HFBoards

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

2013 Off-Season Armchair GM Thread Part V

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-09-2013, 01:01 AM
  #51
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Hey PF, when did Carolina win their 2nd cup...?

I was being generous and giving them credit for a good season when they lost in the finals...

NWShark* is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 01:27 AM
  #52
Gene Parmesan
Ice up, son.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 29,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdock1116 View Post
Probably, but he could still maybe be a 30-35 point guy. Plus this makes me smile everytime I watch it.

He can't keep up anymore. No denying hes been an SJ killer and had a great career but i'd rather look elsewhere if i'm DW.

Gene Parmesan is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 01:30 AM
  #53
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,419
vCash: 500
I always say that winning the cup is never luck.

Carolina...however...well, it is definitely one of the weaker teams to win in recent memory. They had fantastic goaltending, but what team wins the cup with that kind of center depth and defensive core? They had the benefit of playing in the year after some major rule changes were made, really putting everyone in a state of flux.

Plus, New Jersey, Buffalo and Edmonton absolutely collapsed against them. For sure, that doesn't excuse the play of those three teams, and kudos to Carolina for being able to seal the deal even with the advantage, but that is not something you usually see. There was little adversity for Carolina to overcome. That certainly was not a team that was put through a grinder in the postseason. In contrast to the teams that have won it since then.

A more appropriate comparison to the Sharks would be the Ducks. They've had years(plural) of success combined with years of abysmal results, in-and-out. That would be preferable to the Sharks's record.

Looking back, I'd have to say that perhaps the worst decision DW/the Sharks ever made was to stick with Ron Wilson, their prospect defensemen, and Nabokov/Toskala all those years.

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 01:35 AM
  #54
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
Looking back, I'd have to say that perhaps the worst decision DW/the Sharks ever made was to stick with Ron Wilson, their prospect defensemen, and Nabokov/Toskala all those years.
I'm sure in a few years you'll be saying the worst decision DW/the Sharks ever made was to stick with Todd McLellan, their prospect defensemen, and Niemi all those years.

Kitten Mittons is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 01:47 AM
  #55
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitten Mittons View Post
I'm sure in a few years you'll be saying the worst decision DW/the Sharks ever made was to stick with Todd McLellan, their prospect defensemen, and Niemi all those years.
What I mean is that if DW had not put his trust in Carle/Ehrhoff/Vlasic from the start, perhaps the Sharks acquire Chris Pronger, or Dan Boyle earlier than they did. If the Sharks had had Tmac from '06, maybe Thornton develops his two-way game earlier (and Marleau doesn't stink up in '2008). With a better goaltender, Sharks might have advanced in 2006, 2007, and 2009.

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 02:05 AM
  #56
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,520
vCash: 500
Carle/Ehrhoff/Vlasic was a solid bunch though, I can't blame him, and they have tried acquiring Pronger anyway. I am also not sure that TMac is responsible for Thornton's game change; and Marleau's 2008 playoffs wasn't bad. And Nemo can be blamed just as Nabby was - he's been outplayed by every goaltender we lost to.

Kitten Mittons is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 02:44 AM
  #57
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitten Mittons View Post
Carle/Ehrhoff/Vlasic was a solid bunch though, I can't blame him, and they have tried acquiring Pronger anyway. I am also not sure that TMac is responsible for Thornton's game change; and Marleau's 2008 playoffs wasn't bad. And Nemo can be blamed just as Nabby was - he's been outplayed by every goaltender we lost to.
True, it is hard to fault him for Carle/Ehrhoff/Vlasic, because he played the "odds" fairly well. However, in retrospect, Carle + assets for Pronger is a trade he should 100% have made.

The popular story with Tmac/Thornton is that Thornton came to Tmac asking him how he can change his game. I do think that Thornton really improved his game in 2007-2008.

I don't quite agree with Niemi. In general, I feel he's strong in the clutch. The Sharks had no business winning against Vancouver and St.Louis. Los Angeles, I will grant you. A little better play from him in game 7 and the Sharks advance. But I wouldn't fault him for any other loss in that series.

When was the last series where Nabokov was a difference-maker on the positive side of things? Maybe Calgary in 2008....

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 02:51 AM
  #58
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
A little better play from him in game 7 and the Sharks advance. But I wouldn't fault him for any other loss in that series.
I wouldn't even fault him for that 2-1 loss in Game 7. The first goal was a PP goal with a fluke bounce off the boards, and the 2nd goal was just absolute terrible defense by Boyle and Irwin. Irwin gave up the blue-line so easily, and both of them didn't cover the cross-ice pass at all.

WTFetus is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 02:58 AM
  #59
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
I wouldn't even fault him for that 2-1 loss in Game 7. The first goal was a PP goal with a fluke bounce off the boards, and the 2nd goal was just absolute terrible defense by Boyle and Irwin. Irwin gave up the blue-line so easily, and both of them didn't cover the cross-ice pass at all.
Sometimes, the goaltender has to be able to make that save. Especially that first goal...had Niemi been flush against the post that doesn't go in. It wasn't like it was the stanchion-bouncer of Bieksa.

You can kind of lay similar blame at his feet for game 2. If he just makes one save on the late-game powerplays, it goes to OT and maybe the Sharks pull one out.

Don't get me wrong, no blame goes to him in the other two losses, and he was dynamite in the Sharks's wins.

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 07:14 AM
  #60
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
I always say that winning the cup is never luck.
Staal was an absolute stud, Whitney played great, they rolled 3 scoring lines and had great play from their D and the goalie was great. Didn't get too injured too.

That being said, it's almost always luck and will especially be so in the era of the cap as parity has completely taken over the league. Teams just don't dominate like they did even back in the early nineties. You can probably blame the trap and clutch and grab hockey on that as well.

You can find something lucky about almost every team thats won the cup in the last 30 years. Lack of injuries, opponents missing open nets, opponents suffering important injuries... the list is lengthy.

NWShark* is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 07:18 AM
  #61
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
When was the last series where Nabokov was a difference-maker on the positive side of things? Maybe Calgary in 2008....
Nabby was outstanding against Dallas in the next round too but the team decided to not score anymore other than Patty (seems like a familiar story...). That was Nabby's vezina nomination year. He was not the problem. Scoring, as it always was in the playoffs when Nabby was here, was the problem.

NWShark* is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 07:20 AM
  #62
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
Sometimes, the goaltender has to be able to make that save. Especially that first goal...had Niemi been flush against the post that doesn't go in. It wasn't like it was the stanchion-bouncer of Bieksa.

You can kind of lay similar blame at his feet for game 2. If he just makes one save on the late-game powerplays, it goes to OT and maybe the Sharks pull one out.

Don't get me wrong, no blame goes to him in the other two losses, and he was dynamite in the Sharks's wins.
Sorry but no, you have to score to win. The difference in wins and losses wasn't the goalie, it was the skaters.

NWShark* is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 08:23 AM
  #63
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,963
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Hey PF, when did Carolina win their 2nd cup...?

I was being generous and giving them credit for a good season when they lost in the finals...
Whether it's two or one, it makes no difference when you're comparing it to a team with zero. I'd take what the Canes have done over the last ten years over what the Sharks have done in the same time frame in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even think twice about it. I can't see a reasonable argument against that because again sports is about championships, not your win-loss record.


Last edited by ThirdManIn: 07-09-2013 at 11:18 AM. Reason: don't make it personal
Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 09:34 AM
  #64
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Whether it's two or one, it makes no difference when you're comparing it to a team with zero. I'd take what the Canes have done over the last ten years over what the Sharks have done in the same time frame in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even think twice about it. I can't see a reasonable argument against that because again sports is about championships, not your win-loss record.
I'm looking at it from a fans point of view. I would much rather watch the sharks over the last 20 years than the canes over the last 30...

Here's the real deal. THere is luck involved in winning a cup. I would rather have a chance every year to win it instead of basically hoping for the stars to align once in 34 years... the difference between Carolina and the sharks? Carolina plays lotto and happened to win once. The sharks are investing intelligently and slowly building their fortune. It may not pay off for them anytime soon but the have a pretty enjoyable life while also having a shot at the brass ring every year. The more chances you have the better your odds.

But go ahead, feel free to think trading corner stone players away is somehow helpful.


Last edited by ThirdManIn: 07-09-2013 at 11:18 AM. Reason: flaming
NWShark* is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 09:49 AM
  #65
FeedingFrenzy
Registered User
 
FeedingFrenzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
I'm looking at it from a fans point of view. I would much rather watch the sharks over the last 20 years than the canes over the last 30...


Here's the real deal. THere is luck involved in winning a cup. I would rather have a chance every year to win it instead of basically hoping for the stars to align once in 34 years... the difference between Carolina and the sharks? Carolina plays lotto and happened to win once. The sharks are investing intelligently and slowly building their fortune. It may not pay off for them anytime soon but the have a pretty enjoyable life while also having a shot at the brass ring every year. The more chances you have the better your odds.
There is alot of WIN in this post...Hard to disagree with you NWS..I too like my team in the PO's each and every year..Being competitive makes it enjoyable as a fan..


Last edited by ThirdManIn: 07-09-2013 at 11:19 AM. Reason: quote
FeedingFrenzy is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 10:01 AM
  #66
FeedingFrenzy
Registered User
 
FeedingFrenzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Well, at least that's a good excuse.

Seriously though, people get so crazy the instant you speculate, especially about a fan favorite player. I love Joe Thornton, he is a great guy and the greatest player to ever play for our team, but my sentimentality for him has nothing to do with what is best for the team. I'm not suggesting we buy him out or dump him or something. I was suggesting, given a particular set of circumstances (if it comes down to JT or Pavs basically) we trade Thornton for a fairly significant return and start setting this team up for the next decade.

By the responses you would think I suggested someone knife him and leave him in a gutter somewhere. I have a Thornton jersey ffs, I love the guy. (It's a replica though... my Marleau jersey is authentic )

Why would it come to this though? $$ isnt an issue. Pavs is no spring chicken(29). And if JT is "declining" as you put it, what makes you think you'll get a "fairly significant return " for a 36/37yr old?? Unless you are trading JT this summer..






Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatrick Marleau View Post
I think JT will play at a higher level than Pavs for at least 5 more years. Jumbo's game isn't speed based, it is based on his playmaking ability which isn't likely to vastly decline. If we could only keep Pavs or JT I would trade Pavs.


JT is on a level all his own, Pavs is good.





Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
While he has had injury problems, I think that in a vacuum, Stalock has done enough to merit a look as an NHL backup. Sateri may come in and surprise, but he also hasn't earned an NHL slot.

So if Sateri comes in and outplays Stalock, the Sharks should trade Stalock.



Wouldn't you say that Thornton is the smartest of the lot? He easily has the most hockey sense.

It is just that, Pavelski isn't 22. He's 29. He's a very good player in the prime, but given his size and history, I don't think he has more than 6-7 years of hockey in him. Thornton would appear to be leaving his prime, but I could easily see him having 5 more years of relevance.Of course, this is just in regards to Thornton vs. Pavelski. In reality, you try to keep them both.



FeedingFrenzy is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 10:22 AM
  #67
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeedingFrenzy View Post
Why would it come to this though? $$ isnt an issue. Pavs is no spring chicken(29). And if JT is "declining" as you put it, what makes you think you'll get a "fairly significant return " for a 36/37yr old?? Unless you are trading JT this summer..

Money is certainly an issue, we will be right up against the cap next season with no additions the way it's looking. It's do-able, but there is little to no flexibility there.

As for why it would come to this, I have explained that in exhaustive detail which you are choosing to ignore. I am not going to explain. Make a tiny effort and read back.

Joe Thornton will be 35 next year and he's still a #1c and a ton of teams lack a true #1c. He has significant value.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 10:36 AM
  #68
vilpertti
Registered User
 
vilpertti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Whether it's two or one, it makes no difference when you're comparing it to a team with zero. I'd take what the Canes have done over the last ten years over what the Sharks have done in the same time frame in a heartbeat. Wouldn't even think twice about it. I can't see a reasonable argument against that because again sports is about championships, not your win-loss record. Someone who has 'played the game' should know that.
But beforehand, like plans are made by people in charge, not knowing what is going to happen 100% certain, you want a plan that maximizes winning potential. The mathematical way of looking at this is to maximize win%.

Of course it's easier to look at things afterwards and go: "yeah, this was better, that won a championship".

vilpertti is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 11:03 AM
  #69
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Staal was an absolute stud, Whitney played great, they rolled 3 scoring lines and had great play from their D and the goalie was great. Didn't get too injured too.

That being said, it's almost always luck and will especially be so in the era of the cap as parity has completely taken over the league. Teams just don't dominate like they did even back in the early nineties. You can probably blame the trap and clutch and grab hockey on that as well.
Even back in the early 90s, save for Lemieux's Penguins, teams didn't really "dominate". They didn't blow out teams every game. They won a *lot* of close games. Stanley Cup winners should be able to do the same.

Plus, we've seen some very strong teams over the past few years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
You can find something lucky about almost every team thats won the cup in the last 30 years. Lack of injuries, opponents missing open nets, opponents suffering important injuries... the list is lengthy.
I always say that typically, in the playoffs, the best team manages to win. You don't play a one-off series. It is a 7 game series; over the course of those 7 games the "best" team is going to win the majority of the time.

Injuries can change who is "best", but as always, it holds that teams play injured in the playoffs.

My issue with Carolina's run is that they played one team that utterly collapsed, one team that had one of the most injured roster's I've ever seen in a conference final contestant, and one team whose backbone went down. You very rarely see that kind of stark differences.

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 11:05 AM
  #70
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Nabby was outstanding against Dallas in the next round too but the team decided to not score anymore other than Patty (seems like a familiar story...). That was Nabby's vezina nomination year. He was not the problem. Scoring, as it always was in the playoffs when Nabby was here, was the problem.
I remember very well, Nabokov had a terrible first two games, putting San Jose in the hole. Even that third game, the OT loss, I thought he played well. But in the end, you even wanted more from him in that game.

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 11:07 AM
  #71
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,963
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
I'm looking at it from a fans point of view. I would much rather watch the sharks over the last 20 years than the canes over the last 30...


Here's the real deal. THere is luck involved in winning a cup. I would rather have a chance every year to win it instead of basically hoping for the stars to align once in 34 years... the difference between Carolina and the sharks? Carolina plays lotto and happened to win once. The sharks are investing intelligently and slowly building their fortune. It may not pay off for them anytime soon but the have a pretty enjoyable life while also having a shot at the brass ring every year. The more chances you have the better your odds.
Carolina played the lotto and won and the Sharks are investing intelligently? You really want to sell yourself the bs, don't you? Just because you make the playoffs doesn't really mean you have a shot at winning it all. That's just what people tell themselves to make them feel better when they lose to a better team.

The cornerstone guys haven't gotten the job done through their prime. That's the bottom line. This team isn't going to get much better than what it is and what it is right now is not a team that is capable of winning four rounds.


Last edited by ThirdManIn: 07-09-2013 at 11:19 AM. Reason: quote/reply
Pinkfloyd is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 11:20 AM
  #72
ThirdManIn
Mod Supervisor
 
ThirdManIn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 43,751
vCash: 500
Do not make it personal. Discuss the post, not the poster. This is pretty basic stuff.

ThirdManIn is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 11:31 AM
  #73
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,308
vCash: 500
I don't really want to emulate Carolina but they did win. Their drafting is pathetic, one of the worst in the league. They use the Plymouth Whalers like DW uses the 67s and the Massachusetts area.

What they did to win was that they switched coaches to run and gun with the rule change. They stacked the offense. Two reclamation projects, Stillman and Whitney, were perfect setup guys for the offense that they ran. Cullen is an offensive 3C. Throw in Weight and Recchi at the deadline. Ward wasn't Vezina caliber even in the playoffs, but he was a quality goalie who could stop odd-mans. Their defense on paper was atrocious. If anything, the parallel I would run to the Sharks is that the Sharks defense/goaltending isn't good enough to win it New Jersey style and that it would be wise to go for it with an all-out offense.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 11:36 AM
  #74
Dicdonya
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Sorry but no, you have to score to win. The difference in wins and losses wasn't the goalie, it was the skaters.
This. It's why I can't fathom why we would rid ourselves of our leading scorer, just about every year, for lesser players, just to get younger or save money. Someone needs to make Thornton replaceable then you can replace him.

Dicdonya is offline  
Old
07-09-2013, 11:45 AM
  #75
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
This. It's why I can't fathom why we would rid ourselves of our leading scorer, just about every year, for lesser players, just to get younger or save money. Someone needs to make Thornton replaceable then you can replace him.
We are arguing that has happened, his name is Logan Couture. You are simply arguing that hasn't happened. We will see if we are in fact correct this season, but if we are then it's too late to trade Thornton and we either re-sign him, or let him walk. That's the point.

hockeyball is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:07 AM.

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.