Confirmed with Link: TRADE: Sharks trade G Mackenzie Blackwood, F Givani Smith, 2027 5th to COL for G Alexandar Georgiev, F Nikolai Kovalenko, '26 2nd, Cond'l '25 5th

[timorous me]

I remember from his time with the Rangers that Georgiev got into a fight with Tony Deangelo which led to Deangelo getting waived by the Rangers. I have to say, despite what might be able to be said about getting into it with a teammate, I like that Georgiev didn't hesitate to go right back at that dickhead.

“Coming down the tunnel, I yelled at Georgi, ‘Make a f—-ing save’,” DeAngelo said. “So, if I didn’t yell at Georgi, Georgi wasn’t gonna turn around and try to do anything. That’s a fact. Obviously, I started it. I wasn’t thinking what happened next was gonna happen, that was a surprise to me.”

DeAngelo says Georgiev then head-butted him, goalie mask to player visor, which bloodied the defenseman. He retaliated by hitting the netminder in the helmet with his stick before teammates quickly separated the two.

Tony DeAngelo reveals details about fight with Alexandar Georgiev that got him placed on waivers by Rangers

 

[Munnyro]

Kovalenko might be what the Sharks hoped Kunin would grow into one day but alas, he did not.

He looks like a blend of Barbie and Goose (gotta keep the Russian factor!)

 

[Star Platinum]

Worth it if Kovalenko plays like he has thus far. He's a nice fit.

It was worth it even if he didn't do anything, but we really needed another wing that could do some skill things. From what I read about him, he sounded like more of a puck retrieval dirty work in front of the net guy, but that apple to Walman for the goal was real nice.

is he like what we want kostin to be?

Yes, but in a smaller package

He’s advertised as a goalie who wins?

I hope you were or are in public relations professionally and if not, you should be.

 

[Hodge]

He looks like a blend of Barbie and Goose (gotta keep the Russian factor!)

Except Kovalenko is actually good at hockey.

 

[matt trick]

Kovalenko looked really solid. If he can perform a solid middle six guy that'd be most impressive. Getting Kovalenko, Liljigren, Walman, Zetterlund, Granlund, Ceci, Kunin, Thompson, and Blackwood for pennies on the dollar is very solid. Add on the Wennberg and Tofolli additions, and they've gotten a lot right with pro scouting. I liked the Deallandrea and Grundstrom deals as well even if they haven't been exciting. I was fine with Goody though it seems leadership and pking ability.

Celebrini is the key to the team's success, but outside him, Smith, Ferraro and Eklund, Grier's remade the entire roster without giving anything up but non-fit contracts (Karlsson, Meier, UFA Duclair, Blackwood's upcoming deal), two 3rds, a 4th, and a 6th, while getting two 2nds and two 3rds in return. Doesn't even get into getting Dickinson, Musty, and Muk.

The Thornton Sharks were cap & asset constrained, but imagine if Wilson paired is superstar theft with quality bottom of the line-up additions.

 

[sampler]

I was very encouraged by kovalenko as well. If he can be a top 9 forward for real, then the blackwood deal would be highway robbery. I always figured him to be the X factor as a 2nd rounder in '26 is not a particularly material return (maybe a player who helps in 6 years with a 25-30% probability, and a sub 10% chance of a real impact player).

The other encouraging thing to me seems to be that Grier is hinting that the timeline to compete is coming very close. He clearly showed, in both words and actions, that this year ain't it. But, Kovalenko, at 25 year old, being a key target implies that Grier feels the window will open next year (or possibly in '26-27), and not 3-5 years out. I kinda get the feeling that this upcoming summer is going to be a very big one for acquiring current players, rather than focusing further on future assets and rebuilding.

 

[TheBeard]

Grier has actually been incredibly smart with his goaltender acquisitions. They’re all buy candidates and either They far exceed their value or they continue to stink and help the rebuild by sucking. It’s a win-win.

 

[sampler]

Grier has actually been incredibly smart with his goaltender acquisitions. They’re all buy candidates and either They far exceed their value or they continue to stink and help the rebuild by sucking. It’s a win-win.

According to this logic, aside from actually paying assets to acquire a goalie, Grier can't lose. They stink (Yay higher pick), or they rock (yay high trade value). That's not GM skill

The GM skill comes in the what trade value you get in the event that they rock. Its really not that hard to be a GM of a team expected to be dead last with zero fan expectations. Your job is to unload everyone over the age of 30 for as high a return as possible. thats not nuclear sciece, other than figuring out what the 'highest return possible' actually is.

You know this is true because grier got absolutely nothing for taking 11M of salary off the NYR books for a borderline NHL 4th liner who reallly didn't want to come here. That was absolutely horrific GMing. Like nearly as bad as it gets. Hes made some great moves (walman?? Are you kidding me!) and some bad ones, but the bad ones dont hurt much (or course the walman steal doesnt help much either I suppose). Imagine the sharks were the sharks of 2017 competing for a cup, and Wilson made the goodrow move and they missed out narrowly on winning with goodrow producing no points and leading the team in minus for nearly 4M per year for 3 years.

I am overall fine with Grier's job thus far. Many of his moves (as well as spectacular lottery luck) could be argued to have accelerated the rebuild process and it tooks guts to trade all the fan favorites and get a return for 'em. He also got back guys who have far exceeded expectations on multiple occasions in granlund and zetterlund (kovalenko?), not to mention landing top 10 draft talent (dick). But, the real test comes when the fans and the team start making wins the goal. When losing is AOK, if not even preferred, its easy. When winning is all that is acceptable and losing means heads roll, then you see the GM skills emerge as cap management, asset management, finding diamonds in the rough, developing really well, drafting well in the latter half of rounds, and all the other aspects of budiling a winner become mandatory.

Grier has done pretty well in the easy phase of his job. Now, can he build a consistent winner when the pressure is on to make the PO's, and really when its cup or bust, as it was for wilson for nearly 20 years.

 

[TheBeard]

According to this logic, aside from actually paying assets to acquire a goalie, Grier can't lose. They stink (Yay higher pick), or they rock (yay high trade value). That's not GM skill

The GM skill comes in the what trade value you get in the event that they rock. Its really not that hard to be a GM of a team expected to be dead last with zero fan expectations. Your job is to unload everyone over the age of 30 for as high a return as possible. thats not nuclear sciece, other than figuring out what the 'highest return possible' actually is.

You know this is true because grier got absolutely nothing for taking 11M of salary off the NYR books for a borderline NHL 4th liner who reallly didn't want to come here. That was absolutely horrific GMing. Like nearly as bad as it gets. Hes made some great moves (walman?? Are you kidding me!) and some bad ones, but the bad ones dont hurt much (or course the walman steal doesnt help much either I suppose). Imagine the sharks were the sharks of 2017 competing for a cup, and Wilson made the goodrow move and they missed out narrowly on winning with goodrow producing no points and leading the team in minus for nearly 4M per year for 3 years.

I am overall fine with Grier's job thus far. Many of his moves (as well as spectacular lottery luck) could be argued to have accelerated the rebuild process and it tooks guts to trade all the fan favorites and get a return for 'em. He also got back guys who have far exceeded expectations on multiple occasions in granlund and zetterlund (kovalenko?), not to mention landing top 10 draft talent (dick). But, the real test comes when the fans and the team start making wins the goal. When losing is AOK, if not even preferred, its easy. When winning is all that is acceptable and losing means heads roll, then you see the GM skills emerge as cap management, asset management, finding diamonds in the rough, developing really well, drafting well in the latter half of rounds, and all the other aspects of budiling a winner become mandatory.

Grier has done pretty well in the easy phase of his job. Now, can he build a consistent winner when the pressure is on to make the PO's, and really when its cup or bust, as it was for wilson for nearly 20 years.

I actually think you’re severely underestimating the difficulty in tanking to this degree while also selling optimism to the players, the fans and the owner. You look at other teams in perpetual rebuilds and the one thing most of them have in common is the clear dysfunction either within the owners box, the front office or in the locker room. I’m not seeing that anywhere.

Also, convincing players you as a GM specifically target to want to come and perform at their highest level isn’t as easy as you think. Finding that balance between completely stripping the walls bare and inspiring hope to the players that have other options is a saavy skill.

Right now Grier has done all he can until the players he’s brought in have shown they’re capable. Until then all Grier is going to do is add picks for vets.

Lastly, how can you say “spectacular lottery luck” when both of his drafts ended up at the exact pick they got? Sure it was only a 20% chance of them getting first overall but they still had the best chances of anyone.

 

[Le Grand Quebecois]

San Jose offers an environment that aligns well with Georgiev's strengths and needs. The Sharks' current rebuilding phase means less scrutiny and pressure, allowing him to find consistency in his game. His history with Mike Grier is a bonus, as it suggests a level of trust and understanding from management.
Sharing starts with Vanacek in a 1a/1b system could be beneficial for both goalies, especially if the team emphasizes workload management. If Georgiev finds his rhythm, he not only helps stabilize the Sharks during this transition period but also becomes a valuable trade asset for a team looking for G depth at the TDL.
I'm optimistic for him to reset and prove his value in a lower-pressure environment. It’s a smart trade by GMMG for both Georgiev and the Sharks.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

Kovalenko would be perfect on either Smith's or Mack's wing. I honestly just disliked nabbing Georgiev but this deal is win-win so far

 

[LilLeeroy]

According to this logic, aside from actually paying assets to acquire a goalie, Grier can't lose. They stink (Yay higher pick), or they rock (yay high trade value). That's not GM skill

You know this is true because grier got absolutely nothing for taking 11M of salary off the NYR books for a borderline NHL 4th liner who reallly didn't want to come here. That was absolutely horrific GMing. Like nearly as bad as it gets. Hes made some great moves (walman?? Are you kidding me!) and some bad ones, but the bad ones dont hurt much (or course the walman steal doesnt help much either I suppose). Imagine the sharks were the sharks of 2017 competing for a cup, and Wilson made the goodrow move and they missed out narrowly on winning with goodrow producing no points and leading the team in minus for nearly 4M per year for 3 years.

I mean Doug Wilson traded two 2nds for Roman Polak to tank their Cup chance in 2016, that's significantly worse than your theoretical move. Not to mention all his other disastrous deadline deals.

 

[Munnyro]

I mean Doug Wilson traded two 2nds for Roman Polak to tank their Cup chance in 2016, that's significantly worse than your theoretical move. Not to mention all his other disastrous deadline deals.

These turned into Maxime Comtois and Sean Durzi.

 

[Alaskanice]

I mean Doug Wilson traded two 2nds for Roman Polak to tank their Cup chance in 2016, that's significantly worse than your theoretical move. Not to mention all his other disastrous deadline deals.

Trading for Polak and Spaling gave us the depth and in Roman’s case, the physicality we needed in the playoffs.

 

[RussianShark]

These turned into Maxime Comtois and Sean Durzi.

yeah but they could have been Fabian Zetterlund and Calen Addison

 

[OrrNumber4]

You know this is true because grier got absolutely nothing for taking 11M of salary off the NYR books for a borderline NHL 4th liner who reallly didn't want to come here. That was absolutely horrific GMing. Like nearly as bad as it gets. Hes made some great moves (walman?? Are you kidding me!) and some bad ones, but the bad ones dont hurt much (or course the walman steal doesnt help much either I suppose). Imagine the sharks were the sharks of 2017 competing for a cup, and Wilson made the goodrow move and they missed out narrowly on winning with goodrow producing no points and leading the team in minus for nearly 4M per year for 3 years.

You make some fair points overall, but I wanted to address this specific point about Goodrow. We're rehashing a rehash, but consider the team's situation at the time Goodrow was acquired:

The Sharks had these established NHL forwards:

Granlund
Eklund
Zetterlund
Couture(injured long-term)
Kunin
Sturm
Kostin
Dellandrea
You could add Celebrini (presumptive) and Smith as "locks" to make the roster.

That's not only an incomplete forward group, but it's exceptionally inexperienced, with one established veteran and only two other guys with over 200 GP. On top of that, you have only three healthy players who are clear top-9 talents:

Eklund-Granlund-Zetterlund
Kostin-Celebrini-Kunin
Gushchin-Smith-Dellandrea
Graf-Sturm-Cardwell

is an emetic roster. I get why Grier clung to the raft that was Goodrow (and then the trade for Grundstrom). Ultimately, it's bitten him a little since:

1) Celebrini has shown he needs no babysitter and can handle a very tough load
2) Grier managed to sign solid vets like Toffoli and Wennberg
3) Kunin and Sturm have performed a half-step above expectations
4) Goodrow has regressed a little, and Grundstrom hasn't progressed much

Now, Goodrow and Grundstrom look like superfluous players taking up spots. But at the time, it was a smart, conservative play.

 

[TheBeard]

You make some fair points overall, but I wanted to address this specific point about Goodrow. We're rehashing a rehash, but consider the team's situation at the time Goodrow was acquired:

The Sharks had these established NHL forwards:

Granlund
Eklund
Zetterlund
Couture(injured long-term)
Kunin
Sturm
Kostin
Dellandrea
You could add Celebrini (presumptive) and Smith as "locks" to make the roster.

That's not only an incomplete forward group, but it's exceptionally inexperienced, with one established veteran and only two other guys with over 200 GP. On top of that, you have only three healthy players who are clear top-9 talents:

Eklund-Granlund-Zetterlund
Kostin-Celebrini-Kunin
Gushchin-Smith-Dellandrea
Graf-Sturm-Cardwell

is an emetic roster. I get why Grier clung to the raft that was Goodrow (and then the trade for Grundstrom). Ultimately, it's bitten him a little since:

1) Celebrini has shown he needs no babysitter and can handle a very tough load
2) Grier managed to sign solid vets like Toffoli and Wennberg
3) Kunin and Sturm have performed a half-step above expectations
4) Goodrow has regressed a little, and Grundstrom hasn't progressed much

Now, Goodrow and Grundstrom look like superfluous players taking up spots. But at the time, it was a smart, conservative play.

Maybe, but the Sharks have ten forward contracts up by the end of 25-26. Bringing in someone with multiyears left allows them to keep bringing in forward rentals.

 

[sampler]

I mean Doug Wilson traded two 2nds for Roman Polak to tank their Cup chance in 2016, that's significantly worse than your theoretical move. Not to mention all his other disastrous deadline deals.

My point was not that DW made all good moves. He made many, and some not good ones. This is inevitable for a GM of 20 years on a cup contending team. No GM that makes literally hundreds of signings and trades is going to hit a homerun with every one of them. This is also true of Grier (Homerun on walman. Strike out on Lindblom. Homerun on EK65. Strike out on Goodrow (maybe)...)

My point was that for Grier, the strikeouts don't really matter. He could sign a guy like wennberg to a 2 yr, 10M deal, have him be horrifically ineffective (hes not), have the team finish dead last, and then trade him for a 5th rounder and it would still be considered a success, because "hey, got the 1st overall pick and got a 5th rounder to boot!)

The real judgment is when you make a singing like that, it doesnt work, and your time misses the playoffs, and 1000 season ticket holders drop out.

 

[TheBeard]

My point was not that DW made all good moves. He made many, and some not good ones. This is inevitable for a GM of 20 years on a cup contending team. No GM that makes literally hundreds of signings and trades is going to hit a homerun with every one of them. This is also true of Grier (Homerun on walman. Strike out on Lindblom. Homerun on EK65. Strike out on Goodrow (maybe)...)

My point was that for Grier, the strikeouts don't really matter. He could sign a guy like wennberg to a 2 yr, 10M deal, have him be horrifically ineffective (hes not), have the team finish dead last, and then trade him for a 5th rounder and it would still be considered a success, because "hey, got the 1st overall pick and got a 5th rounder to boot!)

The real judgment is when you make a singing like that, it doesnt work, and your time misses the playoffs, and 1000 season ticket holders drop out.

Signing a guy for overpay like Wennberg because you can't get anyone to sign is far different than specifically targeting guys on other teams (like Blackwood) that require payment. Kunin, for example, many were critical of Grier for forking over a 3rd for his services, and while some still don't like the trade, Kunin's been a net positive since. I believe the player Nashville drafted with his pick is no longer with the organization.

There's also something to be said that most of his acquisitions, whether by trade or FA, have been positive. Sturm, Emberson, Blackwood, Kovalenko, Wennberg, Zetterlund, Granlund, Walman, Liljigren, Kostin, Dellandrea have all paid dividends. The only true stinkers against are Caleb Addison, Mike Hoffman, Thrun, Lindblom and maybe Burroughs.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

You make some fair points overall, but I wanted to address this specific point about Goodrow. We're rehashing a rehash, but consider the team's situation at the time Goodrow was acquired:

The Sharks had these established NHL forwards:

Granlund
Eklund
Zetterlund
Couture(injured long-term)
Kunin
Sturm
Kostin
Dellandrea
You could add Celebrini (presumptive) and Smith as "locks" to make the roster.

That's not only an incomplete forward group, but it's exceptionally inexperienced, with one established veteran and only two other guys with over 200 GP. On top of that, you have only three healthy players who are clear top-9 talents:

Eklund-Granlund-Zetterlund
Kostin-Celebrini-Kunin
Gushchin-Smith-Dellandrea
Graf-Sturm-Cardwell

is an emetic roster. I get why Grier clung to the raft that was Goodrow (and then the trade for Grundstrom). Ultimately, it's bitten him a little since:

1) Celebrini has shown he needs no babysitter and can handle a very tough load
2) Grier managed to sign solid vets like Toffoli and Wennberg
3) Kunin and Sturm have performed a half-step above expectations
4) Goodrow has regressed a little, and Grundstrom hasn't progressed much

Now, Goodrow and Grundstrom look like superfluous players taking up spots. But at the time, it was a smart, conservative play.

Goodrow was, is, and will always be a stupid decision. Trading Burroughs for Grundstrom made this team better. Claiming Goodrow and his contract did no such thing.

 

[sampler]

Signing a guy for overpay like Wennberg because you can't get anyone to sign is far different than specifically targeting guys on other teams (like Blackwood) that require payment. Kunin, for example, many were critical of Grier for forking over a 3rd for his services, and while some still don't like the trade, Kunin's been a net positive since. I believe the player Nashville drafted with his pick is no longer with the organization.

There's also something to be said that most of his acquisitions, whether by trade or FA, have been positive. Sturm, Emberson, Blackwood, Kovalenko, Wennberg, Zetterlund, Granlund, Walman, Liljigren, Kostin, Dellandrea have all paid dividends. The only true stinkers against are Caleb Addison, Mike Hoffman, Thrun, Lindblom and maybe Burroughs.

Net positive? Paid dividends? In terms of what?

For most GMs, “paid dividends” means “leads to wins”. For Grier, no such thing exists. He is currently judged on prospect/draft pick acquisition. In this regard, he has done relatively well but selling off all your talent is a whole lot easier (especially if it gives you a Norris season) than acquiring talent, recruiting ufas, making smart signings, managing a cap, and figuring out how to stay competitive without the merit of top 7 picks every year.

Now, it’s distinctly possible that some of those acquisitions do “pay dividends” in terms of wins next year and beyond (and even this year). But, at the end of the day, eventually Grier will be judged by wins and losses. Right now is the relatively easy phase in which losses are ok. Poor signings are ok. Even bad trades, as long as they get some positive future assets are OK.

Overall, I like what Grier has done. I am just saying that the expectation bar on him has mirrored that of the team, namely he practically can’t screw up barring trading picks away or making long term it’s signings that are bad.

I feel we are now at the inflection point between future asset collection and actually making a playoff contender. Perhaps Grier can be credited for accelerating that timeline. Either way, I am ready to start judging based on actual on ice performance, not just “hey it leads to more losses, so great move!”

 

[sampler]

Ps: the bad moves by Grier (if attempting to get wins if the metric) are many. Goodrow, Kunin, lindbom, g smith, sturm, dyllandrea, grundstrom, benning, kostin, zadina, Burroughs, Vanecek, and many others. These guys combine for 10s of millions a year. Compared to salary, their production is poop.

***However, since dead cap space means nothing when losing is ok, they are all overlooked or even praised despite historic losing.

 

[LilLeeroy]

Ps: the bad moves by Grier (if attempting to get wins if the metric) are many. Goodrow, Kunin, lindbom, g smith, sturm, dyllandrea, grundstrom, benning, kostin, zadina, Burroughs, Vanecek, and many others. These guys combine for 10s of millions a year. Compared to salary, their production is poop.

***However, since dead cap space means nothing when losing is ok, they are all overlooked or even praised despite historic losing.

Picking up players that other teams are giving away for almost nothing is not a bad move. Even if they don't work out.

Grier took over a team that was arguably in the worst position in modern sports history and already has it looking good.

Trading for Polak and Spaling gave us the depth and in Roman’s case, the physicality we needed in the playoffs.

It's strange how much better the team was with him on the bench that season then

 

[Alaskanice]

Ps: the bad moves by Grier (if attempting to get wins if the metric) are many. Goodrow, Kunin, lindbom, g smith, sturm, dyllandrea, grundstrom, benning, kostin, zadina, Burroughs, Vanecek, and many others. These guys combine for 10s of millions a year. Compared to salary, their production is poop.

***However, since dead cap space means nothing when losing is ok, they are all overlooked or even praised despite historic losing.

Zadina was a good chance to take. Lindblom was a heartfelt try, it didn’t work. All the others are fine. They work hard and a couple could turn into something. I mean, Benning brought us Liljegren.
A few deserve praise. Some are better than you give them credit for. The losing is by design.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I mean, Benning brought us Liljegren.

When you say things like this you shred your credibility. Do you sincerely think that's why the trade happened? Toronto really wanted Matt Benning, and hence the Sharks could pry Liljegren from them?

Not to mention, a cromulent example was right there: Burroughs netted the Sharks Grundstrom.