Value of: Tomas Hertl & Sharks

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

wintersej

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 26, 2011
22,913
18,432
North Andover, MA
Not to be sarcastic but I think thats pretty obvious. Dont know whos buying into Debrusk being 10x better than he was just because hes being deployed with the best now

I don’t think anyone is arguing he is a 70 goal player like he has been since his promotion. Just a guy who can give you 20-25 goals without PP time like he has paced for in all his seasons less during the lockdown. Even this current hot streak is just making up for a bad shooting percentage streak, his career shooting percentage is 12.4 and it’s 12.8 this season after this heater.
 
Last edited:

wintersej

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 26, 2011
22,913
18,432
North Andover, MA
I would think any team that wants a forward should. Hes easily the best on the market, so id expect Colorado, Toronto, Florida, and Calgary to all make a solid push.

Ok but all those teams would be looking at a straight rental and I assume would pay accordingly. Who is in the hunt AND looking to re-up?
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
Not that the Canucks have any way to actually make a trade like this, but what about an OEL/Garland kind of deal for Hertl and Burns?

The value would be Klimovich (RW, last year's second round pick, top six prospect), Rathbone (LHD puck mover, killing it in the minors and trapped behind Hughes and OEL) and our first round pick, Myers as an offset for Burns' longer and higher cap hit, and Dickinson and Poolman as cap dumps? Two RHD, a C, and really the only futures we have to offer of any significance.

Again, no chance we move a pick, or futures, but let's imagine we have everything else worked out on the Canucks side to pretend to be contenders.

If it doesn't work for the Sharks, no problems, just curious and wanted to poke my nose into the thread.
 

Gecklund

Registered User
Jul 17, 2012
25,997
12,751
California
Not that the Canucks have any way to actually make a trade like this, but what about an OEL/Garland kind of deal for Hertl and Burns?

The value would be Klimovich (RW, last year's second round pick, top six prospect), Rathbone (LHD puck mover, killing it in the minors and trapped behind Hughes and OEL) and our first round pick, Myers as an offset for Burns' longer and higher cap hit, and Dickinson and Poolman as cap dumps? Two RHD, a C, and really the only futures we have to offer of any significance.

Again, no chance we move a pick, or futures, but let's imagine we have everything else worked out on the Canucks side to pretend to be contenders.

If it doesn't work for the Sharks, no problems, just curious and wanted to poke my nose into the thread.
Contract situations kind of negate this but not fully but Hertl is a better player than Garland and Burns is better than OEL. Obviously there are other factors like age and contracts but I just think we could get more for them individually. Both Klimovich and Rathbone are good but both players are where our prospect pool is the deepest. The first is obviously of interest though. It just doesn’t fully make sense for us to make that deal. I would be open to a trade for Dickinson though depending on price.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,156
14,781
Folsom
Not that the Canucks have any way to actually make a trade like this, but what about an OEL/Garland kind of deal for Hertl and Burns?

The value would be Klimovich (RW, last year's second round pick, top six prospect), Rathbone (LHD puck mover, killing it in the minors and trapped behind Hughes and OEL) and our first round pick, Myers as an offset for Burns' longer and higher cap hit, and Dickinson and Poolman as cap dumps? Two RHD, a C, and really the only futures we have to offer of any significance.

Again, no chance we move a pick, or futures, but let's imagine we have everything else worked out on the Canucks side to pretend to be contenders.

If it doesn't work for the Sharks, no problems, just curious and wanted to poke my nose into the thread.

I don’t know that the futures being offered is enough to offset that the Sharks are taking on three mil more next season especially in spots where they have too many bodies to begin with. Rathbone and the 1st are solid but not terribly valuable here considering everything else involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gecklund

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
Contract situations kind of negate this but not fully but Hertl is a better player than Garland and Burns is better than OEL. Obviously there are other factors like age and contracts but I just think we could get more for them individually. Both Klimovich and Rathbone are good but both players are where our prospect pool is the deepest. The first is obviously of interest though. It just doesn’t fully make sense for us to make that deal. I would be open to a trade for Dickinson though depending on price.

No worries if it doesn't fit, we have a lot of the same needs.

What's the ask on Dickinson though?
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
I don’t know that the futures being offered is enough to offset that the Sharks are taking on three mil more next season especially in spots where they have too many bodies to begin with. Rathbone and the 1st are solid but not terribly valuable here considering everything else involved.

Not a problem, just a mental exercise here. Klimovich is a sleeper prospect, I expect him to be improving a great deal, but San Jose has a lot of solid wingers coming up. I had read RHD was a need for San Jose, and though Poolman could be filler, or even bought out, and Myers would be a very poor mans Burns stand in. So more spreading the cap hits of Hertl and Burns around for a little bit more flexibility. If the futures aren't enough though, I totally understand...it's just all we've got.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,156
14,781
Folsom
Not a problem, just a mental exercise here. Klimovich is a sleeper prospect, I expect him to be improving a great deal, but San Jose has a lot of solid wingers coming up. I had read RHD was a need for San Jose, and though Poolman could be filler, or even bought out, and Myers would be a very poor mans Burns stand in. So more spreading the cap hits of Hertl and Burns around for a little bit more flexibility. If the futures aren't enough though, I totally understand...it's just all we've got.

No worries. I think something could be there but it’s either less cap coming back or more positive value assets coming back.
 

Gecklund

Registered User
Jul 17, 2012
25,997
12,751
California
No worries if it doesn't fit, we have a lot of the same needs.

What's the ask on Dickinson though?
I probably wouldn’t give up much. Maybe we could work out a Labanc for Dickinson trade.
Not a problem, just a mental exercise here. Klimovich is a sleeper prospect, I expect him to be improving a great deal, but San Jose has a lot of solid wingers coming up. I had read RHD was a need for San Jose, and though Poolman could be filler, or even bought out, and Myers would be a very poor mans Burns stand in. So more spreading the cap hits of Hertl and Burns around for a little bit more flexibility. If the futures aren't enough though, I totally understand...it's just all we've got.
RD is definitely a need but more so in the prospect pool than actual NHL. We have Burns and EK who currently take up the top 2 spots and Merkley who looks ready and should be in the last spot as well as Meloche who hasn’t looked out of place.
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
No worries. I think something could be there but it’s either less cap coming back or more positive value assets coming back.

I'm not deadset on all the cap pieces being included, and if we keep the others, I'd be alright with Hamonic or Pearson being included instead of Myers. If that helps at all.

Again, absolutely hypothetically.
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
I probably wouldn’t give up much. Maybe we could work out a Labanc for Dickinson trade.

RD is definitely a need but more so in the prospect pool than actual NHL. We have Burns and EK who currently take up the top 2 spots and Merkley who looks ready and should be in the last spot as well as Meloche who hasn’t looked out of place.

The added cap hit and Dickinson's ability to play C makes that not really fit with what we need, if we were to move Dickinson. Cap space or a more offensively capable C would be what we would be looking for.

That's what I get for skimming then, I just saw RD and I guess I didn't register context. And I thought Karlsson was a LHD for some reason. I guess I need to pay a little bit more attention to detail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gecklund

Mr Positive

Cap Crunch Incoming
Nov 20, 2013
37,531
18,471
I'd have to think that he is a deadline trade, or he re-signs at the deadline

They cannot risk him walking for nothing. Waiting until the summer and trading his rights, for the off chance you could squeeze more for a sign-and-trade, would probably fail.
 

Pavelski2112

Bold as Boognish
Dec 15, 2011
14,703
9,645
San Jose, California
I'd have to think that he is a deadline trade, or he re-signs at the deadline

They cannot risk him walking for nothing. Waiting until the summer and trading his rights, for the off chance you could squeeze more for a sign-and-trade, would probably fail.
Our front office is absolutely delusional and refuse to admit that they're nowhere close to a playoff berth. They know they're stuck in a terrible cap situation and will continue to fall victim to sunk cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PacificOceanPotion

Voodoo Glow Skulls

Formerly Vatican Roulette
Sponsor
Sep 27, 2017
5,617
2,957
I agree a first is too much. My first thought in terms of trade package with DET is Zadina+Veleno+2nd but that seems risky for us.

That would be a rental price though, right?

I'd love to add Hertl, as a UFA though.

Wouldn't want to set back the build by having to pony up the required assets that he is worth in a trade.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,156
14,781
Folsom
I'm not deadset on all the cap pieces being included, and if we keep the others, I'd be alright with Hamonic or Pearson being included instead of Myers. If that helps at all.

Again, absolutely hypothetically.

I think if you swapped Myers with Dickinson, it seems more plausible. I think we'd be looking at Hertl and Burns for Dickinson, Poolman, Klimovich, Rathbone, and a 1st, yeah?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gecklund

DisbeliefInDW

Registered User
May 12, 2021
494
202
I think Detroit being a real wild card to acquire Hertl would return the best package. Their 1st in 2023 is what id want though.

To Detroit: Hertl, Coe
To SJ: 1st in 2023, Veleno, Gustav Lindström

This is so bad I literally fell off my seat in awe. I can't believe a Sharks fan posted this. That is one of the worst mock trades I've ever seen.
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
I think if you swapped Myers with Dickinson, it seems more plausible. I think we'd be looking at Hertl and Burns for Dickinson, Poolman, Klimovich, Rathbone, and a 1st, yeah?

Value wise? I think we have something, which again I hope we wouldn't be in the market to do, but if it happened, I could live with. The salary cap would require us to move someone in another deal, as Dickinson and Poolman offset Hertl's contract and don't even touch Burns'.

I had Dickinson in as part of the original package, so in the spirit of giving the Sharks first crack at the future waiver wire or forced trade, would Pearson, Hamonic or the LTIR contract of Ferland be of any value, as either a not cost inclusion or a separate deal? Or possibly Motte and a slightly used Halak?
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,156
14,781
Folsom
Value wise? I think we have something, which again I hope we wouldn't be in the market to do, but if it happened, I could live with. The salary cap would require us to move someone in another deal, as Dickinson and Poolman offset Hertl's contract and don't even touch Burns'.

I had Dickinson in as part of the original package, so in the spirit of giving the Sharks first crack at the future waiver wire or forced trade, would Pearson, Hamonic or the LTIR contract of Ferland be of any value, as either a not cost inclusion or a separate deal? Or possibly Motte and a slightly used Halak?

If other moves are made or we're paid to do so, I can see the Sharks having interest in those players but not as of now.
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
If other moves are made or we're paid to do so, I can see the Sharks having interest in those players but not as of now.

Fair enough. None, except Ferland really (who doesn't count towards the cap) is really overpaid for their recent contributions, so I'm sure we could work something else out elsewhere.
 

Chips

Registered User
Aug 19, 2015
8,440
7,266
He's my favorite player, and one of the few reasons the Sharks are tolerable to watch, but the org would be wise to let him go. I also think they need to look at moving Meier. If you move those two before next year, you're probably looking at a bottom 5 pick in a really good draft.

On the other hand, you need some quality vets in the roster to bring guys along. Hertl is the perfect guy to insulate someone like Eklund. I'm not sure that Eklund-Couture-Dahlen, Balcers-UFA?-Labanc is going to result in anything other than getting shelled. Of Equal importance there is no size, and none coming. Need to prevent Eklund from getting bullied. Not that Meier (or especially Hertl) are tough, but their size would help insulate the small prospects.

The Sharks seem to think the fans won't tolerate a rebuild/tank, but it's happening anyway. May as well embrace it, and look to shorten it. A lot has actually gone okay this year. No one projected Meier as an elite winger, Karlsson (when healthy) back to #1 D level, Reimer ended up a legit starter, decent pick ups that were low cost in Barbanov, Dahlen, Balcers, and Bonino, Ferraro improved, and Middleton ended up being surprisingly solid.

More importantly, I can't see things possibly going 'more' right next year particularly with 42% of the cap (EK, Burns, Vlasic, Couture) likely to get progressively worse.

Even with Hertl, Barbanov, and Meier returning, I think the Sharks are likely bottom 5-7 next year.

One other thing, I expect is feeling down because he knows it's time to move on.

Blow it up.
:(
I assumed the management was less worried about how fans would take it so much as Karlsson and their longer serving stars. Kinda like the Hawks questionably making win-now moves too early


Karlsson spoke last year upset it seemed the Sharks seemed to consider rebuilding, or something like that maybe he was responding to a question about rebuilding; same thing happened further back with Toews or Kane upset at certain rebuild moves the GM had made and or that they (the Hawks core few guys) weren’t being considered/consulted
 

Scintillating10

Registered User
Jun 15, 2012
20,935
10,108
Nova Scotia
What would Sharks want from Montreal for Hertl? Provided we can talk contract to him first.

Dvorak and Flames first?

Or option to switch first picks with us?
 

themelkman

Always Delivers
Apr 26, 2015
11,722
8,793
Calgary, Alberta
What would Sharks want from Montreal for Hertl? Provided we can talk contract to him first.

Dvorak and Flames first?

Or option to switch first picks with us?
Id do the switch firsts if you win the lottery! Otherwise no, we want a first and a top prospect, which is way more likely from a desperate good team.
I dont see Montreal as a fit at all, they are years from needing a Hertl
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coach Parker

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad