The San Jose Sharks are horror-bad

[Canadiens Ghost]

If a new team is added, they can be placed in the middle of the draft order or it can be adjusted accordingly.

But how do you do that fairly in regards to the other teams that will be bumped around by a couple years? You can't.
So once again, there is no good answer to my original question.

But anyway, this Divine dude is so dug in that he's clearly not going to be convinced otherwise, so I think it's time to let him live his life believing that a silly idea is actually a great idea for reasons he can't prove or argue well.

Agreed, not gonna further waste my time on this topic.

 

[Chainshot]

It's weird to me that some people seem to think Grier and the sharks should be punished for actually having the foresight and understanding that their window has closed and they need to look towards the future for any additional success.

Do people want teams to just continually drag it out despite knowing they're no longer contenders?

It seems that is what they want - a perpetual serf cast. It's that way until such time as some of those fans have to go through the trough of the cycle and start to understand it.

Grier is left with what Wilson wrought. He has to try to build, to maximize what futures he could from the personnel he inherited. The only way forward is through and the through is going to be really bad hockey for the Sharks in the near term.

 

[TheBeard]

At this point, I am genuinely convinced that an AHL team could beat the Sharks.

This is tanking on an absolutely epic level. They should trade Hertl and Couture (once he's healthy). These guys don't deserve to suffer through this.

Hertl has shown nothing to prove he's above this.

Grier was not the guy to be the GM! He didn't have the experience and really botched the Meier deal badly!He traded a top 2-3 Forward for 3rd liners and a couple of Defensive prospects...I get he got a couple first rounders but they are an unknown and you have to hit on them...I'd be trading everyone even Couture who I'm sure doesn't want to be part of this Shit-Show...Vlasic if you can...Ferraro can stay and Hertl if he wants to stay...this team couldn't beat the 1971-72 California Golden Seals and they are all like 70-80 years old!

I like glancing over the "couple first rounders" as if they're throw ins.

 

[Divine]

But how do you do that fairly in regards to the other teams that will be bumped around by a couple years? You can't.
So once again, there is no good answer to my original question.

It doesn't have to be fair - the current system is not fair. There's no 'fair' way to add an expansion team to any draft lottery, you'll always have some teams that are hurt by it. In the current draft system, the expansion teams being guaranteed a top pick over weaker teams wasn't 'fair'.

Seattle and Vegas jumped the queue in the draft lottery did they not?

Like I said, the current system is not perfect - so why does it's replacement have to be?

 

[weastern bias]

Sure, if the NHL can also get rid of guaranteed contracts and move to the NFL model, that can work.

The NFL has way more flexibility in terms of altering your team to fit into the salary cap. You can cut players, not guarantee contracts, and even adjust contracts to fit under the salary cap on any given year. It's the league that probably depends on the draft the least.

You don't watch football, players coming in on rookie-scale deals alter the NFL landscape every single year, it's considered the ultimate advantage to get a franchise QB on a rookie deal

Since players come in on ELCs their guaranteed contracts won't make a difference, teams will only need to create minimum contract cap space to accommodate incoming rookies, every team in the league can do that by burying deals in the minors

 

[Divine]

You don't watch football, players coming in on rookie-scale deals alter the NFL landscape every single year, it's considered the ultimate advantage to get a franchise QB on a rookie deal

Since players come in on ELCs their guaranteed contracts won't make a difference, teams will only need to create minimum contract cap space to accommodate incoming rookies, every team in the league can do that by burying deals in the minors

No one has ever denied that having a first overall pick on an ELC is an advantage. I'm not debating the merits of that. In a draft wheel, you'd also have first overall picks on an ELC. I never advocated for removing the ELC's.

The NFL has more cap flexibility than the NHL, would you agree?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

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.


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.

None of this would make any sense if the Sharks turn out to be singularly bad, which might well be the case. Many teams have been in payroll predicaments, bad contracts, barren prospect pools etc. and still managed to put a more or less passable teams on the ice.

Maybe the Sharks will find a way to cobble together close to 40 points this year to avoid being the worst team since the introduction of the current points system. But what if they don't? If this becomes absurd and they end up with 20 points or something, you bet the NHL will consider action on how to stop this from happening again.

 

[Cas]

What is the problem, on a systemic level, with losing teams?

I say losing rather than tanking because, quite frankly, there is no practical difference, as the Sharks are proving. They would be awful regardless (as they have been for years now), and would simply have less to show for it.

 

[Divine]

What is the problem, on a systemic level, with losing teams?

I say losing rather than tanking because, quite frankly, there is no practical difference, as the Sharks are proving. They would be awful regardless (as they have been for years now), and would simply have less to show for it.

It's not entertaining to watch is the main problem. This is the entertainment business.

I also assume bad teams make less money than good teams, although that might not always be the case.

 

[weastern bias]

The NFL has more cap flexibility than the NHL, would you agree?

I would, and it's completely irrelevant to what I was arguing

I also wasn't advocating for ELCs to be abandoned, hence why guaranteed contracts would have no bearing on a pure reverse standings entry draft with no lottery

You're not making any consistent argument about any one thing, you're merely bouncing between disparate ideas to distract from the fact that your idea for a random wheel makes no sense, you were wrong about the importance of high draft picks to build winning teams, and you have no argument for why the lottery is better than an unweighted reverse standings draft other than that you don't like it

 

[3074326]

Like I said, the current system is not perfect - so why does it's replacement have to be?

This is bizarre logic. Why wouldn't they want their replacement to be perfect, if possible? lol

 

[Cas]

It's not entertaining to watch is the main problem. This is the entertainment business.

I also assume bad teams make less money than good teams, although that might not always be the case.

So the losing team loses money because fans don't watch or attend. How is that a systemic problem that needs to be prevented?

 

[Romang67]

The issue with the draft wheel isn't that it's not perfect. It's that it doesn't solve a problem. It removes the good about the current draft system and replaces it with f*** all, because it's not a system meant to distribute draft talent in an equitable way, but instead to solve the tanking "problem."

 

[TheBeard]

None of this would make any sense if the Sharks turn out to be singularly bad, which might well be the case. Many teams have been in payroll predicaments, bad contracts, barren prospect pools etc. and still managed to put a more or less passable teams on the ice.

1: Payroll predicaments could simply mean pushing the bill further down the line, like what the sharks did. 2: bad contracts is the same as 1. 3 prospect pools mean nothing when it comes to the product on the ice for the big club, unless you're advocating rushing 18 and 19 year olds into the NHL without proper development.

 

[Divine]

I would, and it's completely irrelevant to what I was arguing

I also wasn't advocating for ELCs to be abandoned, hence why guaranteed contracts would have no bearing on a pure reverse standings entry draft with no lottery

You're not making any consistent argument about any one thing, you're merely bouncing between disparate ideas to distract from the fact that your idea for a random wheel makes no sense, you were wrong about the importance of high draft picks to build winning teams, and you have no argument for why the lottery is better than an unweighted reverse standings draft other than that you don't like it

I have no idea what you've been arguing. I feel like my arguments are being misconstrued. I don't doubt that top picks are important, however, I don't think that top picks are absolutely necessary to win the cup, although they help. That said, that has no basis on the wheel because top picks exist on the draft wheel. The draft would still exist.

Secondly - the main argument for it is to prevent teams from being bad. This is the entertainment industry and it would be more entertaining if teams had zero incentive to lose. That is my argument, you may disagree and that's fair.

Here's the idea (not created by me), summarized:

Best Potential Fixes to NBA Draft Lottery System

Change is on the horizon for the NBA draft lottery, and we have the Philadelphia 76ers to thank. Actually, we owe our gratitude (or rancor, depending on your perspective) not so ...

bleacherreport.com

Long before the league sat down to discuss lottery reform in an official capacity, rumors of a more drastic plan—complete with a cool nickname—surfaced.
Lowe reported on The Wheel in December, 2013:

Grantland obtained a copy of the proposal, which would eliminate the draft lottery and replace it with a system in which each of the 30 teams would pick in a specific first-round draft slot once—and exactly once—every 30 years. Each team would simply cycle through the 30 draft slots, year by year, in a predetermined order designed so that teams pick in different areas of the draft each year.

That's a major, top-down overhaul of the current system—one that would require all of the complicated deals involving draft picks and future protected selections to cycle out before it could be implemented. Lowe pegged the clearance time at a decade, and it's not hard to see how teams might balk at waiting that long for a plan they can't even be sure will work.
Plus, like virtually every tweak to the current system, The Wheel makes it harder for bad teams (especially those in small markets who can only build a talent base through the draft) to get better.
Here's the thing, though: The NBA has a robust revenue-sharing system that funnels money toward those small-market teams, leveling the playing field between big- and small-city clubs to a significant degree. Milwaukee will never be New York, but there's nothing to be done about that.
The Wheel amounts to controlled randomization, meaning the incentive to lose games that exists now would virtually disappear.
There's no question teams would find ways to manipulate this new system, but if it's deliberate losing the league hates, this could curb the practice.

Lastly, I admit this idea would not be perfect and solve every conceivable possible issue - but neither does the current draft system.

 

[weastern bias]

It's not entertaining to watch is the main problem.

I am a Sharks fan and I don't share this opinion

This team hasn't been this much fun to watch in years

They spent 3 and a half seasons playing uninspired hockey that you knew wasn't going to lead to winning at a high level but was just good enough to prevent them from refreshing in the draft

Now they're a horrorshow clowncar spectacle that has to be seen to be believed, and it gives me hope for the future, they are so morbidly fun to watch just how bad they can really be and I've never been more hopeful for where it leads

I watched this team turn an offensive zone faceoff win into an icing, they are inventing new and exciting avenues of terrible play, they're like a jazz master improvising and rewriting the book on what hockey can even be

 

[Divine]

This is bizarre logic. Why wouldn't they want their replacement to be perfect, if possible? lol

Of course they would if it's possible. However, the lack of perfection should not stop something from being improved.

 

[Pavelski2112]

I am a Sharks fan and I don't share this opinion

This team hasn't been this much fun to watch in years

They spent 3 and a half seasons playing uninspired hockey that you knew wasn't going to lead to winning at a high level but was just good enough to prevent them from refreshing in the draft

Now they're a horrorshow clowncar spectacle that has to be seen to be believed, and it gives me hope for the future, they are so morbidly fun to watch just how bad they can really be and I've never been more hopeful for where it leads

I watched this team turn an offensive zone faceoff win into an icing, they are inventing new and exciting avenues of terrible play, they're like a jazz master improvising and rewriting the book on what hockey can even be

Exactly, I haven't been this excited to watch the Sharks in years because it's just fascinating to see how bad they can get. It's legitimately great entertainment.

 

[Divine]

So the losing team loses money because fans don't watch or attend. How is that a systemic problem that needs to be prevented?

That would be a question for the league.

Isn't the draft lottery a way of preventing teams from being bad indefinitely?

 

[weastern bias]

I have no idea what you've been arguing. I feel like my arguments are being misconstrued. I don't doubt that top picks are important, however, I don't think that top picks are absolutely necessary to win the cup, although they help. That said, that has no basis on the wheel because top picks exist on the draft wheel. The draft would still exist.

Secondly - the main argument for it is to prevent teams from being bad. This is the entertainment industry and it would be more entertaining if teams had zero incentive to lose. That is my argument, you may disagree and that's fair.

Here's the idea (not created by me), summarized:

Best Potential Fixes to NBA Draft Lottery System

Change is on the horizon for the NBA draft lottery, and we have the Philadelphia 76ers to thank. Actually, we owe our gratitude (or rancor, depending on your perspective) not so ...

bleacherreport.com

Lastly, I admit this idea would not be perfect and solve every conceivable possible issue - but neither does the current draft system.

I've seen the argument, I'm a big NBA fan and their fans also bitch about tanking and its fine there too

The NBA is also a league where free agency is a viable avenue for building a contender (granted you play in a glamor market), that simply isn't true in hockey, big name free agents are never the cornerstone of a winning team, the best example is Alex Pietrangelo, and once again, that team was assembled in such a unique manner I don't think it can or will be replicated

The current draft system does fix the problem, it turns bad teams into good teams if they are managed properly, the random wheel would never do that

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

That would be a question for the league.

Isn't the draft lottery a way of preventing teams from being bad indefinitely?

The draft is a way to prevent teams from being bad indefinitely. The lottery is a gimmick which only makes it more likely that teams are bad indefinitely.

The lottery has the tendency to move incoming ELC talent from bad teams to less bad teams.

 

[Cas]

That would be a question for the league.

Isn't the draft lottery a way of preventing teams from being bad indefinitely?

No, it's a way to try and avoid some fans yelling about how the draft was "unfair," while also artificially adding some pointless drama (and maybe even adding some potential for gambling). It's also an utter failure on that regard.

The lottery makes it harder to prevent bad teams from being bad indefinitely, by artificially assigning prospects to less bad teams. Making that worse just punishes teams for trading away positive value assets that won't be on the next good team (like, say, Karlsson and Burns) by trying to force you to keep them until they're a worthless husk just so that you can lose slightly fewer games instead of getting something that will actually be valuable in five years.

The Sharks can lose just as easily without Karlsson as with him, but at least this way they get a 1st.

 

[weastern bias]

I don't think that top picks are absolutely necessary to win the cup, although they help.

This has been proven to you in this thread to be false multiple times

You may not think so, but it absolutely is so and has been demonstrated to be so

 

[Divine]

This has been proven to you in this thread to be false multiple times

You may not think so, but it absolutely is so and has been demonstrated to be so

No it hasn’t.

Giving me a list of top picks on cup winners doesn’t prove you need them - basically every team in the league has top picks on their team.

Bad teams have top picks also.

Take Edmonton for example. They have top picks, a generational talent, and they’re still near the bottom of the league. It was even worse when they picked 1st overall nearly every year before McDavid - they were still bad yet teams with less top picks were better.

 

[weastern bias]

No it hasn’t.

Giving me a list of top picks on cup winners doesn’t prove you need them.

Bad teams have top picks also.

Literally every team to have won the cup in the last 10 years had a home grown top-5 pick on the roster outside of the team built through expansion assets, which they used to aquire another team's top-5 pick

The picks on bad teams have no bearing on this fact