Because that 2 million dollars can be better spent on a defenseman and addressing that issue in the off-season without trading anything. There isn't a resignation to losing five or six games that Stalock will be in. It's simply asset management. Five or six games that Stalock may play is not worth moving assets to address. Plain and simple. The only people resigning themselves to losing those games are fans.

The winner avoiding LA/Anaheim isn't that big of a deal when that team is going to get Nashville, Colorado, or Minnesota and none of those teams are going to be cakewalks.

And I don't think a 4th round pick is worth all that much in the grand scheme of things. If it can bring us in a reasonably young and cost-controlled backup (like the aforementioned Kuemper), who is better, younger, and cheaper than Stalock, I have zero issues whatsoever with spending a 4th to acquire him. A competent backup goalie is better than most 4th round picks tend to turn into anyway.

Oh, and I see a pretty big quality difference between LA/Anaheim and Colorado/Minnesota especially. If we can avoid one of LA/Anaheim until the 2nd round, that is nothing but a positive. So I guess I see winning the division to be a much bigger deal than you do, which is why am so much more concerned about dropping games because Stalock is starting. Are they guaranteed losses? Of course not. Could a different goalie give us a much better chance to win those games? Absolutely.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

And I don't think a 4th round pick is worth all that much in the grand scheme of things. If it can bring us in a reasonably young and cost-controlled backup (like the aforementioned Kuemper), who is better, younger, and cheaper than Stalock, I have zero issues whatsoever with spending a 4th to acquire him. A competent backup goalie is better than most 4th round picks tend to turn into anyway.

Oh, and I see a pretty big quality difference between LA/Anaheim and Colorado/Minnesota especially. If we can avoid one of LA/Anaheim until the 2nd round, that is nothing but a positive. So I guess I see winning the division to be a much bigger deal than you do, which is why am so much more concerned about dropping games because Stalock is starting. Are they guaranteed losses? Of course not. Could a different goalie give us a much better chance to win those games? Absolutely.

It's not really about the pick as much as it is about the cap space. And while you may see a difference it still doesn't mean much come playoff time. All the teams are going to be tough and some will be marginally tougher than others. It's not as if the Sharks are seeing much more success against Minnesota, Colorado, and Nashville compared to the Ducks and Kings. And even if winning the division was a big deal, Stalock or whoever the backup is that will still just see five or six games the rest of this season is not worth the asset and the cap space when a d-man is going to have more of an impact. Even getting another depth forward would have a better impact than a backup goalie.

 

[Dicdonya]

I am using Stalock's 13 game sample size because that's his entire body of work this season. Players do not perform the same every season. Stalock has been terrible this season, and was already in decline last season. I don't know how anyone can defend a < 0.890 save%. That's AWFUL.

When did I ever defend his play this year? I understand players have up and down seasons from year to year, it's why I pointed out talking about just his 13 games this year is pointless, because it's a teeny sample size.

His career stats are also being skewed up by his really good first full year. He went downhill in year 2, when he finished with a save percentage of 0.902, a drop of 0.030. His GAA jumped from 1.87 to 2.62. This season, he has continued on the same downward trend that started last season. Now, he's at 0.884, with a 2.94 GAA. So, we have 35 games of noticeable steady decline as a sample size, compared to the 23 games when he was actually good. How is it so hard to accept that Stalock simply is not good at this point? If he ever regained his 2013-14 form, I'd be happy to have him. I see no signs whatsoever that he is trending in that direction, however, since the entire trend since then has been downhill.

So? Jones stats are being skewed by his first 4 games plus our recent streak since the Toronto game.

In fact, Jones sans his hot start, then our recent streak has stats that look like this. .900sv% 2.82gaa. During that same time Stalock was .893sv% 2.97gaa. Very similar stats no? Now understand that 6 of stalocks 9 starts came during that time, or 2/3 of his starts. He wasn't any degree of separation worse than jones, yet gets lambasted for his overall play this year, which clearly correlates with the period of this year where our team was struggling.

Same can be said for last years stats, where stalocks statistical decline correlated with our first non playoff team in 10 years. Also outside of bad 5 games stretch where stalock had .862sv% and 3.90gaa avg, his stats the rest of his starts last year were .918sv% and 2.14gaa. In other words, unlike jones, stalock does not have the benefit of getting 46 games to help counterbalance bad stretches of games. Which is exactly why I keep pointing out stalocks overall numbers which give a clearer picture of his play. Instead of zeroing in on just a poor teeny weeny sample size of 9 starts this year.

One more stat. I picked a 13 game stretch for jones this year. Since you are judging stalock on 13 games, let's do the same for jones. His stats from Dec 1st to Jan 7th are .889sv% and 3.06gaa. He must be the worst starter in the whole NHL with stats like that no? Are you starting to understand why it's so pointless to talk about stalock based on just this year?

It's also quite obvious the coaching staff trusts him less than in previous years, just by how many games he's played. Last year, he played in 22, the year before that, 24. This year, 13 so far. Do you really think he's going to get 9-11 games over our next 26 games after tonight to equal previous years? I'd be surprised if he got 5, if he stays as our backup. So, it's obvious they're playing him less often this year than last year, despite having a brand new goalie who has never played this many games, who probably should have gotten more rest. The question is why. I think the answer's obvious: they can't trust Stalock to be anything other than a complete dumpster fire back there.

We need a new backup. I'd even be happy if we sent Stalock back to the AHL and brought Dell up to play the role. But the team can't keep using Stalock going forward in that role. It's obvious the team doesn't trust him like they did in previous years, and I think it's pretty obvious why.

Maybe it's because Jones is our unquestioned starter? How do you know how many games jones can play? Every goalie is different, and not every goalie gets worn down, especially younger goalies who recover faster than old guys.

Maybe it's because we have a new coach, who likes to ride his starter. Maybe it's because our team was playing extremely mediocre hockey for much of the start of the year, so our coach was trying to give his team the best chance to win by playing the starter more. Maybe it's because we had a very light schedule that gave us a ton of rest days early in the year.

You're right though, it's probably just because stalocks having a rough year, nothing else could account for him getting a few less games.

 

[Limekiller]

It's not really about the pick as much as it is about the cap space. And while you may see a difference it still doesn't mean much come playoff time. All the teams are going to be tough and some will be marginally tougher than others. It's not as if the Sharks are seeing much more success against Minnesota, Colorado, and Nashville compared to the Ducks and Kings. And even if winning the division was a big deal, Stalock or whoever the backup is that will still just see five or six games the rest of this season is not worth the asset and the cap space when a d-man is going to have more of an impact. Even getting another depth forward would have a better impact than a backup goalie.

Well, if we can send Stalock back to the Wild as part of a deal, we'll actually improve our cap situation, since Kuemper has a lower cap hit than Stalock does. If not, we just bury him in the minors, meaning the net cap hit is going to be pretty small. I also believe that the Sharks will convince Raffi to shut it down and get put on LTIR before the deadline, which would give us some extra cap room too.

I certainly wouldn't object to picking up a depth D-man, and maybe another forward too, especially with Wingels' injury. I agree that those would be good things to go after. Like I said too, I'd be perfectly happy sending Stalock to the Barracuda and calling up Dell, and see how he is in the role too. Not like he can be much worse, anyway.

I just think we need someone pretty good in that backup slot so that we can give Jones as much rest as possible heading into the playoffs. (where obviously he'll play every game) I think the impact of the extra rest Jones could get if we had a much better backup is nowhere near as small an effect from acquiring a new backup as you're suggesting. It's obvious by how many games they've given him this year compared to the past that the coaching staff doesn't trust Stalock, and I don't blame them one bit.

 

[Dicdonya]

How do you know that hockey won't be made illegal?

You are making a bet. Judging potential trades by the worst possible outcome will result in no trades being made.

Yeah, it is a gamble. Now here's the point. If I'm gambling, and over 46 games my goalie has good to great stats, and over 13 games he has poor stats, what is the better bet for a good game over a bad game. The answer is crystal clear. You are making a gamble based on the worst possible outcome, based on the poorer of two sample sizes, which also happens to be the far lesser number of games. You are the one making a bad bet.

Except that the 13 game sample size puts more emphasis on his recent play. Plus, people have pointed out that Stalock wasn't really a great AHL goalie in a very large sample size; that suggests that some of his early NHL games, where he was strong, are the real aberration, and he is "really" as good as he has been over the past two seasons.

Plus, of course, there is the potential factor. Stalock is small in a league where goaltenders are getting bigger and bigger. His famed puckhandling hasn't really manifested at all. He favours athleticism in a league where goaltenders are thriving on solid positioning.

Yeah and as I've pointed out numerous times now, what you've done lately has very little to do with how you play overall. Jones has played equally as bad as Stalock over similar sample sizes this year, yet there's maybe one or two people I've seen on these boards ever talk negatively about jones.

Once again, are you going to make the bad bet, and go with Stalock being bad for all his games going forward based on 13 games, or bet on the 46 games prior where he was not bad at all.

Oh and not only are you going to bet on the worst possible outcome, but ALSO give up player/picks and time that could be used to find a more useful trade to boot. Sounds really smart to me.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Well, if we can send Stalock back to the Wild as part of a deal, we'll actually improve our cap situation, since Kuemper has a lower cap hit than Stalock does. If not, we just bury him in the minors, meaning the net cap hit is going to be pretty small. I also believe that the Sharks will convince Raffi to shut it down and get put on LTIR before the deadline, which would give us some extra cap room too.

I certainly wouldn't object to picking up a depth D-man, and maybe another forward too, especially with Wingels' injury. I agree that those would be good things to go after. Like I said too, I'd be perfectly happy sending Stalock to the Barracuda and calling up Dell, and see how he is in the role too. Not like he can be much worse, anyway.

I just think we need someone pretty good in that backup slot so that we can give Jones as much rest as possible heading into the playoffs. (where obviously he'll play every game) I think the impact of the extra rest Jones could get if we had a much better backup is nowhere near as small an effect from acquiring a new backup as you're suggesting. It's obvious by how many games they've given him this year compared to the past that the coaching staff doesn't trust Stalock, and I don't blame them one bit.

If they can swap backups, that's one thing but chances of that occurring aren't very good. Why would the Wild give up Keumper? I also have no problems swapping Stalock for Dell. Anything that doesn't involve moving assets to address it doesn't make sense. There's just not enough gain provided doing so. No backup available is going to win for us in the playoffs if Jones goes down and 5-6 games during the season that's left just isn't worth it.

 

[Limekiller]

If they can swap backups, that's one thing but chances of that occurring aren't very good. Why would the Wild give up Keumper? I also have no problems swapping Stalock for Dell. Anything that doesn't involve moving assets to address it doesn't make sense. There's just not enough gain provided doing so. No backup available is going to win for us in the playoffs if Jones goes down and 5-6 games during the season that's left just isn't worth it.

Well, I think that if the trade gives us someone we can have under our control longer term than just a rental, so we've got the backup goalie situation straightened out next year too, then it's really not bad asset management if all you're giving up is a 4th, or even a little more than that. A long term cost-controlled upgrade to the backup is worth a 4th, imho. I do agree that spending assets on a pure rental for the backup is a terrible idea, though.

As for Kuemper, it was Wild fans in the main trade board thread who brought him up as being available, so I tend to trust their word on that. He also seems to be the best combination of ability, age and salary I've seen among the backup type goalies I've seen mentioned as available in the trade forum.

 

[Bleedred]

Stalock- 2.37gaa .911sv%
Keumper- 2.47gaa .912sv%
Scrivens- 2.92gaa .904sv%
Bernier- 2.83gaa .915sv%
Khudobin- 2.52gaa .914sv%
Hiller-2.55gaa .910sv%
Johnson- 2.50 .913sv%
Ramo- 2.63gaa .911sv%
Berra- 2.82gaa .906sv%

So please, can everyone shut the hell up about how bad stalock is, he's having a horrible year, that's it, he's just fine overall as a backup, if you back the **** up and actually look at more than a 13 game sample size. The fact everyone except PF is ready to throw money and picks/prospects away for someone who will affect basically 6 games this year, simply because stalock's having a bad year, just proves how little some people look ahead, and behind and only focus on what makes them feel best right now.

Stalock has just as good a chance as any of those backup goaltenders to string together 6 good games to end the year.

He's having a bad year, huh? just a bad YEAR? Try bad two years.

.911 is his save percentage over the last 3 years? That's because his first year he had an amazing .932 save percentage.

Now add up the last two seasons only, he has a dreadful .896 save percentage. That might even be a league worst for goalies that have started nearly as many games as he has in that time frame. Ray Emery's save percentage in his last 3 seasons combined probably look respectable, thanks to that .922 lockout season in Chicago. That might make the numbers look about average or at least respectable when also calculating in his .903 and .894 over the next two seasons.

And Stalock has now surpassed the amount of games he played in his rookie season, with the last two seasons of play combined. The 13-14 season is looking like the outlier.

But I will agree with you that a lot of those available goalies are trash.

Keumper: Probably not available just yet, even though they have Dubnyk locked up another 5 years after.

Scrivens: He might be worse or as bad as Stalock. His LAK run was a fluke and he's been terrible in both Edmonton and Montreal. Watch some highlights if anyone thinks that's the teams defense that made him look bad. He gave up two softies last night for Montreal. Even baldy Remenda had something critical to say about him almost every game I saw with the Oilers last year.

Bernier: Now there's a guy that's just having a bad year.

Khudobin: Was amazing in Carolina the first year, was good as a backup in Boston before that. Stunk for the Canes last year, was alright in Anaheim. Got waived because of depth and he wasn't as good as the other two guys.

Hiller: He might be a great backup for a few games, but looks to have grenaded this season. Ramo played near the same level this year as he did last year, behind an even worse team. Hiller has been legtimately garbage for them this year.

Johnson: I feel like he's the type that fluctuates yearly. Good one year, bad the next, good again the next.

Ramo: Injured for the remainder of the season.

Berra: Has been good, with the exception of his rookie year. Much better than Stalock these last two years. MUCH better.

 

[Bizz]

There is more to goaltending than GAA and SV%. Sometimes you can just tell a goalie is bad by simply watching him play. Why do you think I criticized Niemi so much when he was here?

 

[SactoShark]

If the Shorks beat the Kings in the first round with Jones and Bernier, I could come to terms with '14.

 

[KirbyDots]

If the Shorks beat the Kings in the first round with Jones and Bernier, I could come to terms with '14.

Should get Scrivens too for the hell of it and have an army of former Kings backups!

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Well, I think that if the trade gives us someone we can have under our control longer term than just a rental, so we've got the backup goalie situation straightened out next year too, then it's really not bad asset management if all you're giving up is a 4th, or even a little more than that. A long term cost-controlled upgrade to the backup is worth a 4th, imho. I do agree that spending assets on a pure rental for the backup is a terrible idea, though.

As for Kuemper, it was Wild fans in the main trade board thread who brought him up as being available, so I tend to trust their word on that. He also seems to be the best combination of ability, age and salary I've seen among the backup type goalies I've seen mentioned as available in the trade forum.

With backups, you're not really going to get anything long-term out of them because they're going to want to keep their options open for a payday if they have a good year and someone wants to take a chance and make them a starter. Chances are that if Kuemper is on the block in Minnesota, which I wouldn't understand given their situation, a 4th is probably not going to cut it. To add to that, this position doesn't require someone to be young or a real long-term asset. It's not uncommon to turn over the backup spot regularly. With so many of them available in free agency, I just don't see the need to. If it's a straight swap or part of a bigger deal that addresses a more important need, I guess it would work. However, I'm just not sold that it's anywhere near as important as people seem to think it is. That position is rather meaningless at this stage.

There is more to goaltending than GAA and SV%. Sometimes you can just tell a goalie is bad by simply watching him play. Why do you think I criticized Niemi so much when he was here?

Nobody really asked that question because it's a slippery slope why you do anything. lol

 

[Limekiller]

OK, how much do you think the Wingels injury effects what the Sharks are looking for on the trade market? I guess it's largely gonna depend on how bad the injury, but it sounds like it's reasonably serious, at least if my Sharks-Speak translator is properly parsing their post-game comments. (had to recalibrate that thing, since it was set to Koala for a long time... rofl) Does this change their focus from their reported interest in D, to maybe spending the assets on a forward instead?

If we do go for a forward, who would we go after? He'd have to take over Wingels' spot now, and then still be able to fit in to bolster the forward depth when Wingels comes back. So who? Lars Eller? Dale Weise? Jiri Hudler? Cam Atkinson, maybe? (just throwing names I've seen listed as possibly available at the wall here, basically, and seeing if anything sticks.) Anyone else?

I am assuming we wouldn't be in on Ladd, given the cost necessary to obtain him as a pure rental, but I could be wrong on that certainly. (If we did get him, what would we do, put him on the 1st line, and put Hertl back centering the 2nd line? Leave the 1st line alone, and put Ladd on Marleau's wing?) I suspect Chicago will outbid everyone for him, though, since he'd be a pretty good fit there.

What do you guys think?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

A little while sounds to me like probably an IR trip but not an LTIR trip. He'll probably be back before the deadline or maybe just a bit after. Weise seems like the most suitable replacement of what Wingels brings to the table if it becomes necessary. Ladd would be a great add and you can plug him pretty much anywhere you want but I think he'll be out of our price range asset-wise. I would assume Purcell is available too but he's not very physical however he does have a pretty good offensive skill set that would work for this team.

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

Kurz wrote an article on how the team needs to explore the trade market if Wingels' injury is long term...

It's almost as if there aren't 4 NHL caliber forwards (Goldobin, Smith, Goodrow, Carpenter) in an affiliated club that can hold down the job...

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

Kurz wrote an article on how the team needs to explore the trade market if Wingels' injury is long term...

It's almost as if there aren't 4 NHL caliber forwards (Goldobin, Smith, Goodrow, Carpenter) in an affiliated club that can hold down the job...

Yeah.

We should call up Smith. Might just work out.

 

[DystopianTierney]

Ladd would be outstanding. Honestly, if Ladd could be re-upped in SJ, I would dump Wingels just for cap space.

Too high profile for Doug, though. Also a little overkill on what the team needs at the deadline.

Can't believe he will probably end up in CHI. /Playoffs

Kurz wrote an article on how the team needs to explore the trade market if Wingels' injury is long term...

It's almost as if there aren't 4 NHL caliber forwards (Goldobin, Smith, Goodrow, Carpenter) in an affiliated club that can hold down the job...

Wot? Maybe on the 4th line... Goldobin should be nowhere near this team at this point in the season.

 

[Limekiller]

Kurz wrote an article on how the team needs to explore the trade market if Wingels' injury is long term...

It's almost as if there aren't 4 NHL caliber forwards (Goldobin, Smith, Goodrow, Carpenter) in an affiliated club that can hold down the job...

You watch the Barracuda more than almost anyone here, AFAIK, do you think Goldobin, for example, could take Wingels' role? Would he have anything like the same physicality or ability to draw penalties? Would he be anywhere near as good defensively? You'd know far better than I how he's doing at this point, but I'm really hesitant to call up someone at this point in the season who has never played in the NHL consistently yet. That goes double for the playoffs, if its a longer-term injury.

Who do you think the best of those 4 to call up would be?

Even if one of them can handle the call up until Wingels is better, I still wouldn't mind the Sharks picking up a forward of some kind, assuming we can afford the prices to acquire them.

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

Wot? Maybe on the 4th line... Goldobin should be nowhere near this team at this point in the season.

Wingels was getting 3rd/4th line time, and Goodrow or Smith could be good cogs in the spot for a few weeks.

Goldobin has the ability to take regular shifts with the team. I understand it's important to not rush him and it's important to let him ripen, but Sommer has him constantly on a line with Lerg and McCarthy, neither of which make high percentage plays or possess good offensive skill. He would probably instantly become our 3rd best PP forward, and insulating him with talent and skill would allow us to play him wherever he's needed. I think he's earned another look before the end of the season, but Torres, Brown and Smith are likely here until the end of the season, so there isn't room.

Carpenter I'll cede is probably only good enough for the 4th line, but he's an instant upgrade on Mike Brown...

I'd imagine Zubrus is gone, but I wouldn't be upset if we re-upped him for a year.

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

You watch the Barracuda more than almost anyone here, AFAIK, do you think Goldobin, for example, could take Wingels' role?

Lines would be shuffled a bit. I'd put him with Couture or Tierney. Obviously wouldn't get the same usage, but him on the 2nd PP is money.

Would he have anything like the same physicality or ability to draw penalties?

No to the first, yes to the second

Would he be anywhere near as good defensively?

No, but Wingels is pretty overrated defensively on this board, and I say that as one of his supporters.

You'd know far better than I how he's doing at this point, but I'm really hesitant to call up someone at this point in the season who has never played in the NHL consistently yet. That goes double for the playoffs, if its a longer-term injury.

I'd have no hesitation in giving Aaron Dell a chance.

Who do you think the best of those 4 to call up would be?

Even if one of them can handle the call up until Wingels is better, I still wouldn't mind the Sharks picking up a forward of some kind, assuming we can afford the prices to acquire them.

the best for this team is probably Smith, but DeBoer is obviously not a fan. Same kinda goes with Goodrow, but he's been on a cold streak.

I'd say you move Tierney up until Wingels is back and try Carpenter, Goodrow, and Smith at different points. Find what works.

Once we've secured a playoff spot and want to scratch our best players to give them rest, I'd call up Goldobin.

 

[Timos Death Stare]

Wingels was getting 3rd/4th line time, and Goodrow or Smith could be good cogs in the spot for a few weeks.

Goldobin has the ability to take regular shifts with the team. I understand it's important to not rush him and it's important to let him ripen, but Sommer has him constantly on a line with Lerg and McCarthy, neither of which make high percentage plays or possess good offensive skill. He would probably instantly become our 3rd best PP forward, and insulating him with talent and skill would allow us to play him wherever he's needed. I think he's earned another look before the end of the season, but Torres, Brown and Smith are likely here until the end of the season, so there isn't room.

Carpenter I'll cede is probably only good enough for the 4th line, but he's an instant upgrade on Mike Brown...

I'd imagine Zubrus is gone, but I wouldn't be upset if we re-upped him for a year.

I don't think he's gone. He'll be gone if he wants anything more than 1.4M. I think (hope) the Sharks have learned their lesson about overpaying bottom sixers ala Burish, Brown, Smith (dumb trade IMO), etc. Zubrus is not going to get more than a 1 year contract anywhere he goes. San Jose isn't a bad place to play, he knows the coach and vice versa. If he wants to play again and is reasonable about salary I'd say he's back. The biggest question is will he be okay/willing to take on that 4th line spot, as I really think he's adding to that Tierney line. They play together nicely.

 

[Bizz]

If Wingels is out long term, the only suitable replacement would someone exactly like him. Physical forward who can dish out hits without becoming a defensive liability.