Speculation: Summer 2018 Roster Discussion Part IV

[Hinterland]

No **** his playoff P/60 is higher than Skinner's, Skinner has never played a NHL playoff game in his life. I assumed we were talking about the regular season.

I never claimed the opposite. All I said is that Boedker's career playoff P/60 is better than Kane career regular season P/60 which is remarkable. Boedker's P/60 of last season is really good, too and could be near the top of the league if he scored more than 8 points in 2017. I'm sure he would have done exactly that if it wasn't for stupid DeBoer.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Every single player declines, it's just a matter of when and how quickly. Kane is a 50 point player right now, at 27. He's only going to get worse and if he gets even a little worse he's a 45 point player. It's not that much of a stretch.

How is Pacioretty not being traded because the return would be low a point in your favor and not mine? There's yet another winger who's superior to Evander Kane and will likely end up moved for cheap. Sure each of these circumstances individually is unique but there will always be issues like these that allow players of Kane, Skinner, Pacioretty, Hoffman's caliber to be traded for less than they're worth.

We should have let Kane walk and replaced him with Hoffman for the next two years and then hopefully Timo Meier is ready for a top line role then. Even if he isn't, at least you don't have five years of Evander Kane in his 30s left at $7 million a pop.

He's only going to get worse is wrong. Pavelski at 27 scored less than every single season he has had since then which includes his 33 year old season. You're right that everyone declines and it's a matter of when. It doesn't mean that it's going to happen to Kane during this contract.

 

[Maladroit]

He's only going to get worse is wrong. Pavelski at 27 scored less than every single season he has had since then which includes his 33 year old season. You're right that everyone declines and it's a matter of when. It doesn't mean that it's going to happen to Kane during this contract.

I don't think Kane is gonna get the chance to be moved onto prime Joe Thornton's wing anytime soon. He might get a boost from playing with over-the-hill Jumbo but that's one season. What about the other six after Thornton likely retires?

 

[Lebanezer]

The season cannot get here fast enough.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't think Kane is gonna get the chance to be moved onto prime Joe Thornton's wing anytime soon. He might get a boost from playing with over-the-hill Jumbo but that's one season. What about the other six after Thornton likely retires?

There will be other players and other opportunities. I sincerely doubt he will tank without Joe Thornton since he’s already shown capable of producing here in a small sample size at a top line pace without having played with him at all.

 

[hohosaregood]

The season cannot get here fast enough.

I have a feeling the complaining will ramp up. Remember last year, how quickly" Timo=huge bust" started? The instance that Kane stumbles even a little or takes a huge dirty hit and gets injured, people are gonna moan.

 

[do0glas]

Kane has played 574 of 704 possible games. That’s 81% of his games or 67 games per 82 game season.

Skinner has played 579 of 622 possible games. That’s 93% of his possible games or 76 games per season.

But yeah, Skinner is the one with injury concerns.

Yet again. Youre forgetting we got kane for peanuts. He had a history too. And a concussion history is different. Those symptoms can present randomly, hes susceptible to more etc. Lets also just brush aside he had a f***ing ntc. But top 6 wingers are just everywhere for peanuts!

The logic in here is insane. Skinner is fine to give 7x7 to, Kane cost too much in a trade but the original cost was great for a rental. We should've kept hoffman (holy revisionist!)

I say everyone's issues here revolve around his contract. Its too long for too much. Got it. But it doesn't diminish his skill now. It doesn't make him less comparable to skinner.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I have a feeling the complaining will ramp up. Remember last year, how quickly" Timo=huge bust" started? The instance that Kane stumbles even a little or takes a huge dirty hit and gets injured, people are gonna moan.

I will bitch as I please good sir.

 

[Lebanezer]

I have a feeling the complaining will ramp up. Remember last year, how quickly" Timo=huge bust" started? The instance that Kane stumbles even a little or takes a huge dirty hit and gets injured, people are gonna moan.

At least the bemoaning will be about actual events instead of projections.

 

[Mattb124]

Yeah...and he played accordingly towards the end and during the playoffs. If you can even call that "playing"...

5 in 9 = not playing

 

[Sharksrule04]

He's only going to get worse is wrong. Pavelski at 27 scored less than every single season he has had since then which includes his 33 year old season. You're right that everyone declines and it's a matter of when. It doesn't mean that it's going to happen to Kane during this contract.

LOL, I love how all these Nostradamus’s on our board just know Kane is going to decline. It’s like no player ever has had better seasons in his late 20’s that his early to mid 20’s, Pavs being a great example.

I’m beyond tired of the same 3-4 people constantly saying that Kane is going to get injured, get worse and significantly decline with absolutely no way of proving that. He’s coming off probably his healthiest and strongest season and he is finally playing on a playoff caliber team yet suddenly next year will start this sudden decline. Meanwhile stars like Skinner will only perform at their career highs going forward.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

You may wanna edit that post. Boedker's playoff P/60 is higher than Kane's regular season P/60. Boedker is a speedster, he doesn't even want to hold on the puck. If used the right way he's easily better than Kane, probably even better than Skinner. He proved it over and over again. He was always there when it mattered.

Boeker is now better than Skinner and Kane...

 

[Hinterland]

Boeker is now better than Skinner and Kane...

Kane for sure, not sure about Skinner. They're pretty similar. But why now? This isn't something new. Again. Boedker's playoff career numbers are better than Kane's regular season numbers. He's 61th among players with 30+ playoff games since 2010. Tells you all you need to know.
Yeah, his regular season output was always a bit inconsistent but that's mostly because of the stupid coaches he had to play for. When DeBoer finally decided to use Boedker the right way he instantly was one of the best if not the best Sharks player. Again. Last season an excellent 2,25 P/60 despite only 8 points in 2017. To compare. Kane: 2,12 and Skinner: 2,15. Boedker still easily outscored them despite getting DeBoered for almost 50% of the season. Now imagine if the Sharks actually had a proper coach.

 

[Barrie22]

17 points in 34 playoff games is good for boedker? And some how better then kanes .61 points per game in the regular season?

I was never good at math but i am pretty sure .61 is better then .50.

 

[Maladroit]

LOL, I love how all these Nostradamus’s on our board just know Kane is going to decline. It’s like no player ever has had better seasons in his late 20’s that his early to mid 20’s, Pavs being a great example.

I’m beyond tired of the same 3-4 people constantly saying that Kane is going to get injured, get worse and significantly decline with absolutely no way of proving that. He’s coming off probably his healthiest and strongest season and he is finally playing on a playoff caliber team yet suddenly next year will start this sudden decline. Meanwhile stars like Skinner will only perform at their career highs going forward.

No one in this thread has said that Skinner is somehow immune from decline. Where are you even getting that from? My point has been that Kane will probably remain a productive top six winger who earns his contract for the first 2-3 years of the deal after which all bets are off and history strongly indicates he'll quickly become a net negative on the books.

So instead of giving up a first round pick to sign him to a long-term deal that will bite them in the ass, I'm saying the Sharks should have let him walk and instead acquired Hoffman (which they did!), Skinner or Pacioretty given the prices those players appear to be going for. They would have had those players for a season (or two seasons in Hoffman's case) where you can be very confident they will be productive, then sent them on their merry way with Timo Meier stepping into a top line role and you're not stuck paying any of these guys $7 million a year for their 30-33 year old seasons.

The Sharks have been spoiled with players like Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski and Burns remaining stars (or even in the case of Pavelski and Burns becoming stars) in their 30s. This is completely anomalous when you look at the rest of the league. But thanks to those players' unique career trajectories Doug Wilson is convinced he has the magic elixir that will make all of these players he's recently signed to huge deals that take them into their mid to late 30s follow the same path as Pavelski. That's incredibly unlikely if you look at the NHL as a whole rather than just the last five years of Sharks hockey.

 

[WSS11]

I’d rather have Hoffman than Skinner or MaxPac. Truthfully, I hope DW is zeroed in on somehow getting Panarin in teal.

 

[Barrie22]

I’d rather have Hoffman than Skinner or MaxPac. Truthfully, I hope DW is zeroed in on somehow getting Panarin in teal.

Nah his locker room heat is nuclear. The more and more that comes out his locker room issues go way back. Even as far as his junior years.

The karlsson thing was just the biling point.

 

[Hinterland]

Nah his locker room heat is nuclear. The more and more that comes out his locker room issues go way back. Even as far as his junior years.

The karlsson thing was just the biling point.

Source?
Please don't spread rumors. The story you mentioned didn't even involve Karlsson or Hoffman...just their wife/girlfriend. From what I read it was nothing but a chicken fight. Nothing special. Happens every day all over the world. Judging by what I hear through the media I like Hoffman better than Karlsson who strikes me as rather strange. So unless you come up with some actual proof please don't try to tell us how bad of a human being Hoffman is.

And please don't come up with junior stuff. Everybody makes mistakes as a kid. Nothing to worry about. Sharks wouldn't have drafted Merkley if they thought otherwise.

 

[Celly4Celebrini]

Source?
Please don't spread rumors. The story you mentioned didn't even involve Karlsson or Hoffman...just their wife/girlfriend. From what I read it was nothing but a chicken fight. Nothing special. Happens every day all over the world. Judging by what I hear through the media I like Hoffman better than Karlsson who strikes me as rather strange. So unless you come up with some actual proof please don't try to tell us how bad of a human being Hoffman is.

And please don't come up with junior stuff. Everybody makes mistakes as a kid. Nothing to worry about. Sharks wouldn't have drafted Merkley if they thought otherwise.

we just gonna ignore the fact that Hoffman didnt even have EK's cell number and had to EMAIL him when something was going on.

Teammates generally have each others numbers, especially the captains.

face it, Hoffman is a POS.

 

[Hinterland]

we just gonna ignore the fact that Hoffman didnt even have EK's cell number and had to EMAIL him when something was going on.

Teammates generally have each others numbers, especially the captains.

face it, Hoffman is a POS.

Is that a fact? Even if...that's Karlsson's problem. As a Captain he has to make sure that everybody has his number.

Point of sale?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No one in this thread has said that Skinner is somehow immune from decline. Where are you even getting that from? My point has been that Kane will probably remain a productive top six winger who earns his contract for the first 2-3 years of the deal after which all bets are off and history strongly indicates he'll quickly become a net negative on the books.

So instead of giving up a first round pick to sign him to a long-term deal that will bite them in the ass, I'm saying the Sharks should have let him walk and instead acquired Hoffman (which they did!), Skinner or Pacioretty given the prices those players appear to be going for. They would have had those players for a season (or two seasons in Hoffman's case) where you can be very confident they will be productive, then sent them on their merry way with Timo Meier stepping into a top line role and you're not stuck paying any of these guys $7 million a year for their 30-33 year old seasons.

The Sharks have been spoiled with players like Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski and Burns remaining stars (or even in the case of Pavelski and Burns becoming stars) in their 30s. This is completely anomalous when you look at the rest of the league. But thanks to those players' unique career trajectories Doug Wilson is convinced he has the magic elixir that will make all of these players he's recently signed to huge deals that take them into their mid to late 30s follow the same path as Pavelski. That's incredibly unlikely if you look at the NHL as a whole rather than just the last five years of Sharks hockey.

There's actually not much that strongly indicates he'll become a net negative. Strong indications that he'll decline? Sure but be a net negative is a different thing. There's no real indications of that. That's just you making more and more assumptions. You don't know what his decline level will be from year to year.

 

[Maladroit]

There's actually not much that strongly indicates he'll become a net negative. Strong indications that he'll decline? Sure but be a net negative is a different thing. There's no real indications of that. That's just you making more and more assumptions. You don't know what his decline level will be from year to year.

He's a 50 point player right now. If he declines even slightly he's a 40-45 point player making $7 million a year. That is absolutely a net negative contract. Unlike with the justifiable Burns contract we're not starting off with a star here so even a slight decline would take Kane into 2nd/3rd line tweener territory much like it did for Ryan, Okposo, Lucic, Eriksson, etc.

Is there a chance Kane becomes the first of these contracts to not look horrible within two years? Maybe! I can't see the future. But why bank on that extremely unlikely outcome when you could add an identical player in Hoffman or Skinner for one or two years, at which point one would hope Timo Meier in a top line role can at least give you what Kane would have provided at ages 29-33 if not do substantially better all on a more reasonable contract that you can trade if necessary.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

He's a 50 point player right now. If he declines even slightly he's a 40-45 point player making $7 million a year. That is absolutely a net negative contract. Unlike with the justifiable Burns contract we're not starting off with a star here so even a slight decline would take Kane into 2nd/3rd line tweener territory much like it did for Ryan, Okposo, Lucic, Eriksson, etc.

Actually, no. A decline in a player's abilities doesn't always mean a decline in production and no I don't buy that all 40-45 point players making 7 mil is a net negative contract. It depends on what else is brought to the table. If you think that Kane will end up like Ryan, Okposo, Lucic, or Eriksson then you're not doing honest research. Those players all have massively different circumstances that probably won't apply to Kane.

 

[Maladroit]

Actually, no. A decline in a player's abilities doesn't always mean a decline in production and no I don't buy that all 40-45 point players making 7 mil is a net negative contract. It depends on what else is brought to the table. If you think that Kane will end up like Ryan, Okposo, Lucic, or Eriksson then you're not doing honest research. Those players all have massively different circumstances that probably won't apply to Kane.

What the hell else do you think I'm talking about apart from production when I'm referring to decline? On average forwards retain 90% of their peak scoring through age 29 which drops to 80% by 31 and 70% by 32-33. We're starting with an incredibly unimpressive peak for Kane - his peak was as a 60-point player so it's reasonable to expect him to be in the 50-55 point range for the first two years of the contract, drop below 50 by year four and hover around the 40-point mark in the final two years of the deal. And this is all assuming he plays 82 games a season which we know isn't going to happen so adjust those numbers downward somewhat.

Those are just averages and Kane isn't going to follow that trajectory perfectly but it's flat out stupid to bet against historical precedent and assume he's going to vastly outperform those numbers. And those numbers past year two absolutely do not warrant a $7 million cap hit, no matter what the ceiling is, for a player who brings nothing else to the table outside of scoring. Hell I'm not even convinced he's worth $7 million next season.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Actually, no. A decline in a player's abilities doesn't always mean a decline in production and no I don't buy that all 40-45 point players making 7 mil is a net negative contract. It depends on what else is brought to the table. If you think that Kane will end up like Ryan, Okposo, Lucic, or Eriksson then you're not doing honest research. Those players all have massively different circumstances that probably won't apply to Kane.

What honest research have you done that makes you so certain that Kane is any less primed for a decline than Ryan, Lucic, Okposo, and Eriksson were?