Do We Want the Sharks to do Well This Year?

As a Sharks fan looking at the team this year, I'm very torn about whether I really want the Sharks to do well this year or not. In many ways, I look at the future of the NHL (the lockout year) and the fact that the Sharks don't have a Stanley Cup calibar team and think to myself that the team would be better off if it were allowed to concede at the trading deadline.

Damphousse, Ricci, and Thornton would all be extremely attractive assets at the trading deadline. Damphousse and Ricci each should be able to attract either a late first round pick or an equivalent prospect. For example, Smolinski brought back Gleason from Ottowa. Further, with the potential that any first round draft pick will potentially be allowed an extra year to mature any way, the Sharks may be able to introduce whatever stud they get in the top 1 to 10 picks in the draft for maybe 2 years running. (If you don't have an intervening season, how can they decide the new draft order outside of the lottery providing different results). Not only would the Sharks have a reshaped prospect system with an abundance of talent, but the team would emerge with a lot of payroll flexibility, a strapping good and young defense, and a top flight starting goalie. With that payroll flexibility there exists the strong possibility that the team could go out and buy one maybe two maybe three of the myriad of free agents who will probably become available. The Sharks really could go from worst to first very quickly then.

To demonstrate my point here is a sample post-lockout lineup.

Goalies: Nabby (3.5M), Toskala (.5M).

Defense: McLaren (2M), Stuart (1.75M), Rathje (2M), Hanhan (1.5M), Fahey (1M), Ehrhoff (.75M), Davison (.5M).

Forwards:
Free Agent Marleau (3) Michalek (1.25)
Free Agent Boyes (1) Sturm (2)
Cheechoo (1) McCauley (1) Bernier (1)
Goc (1M) Smith (.75M) Hennesey (.5M)

The total of those players listed comes out to about 25M. That leaves about 10M to be used on two free agents. I'd also set aside about 3M for raises and for a "veteran" presence type player or two. People like Graves, Matteau, etc. who were better players but are now reduced to being the 12th to 13th forward.

Plus, because of their struggles the Shaks may emerge with not only a strong team, but also a prospect system with some serious mojo working. Under my hypothetical, the Sharks would have 2 top 10 picks from the lottery picks they earned, but also 2 first round picks acquired through the trades of Damphousse and Ricci. When you factor in players such as Morris and Spang finally graduating. That's going to be a big time infusion of talent.

Well you never wanna throw a year
sure...
Crosby and/or ovechkin would both look nice in teal but i would rather go to the playoffs and then you never kno ;)

As bad as sj may try to be, how can any team be worst the the Penguins? The team has Mario Lemieux, Martin Straka, and a bunch of AHLers.

Los,

I respect the thoughts and the conclusion they come to. Granted, a lot would have to go "your way" in order for SJ to be in that good of a position after the CBA agreement. (or really bad, the NHLPA and Owners actually come to an agreement on time....)

As for SJ, moving and signing players like Ricco and Thornton, I don't buy in to "planning" it from the get.

I think SJ will surprise many nay-sayers this season with strong team play. Guys like Vinnie, Marleau, Sturm, et all will be playing strong hockey.

I would give you this thought in closing, if SJ "tanked" as it were, what would be the long-term damage to players already in the system?

Los,

I respect the thoughts and the conclusion they come to. Granted, a lot would have to go "your way" in order for SJ to be in that good of a position after the CBA agreement. (or really bad, the NHLPA and Owners actually come to an agreement on time....)

As for SJ, moving and signing players like Ricco and Thornton, I don't buy in to "planning" it from the get.

I think SJ will surprise many nay-sayers this season with strong team play. Guys like Vinnie, Marleau, Sturm, et all will be playing strong hockey.

I would give you this thought in closing, if SJ "tanked" as it were, what would be the long-term damage to players already in the system?

I'm not saying that I actually think the Sharks will be a bad team. I look at their roster (see 10 predictions) and see a team that will be a borderline playoff team. (for the record here are my 8 predicted playoff teams: Detroit, Colorado, Vancouver, St Louis, Dallas, Anaheim, LA, and Edmonton. But, can we really say that the Sharks are really that much better than any of the above teams or even Minnesota, not to mention Chicago, Nashville, or Calgary. All I'm saying is that while I root for the Sharks to win, in many ways the team could be better off finishing with a lousy record, rather than either sneaking into the playoffs as the 7th or 8th seed and getting demolished by Colorado or Detroit or by just missing the playoffs (which I think is more likely).

I don't buy this "damage" idea particularly. Did losing 70 games really hurt the Sharks for example. I'd argue "no", because the team then went on to make the playoffs 2 years in a row. The more important thing would be that the players who are here play well enough with their own stats to not lose all confidence. As noted last year, you can be on a terrible team and still have a good year (see Sturm or Hannan for example)

As far as everything needing to fall into place. I agree there are a lot of assumptions, mostly about the labor problems. I'm not saying the Sharks are going to be worse than Pittsburgh and score Ovechkin. There is a lot of luck that goes into getting the number 1 pick. What I am saying is that the Sharks would benefit from the opportunity to trade a few free agents and from gaining the payroll flexibility and high draft picks that would accompany both such trades and from not finishing in the middle of the Western Conference pack.

[\begin Herm Edwards]

Hello? You play.. to win.. the game!

[\end Herm Edwards]

Do I want the Sharks to do good this year??

I hope there was sarcasim in your article Los...OF COURSE I DO!

Well you never wanna throw a year
sure...
Crosby and/or ovechkin would both look nice in teal but i would rather go to the playoffs and then you never kno ;)
Crosby isn't eligible until next year, and yes, Ovechkin would look nice in teal. I'm sure he'd love it too, with SJ being his favorite team and all. As to the topic, I'm in limbo. Playoffs with this "new" Sharks team would be great for our youngsters, and the org. However, drafting Ovechkin would have it's perks, too.

I'd rather see the team make a real go of it, to land a first round we would have to fail significantly and the team has already lost most of the credibility it gained by winning the division and improving each year for so long. Another bomb of a season is going to effect our ability to keep and lure players. I'd rather die trying and show some passion and heart than flop over and wait for some savior to fall in our laps.

Another bomb of a season is going to effect our ability to keep and lure players.

... not to mention that it would probably drive off another large number of season ticket holders, which would probably cause management to worry about how much they should be spending on payroll again.

In my mind, this team needs to make a stand and develop that identity this year to try to draw fans back into the building, or else we could be looking at Buffalo size crowds -- and remember the sharks don't have that long-standing hockey background to draw on like teams from the northeast would.

Howdy all, howz tricks?

I'd like to say that you guys are the point source for Sharks info. I check out what's happening here and feel that I have my finger on the pulse of our fav bunch of maurauding men of mayhem. I don't post very often cause it would be just to ask annoying questions or to say that I agree with that guy or that girl, but I check out the action every day. :bow: :handclap: :D :dazzle:

On to the subject...Stanley Cup dreams on a hotdog budget

Ummm, I'd have to say that drooling over Ovechkin in teal is easy to do. I mean, the kid is hot! No, really... Pie in the sky would be to say that he, or another prospect, would go a long way to turning this team around, but in all honesty I don't think that that is reasonable. Just ask those that drafted the likes of Daigle and other #1's that flopped. I think what is more important is winning. Consider, would you give Ovechkin up for a Stanley Cup? To me, that is that basic question.

Work hard every year...you never know. Wasn't it Kevin Constantine that said "Will beats skill," after the Sharkies took out the president trophy winning Red Wings in the first round back in the day? I'd take a strong work ethic, team play, and winning attitude (a la Minnesota/Anaheim) over an unknown quantity like a draft pick. But, it is still nice to dream about a super-talent like Ovechkin in teal. :yo:

PS I'd like to change my avatar to the 'Pacific Division Champions' banner that (I hope) is hanging up in The Tank. Can anyone help me out? Muchas Gracias, Danke, Spaciba

I enjoy playing devils advocate. Its fun. :joker:
Trust me I want the Sharks to win every single game they play until the playoffs are no longer a possibility.

Here are the theories I like the best.

Ability to lure players. - Definitely an issue.

Will beats skill argument - Not sure this answers the question. Are you arguing that if the Sharks want it the most that will win them the Stanley Cup. That argument doesn't hold up. Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, and New Jersey are not exactly untalented teams. if the Sharks do well this year, it certainly will be because of their will to win (which is good long term) and not the fact that they are more talented then most teams. But, does that mean that the Sharks should win based on will because that will be "good for them."

Fans won't come back - Yes this too might be an issue, but this is a problem that ultimately effects the budget. If the fan base declines, the management may have no choice but to raise the payroll rather than to cut it considering that lowering payroll had the effect of driving people away. Thus, this may cut either way.

Another argument that I believe is worthy of some merit is the problem of discounting. A win today is better than a win tomorrow. Likewise, a draft pick today is better than one next year. Hell, I'd rather be doing my celebrating today than in 2010.

Just to clarify, the Sharks would be uniquely lucky to acquire either Crosby or Ovechkin. Consequently, that wasn't what I was basing my devils argument on.

Heya Los, what's up?

Yeah, I like to be the devil too, but it usually gets me in the doghouse...

Um...as far as the 'Will beats skill,' deal...

First off, let me shed some light on my point of view. Whether it's true or not, I just believe that the person(s) that want's it more is more likely to get it even if the winner is less physically/mentally gifted than the other(s)

But,

Basically I was refering to a moderatly talented team (EG 94 sharks, 03 ducks and wild) beating an overwhelmingly talented team when on paper there should be no way for them to do so. There has to be something that allows the David to beat the Goliath...I advance that it is will. Not in every instance does will beat skill, just that force of will is an intangible that I can use to explain how it happens. You are right, and I very much agree with you that force of will and 50 cents get's you a bad cup o' joe down at the greasy sssspppppooooonnnn if you don't have at least a modicum of talent and experience. I guess will could also be described as 'Out working' the opponent, too, maybe?

Until next time...

Personally, I would really like to have the opportunity to draft Ovechkin. However, I don't think it's a good idea to want the team to tank it. In other sports, I try to have the same mentallity. I can expect that my favorite teams aren't going to have great outcomes and I know that they are bound to end up in such a situation, but I try not to root for their goalie to flop or their skaters to trip at untimely times so that they lose and getting the #1 pick is a reality (maybe except the Warriors--but as big of a fan as I am, giving the #1 pick to them is dangerous). For the Sharks next year, I think they are trying to instill a system and play hard within the system. It can go either way. With some good breaks and breakout years, they could sneak into the playoffs. Whatever happens, I think next year's key is to play hard and build a good foundation. So if Ovechkin is what we end up with, I won't complain. But I'm also going to watch the games as any other game (winnable and look for certain things).

On draft day, if we aren't in position to draft Ovechkin, I've always had two philosophies:

1. Trade for the #1 pick.

2. Draft so that your team will be able to do battle against a team with Ovechkin.

I figured if only one team could have Michael Vick and my team wasn't it, then my team should prepare for the day they face Vick and to have enough to beat the team with Vick.

Personally, I would really like to have the opportunity to draft Ovechkin. However, I don't think it's a good idea to want the team to tank it. In other sports, I try to have the same mentallity. I can expect that my favorite teams aren't going to have great outcomes and I know that they are bound to end up in such a situation, but I try not to root for their goalie to flop or their skaters to trip at untimely times so that they lose and getting the #1 pick is a reality (maybe except the Warriors--but as big of a fan as I am, giving the #1 pick to them is dangerous). For the Sharks next year, I think they are trying to instill a system and play hard within the system. It can go either way. With some good breaks and breakout years, they could sneak into the playoffs. Whatever happens, I think next year's key is to play hard and build a good foundation. So if Ovechkin is what we end up with, I won't complain. But I'm also going to watch the games as any other game (winnable and look for certain things).

On draft day, if we aren't in position to draft Ovechkin, I've always had two philosophies:

1. Trade for the #1 pick.

2. Draft so that your team will be able to do battle against a team with Ovechkin.

I figured if only one team could have Michael Vick and my team wasn't it, then my team should prepare for the day they face Vick and to have enough to beat the team with Vick.

re point 1 - there is no chance a team will trade the 1st overall pick when a player of Ovechkin's calibre (Lemieux like talent) is available.

re point 2 - possible but no amount of good drafting would have stopped the Oilers's in Gretzky's hey day.

I have seen Ovechkin play...Yes WOW..but I dont think you tank a season for a guy who hasnt played a game in the NHL yet. It's just insane. I think Marleaus devolopment,Same with Sturm,Stuart ect. Are more important then having a likely shot at the 1st pick.

to me it's a dumb topic. Sharks should play there aces off to win.

I dont think you tank a season for a guy who hasnt played a game in the NHL yet. It's just insane. I think Marleaus devolopment,Same with Sturm,Stuart ect. Are more important then having a likely shot at the 1st pick.

to me it's a dumb topic. Sharks should play there aces off to win.


I agree with Max 100%. This sums up my opinion completely.

San Jose has a goalie, a solid group of young defensemen, and good young forwards. If players like MacCauley can add some leadership they probably only lack a star forward or two to be a real contender.
Tanking for one season to add a possible reincarnation of Mario Lemieux and have the possibility to also get Crosby (a potential Gretzky) if there is a season long strike is a very appealing strategy.
Of course, I don't live in San Jose and won't have to pay to see games this year.
At the rate Ovechkin and Crosby are progressing, if one tema gets both players it won't be long before that team begins a dynasty.