Confirmed with Link: Sharks acquire Yaroslav Askarov (w/extension, 2yr @ $2m per), F Nolan Burke 2025 3rd for Edstrom, VGK 1st, and G Chrona

[zombie kopitar]

How much does it cost the rebuild if he doesn't hit? You are down an ok prospect and a 1st round pick. Nothing devastating. How much does it help the rebuild if he does hit? Massively. The hardest position to find a gem. And one with a head start on development. The reward outweighs the risk by a lot.

I mean we can't know the total cost until you see what player is drafted with the Vegas pick, and how that turns out. The odds are in our favor, I think it was a great gamble even if he doesn't hit; but we won't know for a while how everything turns out end of the day

 

[OrrNumber4]

Maybe the lack of certainty about what he ends up being means he’s less Celebrini and more Smith but his ceiling for a goalie seems comparable to Celebrini’s ceiling as a center man - a franchise-level player in their position.

Not that he’s going to hit it but, it seems to be there.

I see where you are coming from, but franchise-level center > franchise-level goalie and I'd guess that Celebrini overall just has a better profile (lower floor, more likely to hit his ceiling) than Askarov.

 

[TheBigDrunkPanda]

^^^^ this

I mean some people compared him to Carey Price. Again, not saying he’s that but if he reaches his potential…

He plays nothing like price lol

 

[TheBeard]

I mean we can't know the total cost until you see what player is drafted with the Vegas pick, and how that turns out. The odds are in our favor, I think it was a great gamble even if he doesn't hit; but we won't know for a while how everything turns out end of the day

The only way this trade can be judged is by how Askarov plays. If he ends up being a dominant annual all-star netminder than I don't care if we gave up the 2nd overall.

 

[coooldude]

Revisiting this, it’s actually insane to me that some people are worried about the return. Askarov is heralded as a *franchise-changing goalie*. He may not get there, of course there are concerns, but getting a Celebrini-level prospect for f***ing Edstrom and likely a late 1st, you kidding me? You make that deal every single day.

Just catching up, but if he were Celebrini level (as in, a G who is as important as a franchise C), he would have gone 1-3. Like Fleury.

The thread seems to be overvaluing him a bit. Goalies are very important, but how did Oettinger, Hellyebuck, Vaselivskiy, and Shesterkin do this playoffs? We don't have to overvalue the guy to make the trade understandable.

How much does it cost the rebuild if he doesn't hit? You are down an ok prospect and a 1st round pick. Nothing devastating. How much does it help the rebuild if he does hit? Massively. The hardest position to find a gem. And one with a head start on development. The reward outweighs the risk by a lot.

It could cost a lot if he doesn't hit. A lot of players in the 10-30 range that could be a linchpin 3-4 RD, for example, and what if Edstrom is the 3C that really hits while Bystedt doesn't? Nothing devastating I think is underselling the risk in this trade. It has amazing upside but I don't think it's necessary or accurate to paint this trade as a no brainer slam dunk no downside move.

The only way this trade can be judged is by how Askarov plays. If he ends up being a dominant annual all-star netminder than I don't care if we gave up the 2nd overall.

I think this is overstated. There's absolutely a world in which Askarov becomes a dominant annual netminder and we gave up a hall of famer player ala (someone like) Martone or Schaefer.

I think the earlier part of this thread was more balanced ("holy shit what a move, huge risk by Grier" with many liking the risk) but now we've polarized quite a bit into "this is an amazing trade and if you don't like it you obviously don't understand how good Askarov is/will/could be" and "this is a dud trade."

I think objectively this trade is risky, meaning it could hurt a lot (bad Askarov good other assets), it could be amazing (good Askarov, bad other assets) or it could be close to neutral (everyone hits to an amazing level, everyone busts out).

Seems like me and LilLeeroy are among the few who are a bit more skeptical of Askarov and maybe valuing the VGK 1st more than others. I don't think that makes us stupid, just judging the risk profile of the trade differently than others. I gave it a C+ and mad props to Grier for having the cojones, and it makes me feel slightly better that they've been tracking him a lot.

I am, of course, also very hopeful that this ends up being a home run for us.

 

[CHALUPA]

Just catching up, but if he were Celebrini level (as in, a G who is as important as a franchise C), he would have gone 1-3. Like Fleury.

The thread seems to be overvaluing him a bit. Goalies are very important, but how did Oettinger, Hellyebuck, Vaselivskiy, and Shesterkin do this playoffs? We don't have to overvalue the guy to make the trade understandable.

It could cost a lot if he doesn't hit. A lot of players in the 10-30 range that could be a linchpin 3-4 RD, for example, and what if Edstrom is the 3C that really hits while Bystedt doesn't? Nothing devastating I think is underselling the risk in this trade. It has amazing upside but I don't think it's necessary or accurate to paint this trade as a no brainer slam dunk no downside move.

I think this is overstated. There's absolutely a world in which Askarov becomes a dominant annual netminder and we gave up a hall of famer player ala (someone like) Martone or Schaefer.

I think the earlier part of this thread was more balanced ("holy shit what a move, huge risk by Grier" with many liking the risk) but now we've polarized quite a bit into "this is an amazing trade and if you don't like it you obviously don't understand how good Askarov is/will/could be" and "this is a dud trade."

I think objectively this trade is risky, meaning it could hurt a lot (bad Askarov good other assets), it could be amazing (good Askarov, bad other assets) or it could be close to neutral (everyone hits to an amazing level, everyone busts out).

Seems like me and LilLeeroy are among the few who are a bit more skeptical of Askarov and maybe valuing the VGK 1st more than others. I don't think that makes us stupid, just judging the risk profile of the trade differently than others. I gave it a C+ and mad props to Grier for having the cojones, and it makes me feel slightly better that they've been tracking him a lot.

I am, of course, also very hopeful that this ends up being a home run for us.

I think there was pushback against the idea that the trade was bad, “because Askarov is not even good” (my paraphrasing). I think it’s totally fair to call the trade risky.

A lot of the arguments (mine included) have been that there is evidence that he is talented vs. stats say he’s not good

EDIT: eh, it did kind of devolve a bit

 

[Mattb124]

Seems like me and LilLeeroy are among the few who are a bit more skeptical of Askarov and maybe valuing the VGK 1st more than others. I don't think that makes us stupid, just judging the risk profile of the trade differently than others. I gave it a C+ and mad props to Grier for having the cojones, and it makes me feel slightly better that they've been tracking him a lot.

I am, of course, also very hopeful that this ends up being a home run for us.

There is being skeptical (which IMO is reasonable given Askarov’s choppy AHL performance to date) and then there is purposefully mis-characterizing multiple aspects of the trade in an attempt to diminish its underlying rationale and prop up a flawed narrative.

 

[Patty Ice]

It could cost a lot if he doesn't hit. A lot of players in the 10-30 range that could be a linchpin 3-4 RD, for example, and what if Edstrom is the 3C that really hits while Bystedt doesn't? Nothing devastating I think is underselling the risk in this trade. It has amazing upside but I don't think it's necessary or accurate to paint this trade as a no brainer slam dunk no downside move.

That's a lot of ifs. Fact is one guy has shown the talent and the potential. What was given up is bag of what ifs and hope. Give me Askarov.

I'm not selling the risk short. Yes, they gave up good assets with the potential to be better but they received the better asset with the potential to be amazing.

 

[Star Platinum]

I don't think the premise that his production went down in the second year to be a legitimate one. His regular season numbers were a very slight improvement and his playoff numbers went down. The issue there is putting any sort of weight on 12 and 5 game sample sizes as a way to assess development is probably going to be faulty.

Plus, I'm going to question whether his production is even what he's being judged on when he seems to be pretty much a consensus Top 2 goaltending prospect among the people who pay attention to this stuff.

Here are last year's AHL goaltending stats:

AHL Goalie Stats 2023-2024

AHL goalie stats leaders and demographics breakdown in the 2023-2024 season. Goalie stats, nationality and age distributions, draft rounds of goalies in the 2023-2024 AHL season.

www.quanthockey.com

Shutouts - 2nd (6)
GAA - 8th (2.39)
Sv % - 24th (.911)

If you sort by age, there are 12 goalies that are 21 or younger in the AHL that played at least 19 games. The other goaltender considered by some to be a better goalie prospect than Askarov had a worse GAA and SV% playing for a worse team. I don't know what criteria people use to judge which goalies are prospects and which aren't, but if someone wants to make the case that Askarov wasn't good enough in the AHL, then you must have some idea of which young goalies in the AHL you would rather have than him. Feel free to make that case.

 

[OrrNumber4]

It could cost a lot if he doesn't hit. A lot of players in the 10-30 range that could be a linchpin 3-4 RD, for example, and what if Edstrom is the 3C that really hits while Bystedt doesn't? Nothing devastating I think is underselling the risk in this trade. It has amazing upside but I don't think it's necessary or accurate to paint this trade as a no brainer slam dunk no downside move.

I think this is overstated. There's absolutely a world in which Askarov becomes a dominant annual netminder and we gave up a hall of famer player ala (someone like) Martone or Schaefer.

With Edstrom and Askarov, I think you can mostly look at the end result. You judge Grier/Trotz for the player they develop into (with obvious caveats).

With the draft picks...to be fair, there is, what, an 80% chance that the first pick is not a lottery pick? Probably 50-60% that it's below #20? That's how I see it; a calculated risk by Grier that could blow up but is highly unlikely to. Also, if that ends up being pick 31, I won't pretend that Grier traded the #31 pick but will acknowledge that he got a little fortunate.

I don't like how I'm becoming more appreciative of the trade, because it just screams of being biased. But as those old Sinologists would say, "危机"; no opportunity without risk.

 

[Patty Ice]

Insight on how the deal came together

The Sharks, meanwhile, have their goalie of the future -- and someone they've had their eye on for awhile, despite some maturity questions surrounding the 22-year-old netminder.

"We've talked about him kind off and on over the whole year, probably," Grier told reporters after the trade was announced. "It came up probably a little bit at the draft, and then again afterward.

"He's obviously a super talented goalie, and there's not too many opportunities where you get the chance to go after a young goalie like this and add him to your group. We've kind of been in touch with them probably over the last year."

 

[LilLeeroy]

With Edstrom and Askarov, I think you can mostly look at the end result. You judge Grier/Trotz for the player they develop into (with obvious caveats).

With the draft picks...to be fair, there is, what, an 80% chance that the first pick is not a lottery pick? Probably 50-60% that it's below #20? That's how I see it; a calculated risk by Grier that could blow up but is highly unlikely to. Also, if that ends up being pick 31, I won't pretend that Grier traded the #31 pick but will acknowledge that he got a little fortunate.

I don't like how I'm becoming more appreciative of the trade, because it just screams of being biased. But as those old Sinologists would say, "危机"; no opportunity without risk.

You think the pick odds are that low for a team that was the 13th worst in the NHL last season by xGF% and just lost their #1 goal scorer, goalie, and a lot of depth?

I'd put the odds at 1-5: 2%, 5-10: 25%, 10-15: 60%, 15-20:12%, 20-32: 1%

 

[Star Platinum]

You think the pick odds are that low for a team that was the 13th worst in the NHL last season by xGF% and just lost their #1 goal scorer, goalie, and a lot of depth?

I'd put the odds at 1-5: 2%, 5-10: 25%, 10-15: 60%, 15-20:12%, 20-32: 1%

You have the odds for 5-10 significantly higher than for 15-20? Maybe take a break from posting for a while.

 

[sampler]

Insight on how the deal came together

Obviously Grier has been working hard to build bridges across the league. He and trotz had a prior relationship before Askarov became available, and that's why he became the front runner. I think he did the same with Drury in NY, and Bowman in Edm.

The truth is that everything from international tariff deals or peace treaties to corporate hires and hockey trades often boil down to interpersonal relationships. DW was excellent at that as he was highly respected both from his playing days and in the front office. Grier appears to be building his brand around the league as well. This kind of relationship building is worht its wieght in gold as wehn opportunities arise, if you call up your old friend, you can get an advantageous deal and tip the scales over other GMs that might have less close relations.

Bodes very well for grier's approach...

You think the pick odds are that low for a team that was the 13th worst in the NHL last season by xGF% and just lost their #1 goal scorer, goalie, and a lot of depth?

I'd put the odds at 1-5: 2%, 5-10: 25%, 10-15: 60%, 15-20:12%, 20-32: 1%

Thats nuts!! you have the knights at 87+% to miss the POs if I understand correctly?

 

[LilLeeroy]

You have the odds for 5-10 significantly higher than for 15-20? Maybe take a break from posting for a while.

I guess it is possible that they improve from last year despite what they lost, but yeah sure I'll take a break if you think I should.

But yeah I guess 60% odds for 10-20 would make more sense.

 

[sampler]

This trade, like all trades, should be judged by the info at the time of the trade and the aims/goals of the trade. To judege a trade by what happens after makes sense in some ways, but is also folly. There is always a random element to all trades and players so "resulting" (judging by the result rahter than the data at the time) is a statistical and strategic error.

The sharks have a 1-2 C. They also have a small army of potential top 6 forwards. They also have a potential top pairing D (dickinson) and another in Mukh. They had NOTHING, like really, truly, nothing in net. There are only so many forwards, so many D, and so many goalies that can fill a roster. If I had 25 great forwards and no D and no G, then of course Im gunna trade forwards to get those other positions. The sharks have celly, smith and musty likely to make the team ahead of edstrom (bystedt and maybe haltunnen or cherny too among others). The sharks arent going to have 7 ELC top nine forwards in the lineup on a nightly basis. SImply put, there wasnt a whole lot of space for edstrom, kinda like there wasnt a whole lot of space for Askarov in nashville.

So Nashville adds a forward (and a pick) that fill holes in their system and for whom there will be space in 2-3 years when they are needed. The sharks fill a hole that needed now with clear space to utilize that player at the NHL level. Its an obvious win win...

As for the pick, I expect VGK to make the PO's in the lower end (or miss closely). So, I expect the pick in the 16-20 range, but would not be shocked in the 12-15 range just like what happened with Pit. I also wouldnt be surprised to the pick in the 21-25 range as well. top 10 would be surprising as would bottom 10.

Of course, I wish the sharks could have kept that pick. Then they could add a top end D and another top end F, just like they did this year. But, I would rather have a top end G than another top end F (or D), so I take that tradeoff...

Truth is, objectively, the sharks now have high end prospects at all positions, and they have many many prospects that may move up on those top 100 lists, as I think guys like Pohlcamp may really surpise people. Noone talks about misskey or roberts either, so who knows.

This year is a big development year, and will give grier alot of clarity on what he has, so he can go forward with even more clarity in building a competitive roster.

Remember, every year, presupposed surefire studs flame out and lowly ranked overlooked guys suddenly emerge. This year will be no exception. Maybe Dick has a terrible year in london and pohlcamp competes for the hobey baker (semi-facetious there). How will Wetsch do? Misskey? Roberts? Svoboda or Klee in their freshman years and Lund in his junior year? LSW and havelid playing against men in sweden? Cardwell, Gush, or one of the other semi-forgotten prospect "veterans"? Graf or some other unepexted College or Euro free agent? And of course dylandrea or grundstrom stepping up in the NHL? So many things can happen, so we'll know soon...

 

[TheBeard]

think this is overstated. There's absolutely a world in which Askarov becomes a dominant annual netminder and we gave up a hall of famer player ala (someone like) Martone or Schaefer.

Ok you are correct. If the draft pick ends up being the next Bobby Orr then yes I will agree that perhaps we did not win the trade.

 

[gaucholoco3]

You think the pick odds are that low for a team that was the 13th worst in the NHL last season by xGF% and just lost their #1 goal scorer, goalie, and a lot of depth?

I'd put the odds at 1-5: 2%, 5-10: 25%, 10-15: 60%, 15-20:12%, 20-32: 1%

You have Vegas with only 13% chance of making the playoffs. I think Vegas is in line for a down year but have you seen the rest of the Pacific?

 

[coooldude]

Ok you are correct. If the draft pick ends up being the next Bobby Orr then yes I will agree that perhaps we did not win the trade.

My entire point is that there's no need to overstate it like this in order to like the trade.

 

[coooldude]

There is being skeptical (which IMO is reasonable given Askarov’s choppy AHL performance to date) and then there is purposefully mis-characterizing multiple aspects of the trade in an attempt to diminish its underlying rationale and prop up a flawed narrative.

I assume this is not aimed at me, who is just a bit skeptical, or am I lumped into this mis-characterization?

That's a lot of ifs. Fact is one guy has shown the talent and the potential. What was given up is bag of what ifs and hope. Give me Askarov.

I'm not selling the risk short. Yes, they gave up good assets with the potential to be better but they received the better asset with the potential to be amazing.

And I'm not selling the risk long. You can have this opinion/ risk assessment and I can have mine without ONE OF US BEING WRONG.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I just don’t see the Sharks risk the same as others. If they end up trading a top 10 pick then the Sharks are guaranteed to have a better pick in the top 10 than they give up. Also of Vegas tanks the Sharks could have close to 30% odds of winning the lottery and 60% odds of picking top 2. Even if they give up a top 5 pick that would mean the Sharks have a better top 5 pick. Obviously 2 top 5 picks would be nice but Askarov plus a top 4 pick would still be very nice to have.

The trade has been made already. Where Vegas finishes has no bearing on judging the trade. The probable outcome is what should be used to determine whether it was a good trade.

Sometimes I feel like even basic Statistics needs to be taught to sports fans before they can make so many snap judgments.

 

[coooldude]

I just don’t see the Sharks risk the same as others.

And that's fine.

Sometimes I feel like even basic Statistics needs to be taught to sports fans before they can make so many snap judgments.

But this sweeping statement is not needed. Who's making snap judgements on incorrect statistical assumptions?

 

[gaucholoco3]

But this sweeping statement is not needed. Who's making snap judgements on incorrect statistical assumptions?

Almost everyone.

Using where the Vegas pick ultimately ends up when that information is not known at the time of the trade is an incorrect way to judge a decision made at a given time. The Vegas pick has a PV based on their median expected outcome (which can vary between different people). Judgement on the value of the trade should only be done using the present value that was known at the time of the trade. Where the Vegas pick ends up is irrelevant to the present value of the pick at the time of the trade because actual outcome is unknown and therefore has a wide range of potential outcomes.

It’s like buying a stock and saying “it would be a good buy if the stock goes up in a year and a bad buy if the stock goes down in a year”. Of course in hindsight if the stock goes up it was a good decision but the decision should be judged based on the available information at the time of the purchase.

People do not understand how small of a sample size a single season in sports is. That is how most people make incorrect statistical assumptions in sports.

 

[coooldude]

Almost everyone.

Using where the Vegas pick ultimately ends up when that information is not known at the time of the trade is an incorrect way to judge a decision made at a given time. The Vegas pick has a PV based on their median expected outcome (which can vary between different people). Judgement on the value of the trade should only be done using the present value that was known at the time of the trade. Where the Vegas pick ends up is irrelevant to the present value of the pick at the time of the trade because actual outcome is unknown and therefore has a wide range of potential outcomes.

It’s like buying a stock and saying “it would be a good buy if the stock goes up in a year and a bad buy if the stock goes down in a year”. Of course in hindsight if the stock goes up it was a good decision but the decision should be judged based on the available information at the time of the purchase.

People do not understand how small of a sample size a single season in sports is. That is how most people make incorrect statistical assumptions in sports.

I only see a few posters making their evaluation of the trade based on a hypothetical top 5 or 10 pick. And I totally agree with you - having posted that you can't conflate the outcome with a good decision a number of times in the past.

My personal evaluation is based on a finish anywhere between 10-30 as your let's call it p95 and an expected pick of 20. I still think the risk, for me if I were GM, is too high given what I know about Askarov and his development over the past two years, versus the kind of player we're picking around 20 plus Edstrom and his expected outcome.

That said, I have repeatedly said that 1) Grier deserves credit for making the trade, 2) it makes me feel better that the goalie staff all thinks they're getting a winner, and 3) the upside is high enough that I can totally understand people loving it. I just don't because I'm evaluating the chance Askarov hits as lower than others and I'm valuing the Vegas pick, given an expected range that we evaluate today using (yes) a graduate and professional level of understanding of stats and finance, as more valuable than I see others evaluating it.

The trade is made, Askarov is a Shark, and I sure as shit hope he's Patrick Roy and not post-Rookie-fluke Binnington.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Oh my f***ing god, the Vegas pick is not going to be top-10. It's not going to be Matt Schaefer or Porter Martone. I get that fantasizing about Vegas pulling a 2020 Sharks was fun to fantasize about when we had their pick but it's not going to happen, have any of you looked at all the actual bad teams in this league right now? Have any of you looked at the rosters of any of the Pacific teams outside of Edmonton? Y'all are seriously hand-wringing over nothing.