Prospect Info: Sharks Prospect Info & Discussion Megathread XXI: "New, improved, and wayyyy too much info" Edition

[coooldude]

That's throwing it all in the wash. The odds are dramatically in favor of the scoring small forward than the non-scoring big forward for making the NHL. People have already done that analysis from past drafts. Size is one of the factors that leads to a prospect falling relative to their production, and it bites the GMs who don't take them over and over again. Again, don't take them too high, but your team is built from stars from your first round primarily. You might as well swing with your other rounds, especially a third to try and find good players rather than fourth liners.

Thanks -- I know this is asking you to do the work, but do you know where? I haven't seen anything compelling and I've read a few posts in defense of drafting smaller players early / focusing on points production (which often favors the smaller players, because the bigger ones with production go even earlier).

Point me to a forum and I'll check it out. I'll also do some HFB searching.

 

[Hodge]

It's understandable for fans to have a negative reaction to their team picking someone they hadn't heard of or followed closely but to criticize a pick on that basis is a symptom of delusional and arrogant thinking.

You seriously believe you or some freelance writer who can't get a real job in hockey knows better than experienced professionals whose entire careers have been dedicated to evaluating prospects? People who have an opportunity to watch these players play live a dozen or more times over the course of a season and interview their coaches, teammates and families?

So much of this unearned confidence among internet scouts seems to be based on points or models that rely heavily on points. I have nothing against these models and I do think they're useful in gauging differences between leagues but the fact remains that if Svoboda had been a 6'3 RH center putting up similar numbers to Perron, there is no chance he makes it to the 3rd round.

Our scouts clearly believed Svoboda has a better chance of developing the baseline level of offense needed for a player of his size and skating ability to make the NHL than Perron does to grow 4 inches and develop into a top six forward. They could be right or wrong but that always seemed like a reasonable bet to me. Svoboda's WJSS performance provides some hope that this bet will pay off but of course we're still years away from knowing.

 

[gaucholoco3]

Why draft Stankoven, a 5'8" winger at 47 when Samuel Helenius a 6'6" center with great defensive habits is right there at 59!

Some of them are undrafted forwards Tyler Johnson, Yanni Gourde, Mats Zuccarello, or Jonathan Marchessault.

Or 2nd/third round stars like Marchand, Point, Debrincat or the aforementioned Stankoven.

Or 4th/5th/6th rounders like Atkinson, Gaudreau, Kaprizov, Mangiapane, Garland.

I would agree that drafting high skill small forwards in the first round generally can be risky. I think it's really stupid when internet scouts have guys like Perron and Stiga in the top half of the first rounds. Guys like Benson and Catton I get, because they have a real shot to be a star based on their production, but these non-consensus first round small forwards I'm hesitant on that high. Still makes it dumb later on when Catton and Benson become top 5 guys drafted outside the top 5, but that's not what we're arguing.

However, once you get into the second is when you can get tremendous value for these picks like Perron and Stiga, as well as small defensemen. It also goes without saying that a guy like Lane Hutson is the shining example of falling because of size, and rising because of play. He's a second rounder that's going to make the NHL this season after breaking NCAA records for scoring by a defenseman. Are we super stoked as a Sharks fanbase that we chose Cam Lund instead of Lane Hutson? How about Havelid? He's a couple inches taller and a bit heavier, clearly the better pick?

And you know who were championing guys like Hutson and Stankoven the most in recent years? Internet scouts.

It's not cut and dried, and it certainly isn't after whatever you think is happening between Perron and Svoboda. Even if it was, let's say Perron wasn't outpacing Svoboda and was already a bust, it's still a good pick. There were no more top goalies left at the spot, most of the real skill was gone by the second.

I know many fans which is what most internet scouts are want to think that players under 5’10” can be successful in the NHL. Probably because most of the population is small and it is more fun for people to dream that even if they aren’t tall they can still be a professional hockey player.

This completely ignores that hockey is a physical game. Size matters. Even with the post lockout rule changes size still matters. You will be hard pressed to find a successful NHL player that short who doesn’t have ELITE skating. This is why I will be skeptical of any player sub 5’10” to have sustained success in the league unless they have elite skating. People will point to Makar or Q Hughes but those two have elites and possibly generational skating.

I doubt Stankoven will have any sustained success. I think L Hudson will not be the star thinks he will be.

I would rather have a Svoboda than a small winger that put up insane Jr numbers.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I will add you don’t see this argument in NBA or even pitchers in MLB where fans can acknowledge that size is more valuable. Yes immediately after the lockout size was not as important as the old NHL used to value but it still is very important and I feel some fans look to hard for the “undervalued” small player when they aren’t undervalued at all.

I hope I’m wrong for the Sharks sake but guys like Guschin, Bordaleau, and Cagnoni wouldn’t even be in my top 20 prospects for the Sharks because they just don’t have the skating to make up for their lack of size. They will end up career AHL players who will help those teams win games at that level.

 

[Kcoyote3]

Thanks -- I know this is asking you to do the work, but do you know where? I haven't seen anything compelling and I've read a few posts in defense of drafting smaller players early / focusing on points production (which often favors the smaller players, because the bigger ones with production go even earlier).

Point me to a forum and I'll check it out. I'll also do some HFB searching.

One guy that I used to follow his work is:

x.com

x.com

He's a data scientist but recently took all his stuff down. Was also mentioned on Friedman's 32 thoughts at some point.

https://x.com/i/web/status/1633830690713407489

He used to have a great substack on all the draft biases but took it all down 6 months ago, presumably after getting hired.

Goodbye for now

Hello!

chacemccallum.substack.com

For generic production = chance of success, Bader does that and is probably the most popular at hockeyprospecting.com and tons of people like Bacon and random twitter people use their own databases.

I think personally that it's a blend though. Don't fall in love with a small guy so much that you take him over obvious bigger players, ones that produce well specifically. But don't fall in love with non-producing big guys because they're big. the vast majority end up like Alex True.

The draft is about finding value in pockets of the draft. The small forward/defensemen pocket in the 2nd round and beyond is super valuable.

 

[Kcoyote3]

It's understandable for fans to have a negative reaction to their team picking someone they hadn't heard of or followed closely but to criticize a pick on that basis is a symptom of delusional and arrogant thinking.

You seriously believe you or some freelance writer who can't get a real job in hockey knows better than experienced professionals whose entire careers have been dedicated to evaluating prospects? People who have an opportunity to watch these players play live a dozen or more times over the course of a season and interview their coaches, teammates and families?

So much of this unearned confidence among internet scouts seems to be based on points or models that rely heavily on points. I have nothing against these models and I do think they're useful in gauging differences between leagues but the fact remains that if Svoboda had been a 6'3 RH center putting up similar numbers to Perron, there is no chance he makes it to the 3rd round.

Our scouts clearly believed Svoboda has a better chance of developing the baseline level of offense needed for a player of his size and skating ability to make the NHL than Perron does to grow 4 inches and develop into a top six forward. They could be right or wrong but that always seemed like a reasonable bet to me. Svoboda's WJSS performance provides some hope that this bet will pay off but of course we're still years away from knowing.

Just want to put this out there, my exact words about Svoboda a month after he was drafted:

 

[gaucholoco3]

The draft is about finding value in pockets of the draft. The small forward/defensemen pocket in the 2nd round and beyond is super valuable.

I agree with this but I would say 3rd round and beyond. Halttunen over Cristall is an example of where the trendy small wing was not the right pick. There are still talented big players in the 2md round. Take the chances on a small scoring wing in the 3rd or later.

 

[The Nemesis]

Just want to put this out there, my exact words about Svoboda a month after he was drafted: View attachment 899456

Yeah, but you're just an internet scout so your opinion is worthless and you can't gloat or rub it in peoples' faces.

 

[Kcoyote3]

Lastly I want to say that I think Chris Morehouse and the staff have done an excellent job. I like their thought process behind a lot of picks like Furlong, LSW, Pohlkamp, Svoboda in the later rounds. The Musty, Halttunen, Chernyshov, Lund picks are all kind of the same mold of big, skilled, flawed wingers that fall to great ranges to provide good value if they put it all together.

I think the Cagnoni pick is super interesting. It shows that at a certain point they will take the high producing small guy if he's available. I like that as well. This year they went full size on defense aside from LSW, so we'll have to see if that's the correct choice. The depth of this draft wasn't as good as 2023 at least on paper though.

 

[coooldude]

Lastly I want to say that I think Chris Morehouse and the staff have done an excellent job. I like their thought process behind a lot of picks like Furlong, LSW, Pohlkamp, Svoboda in the later rounds. The Musty, Halttunen, Chernyshov, Lund picks are all kind of the same mold of big, skilled, flawed wingers that fall to great ranges to provide good value if they put it all together.

I think the Cagnoni pick is super interesting. It shows that at a certain point they will take the high producing small guy if he's available. I like that as well. This year they went full size on defense aside from LSW, so we'll have to see if that's the correct choice. The depth of this draft wasn't as good as 2023 at least on paper though.

For sure -- I think the picks all make sense when you look at them and reason them out. It's a pretty clear vision and there haven't been any egregious errors. Agreed also that the Cagnoni pick (as well as LSW) shows they are flexible in their thinking.

RE: your other posts, appreciate you sharing. Have seen Bader's work and McCallum's work. It's good stuff but nothing has been definitive that small players absolutely are always undervalued. It's definitely true that they're probably, on balance, penalized, I'm just not sure it's egregious across the board.

I think your POV as described in the last few posts are great and what I agree with -- there is value to find, but don't overweight it. Especially since most of these analyses also admit that a "bust" big guy still can have value in a lineup, where the <5'10" forward needs to figure out how to contribute on the stats sheet and/or possession, or else they can't easily find other useful roles. I think DWJr overweighted the "value small guys" archetype, peaking at the Wiesblatt/Bordeleau selections. Morehouse's team seems to be more balanced, and so far 2/2 for excellent draft years, as far as we can evaluate them this early.

 

[Zarzh]

That's throwing it all in the wash. The odds are dramatically in favor of the scoring small forward than the non-scoring big forward for making the NHL. People have already done that analysis from past drafts. Size is one of the factors that leads to a prospect falling relative to their production, and it bites the GMs who don't take them over and over again. Again, don't take them too high, but your team is built from stars from your first round primarily. You might as well swing with your other rounds, especially a third to try and find good players rather than fourth liners.

You're allowed to say whatever you want. Very clearly. Watch a game of Svoboda and say what you like about him. I've done that. I did that last week in fact. I like the prospect for what he brings and I wrote that since he was drafted. I think throwing shade at internet scouts because of a player you've never watched or have any idea about because you like to stir the pot is a little silly. But we're on year idk 4 of this so who cares.

Why do I care if a player makes the NHL if they aren't valuable?

I like Hutson but people tend to overrate the smurfs. You can get away with one of them on your team, better be someone good enough to make it count.

 

[LilLeeroy]

Lastly I want to say that I think Chris Morehouse and the staff have done an excellent job. I like their thought process behind a lot of picks like Furlong, LSW, Pohlkamp, Svoboda in the later rounds. The Musty, Halttunen, Chernyshov, Lund picks are all kind of the same mold of big, skilled, flawed wingers that fall to great ranges to provide good value if they put it all together.

I think the Cagnoni pick is super interesting. It shows that at a certain point they will take the high producing small guy if he's available. I like that as well. This year they went full size on defense aside from LSW, so we'll have to see if that's the correct choice. The depth of this draft wasn't as good as 2023 at least on paper though.

Lund was a Jr. pick, not Morehouse.

 

[The Nemesis]

Lund was a Jr. pick, not Morehouse.

Well, then he sucks.

 

[jarr92]

So I'm not allowed to say anything remotely positive about Brandon Svoboda but somehow Lane Hutson is already a successful pick despite having proven nothing at the pro level. I look forward to the first time he goes into the corners against a Tkachuk brother.

How many games have you seen of Lane Hutson or Brandon Svoboda? I feel like you'd rather post about prospects on HFBoards versus actually watching them play

 

[The Nemesis]

So I'm not allowed to say anything remotely positive about Brandon Svoboda but somehow Lane Hutson is already a successful pick despite having proven nothing at the pro level. I look forward to the first time he goes into the corners against a Tkachuk brother.

You can say positive things. The issue is that you tend to do it while being backhanded and tearing other people here down.

Like you say something positive about Svoboda, but do it in a way that's "lol, people here wanted someone else how's that working out?" or needling everyone about liking any pick the previous regime made even when it's not really germane to the discussion. Or you move the goalposts. Or you engage in some rather blatant appeal to authority nonsense.

You're allowed to have your opinion. But when you act like a prick about it you can't be surprised everyone else takes those opinions badly. And then when you spin it into "boo hoo I'm the victim and not allowed to talk" people roll their eyes even harder because this sort of manipulation of events is so transparent that it's not even believable as a legitimate martyr play when it's more obviously just a naked attempt to discredit others and wiggle out of a situation of your own creation without accepting any responsibility for it.

Your issue is not that you're being prevented from having an opinion. It's that you turn any conversation you get involved in into a minefield only to hold your hands up and profess innocence or a lack of understanding about how it happened. If you're smart enough to engage in these conversations then you're smart enough to know exactly what you're doing. And people won't stand for that.

 

[sampler]

Hey guys, I think we should let up on hodge. It’s an internet chat board and there’s lots of interesting viewpoints and I appreciate the arguments. I don’t want anyone to be shut down….

To the debate: size matters. A lot. 5’10 or smaller is really hard. The difference between 6” and 6”3 may not be that big but 5’10 or smaller rarely succeeds. That’s why the counter examples are so easy to point out. Just 4 of the top 25 scorers last year were 5’10 (none 5’9 or smaller). Obviously smaller players can succeed, but it’s tough and I would bet (though I am too lazy to prove it) that they get hurt more and likely struggle a bit more defensively.

(Funny side note: there are also very few 6’3” or taller players in the top scorers too. Seems 5’11” to 6’1” is the perfect height

Personally I know little of drafts though I do find the consensus rankings are actually pretty good. I cannot help but remember the Meier over rantanen pick despite R being higher rated.
My only insight is that I did get to watch yakemchuk live in Vancouver vs the hitmen. He is a super risk taker and I’m pretty sure that why his stats were big. I think he may end up being a total bust because his defensive play is just nowhere near NHL and his decision making is too high risk. At the next level he’ll give up so many 2 on 1s against that no amount of offense will make up for it. I predict this as the worst pick of the entire draft.

I also predict buium will end up better than Dickinson. College is harder competition and buium led his team to a national championship as the top scoring D as a freshman and shut down both smith and Celebrini. London is/was an already stacked team. I expect dick willl be good, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Buium ends up better.

 

[timorous me]

Hey guys, I think we should let up on hodge. It’s an internet chat board and there’s lots of interesting viewpoints and I appreciate the arguments. I don’t want anyone to be shut down….

To the debate: size matters. A lot. 5’10 or smaller is really hard. The difference between 6” and 6”3 may not be that big but 5’10 or smaller rarely succeeds. That’s why the counter examples are so easy to point out. Just 4 of the top 25 scorers last year were 5’10 (none 5’9 or smaller). Obviously smaller players can succeed, but it’s tough and I would bet (though I am too lazy to prove it) that they get hurt more and likely struggle a bit more defensively.

(Funny side note: there are also very few 6’3” or taller players in the top scorers too. Seems 5’11” to 6’1” is the perfect height

Personally I know little of drafts though I do find the consensus rankings are actually pretty good. I cannot help but remember the Meier over rantanen pick despite R being higher rated.
My only insight is that I did get to watch yakemchuk live in Vancouver vs the hitmen. He is a super risk taker and I’m pretty sure that why his stats were big. I think he may end up being a total bust because his defensive play is just nowhere near NHL and his decision making is too high risk. At the next level he’ll give up so many 2 on 1s against that no amount of offense will make up for it. I predict this as the worst pick of the entire draft.

I also predict buium will end up better than Dickinson. College is harder competition and buium led his team to a national championship as the top scoring D as a freshman and shut down both smith and Celebrini. London is/was an already stacked team. I expect dick willl be good, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Buium ends up better.

I don't think anyone here wants to shut down opinions. I mean, hell, I agree with a number of the opinions that Hodge posts.

The issue is in the presentation of those ideas. When this specific poster actually focuses on content, there's no problem. But when it's the frequent dose of neener-neener-nee-ner! or LOL DW + Jr! it gets tiresome. We've all heard it enough already--we will never forget at this point! No need for reminders!

 

[jMoneyBrah]

Honestly I don’t mind @Hodge’s perspective on players and prospects; it’s often an interesting counterpoint to the board’s through line. That being said, the way in which it’s delivered seems to condescend and belittle others, or the entire community, as much as possible. It’s not challenging to see why their posts illicit the vitriol, often warranted, that they do.

This is hardly exclusive to Hodge; frankly, it seems to be the default persona of online thought exchange. I’ll not plead innocence either; I’ve done my fair share.

Personally, how I engage here has shifted pretty significantly over the last few years. I like to think of myself as a good citizen and someone capable of growth. I’ve shared my perspective when I feel like I have something worthwhile to add; to let my perspective speak for itself, and to leave room for others to value things differently, work from different baseline assumptions, or simply see things differently. I’m not trying to win any arguments here. I just want to follow the Sharks, learn more about prospects, scouting, and the game of hockey. Hopefully, in doing that in an overall positive way someone else can glean some benefit. Also if there’s a cheeky laugh to be had, I’ll go for it.

I’ll also say, that a good third of the time whatever I’ve written just goes unposted as it doesn’t further the conversation in any productive or meaningful way. Lots of combative rebuttals end up in the trash bin.

 

[sampler]

I don't think anyone here wants to shut down opinions. I mean, hell, I agree with a number of the opinions that Hodge posts.

The issue is in the presentation of those ideas. When this specific poster actually focuses on content, there's no problem. But when it's the frequent dose of neener-neener-nee-ner! or LOL DW + Jr! it gets tiresome. We've all heard it enough already--we will never forget at this point! No need for reminders!

I see... maybe I didnt follow closely enough...

btw, to throw my hat in the grier vs. DW debate, I gotta say DW was one of the greatest GMs I've ever seen. Hes not scotty bowman level, but he basically made the sharks competitive practically every year for 2 decades. Yes, they never won a cup. yes, some of his hundreds of picks over the 20 years were obviously mistakes (Meier>rantanen still stings, as does Michalek+bernier over Getzlaf+perry) but thats inevitable, and some of his moves were pure genious like turning Vesa toskala for picks that he maneuvered into drafting Logan couture, and of course pavs, labanc, and countless other 5th, 6,th, and 7th rounders that went on to have very good NHL careers (Braun, Demers, Wingels, Bonino, Demelo, Kuraly...). he also added Euro FA's tactically like Donskoi and melker Karlsson among others.

Most amazingly, he did this without the benefit of a natural (due to sucking) top 10 pick aside from Meier, and zero top 5 picks. To be good for 20 years without a top 10 pick is absolute mastery, and he did so by creating a great culture including Sommer in the AHL, who was a spectacular developmental coach, brilliant trades (jumbo theft when things were looking pretty bleak), snatching boyle, burns, and retention of talent. I suppose snatching karlsson and reaiining him turned out to the biggest mistake, but I confess that I LOVEd the move whne he did it. The sharks absolutely had a chance to win the cup every year, and the fact that they didnt isnt DW's fault in my opinion. It was more a combo of bad luck and reallllly bad draft positiioning for a long time making it harder to acquire and keep young superstars.

Find me the last team that won the cup wth a roster devoid of a top 5 pick selected BY THAT TEAM (not acquired in trade).

As for grier, I have been pretty down on him as the product on the ice the last two years and just about every one of his signings has been garbage (toffoli is the only signing ive liked so far that seems to fit a need at a respectable cost). I also do not credit him for winning the lottery and getting mack or for drafting will smith. Any do-do coulda done that by having such bad teams and kind ping pong balls (or equivalent).

However, some of his deals are starting to look ingenius, so I am beginning to change my view on him, and I could end up seeing him as a full on genious down the road:

1. Burns Deal: I hated this deal. Yes the sharks got rid of about 5M in salary, but they got nothing in return. Lorentz, makinieimi, and a 3rd is pretty much zero. I still think they could/should have gotten alot more for burns, but I suppose this was also a favor to Burns himself who had a NMC that limited the sharks. Furthermore, the cap savings was completely meaningless as the sharks are no where near the cap and whatever savings they got they spent on garbage like Lindbom, kunin, and co. As his first big trade, I gave him a D. BUT, then....

2. Meier Deal: meier had just one RFA year left. Ended up costing nearly 9M per for NJ to resign, which is alot especially for a team not ready to compete like the sharks. Grier had to get value. I thought his haul was only so so at hte time (a late first, likely late 2nd, and a few so so players/prospects). After Zetts struggled and Mukh look to flounder, it looked even worse. But suddenly I'm beginning to feel like its amazing as it rounds into form. In essense, it was Zetterlund (who looks like a 30 goal scorer to be), Mukh (can he be a top 4 Dman?), Musty, and the pick that allowed us to move up to 11 and get dick. Thats actually a pretty nice haul, not to mention the cap space saved.

3. karlsson: ***Grier got SUPER lucky here that Karlsson delived a norris winning historic 101 pt season. if karlsson had struggled, grier wouldnt have been mabel to move him at all. Like winning the lottery for celebrini, grier got lucky***. Still, grier unloaded the monster contract, retaining little, as granlund, hoffman, and ruuta actually made it pretty much a cap wash last year and this year. The deal was really designed for 2025-6 and 2026-7, to save 10M on the cap. I figured granlund, ruuta and hoff were throw ins for cap reasons, but granlund was amazing, and if he has nother great year, grier shuld be able to get another late first for him (assuming the sharks are not a PO team). Add in the 14th pick that was the basis for dick, and this deal ends up with 20M in cap savings over 2 years, potential top pairing Dman, and maybe even another late first in 2025. That's not a bad haul.

4. hertl: I actually liked this trade. Hertl is clearly on the decline in my eyes, even though I love him. saves nearly 7M on the cap for the next 6 years, and I could imagine that 7M to be largely dead money by 2-3 years from now. they did give up 2 3rd rounders, but got edstrom and the 2025 1st. I wonder, given the departures of Marchassault and stephenson, if the knights may struggle next year. Stone is great, but played only 56 games as injuries are starting to hurt him with age. Eichel also missed 19 games. I could imagine the knights 1st rounder being like the pens in the mid teens, which could be a nice asset. Edstrom remains TBD, but this too could add two quality NHL assets while saving 7M per.

5. Walman for #53 (LSW): this is a grea move even if walman never played a game as the sharks dont need the cap space (at least not this year) and LSW may be a solid Dman (some mock drafts had him as a late 1st).

Taken together from summer 2025: the sharks give up karlsson, Meier, and Hertl, and get
- approximately 26M in cap space per year (or Toffoli, Wennberg, Grundstrum, dyllandrea,goodrow, Walman and 5M in space left for signings next summer)
-zetterlund (coming into prime, 24G last year and poised for more)
-Mukh (TBD, but we'll know this year most likely)
-musty
-Dickinson
-LSW
-two likely 2025 first rounders (VGK, possible grandlund package at deadline)

Potentially, that could be four top 9 forwards (zetterlund, Musty, Toffoli, and 2025 pick), 2-3 likely top four defensemen among (mukh, dick, walman, and LSW), and some depth players too (Wennberg, Grundstrom, Goodrow, Dyllandrea, edstrom, maybe the early round pick for granlund).

All that for an aging karlsson, Injury prone hertl, and Meier. Taken as a whole, thats a pretty reasonable return, in addition to the assets gotten by stinking (smith+mack).

I think the final big test for GMMG will be summer 2025, and specifically adding a top pairing D, and getting the team back in PO contention while adding 4 more good draft picks (hopefully 3 firsts if Granlund has another 60 pt season and a 2nd). I see no reason why we need to stink in 2025-6 if Grier does a good job.

By that point, Musty will be NHL ready, chernyshov/haltunnen/Bystedt/Edstrom might be too, not to menton Gushkin cardwell and bordeleau pushing for spots. Eklund, Mack, and Smith will have NHL seasons under thier belts but still be on ELCs. Dickinson should be ready for a real look, Mukh and thrun should develop too. By summer 2025, the sharks will have 30+M in cap space and only need 1 or 2 top 6 forwards to complement the kids, 1 top pair d, and one solid depth D. If grier can go out and find those guys, the sharks should be a legit good team like 25-26. Thats the real test in my eyes.

So, all in all, Grier's signings (aside from toffoli) have been pretty poor, albeit low risk. His drafting in 2022 looks mediocre at best as bystedt, havelid, and lund all look very questionable to be impact NHL players and the depth picks look mastly bad too, albeit he had little prep time, and of course, its too early to know. His burns trade was bascially worthless other than a sign of repsect to burns himself as the cap savings either went unused or was used stupidly. However, his trades of meier, hertl, and karlsson netted a respectable prospect/pick haul which, if complimented with smart deployment of the saved cap space, could be the basis of the next decade.

Jury is still out, but well know in the next two years.

 

[tiburon12]

I’ll also say, that a good third of the time whatever I’ve written just goes unposted as it doesn’t further the conversation in any productive or meaningful way. Lots of combative rebuttals end up in the trash bin.

is that because the site reloads before you can post??

To the debate: size matters. A lot. 5’10 or smaller is really hard. The difference between 6” and 6”3 may not be that big but 5’10 or smaller rarely succeeds. That’s why the counter examples are so easy to point out. Just 4 of the top 25 scorers last year were 5’10 (none 5’9 or smaller). Obviously smaller players can succeed, but it’s tough and I would bet (though I am too lazy to prove it) that they get hurt more and likely struggle a bit more defensively.

Just wanted to say that the difference between 6' and 6'3 is quite big. I'm 6'5 and when i see a 6' person i know im much bigger than they are. When i see a 6'3 person i size them up. For example, Ferraro is about 6' and Dillon is about 6'3, and there is a HUGE difference between their sizes and how they are perceived as players.

Honestly I don’t mind @Hodge’s perspective on players and prospects; it’s often an interesting counterpoint to the board’s though line. That being said, the way in which it’s delivered seems to condescend and belittle others, or the entire community, as much as possible. It’s not challenging to see why their posts illicit the vitriol, often warranted, that they do.

This is hardly exclusive to Hodge; frankly, it seems to be the default persona of online thought exchange. I’ll not plead innocence either; I’ve done my fair share.

For as familiar we are with each other, we don't actually know each other and still play by the "loudest voice wins" rule. There are many times where someone will post something thought out and curious, only to have that idea be quickly and curtly shutdown. The response is to then be more assertive in one's opinions, which of course leads to the cycle we're in now where confidence bleeds with arrogance. But i don't think the solution is to fight fire with fire.

Years ago I took a break from posting after I exploded at Doctor Solaruce because I just couldn't take their posts and behavior here anymore. But that was childish and the wrong course of action. W/r/t Hodge, i'm looking at the dunking on DW/JR as just a bit (i genuinely think it is), and that's helping me focus on the essence of what they have to say, which is usually interesting to think about.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I see... maybe I didnt follow closely enough...

btw, to throw my hat in the grier vs. DW debate, I gotta say DW was one of the greatest GMs I've ever seen. Hes not scotty bowman level, but he basically made the sharks competitive practically every year for 2 decades. Yes, they never won a cup. yes, some of his hundreds of picks over the 20 years were obviously mistakes (Meier>rantanen still stings, as does Michalek+bernier over Getzlaf+perry) but thats inevitable, and some of his moves were pure genious like turning Vesa toskala for picks that he maneuvered into drafting Logan couture, and of course pavs, labanc, and countless other 5th, 6,th, and 7th rounders that went on to have very good NHL careers (Braun, Demers, Wingels, Bonino, Demelo, Kuraly...). he also added Euro FA's tactically like Donskoi and melker Karlsson among others.

Most amazingly, he did this without the benefit of a natural (due to sucking) top 10 pick aside from Meier, and zero top 5 picks. To be good for 20 years without a top 10 pick is absolute mastery, and he did so by creating a great culture including Sommer in the AHL, who was a spectacular developmental coach, brilliant trades (jumbo theft when things were looking pretty bleak), snatching boyle, burns, and retention of talent. I suppose snatching karlsson and reaiining him turned out to the biggest mistake, but I confess that I LOVEd the move whne he did it. The sharks absolutely had a chance to win the cup every year, and the fact that they didnt isnt DW's fault in my opinion. It was more a combo of bad luck and reallllly bad draft positiioning for a long time making it harder to acquire and keep young superstars.

Find me the last team that won the cup wth a roster devoid of a top 5 pick selected BY THAT TEAM (not acquired in trade).

As for grier, I have been pretty down on him as the product on the ice the last two years and just about every one of his signings has been garbage (toffoli is the only signing ive liked so far that seems to fit a need at a respectable cost). I also do not credit him for winning the lottery and getting mack or for drafting will smith. Any do-do coulda done that by having such bad teams and kind ping pong balls (or equivalent).

However, some of his deals are starting to look ingenius, so I am beginning to change my view on him, and I could end up seeing him as a full on genious down the road:

1. Burns Deal: I hated this deal. Yes the sharks got rid of about 5M in salary, but they got nothing in return. Lorentz, makinieimi, and a 3rd is pretty much zero. I still think they could/should have gotten alot more for burns, but I suppose this was also a favor to Burns himself who had a NMC that limited the sharks. Furthermore, the cap savings was completely meaningless as the sharks are no where near the cap and whatever savings they got they spent on garbage like Lindbom, kunin, and co. As his first big trade, I gave him a D. BUT, then....

2. Meier Deal: meier had just one RFA year left. Ended up costing nearly 9M per for NJ to resign, which is alot especially for a team not ready to compete like the sharks. Grier had to get value. I thought his haul was only so so at hte time (a late first, likely late 2nd, and a few so so players/prospects). After Zetts struggled and Mukh look to flounder, it looked even worse. But suddenly I'm beginning to feel like its amazing as it rounds into form. In essense, it was Zetterlund (who looks like a 30 goal scorer to be), Mukh (can he be a top 4 Dman?), Musty, and the pick that allowed us to move up to 11 and get dick. Thats actually a pretty nice haul, not to mention the cap space saved.

3. karlsson: ***Grier got SUPER lucky here that Karlsson delived a norris winning historic 101 pt season. if karlsson had struggled, grier wouldnt have been mabel to move him at all. Like winning the lottery for celebrini, grier got lucky***. Still, grier unloaded the monster contract, retaining little, as granlund, hoffman, and ruuta actually made it pretty much a cap wash last year and this year. The deal was really designed for 2025-6 and 2026-7, to save 10M on the cap. I figured granlund, ruuta and hoff were throw ins for cap reasons, but granlund was amazing, and if he has nother great year, grier shuld be able to get another late first for him (assuming the sharks are not a PO team). Add in the 14th pick that was the basis for dick, and this deal ends up with 20M in cap savings over 2 years, potential top pairing Dman, and maybe even another late first in 2025. That's not a bad haul.

4. hertl: I actually liked this trade. Hertl is clearly on the decline in my eyes, even though I love him. saves nearly 7M on the cap for the next 6 years, and I could imagine that 7M to be largely dead money by 2-3 years from now. they did give up 2 3rd rounders, but got edstrom and the 2025 1st. I wonder, given the departures of Marchassault and stephenson, if the knights may struggle next year. Stone is great, but played only 56 games as injuries are starting to hurt him with age. Eichel also missed 19 games. I could imagine the knights 1st rounder being like the pens in the mid teens, which could be a nice asset. Edstrom remains TBD, but this too could add two quality NHL assets while saving 7M per.

5. Walman for #53 (LSW): this is a grea move even if walman never played a game as the sharks dont need the cap space (at least not this year) and LSW may be a solid Dman (some mock drafts had him as a late 1st).

Taken together from summer 2025: the sharks give up karlsson, Meier, and Hertl, and get
- approximately 26M in cap space per year (or Toffoli, Wennberg, Grundstrum, dyllandrea,goodrow, Walman and 5M in space left for signings next summer)
-zetterlund (coming into prime, 24G last year and poised for more)
-Mukh (TBD, but we'll know this year most likely)
-musty
-Dickinson
-LSW
-two likely 2025 first rounders (VGK, possible grandlund package at deadline)

Potentially, that could be four top 9 forwards (zetterlund, Musty, Toffoli, and 2025 pick), 2-3 likely top four defensemen among (mukh, dick, walman, and LSW), and some depth players too (Wennberg, Grundstrom, Goodrow, Dyllandrea, edstrom, maybe the early round pick for granlund).

All that for an aging karlsson, Injury prone hertl, and Meier. Taken as a whole, thats a pretty reasonable return, in addition to the assets gotten by stinking (smith+mack).

I think the final big test for GMMG will be summer 2025, and specifically adding a top pairing D, and getting the team back in PO contention while adding 4 more good draft picks (hopefully 3 firsts if Granlund has another 60 pt season and a 2nd). I see no reason why we need to stink in 2025-6 if Grier does a good job.

By that point, Musty will be NHL ready, chernyshov/haltunnen/Bystedt/Edstrom might be too, not to menton Gushkin cardwell and bordeleau pushing for spots. Eklund, Mack, and Smith will have NHL seasons under thier belts but still be on ELCs. Dickinson should be ready for a real look, Mukh and thrun should develop too. By summer 2025, the sharks will have 30+M in cap space and only need 1 or 2 top 6 forwards to complement the kids, 1 top pair d, and one solid depth D. If grier can go out and find those guys, the sharks should be a legit good team like 25-26. Thats the real test in my eyes.

So, all in all, Grier's signings (aside from toffoli) have been pretty poor, albeit low risk. His drafting in 2022 looks mediocre at best as bystedt, havelid, and lund all look very questionable to be impact NHL players and the depth picks look mastly bad too, albeit he had little prep time, and of course, its too early to know. His burns trade was bascially worthless other than a sign of repsect to burns himself as the cap savings either went unused or was used stupidly. However, his trades of meier, hertl, and karlsson netted a respectable prospect/pick haul which, if complimented with smart deployment of the saved cap space, could be the basis of the next decade.

Jury is still out, but well know in the next two years.

I have my doubts that Granlund will fetch a 1st round pick as a rental but the rest is pretty agreeable to me.

 

[CupfortheSharks]

For as familiar we are with each other, we don't actually know each other and still play by the "loudest voice wins" rule.

I don’t. When people are having a debate, I tend to agree with one side or the other. The “loudest” is just the loudest. When I post an opinion and another poster disagrees and wants to shout me down. I let them. They haven’t changed my mind but I don’t enjoy getting into the kind of debates that are usually had here. I expect there are lots of people like me who either agree with my point….or don’t.

 

[sharks_dynasty]

Debates are healthy and fun. Condescension is not. All is well if we keep things civil and treat each other with respect. Keep in mind that we are all cheering for the same team and the logo we support is all that matters. I personally like knowing that fans come in all shapes, sizes and opinions.

Have a beautiful day fellow Sharks fans!

 

[Pavelski2112]

For all that's being said, I still think this forum is one of the better I've seen with regards to having productive discussions. Not just on HF but anywhere.

 

[Lebanezer]

For all that's being said, I still think this forum is one of the better I've seen with regards to having productive discussions. Not just on HF but anywhere.

Must be the moderators.