HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

2012 First Pick

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-21-2012, 02:50 PM
  #26
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
I see two players on that list still in the org, and one of them is a bust.



Good god, no way in hell does the first overall get you Brent Burns and 17th overall.
So what he went pretty far back.... turnover is a reality of the league. Patrick Marleaus situation is really rare.

Fact is their last two out of three first round draft picks are still playing for them. One has scored 60 goals for them and one still has a shot at the big show. Seven years is a long time to go back....


Last edited by WantonAbandon: 05-21-2012 at 02:56 PM.
WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 02:52 PM
  #27
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
I see two players on that list still in the org, and one of them is a bust.



Good god, no way in hell does the first overall get you Brent Burns and 17th overall.
It just might.... You have to think about the orgs needs. Bret Burns would have been a solid top ten pick who is ready to go and can probably help them more.... plus they get another 1st on top of that. The oilers don't need another young forward nearly as much as they need a PMD.

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 02:56 PM
  #28
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,225
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
It just might.... You have to think about the orgs needs. Bret Burns would have been a solid top ten pick who is ready to go and can probably help them more.... plus they get another 1st on top of that. The oilers don't need another young forward nearly as much as they need a PMD.
It's bad from a Sharks point of view.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 02:58 PM
  #29
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
It's bad from a Sharks point of view.
Well thats not what I am advocating. I'm just saying that move would likely work. I assume you agree since you feel it would be a bad trade for the Sharks.

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 03:03 PM
  #30
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Well thats not what I am advocating. I'm just saying that move would likely work. I assume you agree since you feel it would be a bad trade for the Sharks.
Sharks wouldn't offer it, so it's irrelevant. Defensemen are more valuable than forwards generally speaking, and Burns is on the cusp of #1 d-man status, young, and signed long term cheap. He is probably the most valuable player on the Sharks value wise behind only Couture.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 03:13 PM
  #31
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,606
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
I think you may be underestimating the Oils need for a defenseman when compared to another high forward prospect. Bret Burns plus the Sharks number one may just about do it. The sharks may not want to do that....
Sure the Oilers need a defenseman but the original proposal involved Braun or Demers in a package. The only way you even start a conversation with the Oilers about the #1 with that as the center piece is by putting up Boyle, Burns, or Vlasic on the table. The Sharks aren't about to do that unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 03:26 PM
  #32
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,225
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Well thats not what I am advocating. I'm just saying that move would likely work. I assume you agree since you feel it would be a bad trade for the Sharks.
Why would you offer it if it's bad for the Sharks then.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 04:14 PM
  #33
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,595
vCash: 500
For those that are interested, here is a clearer picture of what has happened to the Sharks first round picks since DW took the reigns.

2003 Michalek 6th - (Needed immediate impact player) (Traded with Cheechoo for Heatley)

2003 Bernier 16th - Traded Brian Campbell, 2008 seventh round pick (#194-Drew Daniels) to Sharks for Steve Bernier, 2008 first round pick (#26-Tyler Ennis) on 2008-02-26

2004 Kaspar 22nd
- TSN Ranking 25th (BUST)

2005 Setoguchi 8th - Traded Brent Burns, 2012 second round pick (?-?) to Sharks for Devin Setoguchi, Charlie Coyle, 2011 first round pick (#28-Zack Phillips) on 2011-06-24

2006 Wishart 16th - TSN Ranking 19th - Traded Dan Boyle, Brad Lukowich to Sharks for Matt Carle, Ty Wishart, 2009 first round pick (#26-Kyle Palmieri), 2010 fourth round pick (#118-James Mullin) on 2008-07-04

2007 Couture 9th - TSN Ranking 19th - Sharks - The Toskala, Bell Trade

2007 Petrecki 28th - TSN Ranking 14th - AHL Sharks

2008 Traded Pick 26th - Traded Brian Campbell, 2008 seventh round pick (#194-Drew Daniels) to Sharks for Steve Bernier, 2008 first round pick (#26-Tyler Ennis) on 2008-02-26

2009 Traded Pick 26th - Traded Dan Boyle, Brad Lukowich to Sharks for Matt Carle, Ty Wishart, 2009 first round pick (#26-Kyle Palmieri), 2010 fourth round pick (#118-James Mullin) on 2008-07-04

2010 Coyle 28th - TSN Not Ranked in top 30 - Traded to Wild with Seto and 2011 First round pick (#28-Zack Phillips) for Brent Burns and 2012 second round pick (?-?)

2011 Traded Pick 28th - Traded Brent Burns, 2012 second round pick (?-?) to Sharks for Devin Setoguchi, Charlie Coyle, 2011 first round pick (#28-Zack Phillips) on 2011-06-24

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.

Last edited by Led Zappa: 05-21-2012 at 04:24 PM.
Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 04:16 PM
  #34
Mafoofoo
:facepalm:
 
Mafoofoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 12,883
vCash: 500
LZ why do you have Vlasic listed in the first round pick list?

Mafoofoo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 04:23 PM
  #35
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mafoofoo View Post
LZ why do you have Vlasic listed in the first round pick list?
It was done by the person I originally copied before modifying it. I've removed it.

Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 06:26 PM
  #36
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,577
vCash: 500
If we had the 1st overall DW probably would skip Yakupov and pick Murray anyway...

Canadian? Check!
Defensemen? Check!

That would be funny, if I wasn't a Sharks fan...

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 06:34 PM
  #37
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
It just might.... You have to think about the orgs needs. Bret Burns would have been a solid top ten pick who is ready to go and can probably help them more.... plus they get another 1st on top of that. The oilers don't need another young forward nearly as much as they need a PMD.
When Jux says the first overall doesn't get you Brent Burns and our first, she means that that is a huge overpayment for the 1st overall pick. Not the other way around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
I'm just saying that move would likely work. I assume you agree since you feel it would be a bad trade for the Sharks.
No it doesn't work, because it's an extremely bad trade for the Sharks. Oilers take that trade and run, so I don't know where you're getting the "it might work for the Oilers".

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 06:45 PM
  #38
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,225
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
If we had the 1st overall DW probably would skip Yakupov and pick Murray anyway...

Canadian? Check!
Defensemen? Check!

That would be funny, if I wasn't a Sharks fan...
Come on dude. Let's be reality.

Cody Ceci, first overall.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2012, 09:00 PM
  #39
Mafoofoo
:facepalm:
 
Mafoofoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 12,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Come on dude. Let's be reality.

Cody Ceci, first overall.
DW would bring glory to the 67's.

Mafoofoo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2012, 03:52 PM
  #40
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
The Sharks don't have the assets to trade for the #1 pick, unless it's Couture+Vlasic+1st going back, and that would ruin our team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Why would you offer it if it's bad for the Sharks then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
When Jux says the first overall doesn't get you Brent Burns and our first, she means that that is a huge overpayment for the 1st overall pick. Not the other way around.



No it doesn't work, because it's an extremely bad trade for the Sharks. Oilers take that trade and run, so I don't know where you're getting the "it might work for the Oilers".
Well let me put it to you this way. Burns plus a first is a heck of a lot cheaper then Couture Vlasic and a First. Where I'm getting "it" is through simple reading comprehension. I really don't know how good that hypothetically cheaper deal would be. It really depends on who is available in the early rounds. I don't know enough about em to really make an opinion.

As for Burns being on the Cusp of a number one.... Vlasic had more TOI. I'm not sure he really is all that close, but he has improved.

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2012, 04:09 PM
  #41
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,225
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Well let me put it to you this way. Burns plus a first is a heck of a lot cheaper then Couture Vlasic and a First. Where I'm getting "it" is through simple reading comprehension. I really don't know how good that hypothetically cheaper deal would be. It really depends on who is available in the early rounds. I don't know enough about em to really make an opinion.

As for Burns being on the Cusp of a number one.... Vlasic had more TOI. I'm not sure he really is all that close, but he has improved.
Burns is a #1 now as far as I'm concerned with how he played the second half of the year. And Vlasic is a #2 no matter how you slice it. Suter always plays more TOI than Weber, but Weber is the #1, right?

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2012, 04:51 PM
  #42
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Well let me put it to you this way. Burns plus a first is a heck of a lot cheaper then Couture Vlasic and a First. Where I'm getting "it" is through simple reading comprehension. I really don't know how good that hypothetically cheaper deal would be. It really depends on who is available in the early rounds. I don't know enough about em to really make an opinion.

As for Burns being on the Cusp of a number one.... Vlasic had more TOI. I'm not sure he really is all that close, but he has improved.
That's because Vlasic is better defensively and we played a LOT of one goal games this season.

You are implying that Vlasic is a better overall player than Burns, and I'm pretty sure if you made a poll on the main board of which was better it would be a landslide for Burns.

Burns would be the #1 on at least half the teams in the league. He's only not on our team because of Boyle, and he's getting old. I think next season is going to be a big season for Burns.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 02:03 PM
  #43
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
That's because Vlasic is better defensively and we played a LOT of one goal games this season.

You are implying that Vlasic is a better overall player than Burns, and I'm pretty sure if you made a poll on the main board of which was better it would be a landslide for Burns.

Burns would be the #1 on at least half the teams in the league. He's only not on our team because of Boyle, and he's getting old. I think next season is going to be a big season for Burns.
Could be, but he isn't there yet. He still hasn't been able to fill 40 year old Blake's skates yet. At forty Blake was the superior defenseman. Depending on how you define #1, Boyle might not quite be there.... With that said I typically go by TOI to define the Defense pecking order on a particular team. Now you could bring up that Burns had significantly more TOI than Vlasic during the Post Season... although that was a pretty short sample of games

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 02:26 PM
  #44
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Could be, but he isn't there yet. He still hasn't been able to fill 40 year old Blake's skates yet. At forty Blake was the superior defenseman. Depending on how you define #1, Boyle might not quite be there.... With that said I typically go by TOI to define the Defense pecking order on a particular team. Now you could bring up that Burns had significantly more TOI than Vlasic during the Post Season... although that was a pretty short sample of games
Better to go with TOI. But I bet you would find that Burns got more TOI in games where the Sharks were trailing. Same thing for Braun over White. My take is that without Boyle, Burns would be seeing 23-24min. Just a notch short of the full 24min for first pairing. Burns is likely on the knife edge of consideration for Canadian Olympic team consideration. I would put anyone on their Olympic team in the first pairing category. Not the same for the Worlds team.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.