Frosty415
Registered User
Screw off hawks, first overall pick is for the Sharks
The San Jose Sharks are horror-bad
- Thread starter The Panther
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 33,098
- 23,267
They have a -90 goal differential halfway through the season. How can they not be trying to tank?
Where will they end up at seasons end? The worst goal differential in the last 20+
years was last seasons Ducks at -129. The Sharks franchise record is -196 good for third worst, the worst was the 1974-1975 Captials with -265.
NHL Team Worst Goal Differential In A Season | StatMuse
The Washington Capitals have the lowest goal differential by a team in a season, with a differential of -265 goals in 1974-75.
Last edited:
Kinda weird with the Sharks. Started horribly then was decent then back to horrible.
0-10-1
9-7-2 (0.556 pts %)
0-12-0
0-10-1
9-7-2 (0.556 pts %)
0-12-0
- Jul 25, 2007
- 5,159
- 7,446
Start with a team w/ only let's call it, 2 actual top 6 forwards, 2-4 borderline or future top 6 forwards, maybe 1 3rd liner and the rest 4th line / bubble NHLers. Take one of those C's (and Captain) away to mysterious injury.
Add a D-corps of all 5/6 defensemen at best, with guys who couldn't make other rosters clocking in as our #3-4's.
Give them a horrendously difficult first 10 or so games. That explains the first losing streak.
Now, we trade for Minnesota's spare parts, Addison, for a 5th and he is immediately our best PMD and on PP1 - let that sink in. Get a few injured players back (Benning), pick up a guy off waivers who immediately becomes our BEST defenseman by advanced stats (Emberson) and on top of that we have 6 weeks of not-the-most-awful schedule. Teams took us a bit for granted and the team put a ton of effort into every game. Just to be in the game, Sharks have to play like the playoffs, and even so, we go from 32nd on all metrics to like, 26-30th. But we win 9 games!!!
OK, now all that hard playing takes its toll. Injuries start piling up, meanwhile the schedule gets really hard again for at least a 12 game stretch. It's very difficult to sustain that kind of high effort for that long, especially for a team who is thoroughly outskilled so often. Last night @ TOR, the Canadian broadcast showed that their Big 4 have more goals than the entire SJS roster. It's not only because the Sharks "are bad," it's also because with Couture on IR, the entire active Forwards corps makes $36MM a year and TOR's Big 4 make $45MM/year (with Nylander's extension).
We are getting what we're paying for in terms of output.
We are horror-bad, but according to Tankathon we also have the easiest ROS schedule of all 32 NHL teams. I don't expect much, but I expect at least as many wins in the back half. Wouldn't be surprised if we don't get to 20, but my preseason prediction is that we would and I would put (some) money on that again.
Sharks should be adding at the deadline rather than shipping out rentals. There is a certain point of suckage that you can't really cross without having devastating long term effects, a-la Buffalo, Ottawa, and dare I say the Ducks. Everyone wants to tank for high draft choices, but I think after close to two decades of teams "rebuilding" it seems like the teams that really find success are the ones who have the injection of elite youth to go along with a solid veteran structure. The Sharks are a complete mess from top to bottom and throwing your kids into the fire is never a good idea.
The Leafs-Sharks game last night was as close to an NHL vs AHL game as I think I've ever seen. Rebuilding shouldn't mean tearing it down until a magic moment, it means building along the way when opportunities present themselves. And building your reputation, team's self-respect and a winning culture are mandatory at all stages.
The Leafs-Sharks game last night was as close to an NHL vs AHL game as I think I've ever seen. Rebuilding shouldn't mean tearing it down until a magic moment, it means building along the way when opportunities present themselves. And building your reputation, team's self-respect and a winning culture are mandatory at all stages.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 5,159
- 7,446
You say that, and there are the examples of Buffalo, Ottawa, and the Ducks.
But you may also be old enough to remember that people said the exact same thing about the 2000's-era Pens, the 1990-2000's era Blackhawks, the 2010+ era Avs, 2012+ era Canucks, 2000+ era Devils (jury still out on those two), and even to a lesser extent the Lightning.
They're still saying it about the Leafs, but it's sure a great core to build around, and do we really think that the Leafs are cursed because they sucked after 1994 and sucked for a long time? Is that really impacting the Big 4, the management, etc? Do we really think the Leafs org was building "a culture of self-respect and winning" through all those dark years?
EDIT: shared in a different post on the Sharks boards
The Avs drafted top-10 7 times from 2009-2019. Cup in 2022.
The Pens drafted Top-5 5 times in a row starting 2002. Cups started in 2009.
The Lightning drafted top-10 5 years out of 6 from 2008. Cups started in 2019.
The Hawks drafted Top-10 7 times from 1998-2007. They drafted 11-15 in the other two years. Cups started in 2010.
Jury out on Toronto: 6 top-10 picks 2008-16. including 3 in a row thru Matthews.
All data from hockeydb.com
Last edited:
Crosby turned up to a Penguins team in 05/06 that had Sergei Gonchar, Mark Recchi, John LeClair, and Ziggy Palffy. The '10 era Avs had Hejduk and Foote, the Canucks had the Sedins, etc. Who do you guys have? Granlund?
The thing with rebuilding is that you have to rebuild around something. There needs to be a solid veteran structure from which to build. It doesn't really have so much to do with a curse, so much as if your team loses its self respect and any semblance of expectations for winning, then those are extremely hard to rebuild.
My Leafs are a pretty good example of a team that failed in this regard. We got lucky enough in our rebuilding to pull three disgustingly good players out of the draft, but we have completely failed to surround them with enough talent or a winning culture that gets them any further than round 1 of the playoffs. And to address the point a little more directly, the Leafs sucked for a long time, but never on the level of the Sabres or what your Sharks are currently doing. The Leafs finished dead-last in 15-16, but we actually had one more point than in 14-15 when the Sabres, Coyotes and Oilers were even worse for the McDavid draft.
The Sharks aren't going to be cursed because they suck this bad. They're going to struggle on the upswing of the rebuild because when you get blown to smithereens like this, there's nothing to build on. You need something to build on, and that should be a much higher priority right now than the best lottery odds. Don't make the mistake that my Leafs made in trying to add leaders later in the process, add the leaders of the future now.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 5,159
- 7,446
I edited the post to include historical examples. It doesn't matter the names on the team -- those Pens were absolute dogshit and people were talking about whether the franchise was going to survive. The same is true of all the other franchises. I lived in Chicago when they won in 2010 and believe me, there was a lot of catharsis after years of complete wasteland suckage. And I lived in Denver for enough of the 2010's to see the same exact thing happen in Colorado.
Honestly, the Leafs are probably on a good trajectory to actually compete, but given the historical patterns, it'll still be another few years to fully build out the roster. The "culture impacts" are something you can overcome, so long as you have committed ownership who doesn't hire the wrong execs.
EDIT: Nothing is guaranteed. Per the low-N actual observations, this kind of tank gives you maybe 50% chance at a Cup.
But being Nashville and constantly trying to compete as a fringe team gives you a 0% chance.
Recchi was 38, leclair was 36, Ziggy was 33 (last NHL season). Having names only means something if they are actually in there prime.
Roberts and Guerin were hardly in their primes when they were Penguins, but they certainly helped provide the leadership structure for those late aughts Pens teams. Gonchar, Recchi, and LeClair were also #2, 3, and 4 in team scoring behind Crosby. Crosby was the guy on that team the minute he walked into the room, but he had strong leaders to help him in his formative years.
Being a leader on the ice is certainly an important part of being the front and centre leaders of a hockey team, but a long time veteran like Recchi or LeClair is absolutely going to be a key leader in the room who a) the coach can lean on and b) show the young guys how it's done. This is one of the parts of rebuilding that my Leafs did so poorly, they didn't try and add leaders until the kids had been on the team for a few years.
My advice to the Sharks is to add some good players now who will be your leaders once the kids come along, rather than adding those guys later. I don't think this is particularly controversial advice.
They do have plenty of veterans on the team, 6 starters over the age of 30, and 9 over the age of 25 with years of experience.
And this does not even count the captain who is out on the injured reserve right now but will be on the ice very shortly.
They have 5 or so players that know what it takes to get to the Cup finals.
- Jun 23, 2020
- 6,213
- 9,032
Adding anyone now means they'll be on expiring contracts or out the door or retired when the Sharks are ready to compete.
Yes, we are looking at the 2030's to compete here. Thats how bad the situation is here.
Adding now is utterly pointless. We will build a "winning culture" through drafting and developing players with actual talent.
Yes, we are looking at the 2030's to compete here. Thats how bad the situation is here.
Adding now is utterly pointless. We will build a "winning culture" through drafting and developing players with actual talent.
weastern bias
worst team in the league
The "culture of losing" didn't begin with the teardown, we didn't start selling major pieces until the Burns, Meier and Karlsson trades, which began in the 2022 offseason
We finished last in the west in 2020 with a roster the front office fully intended to be competitive and haven't been close to the playoffs since
We don't really have a choice other than going scorched earth, all of our impact players either aged out of impact status or walked in free agency
The best this team could look right now is if we added those 3 names back and what would it really net us, 5 more wins max? And at what cost? Diminishing our lotto odds by 15+%?
The winning culture left our locker room years ago and there's no bringing it back with the players we've had in the last 5 seasons, the next great leader of this team hasn't been drafted yet, hence why we need to tank as hard as possible to maximize our chances at bringing in truly elite talent
We finished last in the west in 2020 with a roster the front office fully intended to be competitive and haven't been close to the playoffs since
We don't really have a choice other than going scorched earth, all of our impact players either aged out of impact status or walked in free agency
The best this team could look right now is if we added those 3 names back and what would it really net us, 5 more wins max? And at what cost? Diminishing our lotto odds by 15+%?
The winning culture left our locker room years ago and there's no bringing it back with the players we've had in the last 5 seasons, the next great leader of this team hasn't been drafted yet, hence why we need to tank as hard as possible to maximize our chances at bringing in truly elite talent
Stewie Griffin
What the deuce
Who can the sharks add that would benefit the future core of this team? Other than Eklund, Hertl, and Zetterlund the rest of the team is a bunch of expiring veterans/waiver pickups/AHL level players. There's no point adding anything when barely anyone on the current roster will be around by the time the team is competitive again.
I loathe LA and Anaheim. Of the 3 California franchises, San Jose is the only one I like with awesome fans.
Pains me they walked away with cups, and San Jose was so good for so long and walked away empty handed.
I think they're just a horrible roster. Only half a dozen or so decent players on the entire team.
The GM’s strategy appears to be based on adding picks by shipping out rentals at the TDL. So, no.
- Mar 4, 2004
- 30,892
- 31,570
That's what the Ducks thought last year. But the NHL's gonna NHL...
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 18,046
- 10,854
- Jul 25, 2007
- 5,159
- 7,446
God, I wrote a whole post about what happened but I guess next time I'll just do this instead
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 18,046
- 10,854
as a sharks fan, here's a useful graphic to keep on your desktop to save time on typing the words.
Dead-cat-bounce.gif
- Jul 25, 2007
- 5,159
- 7,446
As you are a Canucks fan, I hope you guys continue your rise because my best friend is a Canucks fan, but as it pertains to you, given your trolling, I hope you live in the fear and insecurity that plagues most Canucks fans.
