Mr Fahrenheit
Valar Morghulis
- Oct 9, 2009
- 7,876
- 3,484
I have my doubts that Granlund will fetch a 1st round pick as a rental but the rest is pretty agreeable to me.
If he has a similar season as last, he will
I have my doubts that Granlund will fetch a 1st round pick as a rental but the rest is pretty agreeable to me.
My big issue is that sometimes opinion should become fact; as we flesh issues out "agree-to-disagree" becomes silly.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.
Like I said, I have my doubts. Granlund as a rental to a playoff team is probably a winger with little interest in being re-signed. He also would have to come in at the full 5 mil cap hit because we can't retain on him. If another team gets involved to do the retention for us, it's coming out of our return. And not that this necessarily means much but both times that Granlund was traded, it was in-season and he struggled to finish the season with his new team. And this is under the assumption of that similar season. Granlund had 23 of his 60 points on the power play that he's not guaranteed a spot on. He was second in PP ice time overall and first in PP TOI per game. Celebrini is almost certainly going to eat a lot of those minutes. Granlund will have to beat out one of Eklund, Celebrini, Smith, Zetterlund, and Walman for a spot on the top unit. It's certainly doable for him but it's also doable for him to be relegated to the 2nd unit too. The same sort of thing can also happen to his even strength minutes. The quicker Celebrini finds his footing in the NHL, the sooner he will see increased ice time that will almost certainly come at Granlund's expense.If he has a similar season as last, he will
Great post.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.
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 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, and 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.
There’s a difference between realism and what hodge does.My big issue is that sometimes opinion should become fact; as we flesh issues out "agree-to-disagree" becomes silly.
For example, my particular triggers include fffusive praise of DW, ridiculous criticism of Grier, and defending Thornton's playoff play.
Also, people on this forum are naturally optimistic, so a dose of realism from @Hodge is appreciated. He's very good at reminding people how competitive the NHL is, and how difficult it is to make that league.
The thing I extra like about this post is that it provides a model for healthy engagement on the boards. At our best we have great discussions that push each other to stretch our points of view without assuming we are smarter than the other, or belittling if someone makes a mistake.A normal reaction:
“Wow, it’s awesome to hear that Svoboda looks great at the WJSS camp. I maintain, as I did the day he was drafted, that the Svoboda pick was strong in terms of getting a player with a high floor that has a good chance at being a 4C caliber player with a play style and physical tool kit that really fits the mold of what we see on winning NHL teams. Having those guys for their cheap productive years homegrown is valuable when you’re contending and worth spending a relatively high pick on. I hope Svoboda continues to prove people wrong and has a great freshman NCAA season leading to a meaningful WJC role this winter.”
What Hodge says:
“Everyone here are complete f***ing Pejorative Slurs for not gobbling up management’s dick and instead having their own opinions. I’m always right because I parrot the opinions of real professionals. NHL front offices are invariably perfect and you should never ever criticize them or dare to think that you might have a better idea because you are not a professional.”
Also Hodge: “Why am I the only one who can’t have an opinion???”
It’s really as simple as that.
Hodge needs to go on another mushroom journey and he will be just fine.The thing I extra like about this post is that it provides a model for healthy engagement on the boards. At our best we have great discussions that push each other to stretch our points of view without assuming we are smarter than the other, or belittling if someone makes a mistake.
Hell, Hodge and Jux had a back and forth like that (extremely constructive) not a few days ago and I think on this very thread.
I think Hodge has a lot to contribute when they're at their healthiest, and I hope this last page or so gives some clear examples of what's appreciated and what's not.
I feel like the Sharks, when they were good, were among the best in the league at puck retrieval and winning board battles, but that it was counterbalanced by the elite teams in the league being far better at maintaining possession of the puck.So I will say that I like the bottom 6 mold they're aiming at. Most of these are good forecheckers and/or good at grinding along the boards. Kinda like what we saw out of Lorentz and Eyssimont. I feel like the more I watch and understand hockey, the more importance I place on puck retrieval and winning board battles on the half walls. I think this is really where a lot of value comes for a winger. Like if our defense is getting pressured and their best option is chipping it up the boards, the guy who needs to get that puck out is the strong side winger. Same idea with F1 o-zone retrievals. If we're chipping and chasing, big bodies going hard into the corners will more likely keep the play alive. They may not end up as NHLers but there are components there that could get them to the NHL.
I might have agreed with this post 10 years ago but since then, teams have scooped up the few genuinely intelligent public analysts and lapped the public sphere several times over.I've always thought the "oh? you think you know better than anyone in an NHL front office?" attitude is so funny. Are we really that high on the average NHL front office? There are inefficiencies in every market, and certainly professional sports. The NHL is, in a global context, a middling professional sports league. It's definitely not composed of all "best and brightest."
Silly to think that it's not possible for keen outside observers (aka some internet scouts) to identify gaps before insiders do.
I will say as a mostly observer of the back and forth between Hodge and the board, Hodge is at fault but the way people react is just as irritating. Most of what Hodge posts is intended to get peoples blood boiling. But everyone still falls into the trap without just seeing it for the shtick it is.The thing I extra like about this post is that it provides a model for healthy engagement on the boards. At our best we have great discussions that push each other to stretch our points of view without assuming we are smarter than the other, or belittling if someone makes a mistake.
Hell, Hodge and Jux had a back and forth like that (extremely constructive) not a few days ago and I think on this very thread.
I think Hodge has a lot to contribute when they're at their healthiest, and I hope this last page or so gives some clear examples of what's appreciated and what's not.
The schtick is trolling and the boards tolerates it to a degree. People reacting to the trolling in a largely genuine way is hardly as irritating to me compared to the actual trolling going on. I thought the purpose of a message board here is to join a community of fans that enjoy the same team we do. I don't see how it benefits the community to have someone pretty routinely call those that disagree with them an idiot or insinuate as such. We're not idiots in the sense of not knowing that it's schtick. We're idiots in the sense that we've seen this person have plenty of agreeable takes and insightful commentary w/o the flaming theatrics but he chooses to employ them in a manner that is detrimental and clearly unnecessary. We're idiots to continue to treat him with some level of respect and charitability that he doesn't reciprocate in a consistent manner.I will say as a mostly observer of the back and forth between Hodge and the board, Hodge is at fault but the way people react is just as irritating. Most of what Hodge posts is intended to get peoples blood boiling. But everyone still falls into the trap without just seeing it for the shtick it is.
Norris and Ferraro were Burke picks.On the topic of Hodge-isms, thinking back at DWJr's drafting, I don't think size was the issue. I think that it's more that those guys didn't really have many standout traits. Like I guess Ferraro had high end hustle and Merkley maybe had great passing touch but it was mostly a group of prospects that had good traits, not great traits. And only the 2020 draft was particularly small with the forwards.
There is an easy way not to fall into the trap, or to even be tempted….I will say as a mostly observer of the back and forth between Hodge and the board, Hodge is at fault but the way people react is just as irritating. Most of what Hodge posts is intended to get peoples blood boiling. But everyone still falls into the trap without just seeing it for the shtick it is.
For sure, it's not just about the size thing, but it does play a role:On the topic of Hodge-isms, thinking back at DWJr's drafting, I don't think size was the issue. I think that it's more that those guys didn't really have many standout traits. Like I guess Ferraro had high end hustle and Merkley maybe had great passing touch but it was mostly a group of prospects that had good traits, not great traits. And only the 2020 draft was particularly small with the forwards.
I believe it was stated in an article or interview previously that the Norris Ferraro draft was the first DWJr. ran.Norris and Ferraro were Burke picks.
The "fairness to DWJr" argument is that, at the time, picks made from 2017-2021 (with his diminished influence in 2017 and 2021) were mostly praised. I think Hamaliuk and Weatherby were the only picks that were widely panned, though many analysts didn't like the Merkley pick. In particular, the Chmelevski and Chekhovich picks were DWJr's pick at their core, and widely celebrated as great picks.
It's possible, but Norris and Ferraro did not fit the mold of his draft picks at all, while they fit Burke's very well.I believe it was stated in an article or interview previously that the Norris Ferraro draft was the first DWJr. ran.
This is a great truth of the wonderful way the sharks integrated their rookies under DW. None ever were expected to be stars off the bat. Coach, pavs, Labanc, pickles, clowe, Hertl, etc all came up under the guidance of jumbo and patty and were not the faces of the franchise at 20 years old. All had at least a short stint in the A under Sommer too.Looking at the prospect group, it's easy to imagine a situation where players like Cardwell, Graf, Bystedt, Lund, Edstrom, etc. outgrow the AHL and have earned NHL minutes, but the Sharks don't have the space to accommodate them.
Previous iterations of the Sharks had talent AND age/experience in the top half of the team, so they could afford to baby a Setoguchi with Thornton or play a Pavelski on the third line. Maybe in 2-3 years Celebrini and Smith are dominant players getting 80+ points a season, but would they be able to coddle a Musty/Cherynshov, or take the heat of a third line composed of rookies?
How many spots on the team (or top/bottom 6) should be reserved for veterans, if any?