HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Doug MacLean picks San Jose to get Zach Parise

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-14-2012, 09:28 PM
  #101
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
He signed another contract with the Sharks after being traded.
So have other players. I don't think that was the criteria being discussed, but if that's the case then the obvious answer would be Thornton.

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 09:31 PM
  #102
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
So have other players. I don't think that was the criteria being discussed, but if that's the case then the obvious answer would be Thornton.
Damphousse too.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 09:38 PM
  #103
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Damphousse too.
And Nolan.

Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 10:49 PM
  #104
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianShark View Post
I remember hearing rumors of Pronger for Marleau straight up when Pronger wanted out of Edmonton. Couldn't imagine Pronger in teal.

Anybody have a list of the most expensive UFAs the Sharks have signed?
Not a list, but I suspect the most expensive UFA with no previous Sharks connection that signed with the Sharks in franchise history was Rob Blake. But of course, he was past his prime when he signed with the Sharks.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 10:51 PM
  #105
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Damphousse too.
So we went from most expensive UFA to most expensive re-signings after being acquired, to just re-signings after being acquired?

I'm kinda curious about the actual question. It can't be old Blake at 5 mil, can it?

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 10:54 PM
  #106
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,387
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
So we went from most expensive UFA to most expensive re-signings after being acquired, to just re-signings after being acquired?

I'm kinda curious about the actual question. It can't be old Blake at 5 mil, can it?
That was my answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Niclas Wallin at $2.65M.

Rob Blake, I would guess.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 10:54 PM
  #107
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
So we went from most expensive UFA to most expensive re-signings after being acquired, to just re-signings after being acquired?

I'm kinda curious about the actual question. It can't be old Blake at 5 mil, can it?
It's what happens when people don't want to accept that an elite UFA in his prime with no previous connection here has never signed with the Sharks in franchise history, and there is no reason to think it is about to start now. Hockey media experts don't even realize this fact, that's why they link many elite UFA's to us, when really they should only stick to linking elite trade candidates to us.

As to the actual question, what other UFA with no previous connection to the team got more than 5 mil/per in a contract with the Sharks? I really think Blake is the one to get the most per year in a contract as a UFA signing with the Sharks with no previous connection to the Sharks.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 11:00 PM
  #108
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,387
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
It's what happens when people don't want to accept that an elite UFA in his prime with no previous connection here has never signed with the Sharks in franchise history, and there is no reason to think it is about to start now. Hockey media experts don't even realize this fact, that's why they link many elite UFA's to us, when really they should only stick to linking elite trade candidates to us.

As to the actual question, what other UFA with no previous connection to the team got more than 5 mil/per in a contract with the Sharks? I really think Blake is the one to get the most per year in a contract as a UFA signing with the Sharks with no previous connection to the Sharks.
B-b-but Gary Suter!!11!

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 11:00 PM
  #109
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
B-b-but Gary Suter!!11!
I know you are joking, but Suter's rights were traded to the Sharks on that draft day (forget what year, edit: 1998 draft day) and then he signed on July 1. I can't be the only person who remembers that (but I guess that makes me seem old lol).

Even if Gary Suter counts (which it doesn't IMHO), only elite UFA's with no previous connection have signed with the Sharks have been past their prime...Granato...Nicholls...Blake, etc.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 11:08 PM
  #110
Rickety Cricket
Registered User
 
Rickety Cricket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not Kent Huskins
Country: United States
Posts: 28,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
I know you are joking, but Suter's rights were traded to the Sharks on that draft day (forget what year, edit: 1998 draft day) and then he signed on July 1. I can't be the only person who remembers that (but I guess that makes me seem old lol).

Even if Gary Suter counts (which it doesn't IMHO), only elite UFA's with no previous connection have signed with the Sharks have been past their prime...Granato...Nicholls...Blake, etc.
Kelly Hrudey.


Are we really listing free agent signings 14-15 years ago lol.

Rickety Cricket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 11:13 PM
  #111
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickety Cricket View Post
Kelly Hrudey.


Are we really listing free agent signings 14-15 years ago lol.
Just to make a point. IMHO, since elite UFA's in their prime with no connection here have ever signed with the Sharks, there is no point in discussing. IMHO, it's like discussing whether the Sharks will play any games next season on the moon. But again, IMHO.

As to hockey media, when they discuss where elite UFA's in their prime with no prev Sharks connection will go, and they want to say they'll go the Sharks, they need to acknowledge that the Sharks landing such a player is extremely unlikely given the history (which hockey media never seems to know since they think since elite players who get traded here love it, that somehow means elite UFA's with no connection will want to be here too. Doesn't work that way, as Sharks franchise history has shown) and would be a first in franchise history. Without that, these articles saying Parise or Suter or whomever of that ilk is going to the Sharks (unless they played here before) has no credability whatsoever.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 11:19 PM
  #112
Rickety Cricket
Registered User
 
Rickety Cricket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not Kent Huskins
Country: United States
Posts: 28,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
Just to make a point. IMHO, since elite UFA's in their prime with no connection here have ever signed with the Sharks, there is no point in discussing. IMHO, it's like discussing whether the Sharks will play any games next season on the moon. But again, IMHO.

As to hockey media, when they discuss where elite UFA's in their prime with no prev Sharks connection will go, and they want to say they'll go the Sharks, they need to acknowledge that the Sharks landing such a player is extremely unlikely given the history (which hockey media never seems to know since they think since elite players who get traded here love it, that somehow means elite UFA's with no connection will want to be here too. Doesn't work that way, as Sharks franchise history has shown) and would be a first in franchise history. Without that, these articles saying Parise or Suter or whomever of that ilk is going to the Sharks (unless they played here before) has no credability whatsoever.
Oh I know, its just sad we have to reach that far back

Rickety Cricket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 11:24 PM
  #113
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,981
vCash: 500
Burns may have been traded here, but he signed an extension before even playing a game for us. Things are not the same as in the past. We still may not sign any big time UFA's this season, but the decision will have little to do with our long time history. We are a different team with different owners. There just isn't much out there and many teams will be vying for their services, they may not want to come here and they may want a salary/term the Sharks shouldn't pay. That's if they don't re-sign with their current teams.

IMHO of course

Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 11:32 PM
  #114
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
It's what happens when people don't want to accept that an elite UFA in his prime with no previous connection here
I think it's what happens when people misread the question.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 01:56 AM
  #115
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
So have other players. I don't think that was the criteria being discussed, but if that's the case then the obvious answer would be Thornton.
Fine I was wrong about Selane. I forgot he was traded. Ok then Blake is the most high profile that I can remember. Was Rici an UFA? I believe there still might have been some buzz around him. At least high hopes


Last edited by WantonAbandon: 06-15-2012 at 02:02 AM.
WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 02:04 AM
  #116
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
B-b-but Gary Suter!!11!
Actually I think that works. At the time he probably was about the same caliber UFA as Blake

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 05:23 AM
  #117
vilpertti
Registered User
 
vilpertti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Was Rici an UFA?
Ricci was from the top of my head a first rounder and Shean Donovan for Ricci and a second rounder.

vilpertti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 08:27 AM
  #118
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,609
vCash: 500
This discussion is why I wouldnt mind if Suter or Parise rights are traded for (within reason). The Sharks have a pretty good history of signing players once they've gotten them on location (Burns for instance) and talked to them face to face. If you get a players rights you can generally fly them out and show them around before discussing a contract, often this is all that's needed.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 12:39 PM
  #119
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
This discussion is why I wouldnt mind if Suter or Parise rights are traded for (within reason). The Sharks have a pretty good history of signing players once they've gotten them on location (Burns for instance) and talked to them face to face. If you get a players rights you can generally fly them out and show them around before discussing a contract, often this is all that's needed.
I'm on board, but these days such trades for rights aren't just for a 7th rounder, right? Didn't the Yotes trade Bryz' rights to Philly for a 3rd? If so, that's a steep price.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 12:42 PM
  #120
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Actually I think that works. At the time he probably was about the same caliber UFA as Blake
It doesn't work for the reason I pointed out: Sharks traded for his rights prior to signing him.

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/..._Jose_Sharks/6

Quote:
San Jose Sharks acquire Date Chicago Blackhawks acquire
rights to Gary Suter

June 27, 1998 1998 9th round pick (#240-Andrei Yershov)

So Suter was not a UFA signed with no connection to the team. Technically he was re-signed. My point was about guys who were not traded for and then re-signed, or rights traded for and then signed (like G. Suter), but guys just simply signed with no previous Sharks connection as of July 1 of that UFA period.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 01:01 PM
  #121
Hold the Pickles
Registered User
 
Hold the Pickles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 03-K64
Country: United States
Posts: 2,947
vCash: 500
Wasn't DL trading for the rights of Suter, the 1st time that had happened. IDK, but I remember Bettmen not liking us for a few years after that.

Hold the Pickles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 01:05 PM
  #122
Falco5
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
It doesn't work for the reason I pointed out: Sharks traded for his rights prior to signing him.

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/..._Jose_Sharks/6




So Suter was not a UFA signed with no connection to the team. Technically he was re-signed. My point was about guys who were not traded for and then re-signed, or rights traded for and then signed (like G. Suter), but guys just simply signed with no previous Sharks connection as of July 1 of that UFA period.
I agree that the the sharks should not be expected to sign a big name free agent on July 1st if they did not own that player's rights prior to then. However I don't believe that is because San Jose is not an attractive place to play. Burns' contract goes completely against that. When he signed his extension he had not played in San Jose yet he still had a desire to sign a long term contract to play for the sharks.

I believe the reason the sharks don't make these signings is because that is not how they do business. Whether it's DW's choice or the ownership's, there is appears to be a philosophy coming from with in the organization that big free agents signings on the 1st are not good decisions.

Falco5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 01:10 PM
  #123
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,935
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falco5 View Post
I agree that the the sharks should not be expected to sign a big name free agent on July 1st if they did not own that player's rights prior to then. However I don't believe that is because San Jose is not an attractive place to play. Burns' contract goes completely against that. When he signed his extension he had not played in San Jose yet he still had a desire to sign a long term contract to play for the sharks.

I believe the reason the sharks don't make these signings is because that is not how they do business. Whether it's DW's choice or the ownership's, there is appears to be a philosophy coming from with in the organization that big free agents signings on the 1st are not good decisions.
I disagree only because we know over franchise history about offers made to elite UFA's (With no connection here) and they many didn't seriously want to come here or if they did, had some lame reason for not coming here.

I just don't see how you can discount, over franchise history, the notion that players from the east see San Jose as "no man's land" and europeans see (rightfully) San Jose as very very far away from home. Not to mention that SJ has a horrendous travel schedule year in and year out. Edmonton especially suffers from this as well, so I am not suggesting SJ is the only team with such a problem.

As to Burns, that goes to the point that when people are brought into the fold, in whatever manner, they get sold on SJ for many reasons. They come here, meet with DW, see how awesome SJ/Bay really is. But when it's SJ vs. Chicago vs. Boston vs. Buffalo vs. Washington, with no previous connection here, we get lost in the mix, and I believe it's because of geography (mostly for family reasons, but also travel). No chance to even get sold on SJ when those other cities automatically have a better sell for players from the East or Europe.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 01:30 PM
  #124
Falco5
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
I disagree only because we know over franchise history about offers made to elite UFA's (With no connection here) and they many didn't seriously want to come here or if they did, had some lame reason for not coming here.

I just don't see how you can discount, over franchise history, the notion that players from the east see San Jose as "no man's land" and europeans see (rightfully) San Jose as very very far away from home. Not to mention that SJ has a horrendous travel schedule year in and year out. Edmonton especially suffers from this as well, so I am not suggesting SJ is the only team with such a problem.

As to Burns, that goes to the point that when people are brought into the fold, in whatever manner, they get sold on SJ for many reasons. They come here, meet with DW, see how awesome SJ/Bay really is. But when it's SJ vs. Chicago vs. Boston vs. Buffalo vs. Washington, with no previous connection here, we get lost in the mix, and I believe it's because of geography (mostly for family reasons, but also travel). No chance to even get sold on SJ when those other cities automatically have a better sell for players from the East or Europe.
I understand how that might have been the case in the past, but I think the draw of playing for a cup contender makes players want to be on the team. I think both Heatly and Nash are examples of this. Both had/have expressed a desire to play for san jose. There are downsides to playing for the sharks for sure, but there are positives as well. I don't believe the DW makes everyone drink the kool-aid theory. I think if the sharks wanted to they could now roll out the red carpet and sign a big name free agent if his priorities aligned with what the sharks have to offer (mostly winning).

Falco5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 06:18 PM
  #125
sharski
Registered User
 
sharski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,365
vCash: 500
everyone thinks they can be the guy that gets the Sharks over the top and win the cup and earn eternal glory while living in the paradise that is the bay area



then they get here, realize how much help we need, and they're like

sharski 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 04:39 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.