Speculation: Worst of our bottom six currently...

[landshark]

Put your bottom six forward type complaints here please.

Feel free to use potential ceiling, contact value, mentorship potential and any other intangible you think is tangible enough to separate these guys...

I'm putting the non-prospect type guys here only.

I went with Goody, mostly based on last season, draft pedigree... He's made his money and won his cups. I don't think there's much left for him besides trying to collect more paychecks. He tries hard and I will always love him for that OT goal, but current version is a bit worn out from those days.

Click to read more...

 

[gaucholoco3]

I just don’t see how anyone can put G Smith ahead of Goodrow. If G Smith is off this list then it would be a lot more interesting.

 

[landshark]

I honestly think of him as a healthy scratch, I included him. But I think Goody has less value due to his contract than G.Smith.

 

[coooldude]

Excellent job -- maybe this thread can be the lightning rod for all the Kunin/Goody convos that bleed into every thread.

I still want to read the chaos, I just would love it to be in a specific location!

 

[hohosaregood]

G Smith is definitely the worst one in terms of hockey stuff. If he played a full 82 with 13 minutes a night, his results would be generationally bad.

Then probably Goodrow and Kunin. I think if Goodrow gets bottom 6 matchups, he'll have better results this year. He was getting an inordinately large amount of top line matchups last year for his caliber. Idk Kunin is Kunin.

 

[TheBeard]

I actually think we’re going to have one of the better bottom 6s in the league. I’d like for someone like Cardwell to get a shot but for the most part it’s miles better than what we’ve been putting out for the last few years.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Givani Smith is easy to like because he busts his ass on every shift but never plays above the fourth line. He’s an AHLer though and I doubt he’ll find NHL ice time this season. I won’t vote for him because he doesn’t belong on this poll and I would feel bad.

Goodrow is genuinely awful. Kostin and Grundstrom are question marks, could be decent third liners could be out of the league. Kunin is an okay fourth liner. Sturm is a good 4C. I feel like Dellandrea could be a good third liner but has a floor of great fourth liner. Granlund and Wennberg are probably solid 3C’s on most teams, could be top-6 on ours. Zetterlund is a great third liner or a mediocre second liner. Toffoli is a top-6 RW on any team in the league.

I think you all know where my vote is going.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I honestly think of him as a healthy scratch, I included him. But I think Goody has less value due to his contract than G.Smith.

I don’t know how many times this needs to be said. It doesn’t matter how much he makes. They are $14 million under the cap.

 

[coooldude]

Granlund and Wennberg are probably solid 3C’s on most teams, could be top-6 on ours. Zetterlund is a great third liner or a mediocre second liner. Toffoli is a top-6 RW on any team in the league.

Good post, I am surprised with your Granny take though. 60 in 69 last year playing 1C on a historically weak team getting caved in, where he gets the hardest matchups most nights. It might be an aberration and he's back to his previous form next year, but I thought he showed he could at least be a decent 2C on a middling team (or a great 3C on pretty much any team).

 

[Juxtaposer]

Good post, I am surprised with your Granny take though. 60 in 69 last year playing 1C on a historically weak team getting caved in, where he gets the hardest matchups most nights. It might be an aberration and he's back to his previous form next year, but I thought he showed he could at least be a decent 2C on a middling team (or a great 3C on pretty much any team).

Granlund was awesome last year, especially after he came back from injury, no doubt. I have my suspicions that he won’t come close to replicating that kind of production this year, unfortunately.

Like I said, solid 3C on good teams, 1C on historically bad team with no top-6 centers over the age of 19.

 

[landshark]

I don’t know how many times this needs to be said. It doesn’t matter how much he makes. They are $14 million under the cap.

Goody's contract makes him less valuable in my opinion. IDGAF how many times you say otherwise.

 

[Cas]

Givani Smith
Kunin
Bailey
Goodrow
Grundstrom
Dellandrea
Sturm
Kostin
Wennberg

Something like that, worst to "best".

 

[Bizz]

Givani Smith doesn't bring a whole lot to the table except physicality, so he's the easy choice here.

 

[StanleyCup2035]

Givani Smith is a 1st line player...for Jamaica, apparently!

https://x.com/i/web/status/1811869018715828702

 

[DG93]

Pretty obvious choice, I'd be curious to see how a #2 poll would go haha

 

[fasterthanlight]

(I didn't vote for Smith because he's not really in our bottom 6)

 

[themelkman]

Smith doesnt count so the answer is easily Kunin

 

[tiburon12]

Goody's contract makes him less valuable in my opinion. IDGAF how many times you say otherwise.

I went with Goody, mostly based on last season, draft pedigree... He's made his money and won his cups. I don't think there's much left for him besides trying to collect more paychecks. He tries hard and I will always love him for that OT goal, but current version is a bit worn out from those days.

None of this analysis on his value has anything to do with his contract.

Why are people making up issues with his contract? You make good points about his value, why then incorrectly inject misevaluation about his contact into the analysis?

 

[landshark]

None of this analysis on his value has anything to do with his contract.

Why are people making up issues with his contract? You make good points about his value, why then incorrectly inject misevaluation about his contact into the analysis?

There's no getting rid of that contract for a NET positive asset without retention. To me that contract is the cherry on top of the crap sundae. I understand it can be buried or he can be waived, but it's just like how many veteran bottom six forwards are needed?

I feel like even if Goody has a good year, that contract would keep him from getting flipped for useful assets w/o retention. I don't think he's got anything left in the tank, and even if he does I don't think he'll perform to the point where the contract is no big deal to a potential trade partner since ploff teams are more likely to be cap constrained when that time comes. If he's coming in at 1.2 per year then sure, great! If he's decent on a more reasonable contract the Sharks can likely get someone to take him on a ploff run... With his current contract he's basically a forward version of Vlasic.

I'd rather see Cardwell or Coe (can try his new "drive the net" bit on low level NHL competition) come in to be on the 4th line getting tutored by Sturm... 4th line seems like a great spot to see what some of these kids have regarding bottom 6 type potential. Stick them with Sturm and Grundy how bad can it be? Running Goody's tired ass out there with that group isn't likely to yield anything special. Sturm, Grundy and Goody are pretty much known quantities. I'd like to see someone with some unknowns out there than all three of those guys on the 4th line. They've got no business playing above the 4th line. Maybe, maybe some Sturm on the third line now and then.

The cap hit on Goody is ridiculous for what he brings, subsequently I think that even with a good year he can't be moved for assets w/o retention. Why waste a spot when there are three or four slightly better versions of the same thing already on the team and maybe a kid or two waiting in the wings to blossom?

 

[tiburon12]

There's no getting rid of that contract for a NET positive asset without retention. To me that contract is the cherry on top of the crap sundae. I understand it can be buried or he can be waived, but it's just like how many veteran bottom six forwards are needed?

I feel like even if Goody has a good year, that contract would keep him from getting flipped for useful assets w/o retention. I don't think he's got anything left in the tank, and even if he does I don't think he'll perform to the point where the contract is no big deal to a potential trade partner since ploff teams are more likely to be cap constrained when that time comes. If he's coming in at 1.2 per year then sure, great! If he's decent on a more reasonable contract the Sharks can likely get someone to take him on a ploff run... With his current contract he's basically a forward version of Vlasic.

I'd rather see Cardwell or Coe (can try his new "drive the net" bit on low level NHL competition) come in to be on the 4th line getting tutored by Sturm... 4th line seems like a great spot to see what some of these kids have regarding bottom 6 type potential. Stick them with Sturm and Grundy how bad can it be? Running Goody's tired ass out there with that group isn't likely to yield anything special. Sturm, Grundy and Goody are pretty much known quantities. I'd like to see someone with some unknowns out there than all three of those guys on the 4th line. They've got no business playing above the 4th line. Maybe, maybe some Sturm on the third line now and then.

The cap hit on Goody is ridiculous for what he brings, subsequently I think that even with a good year he can't be moved for assets w/o retention. Why waste a spot when there are three or four slightly better versions of the same thing already on the team and maybe a kid or two waiting in the wings to blossom?

I think those are all great points and I don't have anything to say against them.

But I will make a blanket statement about how I think Grier is operating and how both what he's doing and what you want can coexist.

Grier is creating internal competition for the bottom 6 in order to develop the best bottom 6 he can. Any fat that gets cut or cream that rises will be demoted or traded, respectively.

Remember Grier's profile. 9th round pick going the college route on top of being one of the few black players - not exactly a high chance he made the NHL from any perspective. He beat the odds, became a top college player, then re-established his profile as a hardworking grinder and an elite penalty killer. Grier was cream and knows how to make it.

With Goodrow, I believe Grier sees it this way. Goodrow is a former elite bottom 6 player who, odds are, is pissed about being in SJ, is going to have a "prove it" season, and will try and attract interest from a competing team. If that goes according to plan, the he will net some assets in return to aid the rebuild and the guys with a chance at a future in teal (Dellandrea, Grundstrom, Bords, Kostin, G Smith, whoever on cuda) will get to learn from him. Side note: i think the same goes for Sturm, as in he'll earn interest from a contender etc.

If it doesn't go according to plan and Goodrow is Ok, then the aforementioned players have a real target for ice time: If you want bottom 6 minutes, go be better than Goodrow night in and night out. If they can't, see ya; if they can, then Grier will deal with Goodrow somehow.

And among the plethora of bottom six forwards we have, this internal competition will be good for development. Again, people complain about Kunin but let's see if anyone outplays him before we get the pitchforks. Same with Goodrow.

All of that is to say......the kids will need to earn it, but they will get their shot, Grier isn't going to ruin his pipeline. But this team was the worst in the league by a mile and NEEDED vets. And again, if the kids can;'t out play these vets on one of the worst teams in the league then we shouldn't we worried about blocking them.

 

[gaucholoco3]

There's no getting rid of that contract for a NET positive asset without retention. To me that contract is the cherry on top of the crap sundae. I understand it can be buried or he can be waived, but it's just like how many veteran bottom six forwards are needed?

I think it should always be the goal to have at least 6 veteran bottom six forwards. Young players should never be gifted a bottom six roster spot. It should always be earned and if they can beat out one of the veteran bottom six players then they deserve that spot and one of the best can be dealt with (scratched, waived, traded).

Top six spots in rare cases should be gifted to prospects. Two examples are Smith and Celebrini. They shouldn’t have to prove they are top six players. They should start there and be demoted only if their play is so bad their development is suffering.

 

[coooldude]

I honestly don't care all that much, but I also don't think we need to judge the contract for what we speculate it would return in assets in a deadline trade 2-3 years from now. It's so speculative as to be worth little. And he's not going to return a meaningful asset anyway.

Asset management from rounds 3-6 (or in the bottom 6 / AHL shuttle) is important in the aggregate, but imho it's behind in importance versus 1) major contract signings and trades, 2) top 2 round draft performance, and 3) probably front office staff management, in terms of GM effectiveness.

In the aggregate, we have a very competitive bottom 6 and possibly one of the best looking bottom 6's in a very long time. Some contracts/transactions were steals and some look less good but overall it looks like a successful offseason without too many concerns from me.

 

[Le Grand Quebecois]

Goodrow is ripe for a 100pt season and then we can flip his untradeable contract to Pittsburgh for future considerations.

 

[timorous me]

With Goodrow, I believe Grier sees it this way. Goodrow is a former elite bottom 6 player who, odds are, is pissed about being in SJ, is going to have a "prove it" season, and will try and attract interest from a competing team. If that goes according to plan, the he will net some assets in return to aid the rebuild and the guys with a chance at a future in teal (Dellandrea, Grundstrom, Bords, Kostin, G Smith, whoever on cuda) will get to learn from him. Side note: i think the same goes for Sturm, as in he'll earn interest from a contender etc.

I can't shake the feeling that so many are forgetting that we're literally just one year removed from Goodrow being a very solid bottom six option. The two years prior to this most recent one, he averaged 12 goals and 20 assists. And that's not slanted toward the farther-away year; he had 11 goals one year, 13 goals the other, and 20 assists in each.

What changed? Well, Laviolette came in, for better or worse (better overall, probably, but worse for Goodrow) and put Goodrow on the 4th line mostly and put him in an extremely defensive role where he'd get caved in--his OZ starts dropped from 42.5% to 23.5 percent! You could probably also question his linemates--his most frequent ones were Jimmy Vesey (okay), Tyler Pitlick (less okay), and Nick Bonino (terrible, sad to say).

Now, one could argue that his prior season's numbers were inflated by getting ice time with guys like Panarin and Trocheck, and that would be fair to say--I don't think we should expect 30+ points for Goodrow, because I hope he's not in our top six this coming season except in rare occasions--but I think there's enough evidence here to show that he's not the complete bum that last season's numbers seem to indicate, and if he can be a decent bottom six guy for the Sharks, combined with his leadership abilities, then I see someone who's a useful addition, even if he'll probably be impossible to trade until his final season.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Top six spots in rare cases should be gifted to prospects. Two examples are Smith and Celebrini. They shouldn’t have to prove they are top six players. They should start there and be demoted only if their play is so bad their development is suffering.

Hmm...I can agree with Celebrini, or Marleau back in '97 or even Michalek in '2004...but I don't think so for Smith. He should have to "earn" top-6 minutes. It's what the Sharks did for Couture, Pavelski, Setoguchi, and Hertl...probably the last time they "gifted" a prospect a top spot was Mueller.