Confirmed with Link: Sharks acquire pick 11 for 14+42

[TheBigDrunkPanda]

Halttunen and Musty have proven they can be. As much as I like Eiserman, he's just another elite sniper that has bullied lesser competition. I think we bsolutely need to go D here.

Norris may end up being one of those guys that gets over his health issues but never returns to form. Chabot is making 8 a year for the next 4 and Ottawa needs space although if Chyryun is on his way out then they'll probably keep Thomas.

They're the real wild card in this draft because no one knows what the hell their plan is.

Grier could take the 95 Nords/Avs approach draft a bunch of elite forwards then trade one for your stud dman like Nolan for Ozolinsh

 

[TheBigDrunkPanda]

Halttunen and Musty have proven nothing - they've bullied lesser competition as well.

I have no real preference for who to draft, but we're not in a position to pass up on anything in favor of anything else.

I mean they were both. 18 it’s not like they were over agers, and I’m Esierman fan boy USHL isn’t as good as the O

 

[TheBeard]

Halttunen and Musty have proven nothing - they've bullied lesser competition as well.

I have no real preference for who to draft, but we're not in a position to pass up on anything in favor of anything else.

Sorry, that was my point. Just worded poorly. I meant we already have snipers in the system that's proven they can bully lesser competition. I'd like to see what their deelopment is like before we spend another high pick on another of the same ilk.

 

[hockfan1991]

Not on Sennecke? That would be a home run pick there given there is smoke of him maybe going as high as 3rd overall...


What a moronic take. The issue isn't the value but rather who was selected when moving up...

I would absolutely be happy with Sennecke at 11, no brainer.

 

[TealManV]

When it comes to building a strong playoff, cup contending D, the formula seems to be pretty consistent with drafting and developing one top 4 guy (Makar, Hedman, Ekblad), making a few big trades (McDonagh, Sergachev, Toews, Montour), and being savvy with FA and the waiver wire (Petro, Forsling, etc.)

The Panthers just won the cup with a D corps of:

-Ekblad (Panthers drafted him 1st overall)
-Forsling (waiver wire claim)
-Montour (trade)
-Mikkola (FA signing)
-OEL (FA signing)
-Kulikov (Orginally a 1st round pick by the Panthers in 2009 but was brought back as a FA)

And the mold is similar to the Lightning’s recent SC teams:

-Hedman (Lightning drafted him 2nd overall)
-McDonagh (trade)
-Sergachev (trade)
-Savard (trade)
-Rutta (trade)
-Černák (Lightning drafted)
-Schenn (FA signing)

I think this reaffirms the idea of drafting BPA and not based on the need of the prospect pool.

 

[Sharkz4Fun]

When it comes to building a strong playoff, cup contending D, the formula seems to be pretty consistent with drafting and developing one top 4 guy (Makar, Hedman, Ekblad), making a few big trades (McDonagh, Sergachev, Toews, Montour), and being savvy with FA and the waiver wire (Petro, Forsling, etc.)

The Panthers just won the cup with a D corps of:

-Ekblad (Panthers drafted him 1st overall)
-Forsling (waiver wire claim)
-Montour (trade)
-Mikkola (FA signing)
-OEL (FA signing)
-Kulikov (Orginally a 1st round pick by the Panthers in 2009 but was brought back as a FA)

And the mold is similar to the Lightning’s recent SC teams:

-Hedman (Lightning drafted him 2nd overall)
-McDonagh (trade)
-Sergachev (trade)
-Savard (trade)
-Rutta (trade)
-Černák (Lightning drafted)
-Schenn (FA signing)

I think this reaffirms the idea of drafting BPA and not based on the need of the prospect pool.

They should absolutely pick Iginla/Eiserman or BFA at 11, Buium aside. All the other defensemen are 3-4's in the 11 range, and, as seen, super easy to pick up otherwise.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

They should absolutely pick Iginla/Eiserman or BFA at 11, Buium aside. All the other defensemen are 3-4's in the 11 range, and, as seen, super easy to pick up otherwise.

I tend to think Buium is the only one with top pairing potential but I think the teams that inevitably select those non-Buium defensemen believe they also have top pairing potential. You don't pick them w/o that belief, imo. Not when there's numerous potential top six forwards available.

 

[Star Platinum]

There are some mocks with Buium dropping to 11.

I think this has zero chance of happening. If it's for a defenseman, it's for Yakemchuk.

I actually think this is a dumb deal in the sense of why would you finalize the deal for the pick until you know whether the guy you want is even going to be there at that pick? And if it's a trade up specifically to get Eiserman, I don't like it. There are better guys to draft at that pick guaranteed and if Eiserman gets drafted #11 by someone else, that pushes a forward I like better down.

If I know for a fact that we can get to draft Yakemchuk, I'm on board with that. He may be #6 in the Top 6 defensemen and I know what the holes in his game are, but I still think he's worth trading up for.

 

[timorous me]

I think this has zero chance of happening. If it's for a defenseman, it's for Yakemchuk.

I actually think this is a dumb deal in the sense of why would you finalize the deal for the pick until you know whether the guy you want is even going to be there at that pick? And if it's a trade up specifically to get Eiserman, I don't like it. There are better guys to draft at that pick guaranteed and if Eiserman gets drafted #11 by someone else, that pushes a forward I like better down.

If I know for a fact that we can get to draft Yakemchuk, I'm on board with that. He may be #6 in the Top 6 defensemen and I know what the holes in his game are, but I still think he's worth trading up for.

I'm going to assume the idea of doing it now--which certainly was surprising--was based on one of two things: either Buffalo was ready to do a deal with someone else, so it was now or get leapfrogged by another team; or doing it now means Grier can now go into the draft tomorrow with his ammunition already in place if he wants to try to move up even higher.

 

[Star Platinum]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1806385280934408674

This is why this trade up makes me believe Eiserman is the target even more than I did with just the quotes from insiders/writers. Philly really wanted him and Grier is getting in front of them in line.

Not saying that I agree with it, but just putting the puzzle pieces together.

Philly, please trade up to 10 then.

 

[Star Platinum]

GMMG could be doing this just to be in position to draft Eiserman at 11, then specifically decide NOT to draft him to establish dominance against Celebrini

Celebrini gets totally cucked before he even joins the team

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think this has zero chance of happening. If it's for a defenseman, it's for Yakemchuk.

I actually think this is a dumb deal in the sense of why would you finalize the deal for the pick until you know whether the guy you want is even going to be there at that pick? And if it's a trade up specifically to get Eiserman, I don't like it. There are better guys to draft at that pick guaranteed and if Eiserman gets drafted #11 by someone else, that pushes a forward I like better down.

If I know for a fact that we can get to draft Yakemchuk, I'm on board with that. He may be #6 in the Top 6 defensemen and I know what the holes in his game are, but I still think he's worth trading up for.

I think you would finalize the deal for the pick now if you have a belief that you may need to move again on draft day for whoever it is you're trying to get.

 

[Star Platinum]

I think you would finalize the deal for the pick now if you have a belief that you may need to move again on draft day for whoever it is you're trying to get.

If he's thinking he wants to trade up again, then yes it makes sense to do it now.

Regarding all the Eiserman smoke, that was assuming the Sharks stayed at 14. Frankly, I didn't believe it even then and with the move up, I really don't think that's the guy. This is a blatant move to try and get one of the last Top 6 defensemen.

 

[mogambomoroo]

Ultimately a good deal by MG.
He wants to draft a player that's at least in that top 11 area, which is a pretty nice list of players unless he somehow reaches. I really hope he uses this pick as an ammo to trade up if one of the top defencemen start falling for some weird reason. Buium, Levshunov and Dickinson are probably the one he has his eyes on. I don't want Eiserman, because of his player profile and we really need a defencemen.

 

[Boy Hedican]

Thanks Yzerman for that free additional 2nd btw.

Makes this trade look so good.

GMMG FTW

Now swap 11 + 33 to CBJ

 

[YUPPY 2 7 10 11]

Ultimately a good deal by MG.
He wants to draft a player that's at least in that top 11 area, which is a pretty nice list of players unless he somehow reaches. I really hope he uses this pick as an ammo to trade up if one of the top defencemen start falling for some weird reason. Buium, Levshunov and Dickinson are probably the one he has his eyes on. I don't want Eiserman, because of his player profile and we really need a defencemen.

Buium, Levshunov and Dickinson are all gone by 10. Like it or not, Eiserman IS going to be the pick.

 

[mogambomoroo]

Buium, Levshunov and Dickinson are all gone by 10. Like it or not, Eiserman IS going to be the pick.

I mentioned those names after I said about trading up from #11. At #11 spot there is still a chance to get a really good player (not Eiserman)

 

[Sharksfan66]

The analytics junkie(s) hate this move.

https://x.com/i/web/status/1806389679308296359

Ok, so I've been seeing a lot of people saying this sort of thing, which just feels off to me as someone who has watched the Sharks trade up and down a number of times over the years. So I looked it up and here's what I found (Note: I graded these trades, not based on who could have been picked in a certain range, b/c we could play that game all day...., but who actually was picked).
Trading Up in the 1st
2024: 14 + 42 for 11 ➔ ??
2013: 20 (Mantha) + 58 (Bertuzzi) ➔ 18 (Mueller) - LOSS
2007: 13 (Eller) + 44 (Palushaj) ➔ 9 (Couture) - BIG WIN
2005: 12 (M. Staal) + 49 (Denny) + 207 (Stoesz) ➔ 8 (Setoguichi) - WASH
2004: 28 (Fistric) + 52 (Sawada) + 92 (Edler) ➔ 22 (Kaspar) + 153 (Zalewski) - LOSS
2003: #21 (M. Stuart) + 66 (Marjamaki) + 107 (Bitz) ➔ 16 (Bernier) - WASH

* Did not count 2007 (Nick Petrecki) or 1997 (Scott Hannan) since the Sharks traded up from the 2nd round into the late 1st for these, but you could score one in each column for these two respectively.

Trading Back in the 1st
2022: 11 (Geekie) ➔ 27 (Bystedt) + 34 (Lund) 45 (Havelid) - LOSS
2014: 20 (Schmaltz) +179 (Nalimov) ➔ 27 (Goldobin) + 62 (Kirkland) - LOSS
1998: This year is complicated & a real heartbreaker (here’s the story for those who weren’t around back then) but in short there were 2 trade backs this year:
- pt 1: 1 (Lecavalier) + Marchment + Shaw ➔ 2 (Legwand) + Nazarov - LOSS
- pt 2: 2 (Legwand) + 29 (Koch) for 3 (Stuart) + 85 (Cheechoo) - WIN
1993: 2 (Pronger) ➔ 6 (Kozlov) + 45 (Kroupa) + 58 (Peltonen) + Makarov - HUGE FREEKIN LOSS

In Total
When trading up, the Sharks had 1 big win, 2 washes, and 2 losses.
When trading down, the Sharks have had 4 losses and 1 win.

TLDR; trading up seems to work actually, far more often than trading back.


What do you all think? Would you quibble with my grades? Am I missing anyone? Or are the Sharks just some massive 3 decade outlier?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If he's thinking he wants to trade up again, then yes it makes sense to do it now.

Regarding all the Eiserman smoke, that was assuming the Sharks stayed at 14. Frankly, I didn't believe it even then and with the move up, I really don't think that's the guy. This is a blatant move to try and get one of the last Top 6 defensemen.

I'm not buying any smoke for any particular person at this stage. It's the draft and there's a lot of misdirection and movement. If I had to guess, it's for a defenseman but it may still be for a forward too. Anybody they could pick where they are would be a great benefit for the organization.

Buium, Levshunov and Dickinson are all gone by 10. Like it or not, Eiserman IS going to be the pick.

I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[DG93]

Love the trade!! My gut tells me this is not Grier moving up for Eiserman though despite the BU and Macklin connection. Getting Igilna, Sennecke, Parekh, or Dickinson here would be amazing. Catton would be fine, but I just can't see Grier trading up for him. I could talk myself into Yakemchuk based on the physical profile despite red flags. I would be very unhappy with Eiserman being the pick here, and I would be very surprised if it was Helenius.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Draft pick values are a good framework, but at this level there's enough variability that each draft will have its own values.

 

[Star Platinum]

Buium, Levshunov and Dickinson are all gone by 10. Like it or not, Eiserman IS going to be the pick.

 

[PacificOceanPotion]

Celebrini and Sennecke would be amazing ngl..

 

[themelkman]

Ok, so I've been seeing a lot of people saying this sort of thing, which just feels off to me as someone who has watched the Sharks trade up and down a number of times over the years. So I looked it up and here's what I found (Note: I graded these trades, not based on who could have been picked in a certain range, b/c we could play that game all day...., but who actually was picked).
Trading Up in the 1st
2024: 14 + 42 for 11 ➔ ??
2013: 20 (Mantha) + 58 (Bertuzzi) ➔ 18 (Mueller) - LOSS
2007: 13 (Eller) + 44 (Palushaj) ➔ 9 (Couture) - BIG WIN
2005: 12 (M. Staal) + 49 (Denny) + 207 (Stoesz) ➔ 8 (Setoguichi) - WASH
2004: 28 (Fistric) + 52 (Sawada) + 92 (Edler) ➔ 22 (Kaspar) + 153 (Zalewski) - LOSS
2003: #21 (M. Stuart) + 66 (Marjamaki) + 107 (Bitz) ➔ 16 (Bernier) - WASH

* Did not count 2007 (Nick Petrecki) or 1997 (Scott Hannan) since the Sharks traded up from the 2nd round into the late 1st for these, but you could score one in each column for these two respectively.

Trading Back in the 1st
2022: 11 (Geekie) ➔ 27 (Bystedt) + 34 (Lund) 45 (Havelid) - LOSS
2014: 20 (Schmaltz) +179 (Nalimov) ➔ 27 (Goldobin) + 62 (Kirkland) - LOSS
1998: This year is complicated & a real heartbreaker (here’s the story for those who weren’t around back then) but in short there were 2 trade backs this year:
- pt 1: 1 (Lecavalier) + Marchment + Shaw ➔ 2 (Legwand) + Nazarov - LOSS
- pt 2: 2 (Legwand) + 29 (Koch) for 3 (Stuart) + 85 (Cheechoo) - WIN
1993: 2 (Pronger) ➔ 6 (Kozlov) + 45 (Kroupa) + 58 (Peltonen) + Makarov - HUGE FREEKIN LOSS

In Total
When trading up, the Sharks had 1 big win, 2 washes, and 2 losses.
When trading down, the Sharks have had 4 losses and 1 win.

TLDR; trading up seems to work actually, far more often than trading back.


What do you all think? Would you quibble with my grades? Am I missing anyone? Or are the Sharks just some massive 3 decade outlier?

Pretty tough to evaluate it this way, especially given our management is radically different than it was then. Im not sure how our 2022 trade back was a loss at this point either.

Trading up is basically saying "My scouts will beat the odds", so it radically depends on your scouts and how good they actually are.

 

[Boy Hedican]

If this move is about having a shot at Parekh, I won't be mad at that. I love Parekh's game and I'll say it again: a half Indian, half Korean player is extremely marketable (and a great story) for the Bay Area, especially Asian-heavy San Jose.

have you ever worked in marketing? Honest question.