The San Jose Sharks are horror-bad

[coooldude]

In general that explains the rationale of the draft fairly well. However, the Sharks dug themselves their grave on purpose in full knowledge of the fact that you can in fact pretty easily dig yourself out of it again in the NHL. It's not like they just naturally kinda got bad due to lack of resources and support like a bad European soccer team. The Sharks being this bad is part of a plan, not the failure of a plan.

This idea has been dunked on pretty thoroughly in the last page or two, but I just want to re-emphasize that if it were "so easy" to dig yourself out of a hole, we wouldn't see rebuilds taking 5-10 years like they have. And, as other posters have thoroughly covered, you must be new to the Sharks if you think that this year (and the last 3) were not the failure of a plan.

If we're going to be snippy about it, you do grasp that there's a relative scale to teams selling off assets to rebuild vs choosing to ice an AHL roster and passing it off as an NHL product like Grier has done with the Sharks this season?

To other responses, I will add: $3 million in cap space. What was Grier supposed to do with these contracts: Labanc, Vlasic, Couture, Hertl? Essentially unmovable, overpaid contracts that continue for YEARS more. If these players had stayed at their peak, we wouldn't be icing a half-AHL team, but Vlasic is 6 years past being a premier shutdown D, Couture needs someone else to be the 1C so he can be an effective 2C, Hertl can't carry the team on his own and needs other 70-point players to play with for him to get his 70 points, and Labanc is an absolute husk of his former self.

There weren't any outs in the offseason and the prospect cupboard was completely bare from years of poor draft position + pretty poor drafting in the 2010's. Hell, you could even say that re-signing Hertl was the final move in an attempt to not suck completely. Now we're stuck with that, too.

So should the Sharks get punished for making bad moves, like signing Hertl (and imho Karlsson), or should they be punished for NOT signing those players, and rebuilding the team, because they're "not trying to win hard enough"? You're saying they should be punished either way. Or, there's some magical third way to not be punished which is "do better, be better, draft better, sign better players -- try, but better" -- which is unhelpfully, un-actionably vague and if it were easy to do it then every team would just be able to snap their fingers and build a contender.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

And that Grier's hand being played was influenced by years of trump cards being frittered away well in advance of him ever sitting down at the table? The Sharks are at where they are at. The only way forward is for them to draft and develop well. That's the path. And you want to hamper them even further because you don't like where they are at today because of focusing on the moment. Zoom out a bit.

Drafting and developing well would not be hampered by actually doing something this summer he wasn't already forced to do (the Karlsson trade). Even that, he screwed up. If he moved Karlsson on draft day like originally rumored before he backed out, they would've gone into FA with a little more cap space to play with (especially since the unknown result of the trade wouldn't have been looming over his activity, which is what ended up happening), and actually could've gotten an additional NHLer or two. The list of players who signed as FAs with non-playoff teams who they could afford has some decent options: Sportsnet.ca

Instead he signed some trash and that was it. Not botching the timing of the Karlsson trade and putting a little more effort into FA would've STILL resulted in a bad team that finishes last in the league, which is good for them. Just not THIS bad, which again, is embarrassing for everyone. Hell, if he signed one or two more decent players he could also flip them at the deadline for more draft capital. Win-win, no?

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

And they changed the lottery rules so that is no longer possible.

Just IMO, but from a "team quality" perspective, there usually is very little difference between the bottom teams in the league. If that is true - why not include the lottery to reduce the incentive for teams to be embarrassingly bad in a year with a very strong #1 draft candidate?

EDM still would have had all 4, they moved from 2nd to 1st, and 3rd to 1st.

 

[Cas]

I don't think it's bad at all.

I think the NHL would adjust accordingly. There's always going to be some teams better than others but we wouldn't have the current system of teams like Buffalo/Chicago/SJ absolutely gutting their team and trading away anything of value to intentionally get the 1st overall pick.

The league would be much more competitive.

The Sharks would be just as bad if they didn't absolutely gut their team, except they'd be just as bad but with much bleaker future prospects. I suspect the same is true for those other teams, I just don't pay attention to them.

There's nothing systemically wrong with bad teams being bad teams. They lose a lot, fans stay home, and hopefully they then rebuild and start winning and fans return. It's not a big deal.

Just pick in reverse order and quit worrying about trying to create a false sense of competitiveness that inevitably fails because all you do is try to force bad teams to mortgage their future in a vain hope to lose slightly less, which will often simply utterly fail and leave them bereft of hope and mired in an impassable morass of bad contracts and weak farms.

 

[Divine]

Are you... unaware of what happens with a team if they have a run of bad draft picks at the top of the draft?

They don't improve. So they draft high again in stronger drafts.

You know, the thing that wouldn't happen if we just randomly flipped a coin once to determine a draft order and then cycled.

The draft cycle is genuinely the second worst idea I've heard next to just abolishing the draft and letting the players sign with whomever. It is amazingly poorly thought through. I honestly can't believe I even have to spend time explaining why it's a bad idea.

Are you aware that you can get a good player outside of first overall? Why is it the leagues job to babysit teams through poor drafting and make it as easy as possible? Let the competence in the organizations take over.

We've already had a draft lottery with a generational talent without accounting for standings - the Crosby draft. The league turned out okay. It didn't collapse, we're still here.

This idea eliminates intentionally tanking. Yes, some teams will be better than others, just as they currently are - so nothing changes there. It just doesn't give poor management the ability to save face by having the NHL come save them - they would have to draft/trade/sign FA's and be as competitive as they could without the NHL coming and saving them from incompetence.

The Sharks would be just as bad if they didn't absolutely gut their team, except they'd be just as bad but with much bleaker future prospects. I suspect the same is true for those other teams, I just don't pay attention to them.

There's nothing systemically wrong with bad teams being bad teams. They lose a lot, fans stay home, and hopefully they then rebuild and start winning and fans return. It's not a big deal.

Just pick in reverse order and quit worrying about trying to create a false sense of competitiveness that inevitably fails because all you do is try to force bad teams to mortgage their future in a vain hope to lose slightly less, which will often simply utterly fail and leave them bereft of hope and mired in an impassable morass of bad contracts and weak farms.

In the current system, yes.
If the system adjusted to the changes, no.

Every team would have a chance at the playoffs every season. You wouldn't have historically bad teams that were intentionally gutted for 5 years of top picks.

 

[TheBeard]

Why? Beause we'd lose the worst teams in NHL history?

It’s a constant cycle of good teams that become bad and vice versa. The best way for healthy competition is to constantly ensure the worst teams have an opportunity to become contenders again. Making it a crapshoot, doesn’t do anything except potentially help the strongest teams get even stronger.

At this point, AHL roster players/team would do better as they would be fighting for contracts and roster spots. What we are seeing is more equivalent to a beer league team.

What do you think guys like Zadina and Hoffman are doing?

 

[weastern bias]

The draft tournament and the draft rotation would remove the incentives to lose on purpose, true, but they would not remove destitute and uncompetitive teams from the league, rather it would reinforce those teams and solidify them as perpetual basement dwellers with no avenue for improvement beyond blind luck

Removing an incentive to tank would not make the worst teams more competitive, it would make them considerably less competitive and for longer periods of time, likely alienating potential fans in those markets and pushing them away to other forms of entertainment

 

[Divine]

It’s a constant cycle of good teams that become bad and vice versa. The best way for healthy competition is to constantly ensure the worst teams have an opportunity to become contenders again. Making it a crapshoot, doesn’t do anything except potentially help the strongest teams get even stronger.

There would still be a salary cap and free agents to sign every offseason. You can also still trade your players for draft picks and vice versa. You can still draft talented players outside of first overall, like most good teams have actively done.

The only difference is you'd actually have to be competent at managing teams.

 

[TheBeard]

Why is it the leagues job to babysit teams through poor drafting and make it as easy as possible? Let the competence in the organizations take over.

It’s the league’s job to ensure parity and healthy competition throughout all 32 markets. You’re making it personal when the league’s sole goal is maximizing profit.

 

[John Price]

 

[CuuuJooo]

Phil Kessel is eager for a spot to play, if he'd be willing to play in SJ, I don't see why it wouldn't be an improvement.

The man has three Cups. THREE!

Sharks + Kessel = PROFIT

 

[TheBeard]

There would still be a salary cap and free agents to sign every offseason. You can also still trade your players for draft picks and vice versa. You can still draft talented players outside of first overall, like most good teams have actively done.

The only difference is you'd actually have to be competent at managing teams.

You need both elite talent and depth to win. There’s always going to be elite talent in the draft each and every year so I don’t see why the best teams should be given the same equal opportunity to grab those guys before anyone else just because of some random number generator.

 

[Divine]

It’s the league’s job to ensure parity and healthy competition throughout all 32 markets. You’re making it personal when the league’s sole goal is maximizing profit.

I disagree it's the league's job to ensure parity.

Why even have all these POHO/coaches/GM's/scouts/analytics people making millions when it's the league's job.

You need both elite talent and depth to win. There’s always going to be elite talent in the draft each and every year so I don’t see why the best teams should be given the same equal opportunity to grab those guys before anyone else just because of some random number generator.

If you subscribe to the theory that the best players will come at the top of the draft - the league will naturally balance itself out over time. That's the benefit of a cycle.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

I disagree it's the league's job to ensure parity.

Why even have all these POHO/coaches/GM's/scouts/analytics people making millions when it's the league's job.

Because people employed by teams don't give a crap how competitive the league is or how good other teams can/should be. They are worried about their team/employer.

The league is responsible for creating a fair playing field for all 32 teams and make money by doing so.

 

[FrozenKing18]

 

[blink]

Worst +/- in a season is -82 during the Washington Capitals 1974-75 expansion season.

I think that record will never be broken.

View attachment 763391

Poor Jack Lynch....-54 in just 20 games. Wow.

 

[Divine]

Because people employed by teams don't give a crap how competitive the league is or how good other teams can/should be. They are worried about their team/employer.

The league is responsible for creating a fair playing field for all 32 teams and make money by doing so.

How is altering the draft changing that?

By your account, the league has actively been making the league less competitive and not doing their job by their current changes to the draft lottery.

If that's the case, we can both agree it is not the league's job because they are heading in the opposite direction of what you believe their job is.

 

[TheBeard]

I disagree it's the league's job to ensure parity.

Why even have all these POHO/coaches/GM's/scouts/analytics people making millions when it's the league's job.



If you subscribe to the theory that the best players will come at the top of the draft - the league will naturally balance itself out over time. That's the benefit of a cycle.

It’s absolutely the league’s job to make sure parity exists. That’s WHY there’s a salary cap. You’re basically arguing that teams should be able to spend to their heart’s content. The fact is the league suffers when teams are bad. The perception is bad and it’s a bad look if there’s no competitive race. It’s the team’s responsibility to be good, but it’s the league’s responsibility to ensure every team can compete.

A cycle? You’re arguing that once every 32 years a team gets a first overall. There’s no cycle there.

 

[weastern bias]

Are you aware that you can get a good player outside of first overall? Why is it the leagues job to babysit teams through poor drafting and make it as easy as possible? Let the competence in the organizations take over.

And it requires blind luck for a team to draft franchise altering talent outside of the top picks of the first round

Not just luck by the team making the pick being correct, but luck that those players dropped to them in the first place

We've already had a draft lottery with a generational talent without accounting for standings - the Crosby draft. The league turned out okay. It didn't collapse, we're still here.

Crosby went to the Penguins, who in the prior two years drafted 1st and 2nd over all and the next year picked 2nd overall again

There is nothing different about the Crosby draft when compared to other tanking teams that have come since

This idea eliminates intentionally tanking. Yes, some teams will be better than others, just as they currently are - so nothing changes there. It just doesn't give poor management the ability to save face by having the NHL come save them - they would have to draft/trade/sign FA's and be as competitive as they could without the NHL coming and saving them from incompetence.

No championship team has ever been built through trade or free agency in the history of the league, every winning core is built off the back of high draft picks

Vegas is a notable exception and they were built through assets acquired in the first expansion draft in the salary cap era, it's hard to say whether or not their model is replicable, especially for franchises that don't get to benefit from other team's cap problems with no competition

Every team would have a chance at the playoffs every season. You wouldn't have historically bad teams that were intentionally gutted for 5 years of top picks.

This simply isn't true

As you said there will still be good teams and bad teams, the difference is that the bad teams may have to wait up to 30 years before they get an injection of talented youth on their roster, the draft rotation would make bad teams worse for longer than any tank possibly could

 

[Divine]

It’s absolutely the league’s job to make sure parity exists. That’s WHY there’s a salary cap. You’re basically arguing that teams should be able to spend to their heart’s content. The fact is the league suffers when teams are bad. The perception is bad and it’s a bad look if there’s no competitive race. It’s the team’s responsibility to be good, but it’s the league’s responsibility to ensure every team can compete.

A cycle? You’re arguing that once every 32 years a team gets a first overall. There’s no cycle there.

When did I say anything about the salary cap?

How is that not a cycle?

 

[TheBeard]

How is altering the draft changing that?

By your account, the league has actively been making the league less competitive and not doing their job by their current changes to the draft lottery.

If that's the case, we can both agree it is not the league's job because they are heading in the opposite direction of what you believe their job is.

I’ve proposed numerous times here the idea of the bottom 4 teams having an in-play tourney with the winner getting 1oa.

 

[Divine]

And it requires blind luck for a team to draft franchise altering talent outside of the top picks of the first round

Not just luck by the team making the pick being correct, but luck that those players dropped to them in the first place


Crosby went to the Penguins, who in the prior two years drafts 1st and 2nd over all and the next year picked 2nd overall again

There is nothing different about the Crosby draft when compared to other tanking teams that have come since


No championship team has ever been built through trade or free agency in the history of the league, every winning core is built off the back of high draft picks

Vegas is a notable exception and they were built through assets acquired in the first expansion draft in the salary cap era, it's hard to say whether or not their model is replicable, especially for franchises that don't get to benefit from other team's cap problems with no competition


This simply isn't true

As you said there will still be good teams and bad teams, the difference is that the bad teams may have to wait up to 30 years before they get an injection of talented youth on their roster, the draft rotation would make bad teams worse for longer than any tank possibly could

Crosby going to the Penguins had no bearing on the draft rules unless you feel that draft was rigged. Anaheim picked second. Montreal picked 5th. These were not bad teams.

 

[TheBeard]

When did I say anything about the salary cap?

How is that not a cycle?

You’re basically saying it’s not the leagues job to police competition in the league, so if that’s the case why should they care that some teams can afford to spend more than others?

 

[Jeremy2020]

If you subscribe to the theory that the best players will come at the top of the draft - the league will naturally balance itself out over time. That's the benefit of a cycle.

Yea, just wait 32 years..

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[Divine]

You’re basically saying it’s not the leagues job to police competition in the league, so if that’s the case why should they care that some teams can afford to spend more than others?

That's a completely different issue.

Many other leagues have a soft or no salary cap, unless you feel the NHL is inherently different.

We can start a different thread if you want to go through those arguments. This is about the draft.

Yea, just wait 32 years..

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Why do you have to wait 32 years?

This makes no sense. Do people think it's impossible to win in the NHL without drafting 1st overall? The majority of cup winners did not draft their own first overall pick. Who has Vegas/Tampa drafted 1st overall that carried them to a Cup?