Injury Report: Thornton to IR

lsx

Registered User
Oct 19, 2010
3,199
22
Sonoma County, CA
Well all of you who want Thornton traded so bad are about to see just how important he is to the team.

Get well soon Jumbo!

I think there's a big difference between the people who wanted to see Thornton/Marleau/Pavelski traded for assets while they still have significant value vs. those people who were saying that Couture could easily step in for Thornton and that losing him wouldn't be a huge deal.

Thornton is a game changer, this team will not be the same once he's gone for good or in cases where he stays out on IR for any significant period of time.
 

hockeyball

Registered User
Nov 10, 2007
21,560
944
I think there's a big difference between the people who wanted to see Thornton/Marleau/Pavelski traded for assets while they still have significant value vs. those people who were saying that Couture could easily step in for Thornton and that losing him wouldn't be a huge deal.

Thornton is a game changer, this team will not be the same once he's gone for good or in cases where he stays out on IR for any significant period of time.

Exactly, hell I don't even WANT to see him gone. I love Joe, and Patty, but they are going to be gone whether we like it or not within a year, so I'd just like to get maximum return for them. These guys will are nearing the end of their careers anyway. In fact, this is a great opportunity to get a look at what the team will look like letting Joe walk for nothing, which isn't pretty.
 

Alwalys

Phu m.
May 19, 2010
25,894
6,140
Except any assets minus salary dumps are likely to be futures and not contribute

this. thornton isn't going to bring nearly as much as he means to the team either because of his nmc.

there aren't that many players in the league period that are better than he is and none of them will come the other way in a trade.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,501
15,178
Folsom
Exactly, hell I don't even WANT to see him gone. I love Joe, and Patty, but they are going to be gone whether we like it or not within a year, so I'd just like to get maximum return for them. These guys will are nearing the end of their careers anyway. In fact, this is a great opportunity to get a look at what the team will look like letting Joe walk for nothing, which isn't pretty.

If the two can convince themselves to play here this season after what happened, they can probably convince themselves to play here for the two years left on their contract after this season. Personally, I'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Until then, I'm going to stay under the assumption that they're staying and build around them.
 

19sharks19

Registered User
Mar 16, 2006
3,186
0
T.O. to S.J. & back
If the two can convince themselves to play here this season after what happened, they can probably convince themselves to play here for the two years left on their contract after this season. Personally, I'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Until then, I'm going to stay under the assumption that they're staying and build around them.

So true PF. , and aside from Jumbo and Patty and Pav's, you take out Hannan, Scott, Brown and Torres (And Torres is the only one of those 4 that is really needed/of benefit to the club); the team is pretty young. The re-tooling is going well.
 

hockeyball

Registered User
Nov 10, 2007
21,560
944
If the two can convince themselves to play here this season after what happened, they can probably convince themselves to play here for the two years left on their contract after this season. Personally, I'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Until then, I'm going to stay under the assumption that they're staying and build around them.

They are only signed for next season, unless I'm losing my mind... Capgeek being down and all. The both signed 3 years, last year, this year, next year.
 

Hold the Pickles

Registered User
Aug 16, 2003
3,331
0
03-K64
They are only signed for next season, unless I'm losing my mind... Capgeek being down and all. The both signed 3 years, last year, this year, next year.
Now you got me wondering if I'm losing mine. I thought they signed during the season last year... but maybe it was during the summer.
 

hohosaregood

Banned
Sep 1, 2011
33,026
13,656
Now you got me wondering if I'm losing mine. I thought they signed during the season last year... but maybe it was during the summer.

You're not nuts. They signed midseason and people were speculating about them getting sent out or signing elsewhere because they were UFAs. Anyways, they got this season and two more after that here.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,501
15,178
Folsom
Because you're a fair weather fan? :sarcasm:





Disclaimer: I don't think you are a fair weather fan. If you re-read my post you'll see I said "sometimes" and "you sound like" :)

We're going to toss that joke around like it's a hot potato on these boards, aren't we? lol
 

hockeyball

Registered User
Nov 10, 2007
21,560
944
Well that explains why you thought DW had to trade them this year. :)

He's got time...

Yah, he has time, but it really depends on how Joe and Patty deal with the deadline this year. If DW doesn't add or sells, it's going to be made very clear to them that he isn't serious about winning right now, what will they do? If they stay, do we want them (because clearly winning isn't their top priority, etc)?

If DW adds at the deadline, and the Sharks fail again in the playoffs, does DW lose his job? If he doesn't, is even more pressure put on Thornton and Marleau than it was this off-season next off-season to waive? We know Thornton was pissed off about the whole thing, and about being stripped, that was made pretty clear, but how has that sat with him as the season has gone on? Does a new GM want rid of them from the outset? There are a lot of very realistic reasons either or both could still get moved.

The Sharks winning the cup is really the only easy answer to predict, but the least likely of outcomes.

As I've laid out before, I don't think Wilson will add at the deadline, I think that's just about as unlikely a scenario as a cup win. The team isn't performing well enough to even make it a tough decision for him. He's going to stand pat, or sell off parts as he has the last few seasons (Niemi at minimum, likely some mix of Kennedy, Sheppard, Brown, Desjardins, Scott, Hannen, Irwin). He's going to do that because I am fairly certain that last season Wilson stuck his neck out for a team that was performing well who then let him down in the worst way possible. I think it would be career suicide for him to do so again, and I think he already has a pre-approved plan to rebuild with Platner and is going to stick to it (for the sake of his job if nothing else). So what will Thornton or Marleau do? It will come down to where their priorities lie and whether Wilson commits to competing next season or not. If Wilson still has another rebuilding season planned I think Thornton probably waives, I think he wants a cup before he retires. Marleau is a bigger question mark. I think it's entirely conceivable he rides out his contract here and either re-signs for very little or retires early. That's all conjecture of course, but that's kind of what I expect.
 

AstroDan

Stars, cars, guitars
Jan 29, 2009
2,569
6
NorCal
Yah, he has time, but it really depends on how Joe and Patty deal with the deadline this year. If DW doesn't add or sells, it's going to be made very clear to them that he isn't serious about winning right now, what will they do? If they stay, do we want them (because clearly winning isn't their top priority, etc)?

If DW adds at the deadline, and the Sharks fail again in the playoffs, does DW lose his job? If he doesn't, is even more pressure put on Thornton and Marleau than it was this off-season next off-season to waive? We know Thornton was pissed off about the whole thing, and about being stripped, that was made pretty clear, but how has that sat with him as the season has gone on? Does a new GM want rid of them from the outset? There are a lot of very realistic reasons either or both could still get moved.

The Sharks winning the cup is really the only easy answer to predict, but the least likely of outcomes.

As I've laid out before, I don't think Wilson will add at the deadline, I think that's just about as unlikely a scenario as a cup win. The team isn't performing well enough to even make it a tough decision for him. He's going to stand pat, or sell off parts as he has the last few seasons (Niemi at minimum, likely some mix of Kennedy, Sheppard, Brown, Desjardins, Scott, Hannen, Irwin). He's going to do that because I am fairly certain that last season Wilson stuck his neck out for a team that was performing well who then let him down in the worst way possible. I think it would be career suicide for him to do so again, and I think he already has a pre-approved plan to rebuild with Platner and is going to stick to it (for the sake of his job if nothing else). So what will Thornton or Marleau do? It will come down to where their priorities lie and whether Wilson commits to competing next season or not. If Wilson still has another rebuilding season planned I think Thornton probably waives, I think he wants a cup before he retires. Marleau is a bigger question mark. I think it's entirely conceivable he rides out his contract here and either re-signs for very little or retires early. That's all conjecture of course, but that's kind of what I expect.

Joe wants a cup, but clearly doesn't care about winning? Would he care on another team?
Am I missing something?

If SJ gets rid of #12 and 19, they won't win for years and years...
They will win with both in the line-ups...Just not in the post season.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad