Confirmed Signing with Link: [SJS] G Yaroslav Askarov signs extension with San Jose (2 years, $2M AAV)

[weastern bias]

I remember it all. I have followed the sharks quite closely for the past 10 years. He got what he could for the contracts he inherited from Wilson. I am just not that impressed with the returns on any trades he's made. I'm not trashing him, he's only been in the job for two years. But it's a bit of a leap to me to say 'the Sharks are schooling everyone on how to do a rebuild' when they're the defending worst team in the league and they haven't made the playoffs in five years

Turning 3 bad contracts and an impending RFA eyeing a big deal who all wanted to be traded into 3 first round picks is pretty impressive in my eyes

 

[Sota Popinski]

Turning 3 bad contracts and an impending RFA eyeing a big deal who all wanted to be traded into 3 first round picks is pretty impressive in my eyes

They retained almost $3M a year for 3 years on Burns and got a 3rd in return. They retained $1.5M for four years on EK and took back worse contracts than his in Granlund and Hoffman. They got one first for that. I'm glad I'm not using your eyes if that's impressive to you

 

[Juxtaposer]

They retained almost $3M a year for 3 years on Burns and got a 3rd in return. They retained $1.5M for four years on EK and took back worse contracts than his in Granlund and Hoffman. They got one first for that. I'm glad I'm not using your eyes if that's impressive to you

The script flip from "Karlsson is immovable!!!! Sharks will have to retain 50% to even convince anyone to take his contract for free!!!" before the trade to "Sharks should have gotten more than 14th overall and a good 2C with leadership value for Karlsson while only retaining $1.5M" now is just f***ing hilarious.

 

[weastern bias]

They retained almost $3M a year for 3 years on Burns and got a 3rd in return. They retained $1.5M for four years on EK and took back worse contracts than his in Granlund and Hoffman. They got one first for that. I'm glad I'm not using your eyes if that's impressive to you

Those "worse contracts" are all of the books next summer giving SJS tons of cap space and roster flexibility while Karlsson is eating up $10M for 3 more years to average 55 points a year while playing awful defense on a non playoff team, I'll gladly take a 1st round pick and short term cap dumps to get off that albatross

Brent Burns was signed until his age 40 season and was coming off seasons pacing for 52 and 42 points in 82 games (shortened seasons) followed by a 54 year while being a bad defender, he was years removed from his Norris contending days, he was a negative asset around the league, the cap relief was the biggest asset the Sharks could have hoped for at the time, especially with the cap continuously staying flat in 2022

The Sharks took short term pain on salary retention in return for draft capital and long term flexibility, it's what any smart rebuilding team would do, the difference is Grier extracted positive value out of distressed assets with bad contracts, he made out really well in all of those deals

 

[Pinkfloyd]

They retained almost $3M a year for 3 years on Burns and got a 3rd in return. They retained $1.5M for four years on EK and took back worse contracts than his in Granlund and Hoffman. They got one first for that. I'm glad I'm not using your eyes if that's impressive to you

I don't think you have a realistic expectation of what they were going to get for returns on these players. Burns had three years at 37 with a three team trade list at 8 mil in a flat cap era. He wasn't going to return much but they still have two 3rd round prospects in Brandon Svoboda and Carson Wetsch. The real gain from it other than the fact that he wanted to go and we wanted to oblige him is that it allowed the team to open things up for Erik Karlsson and try and make him tradeable as well. That worked out massively. Yeah, they still had to take back short term cap dumps but Karlsson had four years and an NMC at 11.5 mil. He had limited suitors and we got a 1st out of it that is probably going to be a core contributor while still having two veteran assets that might provide futures down the road. They got more than what should be expected for those situations.

 

[TheBeard]

They retained almost $3M a year for 3 years on Burns and got a 3rd in return. They retained $1.5M for four years on EK and took back worse contracts than his in Granlund and Hoffman. They got one first for that. I'm glad I'm not using your eyes if that's impressive to you

They also go Lorentz, who they flipped into Duclair who turned into another 3rd and one of our top defensive prospects.

 

[JPT]

Signing saros for 20 years and a backup for 2? Nashville decided to take a big dump on Askarov and Askarov was in his right to reciprocate.

A team signing players is not, in fact, that team shitting on a prospect. Including a back up's 2 year deal is pretty funny, though.

 

[Sota Popinski]

The script flip from "Karlsson is immovable!!!! Sharks will have to retain 50% to even convince anyone to take his contract for free!!!" before the trade to "Sharks should have gotten more than 14th overall and a good 2C with leadership value for Karlsson while only retaining $1.5M" now is just f***ing hilarious.

I don't know whose script that was, but it sure as shit wasn't mine.

 

[Sota Popinski]

Those "worse contracts" are all of the books next summer giving SJS tons of cap space and roster flexibility while Karlsson is eating up $10M for 3 more years to average 55 points a year while playing awful defense on a non playoff team, I'll gladly take a 1st round pick and short term cap dumps to get off that albatross

Brent Burns was signed until his age 40 season and was coming off seasons pacing for 52 and 42 points in 82 games (shortened seasons) followed by a 54 year while being a bad defender, he was years removed from his Norris contending days, he was a negative asset around the league, the cap relief was the biggest asset the Sharks could have hoped for at the time, especially with the cap continuously staying flat in 2022

The Sharks took short term pain on salary retention in return for draft capital and long term flexibility, it's what any smart rebuilding team would do, the difference is Grier extracted positive value out of distressed assets with bad contracts, he made out really well in all of those deals

Was Brent Burns valuable as an 18G/43A defenseman who played all 82 games for a team that got to the conference finals at a cap hit of $5.3M in his first year with the Canes? Or does the playoff thing only count when it suits your narrative?

Continue ballwashing Grier if you want but the proof will be in the pudding. Grier hasn't done anything with that cap space to justify you continuously referencing it

 

[Juxtaposer]

I don't know whose script that was, but it sure as shit wasn't mine.

Cool, so because you thought Karlsson was worth more, Grier sucks.

Tell me, what would you have traded to acquire Karlsson last summer for whatever team you root for? Get specific.

Was Brent Burns valuable as an 18G/43A defenseman who played all 82 games for a team that got to the conference finals at a cap hit of $5.3M in his first year with the Canes? Or does the playoff thing only count when it suits your narrative?

Continue ballwashing Grier if you want but the proof will be in the pudding. Grier hasn't done anything with that cap space to justify you continuously referencing it

You will not find a single Sharks fan saying that the Burns trade was good value for the Sharks, other than the fact that moving him helped us bottom out and get top picks.

What you will find is that Burns was worth almost nothing because he was very bad in 2021-2022 for the Sharks, he had only like three teams he could he traded to, and he WANTED to be traded. Burns rebounded with the Canes no doubt and it was a great trade for them. But the Sharks were not going to find value for him on the trade market given all these factors and that's just the truth.

Burns was so awful in 2021-2022 and if you think otherwise I'm going to assume you didn't watch a Sharks game and are going purely on stats. He was once my favorite Shark and I was angry with him just about every game that season because his effort level was absolutely zero. Who wants to give up value for a player like that?

Again, tell me what you would have given up for Burns from whatever team you root for in the summer of 2022. Get specific.

 

[TheBeard]

Was Brent Burns valuable as an 18G/43A defenseman who played all 82 games for a team that got to the conference finals at a cap hit of $5.3M in his first year with the Canes? Or does the playoff thing only count when it suits your narrative?

Continue ballwashing Grier if you want but the proof will be in the pudding. Grier hasn't done anything with that cap space to justify you continuously referencing it

Everything we got back for Burns is infinitely more valuable than what he would have given us considering where we were headed. You seem to have a difficult time differentiating what teams going in opposite directions may need.

 

[weastern bias]

Was Brent Burns valuable as an 18G/43A defenseman who played all 82 games for a team that got to the conference finals at a cap hit of $5.3M in his first year with the Canes? Or does the playoff thing only count when it suits your narrative?

Continue ballwashing Grier if you want but the proof will be in the pudding. Grier hasn't done anything with that cap space to justify you continuously referencing it

Of course he hasn't used the cap space, that would be stupid, he cleared room off a bottom feeding team's ledger and turned a perennial bottom 5 team that was locked into big money contracts with long term into the most flexible cap situation in the league in the span of 2 seasons and was paid 1st round picks to do so

Burns has worked out very well for Carolina but it was certainly a big risk for them to take him on at 37 years old coming off 3 straight down seasons with 3 more years under contract, that's why there was a limited trade market for him and why he returned so little value in a deal

I don't see how it's "ball washing" to be satisfied with the in/out of the last 2 years

Out:
Burns on a bad contract
Meier as a pending RFA who signed a questionable contract
Karlsson on a bad contract
Hertl on a bad contract

In:
NJD 1st (Musty)
PIT 1st + NJD 2nd (trade up for Dickinson)
Zetterlund
Mukhamadullin
Granlund
Rutta
VGK 1st + Edstrom (flipped for Askarov)

Not to mention these moves took the team from just below the cap to $13M below the floor (which the team DID use to aquire veteran help to insulate the youth movement) while stripping the team of enough talent so they could fall down the standings enough to draft Smith and Celebrini

Mike Grier took over the job 2 days before the 2022 entry draft, take a look at what the Sharks cap sheet and prospect pool looked like then and compare it to today, it's been a wild turnaround in a very short amount of time

 

[hohosaregood]

I don't know whose script that was, but it sure as shit wasn't mine.

i dunno if i believe you that you thought $11m EK with a destroyed groin was a contract the Sharks could have moved easily without paying extra.

 

[Sota Popinski]

Cool, so because you thought Karlsson was worth more, Grier sucks.

Tell me, what would you have traded to acquire Karlsson last summer for whatever team you root for? Get specific.



You will not find a single Sharks fan saying that the Burns trade was good value for the Sharks, other than the fact that moving him helped us bottom out and get top picks.

What you will find is that Burns was worth almost nothing because he was very bad in 2021-2022 for the Sharks, he had only like three teams he could he traded to, and he WANTED to be traded. Burns rebounded with the Canes no doubt and it was a great trade for them. But the Sharks were not going to find value for him on the trade market given all these factors and that's just the truth.

Burns was so awful in 2021-2022 and if you think otherwise I'm going to assume you didn't watch a Sharks game and are going purely on stats. He was once my favorite Shark and I was angry with him just about every game that season because his effort level was absolutely zero. Who wants to give up value for a player like that?

Again, tell me what you would have given up for Burns from whatever team you root for in the summer of 2022. Get specific.

I'm not gonna tell you shit, since you couldn't even read the six or seven lines I typed out on the previous page of this thread. None of them said Grier sucks, but here you come with your cape on.

Everything we got back for Burns is infinitely more valuable than what he would have given us considering where we were headed. You seem to have a difficult time differentiating what teams going in opposite directions may need.

This all started with someone saying Grier was absolutely schooling everyone on how to do a proper rebuild. He isn't. He is bottoming out. Anyone can trade everything of value away. That doesn't take any skill. He won the lottery after putting together an awful team. I have no problem with that, it was the right thing to do. He did right by loyal soldiers Burns and Hertl. I respect that a lot.

I was not impressed with the return on Burns. He wasn't gonna use the cap space anyway, so why not retain more to get a better asset?

I was not impressed with the return on Meier. I thought that Mukh was their 4th-6th best prospect at best and they got a late 1st and zetterlund for the top trade chip available at the deadline who was also still under team control. That's a weak return.

He did ok on the Karlsson trade. Maybe even well.

He did well on the Hertl trade given the circumstances.

 

[Sota Popinski]

Of course he hasn't used the cap space, that would be stupid, he cleared room off a bottom feeding team's ledger and turned a perennial bottom 5 team that was locked into big money contracts with long term into the most flexible cap situation in the league in the span of 2 seasons and was paid 1st round picks to do so

Burns has worked out very well for Carolina but it was certainly a big risk for them to take him on at 37 years old coming off 3 straight down seasons with 3 more years under contract, that's why there was a limited trade market for him and why he returned so little value in a deal

I don't see how it's "ball washing" to be satisfied with the in/out of the last 2 years

Out:
Burns on a bad contract
Meier as a pending RFA who signed a questionable contract
Karlsson on a bad contract
Hertl on a bad contract

In:
NJD 1st (Musty)
PIT 1st + NJD 2nd (trade up for Dickinson)
Zetterlund
Mukhamadullin
Granlund
Rutta
VGK 1st + Edstrom (flipped for Askarov)

Not to mention these moves took the team from just below the cap to $13M below the floor (which the team DID use to aquire veteran help to insulate the youth movement) while stripping the team of enough talent so they could fall down the standings enough to draft Smith and Celebrini

Mike Grier took over the job 2 days before the 2022 entry draft, take a look at what the Sharks cap sheet and prospect pool looked like then and compare it to today, it's been a wild turnaround in a very short amount of time

He hasn't used the cap space, so why do you keep mentioning it? It's irrelevant. He didn't clear the ledge. They have retained salary on the maximum contracts the league will allow. They're gonna be paying Hertl to play for the enemy for the next six years. No one at the time thought it was a big risk for Carolina to trade for Burns.

It's not ballwashing to be satisfied, but it is to act like Grier made all the right moves by simply trading away anything of value for whatever he could get, and in the process icing the worst team in the league. Anyone could have done that.

Please don't insult my intelligence by insinuating Granlund and Rutta are positive assets after claiming that Brent Burns was a negative asset in 2022

 

[TheBeard]

I'm not gonna tell you shit, since you couldn't even read the six or seven lines I typed out on the previous page of this thread. None of them said Grier sucks, but here you come with your cape on.


This all started with someone saying Grier was absolutely schooling everyone on how to do a proper rebuild. He isn't. He is bottoming out. Anyone can trade everything of value away. That doesn't take any skill. He won the lottery after putting together an awful team. I have no problem with that, it was the right thing to do. He did right by loyal soldiers Burns and Hertl. I respect that a lot.

I was not impressed with the return on Burns. He wasn't gonna use the cap space anyway, so why not retain more to get a better asset?

I was not impressed with the return on Meier. I thought that Mukh was their 4th-6th best prospect at best and they got a late 1st and zetterlund for the top trade chip available at the deadline who was also still under team control. That's a weak return.

He did ok on the Karlsson trade. Maybe even well.

He did well on the Hertl trade given the circumstances.

I think he's done well. The bottom line is the team inherited was not going anywhere for a long time thanks to all the NMC Wilson handed out like candy. That's something you're also not taking into consideration. These players all had basically final say on where they went. You combine that with their age and salary and you were never going to have more than two maybe three options per each. Meier was the only one that didn't but let's be honest, there was no team control given the 10 million QO. NJ certainly wanted nothing to do with that qualifying offer. Who was Jersey going to give up that was reasonable? Certainly not Mercer or Nemec or Hughes. The only name left was Holtz, and we saw how that turned out.

The arguments about "well, this is what he SHOULD have done" is so pointless because you have no idea what the options were. Teams weren't necessarily going to give up more for more retention. Teams may not be interested in a declining player with multiple years left and it certainly doesn't mean they were going to sacrifice more of their future just to save a couple bucks now.

So many people here abide by what the HF board consensus is regarding who's worth what and 95% of the time HF is wrong, yet that's not us random couch posters who are out of touch, it's the professionals who actually talk to one another. The fact is Grier took a graveyard that had no prospects and a lot of aging contracts and turned it completely around in 2 years. No matter how much you want to nitpick every aspect of every trade, there is absolutely no arguing the results so far.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I was not impressed with the return on Burns. He wasn't gonna use the cap space anyway, so why not retain more to get a better asset?

Real dollars.

I was not impressed with the return on Meier. I thought that Mukh was their 4th-6th best prospect at best and they got a late 1st and zetterlund for the top trade chip available at the deadline who was also still under team control. That's a weak return.

1) Regardless of how Mukhamadullin was ranked in NJ's pool, he was still a former first-rounder and a well-regarded prospect.
2) The Sharks also got a conditional pick (turned into a second)
3) They also got a decent (C+) prospect in Okhotiuk

Meier was publically shopped and known to be available; if a better option offer was on the table Grier would've taken it. If you want to criticize the trade, either argue that the Sharks should have extended Meier or explain how the publically perceived value of the acquired assets was greater than your estimated value (e.g., you don't like Zetterlund)

He did ok on the Karlsson trade. Maybe even well.

He did well on the Hertl trade given the circumstances.

Again, I don't think there's much room to criticize him on the Karlsson trade. Maybe he should have convinced Plattner to retain more salary, or gotten Karlsson to waive for a different team.

With Hertl, perhaps the timing wasn't the best, but I think both Grier and Hertl really wanted to get it done ASAP.

 

[weastern bias]

Please don't insult my intelligence

Not too worried about that, TBH

 

[themelkman]

I am not a Grier fan by any means, but you have to give him a hand on this trade. It could turn out bad, but its taking a swing on major upside for some minor pieces

 

[banks]

By the time this 2 year deal is over, Askarov will be considered a top 5 goalie in the league by pretty much everyone. Quote me on it.

 

[Shark Finn]

By the time this 2 year deal is over, Askarov will be considered a top 5 goalie in the league by pretty much everyone. Quote me on it.

That's what every Sharks fan hopes, haha.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

He hasn't used the cap space, so why do you keep mentioning it? It's irrelevant. He didn't clear the ledge. They have retained salary on the maximum contracts the league will allow. They're gonna be paying Hertl to play for the enemy for the next six years. No one at the time thought it was a big risk for Carolina to trade for Burns.

It's not ballwashing to be satisfied, but it is to act like Grier made all the right moves by simply trading away anything of value for whatever he could get, and in the process icing the worst team in the league. Anyone could have done that.

Please don't insult my intelligence by insinuating Granlund and Rutta are positive assets after claiming that Brent Burns was a negative asset in 2022

You're insulting your own intelligence by framing the moves made as trading anything of value for whatever he could get. The only trade that resembles that remark is the Burns trade but there were multiple objectives accomplished by doing that that aren't cap-related. Burns asked out to compete. The first time GM in his first offseason obliged him. The other objective accomplished was clearing the roadway to have Erik Karlsson be the focal point of the team which massively improved his trade value. The trade that Karlsson ended up going for last year was a significantly higher amount than what a 2022 trade of Erik Karlsson would have looked like. Pretending like anyone could have or would have done that is not being honest. Also, Granlund had 60 points in 69 games with a really bad Sharks team. Yeah, he still makes 5 mil and the Sharks will probably need a 3rd team to move him at the deadline but he will absolutely return some type of positive asset if they decide to rent him out. If you think otherwise, I can't take your opinion seriously about player value. Rutta probably will return a positive asset as well but he's definitely more arguable in that context to not do so. I suspect he'll return a 4th at the deadline. It's not anything to write home about but it's a positive return. Granlund and Rutta in 2024 with their cap hits and in their final years is a shit ton different than a 37 year old Burns with three years to go and a three team trade list at 8 mil.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I'm not gonna tell you shit, since you couldn't even read the six or seven lines I typed out on the previous page of this thread. None of them said Grier sucks, but here you come with your cape on.

So you can't. Good to know.

 

[Boy Hedican]

I am not a Grier fan by any means, but you have to give him a hand on this trade. It could turn out bad, but its taking a swing on major upside for some minor pieces

How are you not a Grier fan by now?? You want to be skeptical, fine. But he’s done far better than average so far. What’s not to like?

 

[Sota Popinski]

So you can't. Good to know.

Or I'm choosing not to seriously engage with someone whose reading comprehension is piss poor and whose interactions on this board come off as a condescending prick