HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   San Jose Sharks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43)
-   -   Speculation: Is Doug Wilson too attached? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=672822)

Le Rosbeef 08-16-2009 09:36 AM

Is Doug Wilson too attached?
 
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklun...ve-Now/1/22542

Forgive me, I've been listening to Hockeybuzz (as I was bored!) and Ryan Garner was on the show talking Sharks (if you're interested, it's at #29:08 to 38:10 if you don't want to listen to the non-Sharks stuff!)

Normally I'm not Garner's biggest fan as I'm sure you'll know, but he did explain in depth about his views on Marleau and the Sharks so I listened in.

He raised a point that kind of struck a chord worth discussing:

There's been speculation by some media types that our GM might overvalue his players in trades. Garner suggested it might be because Doug Wilson is getting too attached to his players - it's an interesting question. The key question was, Does he believe his own propaganda? (hence his overvaluing of his own assets in trades). Is he just too loyal? Too nice a guy?

Garner backed it by stating that most often the guys he (Wilson) had traded were guys who'd been Sharks for less than 3 years.

What do people think? I'm not sure one way or another but it made me ponder it from another angle this summer! From a speculative point of view Wilson did seem very angry after the playoffs but without action to back it up, is it just hollow words designed to placate the fanbase without taking action against those he's too attached to?

I'm intrigued!

...As an aside, Eklund said during the same show that he's been hearing this week that Marleau would waive his NTC. Take that for what it's worth!

((Oh and just in case you missed it, the same Garner that wanted rid of Marleau in his last blog stated on the show that he thinks that "we haven't seen the best of him yet" and "it'd be a shame to see him go". Interesting slant!))

Ender 08-16-2009 09:41 AM

if hockeybuzz has poor rumors on trades and signings then why wouldn't they have poor speculation of GM's opinions?

Le Rosbeef 08-16-2009 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ender (Post 20783185)
if hockeybuzz has poor rumors on trades and signings then why wouldn't they have poor speculation of GM's opinions?

Very fair. I should say I'm not buying wholesale into this as a ratified fact.

I just thought it was an interesting viewpoint from someone (Garner) who seems to get some love on these boards!

Lee Van Cleef* 08-16-2009 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharkyMcWoo (Post 20783190)
Very fair. I should say I'm not buying wholesale into this as a ratified fact.

I just thought it was an interesting viewpoint from someone (Garner) who seems to get some love on these boards!

I hope that was sarcasm.

Le Rosbeef 08-16-2009 10:03 AM

No sarcasm. I'm certainly not the biggest fan of some of the stuff he writes but I've seen several quite defensively toned posts in his favour too.

It's the offseason, eh?

Lee Van Cleef* 08-16-2009 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharkyMcWoo (Post 20783288)
No sarcasm. I'm certainly not the biggest fan of some of the stuff he writes but I've seen several quite defensively toned posts in his favour too.

It's the offseason, eh?

I wish that was sarcasm.

VP and GM 08-16-2009 11:23 AM

Make no mistake as to how hard it is to move vetern players with high salarys in a cap market. We all know DW won't do just any deal as he has certian player(s) he'd want, selling teams may not be ready to move them so patence is required for both sides timeing to match up. As a GM you allways want to get the most in return for players - does this mean DW is over valuing assets and or has become attached to them? History shows he did manage McLaren off the team last season and has made deals for players he wanted in Joe and Boyle. I don't think we paid to much for either at this point in time so i'd have to say he's not over valuing or attached to the players that where moved out.

Don't forget that assets are scouted by other teams and the most of know what's going on with players performance on and off the ice. DW would clearly be selling low with Cheech. Or he could keep him and get his numbers up, proving he's in his prime, and move him for something more in return. I really think cheech would benefit by playing with other players that can set him up more - problem is we have no cap to get that player so we'll probally lose him before the season starts. Given his numbers we'll never get what we could have got for him the year he had all the points, he's probally looked at as a reclaimation project at this point by other GMs.

hockeyball 08-16-2009 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharkyMcWoo (Post 20783288)
No sarcasm. I'm certainly not the biggest fan of some of the stuff he writes but I've seen several quite defensively toned posts in his favour too.

It's the offseason, eh?

Thats usually me.

I'm not a particular fan of Garner's, I just like having anybody writing about the Sharks, good or bad. I don't like how people get on his case for his opinions. If everyone who wrote for the Shark's only talked about the positives it wouldn't be very interesting.

Pinkfloyd 08-16-2009 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeyball (Post 20783823)
Thats usually me.

I'm not a particular fan of Garner's, I just like having anybody writing about the Sharks, good or bad. I don't like how people get on his case for his opinions. If everyone who wrote for the Shark's only talked about the positives it wouldn't be very interesting.

I've always been against this line of thinking. Good or bad isn't the problem when it comes to Garner. It's being properly informed and articulating said opinion with justification. Only in his own world has he ever done that but anyone critically thinking through any of his articles should realize that doesn't happen.

I would rather have nothing said about the Sharks at all if someone can't give an educated opinion about them. That is why I refuse to read anymore of Garner's blogs and believe everyone would be better off if he just stopped writing them.

Sleepy 08-16-2009 02:14 PM

Garner's right, we should trade JT for a 2nd line winger, a 2nd line Dman, and a 4th line center.

Kitten Mittons 08-16-2009 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharkyMcWoo (Post 20783164)
I'm
...As an aside, Eklund said during the same show that he's been hearing this week that Marleau would waive his NTC. Take that for what it's worth!

From Ek's twitter:
Quote:

Just was told that an eastern conference team is trying to convince marleau to come east and will consider flying to meet with him Monday.
Talk to the wife, imbeciles; talk to the wife!!!!

TheGooooch 08-16-2009 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidhye (Post 20785654)
Talk to the wife, imbeciles; talk to the wife!!!!

:laugh:

That team obviously doesn't know how that household is "supposedly" ran (I don't know but commenting on heresay)

Le Rosbeef 08-16-2009 03:47 PM

Says it's New Jersey.

Didn't we look at a deal like this a while ago and realise there's not a lot they could offer us which was of use that they'd likely be willing to give up?

SJeasy 08-16-2009 04:00 PM

Take a look around on GMs who change players with regularity. Their performance is not stellar although they are hailed for their "big" moves. It is for the fans. The steady (hold on to your players) GMs have a big advantage in performance . . . and they know it.

The writers who put this out are rewarded by activity as it generates readership and advertising dollars. How many writers gain readership by praising a team for staying the course? How many writers try to generate a grudge against a player themselves and write about how the GM being too attached because it doesn't serve their agenda?

Fatturdmanshark 08-16-2009 05:39 PM

any team other than SJ, flying anywhere to meet with marleau on monday is blatant tampering..Sorry Eklund...

JonathanK81 08-16-2009 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoundsHansen32 (Post 20786820)
any team other than SJ, flying anywhere to meet with marleau on monday is blatant tampering..Sorry Eklund...

:lol: I laugh at people who have no clue what they're saying. Obviously it's tampering, I'm sure even Eklund knows this. I assume if they are meeting with Marleau, they got permission to do so. Thus it's not tampering. I don't think any of this will happen, but I'm sure it's not tampering, not in this case atleast.

LadyStanley 08-16-2009 05:46 PM

DW has stated he will not "trade for trade's sake" (or just because the media is pushing for "something" or someone to be gone/come).

DW has also stated that if he makes a trade, acquiring a person, he's looking to "upgrade" that person/position (or in another spot on the roster).

I don't recall if he's commented specifically on if a player requested a trade, but he seems the type (and there's a background in the organization) such that he'd do all he can to accommodate any request. (Think of Traverse who was picked up on waivers and then reacquired just before Christmas so he could be with family.)

The organization has worked to get specific players (or types of players) into specific roster spots. If they have excess/surfeit then they might trade those folks away. (Or if they cannot, do their best to give them a great opportunity in the AHL, ala McLaren. Who he tried to "give" away.) But it also allows for the best players to make it to the NHL roster, on merit/skills; no gimmes.

Has DW kept some players longer than he should? In hindsight, yes (in some cases). But not everyone can foresee all aspects of the future.

Does DW over value players? Maybe a little, but he's not about to trade a "decent" player making $2m for a similar player making $5m without some kind of additional incentive.

Is he too attached? I think the longer he's been a GM, the more he's able to look beyond his feelings WRT the players. I hope there's someone in the organization whose opinion he'll listen to and value so that he's not overcome by sentimentality when faced with hard decisions.

This summer, I think the anger and disappointment allowed him the opportunity to take a long look at *every* player in the organization and make hard decisions WRT some by not bringing them back. There still may be players packing for SJ that won't be in the opening night lineup (due to trade).

DW has stated that the team he's looking to put together for this season's run through the playoffs will not be in place until around the trade deadline (early March). So, there could be some key folks in the lineup October 1st who won't be around come April 13.

ToursLepantoVienna 08-16-2009 05:47 PM

Too attached?

To players, maybe. To draft picks, absolutely not.

Fatturdmanshark 08-16-2009 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan360 (Post 20786856)
:lol: I laugh at people who have no clue what they're saying. Obviously it's tampering, I'm sure even Eklund knows this. I assume if they are meeting with Marleau, they got permission to do so. Thus it's not tampering. I don't think any of this will happen, but I'm sure it's not tampering, not in this case atleast.

so youre laughing at what i said as being the fact, but what you assume is somehow more credible? HA!

bigwillie 08-16-2009 05:59 PM

If by "too attached" you mean patient, rational, and level-headed, then yes, DW's too attached. Just because he didn't throw a temper tantrum and trade half the roster after the playoffs doesn't mean he's afraid to make move. He's examining the situation very carefully and is going to do what's truly best for the team, not what will please the fans for the time being.

5H4RK5 08-16-2009 06:01 PM

.............like crazy glue. :D I would show all the loyalty and respect to a player only if they meet the basic criteria of hockey, attitude and production. If they have the attitude but no production, it's time to move on in a kind way. :laugh:

OneTooth 08-16-2009 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 20786879)
DW has stated that the team he's looking to put together for this season's run through the playoffs will not be in place until around the trade deadline (early March). So, there could be some key folks in the lineup October 1st who won't be around come April 13.

I haved a problem with this. I can't imagine it will be good for the moral in the locker room. Can you imagine how PM would play knowing there's a high probability he'll be traded at the deadline? MM, Cheech, etc. as well? The trade rumors would be a huge distraction.

DW is treading dangerous waters. He's already called out the core. If he keeps dragging his feet on finalizing the core he could do more damage than good.

5H4RK5 08-16-2009 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneTooth (Post 20787000)
I haved a problem with this. I can't imagine it will be good for the moral in the locker room. Can you imagine how PM would play knowing there's a high probability he'll be traded at the deadline? MM, Cheech, etc. as well? The trade rumors would be a huge distraction.

DW is treading dangerous waters. He's already called out the core. If he keeps dragging his feet on finalizing the core he could do more damage than good.

That's the business of hockey. Trades happen all the time if the right pieces are available. Every player should do there job to the best effort and usually the outcome is well in the end. :D SJ is definitely one of the most tight nit groups in all the league if not the most which is good because they say that teams that stay together play together..............well. If guys are slacking while others are doing all the work, changes have to be made. If a player does there job and goes above and beyond every time they are on the ice in terms of effort then they shouldn't be worried at all.

JonathanK81 08-16-2009 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoundsHansen32 (Post 20786966)
so youre laughing at what i said as being the fact, but what you assume is somehow more credible? HA!

Yes, exactly. What I said is absolutely more credible. Most if not all GMs would not fly to meet with a player unless they got permission to do so. Why would a GM risk everything to talk to a player without the permission of the team? Simple as that. Again, I doubt they're actually meeting Marleau because I don't think he'll be traded, but I'm sure if they do speak to him, they did seek permission first.

And it's quite simple really, if what Eklund said is true (which is debateable) then Doug Wilson either gave them permission or will be seeking tampering charges. How much do you want to bet that no tampering charges will be filed?

TheGooooch 08-16-2009 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan360 (Post 20787390)
Yes, exactly. What I said is absolutely more credible. Most if not all GMs would not fly to meet with a player unless they got permission to do so. Why would a GM risk everything to talk to a player without the permission of the team? Simple as that. Again, I doubt they're actually meeting Marleau because I don't think he'll be traded, but I'm sure if they do speak to him, they did seek permission first.

You have to get permission. I believe they would be tampering if they didn't get permission, which is punishable by the NHL.

IF any of this actually happened, then I would assume that Marleau is gone. I wouldn't really think that he would want to come back after something of this nature occurs (Wilson going as far as having another teams GM come and try and talk him into coming to their city)

Edit: Jonathan edited his after I quoted him. He might have seen my intelligent response and decided to copy me :sarcasm:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.