Speculation: Summer 2018 Roster Discussion Part IV

[Pinkfloyd]

None of us care about getting value back for these contracts either, what I'm concerned about is the high likelihood that moving the Kane, Couture or Vlasic contracts will require taking back a similarly toxic deal even if Wilson or whoever the GM is at that point is able to convince these guys to waive their NTCs. I'd be perfectly okay with moving Kane or Couture for a 7th round pick once they start to decline but that's not realistic. We're going to have to take a negative value contract back and probably retain salary on top of that.

It's possible but it's hard to say without knowing any of the particulars but if you're already resigned to saying that these players are negative value contracts or potentially so then taking back a negative value contract isn't necessarily a negative either. When it comes to the players with long term contracts, I just don't see the Sharks having to worry about Jones. His contract will expire when his usefulness to the team likely expires as well. The Kane one is likely one they will have to live with for good or for bad. I don't suspect he will decline during that time but his deal expires when a player like him should be let go. I don't think they'll ever move Burns or Vlasic or Couture. Burns is a prized DW acquisition that has worked out pretty well for him. However, if they do, there's always a taker for someone of his skills. I think Vlasic's earned enough of a reputation to say the same at this point even with his play quality dropping the past couple seasons. Couture is a locker-room guy with leadership skills that always retains value to other GM's. And in all of these situations, we don't know who the three teams would be and what their situations would be. I'm alright with trading a declined Vlasic when he's 36 with still three seasons to go at 7 mil to Montreal for say someone like Adam Henrique if he had fallen off a cliff by then making 5.85 mil for only one more season at that point and some scraps.

I don't think it's realistic to expect all these players to decline to such a state that they will need to be dealt. One probably will but not even most of them, imo.

 

[Lebanezer]

Also, one final reason that the Heatley trade is in no way a sign that the Vlasic/Burns/Couture/Kane/Jones contracts are not a problem: Every single one of these players have a 3 team modified NTC (outside of Vlasic who has a full NMC for the first 4 years and then transitions to a 3 team NTC for the final 4) and none of these players would ever in a million years list a Minnesota team who just missed the playoffs and then traded their best player and only all-star as one of the 3 teams they would accept a trade to.



Lol, I was already drinking during the Sharks’ SCF run but I’ve been sober since the midway point of the 2016-2017 season.

So, I did not want to get into this, but it's getting out of hand at this point.

Heatley's situation and his decline revolved around a horrible car accident that ruined his knee.

Havlat suffered from groin problems his entire career and had to have a pelvic floor reconstruction done. He said in his Player's tribune article that once the groin problems started, he could never really get them to heal.

Those 2 players were broken long before they ever got to the Sharks. Their situations both constituted chronic debilitating problems with their legs/lower body.

Kane/Vlasic/Burns/Jones/Couture have not suffered from the same catastrophic and repeated injury to the same parts of their body. None of them have suffered from any significant ligament, tendon or muscle injuries to their lower bodies, specifically their knees, ankles, groins or hamstrings. It's easier to come back from a broken bone, like Couture, than an ACL tear, like Clowe or Thornton.

Comparing Heatley and Havlat to Burns, Couture, Jones, Vlasic and Kane is not reasonable from a medical standpoint.

The fact that Heatley was moved for Havlat and that Havlat was eventually bought out, has no bearing on what will happen with the Sharks going forward. Their medical situations were extremely dire. DW tried to squeeze whatever high end hockey he could get out of both of them.

Paul Martin is a similar situation, ankle surgery at 37, is not good. If Paul Martin did not need ankle surgery, I'm sure that his season would have gone differently last year, and that he'd still be a Shark. That surgery, and subsequent setbacks essentially ended his career. It's unfortunate that it happened, but I don't think it was a known issue when the Sharks signed him.

I am not saying that being concerned about the eventual decline of any player is not justified. Burns is going to be 100 when his contract ends. But, the likelihood of being able to move a player like Vlasic, Burns, Couture or Jones is much higher than someone like Havlat or Heatley even with their limited NTCs. They do not have the same kind of injury flags that Heatley or Havlat had. (Kane is a unique case, in that he is younger than the rest of those guys, which is good, but also has baggage, which is bad. His shoulder injury from 2015 is a minor concern, but since he's had no subsequent surgeries, the injury seems to be behind him.)

So, in the event the Sharks ever find themselves in a situation where they should move Burns, Couture, Vlasic, Jones or Kane, down the line, I don't think anything would stop it from happening in their current states. However, I don't think it will happen unless DW is no longer the GM.

 

[Dicdonya]

So, I did not want to get into this, but it's getting out of hand at this point.

Heatley's situation and his decline revolved around a horrible car accident that ruined his knee.

Havlat suffered from groin problems his entire career and had to have a pelvic floor reconstruction done. He said in his Player's tribune article that once the groin problems started, he could never really get them to heal.

Those 2 players were broken long before they ever got to the Sharks. Their situations both constituted chronic debilitating problems with their legs/lower body.

Kane/Vlasic/Burns/Jones/Couture have not suffered from the same catastrophic and repeated injury to the same parts of their body. None of them have suffered from any significant ligament, tendon or muscle injuries to their lower bodies, specifically their knees, ankles, groins or hamstrings. It's easier to come back from a broken bone, like Couture, than an ACL tear, like Clowe or Thornton.

Comparing Heatley and Havlat to Burns, Couture, Jones, Vlasic and Kane is not reasonable from a medical standpoint.

The fact that Heatley was moved for Havlat and that Havlat was eventually bought out, has no bearing on what will happen with the Sharks going forward. Their medical situations were extremely dire. DW tried to squeeze whatever high end hockey he could get out of both of them.

Paul Martin is a similar situation, ankle surgery at 37, is not good. If Paul Martin did not need ankle surgery, I'm sure that his season would have gone differently last year, and that he'd still be a Shark. That surgery, and subsequent setbacks essentially ended his career. It's unfortunate that it happened, but I don't think it was a known issue when the Sharks signed him.

I am not saying that being concerned about the eventual decline of any player is not justified. Burns is going to be 100 when his contract ends. But, the likelihood of being able to move a player like Vlasic, Burns, Couture or Jones is much higher than someone like Havlat or Heatley even with their limited NTCs. They do not have the same kind of injury flags that Heatley or Havlat had. (Kane is a unique case, in that he is younger than the rest of those guys, which is good, but also has baggage, which is bad. His shoulder injury from 2015 is a minor concern, but since he's had no subsequent surgeries, the injury seems to be behind him.)

So, in the event the Sharks ever find themselves in a situation where they should move Burns, Couture, Vlasic, Jones or Kane, down the line, I don't think anything would stop it from happening in their current states. However, I don't think it will happen unless DW is no longer the GM.

Really good post, to piggy back on it a little bit.

I think some people are still coming to grips with the idea that 7-8mil is now going to be the new standard 1st line/1st pairing type money in the NHL going forward. Sure some will sign a little less then that, or more then that, but 6ish used to be the norm, with superstars making like 9. Now superstars are pushing 11-12+mil, its only natural that 7-8 is the new norm for 1st liners (not even great 1st liners). The cap most likely will keep raising to where in 4-5 years if these guys decline some, 7-8mil will not be insane money, like it would have been 2-3 years ago, and although it won't be simple to move them, it would not be a total shit show to try and trade them.

On top of that, I have no proof of this at this moment, but I would not be surprised to find out that NHL players, especially good ones, are staying in the league to later ages, as medicine and workout programs continue to evolve and create healthier bodies at older ages.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

So, I did not want to get into this, but it's getting out of hand at this point.

Heatley's situation and his decline revolved around a horrible car accident that ruined his knee.

Havlat suffered from groin problems his entire career and had to have a pelvic floor reconstruction done. He said in his Player's tribune article that once the groin problems started, he could never really get them to heal.

Those 2 players were broken long before they ever got to the Sharks. Their situations both constituted chronic debilitating problems with their legs/lower body.

Kane/Vlasic/Burns/Jones/Couture have not suffered from the same catastrophic and repeated injury to the same parts of their body. None of them have suffered from any significant ligament, tendon or muscle injuries to their lower bodies, specifically their knees, ankles, groins or hamstrings. It's easier to come back from a broken bone, like Couture, than an ACL tear, like Clowe or Thornton.

Comparing Heatley and Havlat to Burns, Couture, Jones, Vlasic and Kane is not reasonable from a medical standpoint.

The fact that Heatley was moved for Havlat and that Havlat was eventually bought out, has no bearing on what will happen with the Sharks going forward. Their medical situations were extremely dire. DW tried to squeeze whatever high end hockey he could get out of both of them.

Paul Martin is a similar situation, ankle surgery at 37, is not good. If Paul Martin did not need ankle surgery, I'm sure that his season would have gone differently last year, and that he'd still be a Shark. That surgery, and subsequent setbacks essentially ended his career. It's unfortunate that it happened, but I don't think it was a known issue when the Sharks signed him.

I am not saying that being concerned about the eventual decline of any player is not justified. Burns is going to be 100 when his contract ends. But, the likelihood of being able to move a player like Vlasic, Burns, Couture or Jones is much higher than someone like Havlat or Heatley even with their limited NTCs. They do not have the same kind of injury flags that Heatley or Havlat had. (Kane is a unique case, in that he is younger than the rest of those guys, which is good, but also has baggage, which is bad. His shoulder injury from 2015 is a minor concern, but since he's had no subsequent surgeries, the injury seems to be behind him.)

So, in the event the Sharks ever find themselves in a situation where they should move Burns, Couture, Vlasic, Jones or Kane, down the line, I don't think anything would stop it from happening in their current states. However, I don't think it will happen unless DW is no longer the GM.

Solid post, I can dig it for the most part. But Couture has a history of head injuries, and Kane’s shoulder injury is something that is behind him when he was literally injured in the regular season and playoffs here because of a shoulder injury.

Also, I don’t think Heatley’s issue was the car crash, he literally had the back to back 50 goal 100 point seasons well after his car crash. I think he had a hernia with the Sharks.

 

[67 others]

So, I did not want to get into this, but it's getting out of hand at this point.

Heatley's situation and his decline revolved around a horrible car accident that ruined his knee.

Havlat suffered from groin problems his entire career and had to have a pelvic floor reconstruction done. He said in his Player's tribune article that once the groin problems started, he could never really get them to heal.

Those 2 players were broken long before they ever got to the Sharks. Their situations both constituted chronic debilitating problems with their legs/lower body.

Kane/Vlasic/Burns/Jones/Couture have not suffered from the same catastrophic and repeated injury to the same parts of their body. None of them have suffered from any significant ligament, tendon or muscle injuries to their lower bodies, specifically their knees, ankles, groins or hamstrings. It's easier to come back from a broken bone, like Couture, than an ACL tear, like Clowe or Thornton.

Comparing Heatley and Havlat to Burns, Couture, Jones, Vlasic and Kane is not reasonable from a medical standpoint.

The fact that Heatley was moved for Havlat and that Havlat was eventually bought out, has no bearing on what will happen with the Sharks going forward. Their medical situations were extremely dire. DW tried to squeeze whatever high end hockey he could get out of both of them.

Paul Martin is a similar situation, ankle surgery at 37, is not good. If Paul Martin did not need ankle surgery, I'm sure that his season would have gone differently last year, and that he'd still be a Shark. That surgery, and subsequent setbacks essentially ended his career. It's unfortunate that it happened, but I don't think it was a known issue when the Sharks signed him.

I am not saying that being concerned about the eventual decline of any player is not justified. Burns is going to be 100 when his contract ends. But, the likelihood of being able to move a player like Vlasic, Burns, Couture or Jones is much higher than someone like Havlat or Heatley even with their limited NTCs. They do not have the same kind of injury flags that Heatley or Havlat had. (Kane is a unique case, in that he is younger than the rest of those guys, which is good, but also has baggage, which is bad. His shoulder injury from 2015 is a minor concern, but since he's had no subsequent surgeries, the injury seems to be behind him.)

So, in the event the Sharks ever find themselves in a situation where they should move Burns, Couture, Vlasic, Jones or Kane, down the line, I don't think anything would stop it from happening in their current states. However, I don't think it will happen unless DW is no longer the GM.

That I disagree with.

He scored 50, 50, 41, 39 and 39 goals 5 seasons after that car crash. The word at the time was he became reliant on his shot and stopped bothering with the physical conditioning and effort and it showed

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

That I disagree with.

He scored 50, 50, 41, 39 and 39 goals 5 seasons after that car crash. The word at the time was he became reliant on his shot and stopped bothering with the physical conditioning and effort and it showed

I vividly remember watching him and reading this board and the general sentiment on this board, that I agreed with, was that the effort was there and he was still putting up points but he was just visibly done.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Solid post, I can dig it for the most part. But Couture has a history of head injuries, and Kane’s shoulder injury is something that is behind him when he was literally injured in the regular season and playoffs here because of a shoulder injury.

Also, I don’t think Heatley’s issue was the car crash, he literally had the back to back 50 goal 100 point seasons well after his car crash. I think he had a hernia with the Sharks.

Couture's head injuries aren't exactly what is being referenced when it comes to an injury that has degenerative qualities to them like Heatley and his torn groin that was why he got dealt away from the Sharks. Kane's injury history doesn't really say that he's got that same sort of problem in terms of something getting worse over time. He's had a lot of different injuries suffered but not any that I can tell that were repeats of the same.