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

Dreger: Sharks strong contender for Nash

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-22-2012, 07:34 PM
  #376
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
That's still looking only one year into the future, and it's all pure fantasy. It's incredibly wishful thinking on your part as if real life were NHL 12. Do you really think our team will buy out Handzus? And where is this magical defenseman that is paid less than Boyle but is slightly less productive? And why would that team even unload him to begin with? And this is all assuming your trade proposal is possible, which I highly doubt Columbus would accept.

You're not even considering the year after or after that. Nash's contract will be a huge problem for the Sharks for the next half decade.
One year into the future under the circumstances set forth by someone asking about if the cap goes down. What happens if the cap goes up and then goes up again? Your point becomes moot. If Handzus doesn't show improvement in his game, he will be moved out in one fashion or another. Be it a buyout or simply burying him like they've done to Niittymaki and McLaren before him.

Why is it okay for you to speculate about the cap going down and depth being crippled without any real substance to back up your point but when someone goes the other way on it, you have to be condescending about it? Trading Boyle is a real possibility after this season whether or not Rick Nash is acquired. While his production is still high and a likely replacement will not be at his level, it's a matter of time before Boyle is done and they have to prepare for that. However, to assume that just because Boyle now is better than a potential acquisition doesn't mean that it creates a hole on defense. Players will get better with more responsibility.

As for Columbus, my premise is based on the reality that IF the Sharks do acquire Nash, it WILL be on their terms. They will not overpay for Nash. If they continue to ask for Pavelski, they will not, in all likelihood, go through with the acquisition.

I actually have considered next year, the year after that, and all the subsequent years following that. Nash's contract is only conceivably a problem for the team for the next two seasons. After that, Thornton, Marleau, Boyle, and Pavelski are all free agents. After the next season, Nash would likely be available to trade if necessary. Next year and the year after can be afforded if they move Dan Boyle and some other fat off the cap like Handzus and Murray who are both limited in their effectiveness overall this year. Not to mention, Marty Havlat might have a window in his clause like Heatley did in order to move him. There are a lot more possibilities than you're willing to admit to. That's my entire point on the matter. You don't know what's available even after a trade for Nash and even with some very assumptive thinking like the cap going down without some form of ability to relieve your team in cap space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
If we can't give them a fair offer and are instead forced to lowball them, then yes they will leave. Staying is nice, but not a dealbreaker. You think anyone would be happy taking a ~2 million discount to stay when the Sharks are paying a single player $7.8 million? I know I wouldn't be. Pavelski is taking a huge hometown discount as it is, same with Couture, and when Pavelski was interviewed about it he didn't seem very happy about it. He said he did it for the team, but if the team goes out and signs a $7.8 million player, what does that say?
Pavelski was also restricted when he signed his current contract. Pavelski didn't sign much of a discount in dollar figures. He bent on the term to make it work for the team because he knows that at that time, he will see a hefty raise from the team at that point. If Pavs is doing it for the team, then he should understand why making an acquisition for Rick Nash is an attempt to better the team. However, even with Nash, his next contract will come at the expense of Boyle, Marleau, and Thornton so if he's worried about his salary figure, his time will come then.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:35 PM
  #377
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 8,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
Pavelski, Thornton, Marleau, Couture, Burns (according to the fans) all took a bit less, in Couture's case a LOT, less to sign with the Sharks and help to make them a competitive team. It still sends the same message.

I'm not a fan of having more than half of the the Salary cap tied up in 6 skaters, even if it's just for another two years.
I'll grant you Pavs (maybe $500K less than market value) and Couture (by signing a sweetheart 2nd deal unlike Bobby Ryan) took HTDs but I don't think Jumbo or Patty took HTDs or very slight ones. I'm not going to get into the Patty debate but he's exactly where he should be.

Hard to say Burns took an HTD since he was just traded for. Maybe he just wanted the stability.

Locking up so much in 5 players isn't great but what's more important is the impact to the rest of the roster. That we don't know yet... if ever

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:37 PM
  #378
ChubbChubby
My life is a gym
 
ChubbChubby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
My question was rhetorical... You're arguing that Nash would destroy our salary structure and depth, and I'm merely challenging that assertion. If you can't back it up, which I expect, then I wouldn't put it out there so vehemently.

As long as Pavs and Couture get their fair deals, they'll be fine. They want to win and if Nash comes cheaply (i.e., what PF is suggesting - a Clowe +deal) and puts us over the top, they'll understand. There is nothing to suggest that Pavelski and Couture would look at a potential Nash trade and say "damn it, I want to be overpaid, too."

Heck, I'd say there is more evidence that Couture would ask for at most fair deals given that we had Heater on the team and Couture signed a fair #2 contract versus say Bobby Ryan who took all the money off the table after his ELC expired. I think Juicy's behavior is more indicative of the positive view the Sharks have of their org. You have to give DW some credit for that.
What's there to back up? Signing a $7.8 million player is a lot and will hinder what moves our team can make. That much is obvious.

Pavs and Couture likely won't go and say "I want to be overpaid too", but could very well say "I want to get my fair value and not get lowballed" which is completely understandable. Loyalty is important, but money runs things and that loyalty will be put into question if you go and pay a guy big bucks and try to shave those dollars off other players.

ChubbChubby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:40 PM
  #379
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 8,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
The Penguins are the exception to the rule, not the standard. One: they're an east coast team in a good market, so they have a ton of depth players that sign for dirt cheap, and they have key players who will gladly accept discounts. If those don't work out, they can easily sign UFA who will also take discounts. That's something we can't do. They also have the two best players in the world who make up part of that 21 million. The Sharks have good players, but not that good.
Are you conveniently forgetting that Malhotra and Winchester came here without contracts? That + the SI article where players voted us 6th most desirable team to play for are positive indications on how players view the Sharks.

The only thing you can say is DW hasn't signed many UFAs for cheap. That is all.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:41 PM
  #380
ChubbChubby
My life is a gym
 
ChubbChubby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Why is it okay for you to speculate about the cap going down and depth being crippled without any real substance to back up your point but when someone goes the other way on it, you have to be condescending about it?
I'm not being condescending, and I think you're sort of missing my point. The CBA and the unknown cap is a good argument, but that's not my main concern. My concern is spending 21+ million on three players and reducing our depth and competitiveness because of it. Spending too much on too few guys is not a smart plan. Other competitive teams right now aren't spending anywhere near that much on their top paid three guys and for good reason.

ChubbChubby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:41 PM
  #381
Can HaZ Trainz
Frightened Inmate #2
 
Can HaZ Trainz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Burlingame, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Tell me why the Sharks need Rick Nash again??

Can HaZ Trainz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:44 PM
  #382
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 8,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
What's there to back up? Signing a $7.8 million player is a lot and will hinder what moves our team can make. That much is obvious.

Pavs and Couture likely won't go and say "I want to be overpaid too", but could very well say "I want to get my fair value and not get lowballed" which is completely understandable. Loyalty is important, but money runs things and that loyalty will be put into question if you go and pay a guy big bucks and try to shave those dollars off other players.
Your thinking is superficial. Yes, adding a $7.8m player makes it harder but what's the actual impact? Play it out. Capgeek is there to use to rosterbate and make educated guesses. What if the cap does go up - or even if it goes down and there's a corresponding salary rollback.

And on Pavs and Couture, again, as many have said, DW structured their terms to coincide with the Big 3's deals ending. Their new deals will come from Boyle, Jumbo and Patty. Pavs and Couture know they'll get paid then.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:44 PM
  #383
ChubbChubby
My life is a gym
 
ChubbChubby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
Are you conveniently forgetting that Malhotra and Winchester came here without contracts? That + the SI article where players voted us 6th most desirable team to play for are positive indications on how players view the Sharks.

The only thing you can say is DW hasn't signed many UFAs for cheap. That is all.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

And if Winchester is your go-to big UFA signing then the Sharks are in big trouble.

The Sharks are a West coast team with a lot of travel, and players certainly do take that into huge consideration. The East will always have the edge in terms of attracting UFAs.

ChubbChubby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:47 PM
  #384
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
Your first point is too long to pick and choose what to respond to, but it still makes too many assumptions for me to accept. One, you're still thinking short-term going only into the next year and not thinking beyond that. Remember, Nash is signed for a lot for a long time. You can't just think one year into the future and say buy-outs and roster dumps will fix everything.

Boyle carries a lot of the defensive load, and it's reckless to assume the team will be as competitive if everyone just pitches in and does more. Also you make vague remarks on how to fix depth and unload players, but I can't imagine any of those as being viable unless we're in Be a GM mode in NHL 12. It's not short-sighted to want to have more space to make more moves and signings by not trading for a $7.8 million player. It's short-sighted to hope it all works out when there's a lot of unknowns that we can't account for.

The Penguins are the exception to the rule, not the standard. One: they're an east coast team in a good market, so they have a ton of depth players that sign for dirt cheap, and they have key players who will gladly accept discounts. If those don't work out, they can easily sign UFA who will also take discounts. That's something we can't do. They also have the two best players in the world who make up part of that 21 million. The Sharks have good players, but not that good.
The entire argument is speculative and assumptive. That's the entire basis of the topic. It is not a good reason for you to be condescending and dismissive altogether like you have been.

Boyle does carry a large load of the offense but you're fooling yourself if you think it'll last forever. Boyle will be 36 when next season starts. It's not a question of replacing his production immediately. It's accepting the fact that he still has a lot of value now and he is looking down the barrel of a gun that will very soon claim his career. The team has a choice to make. Ride him out and inevitably watch him slowly dwindle into retirement or get something for him, save some cap space, and use it elsewhere and move on. Boyle's not going to be a 50 point player forever and July 1, 2012 is the first day that the team gets the option to do something about it if necessary.

It's not short-sighted to want to have more cap space. It is short-sighted to dismiss a particular move based on a supposed handicap that isn't actually there. The reason why you don't think it's there is because you simply haven't done the necessary research to see what the team is actually capable of in terms of player movement.

The Sharks have done their fair share of what you say the Pens do. They get key players on discount. They get certain depth free agents on discount. They are in a good market. The difference is that even if the Sharks acquire Nash, they are still much more flexible with regards to their top three than Pittsburgh is.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:49 PM
  #385
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
I'm not being condescending, and I think you're sort of missing my point. The CBA and the unknown cap is a good argument, but that's not my main concern. My concern is spending 21+ million on three players and reducing our depth and competitiveness because of it. Spending too much on too few guys is not a smart plan. Other competitive teams right now aren't spending anywhere near that much on their top paid three guys and for good reason.
Dismissing a point by saying in so many words that you're playing NHL 12 is the precise definition of condescending.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:52 PM
  #386
Audio Outlaw
Jaded Sharks Fan
 
Audio Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,515
vCash: 500
I'd give up anyone but Thornton, Pavelski, Vlassic, or Couture to get this deal done. Im not sure if Nash would save this team though, they can't pass the puck, and their zone entry is the worst of all elite NHL teams. Neimi has been hard to watch as of late.

Audio Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:52 PM
  #387
ChubbChubby
My life is a gym
 
ChubbChubby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
Your thinking is superficial. Yes, adding a $7.8m player makes it harder but what's the actual impact? Play it out. Capgeek is there to use to rosterbate and make educated guesses. What if the cap does go up - or even if it goes down and there's a corresponding salary rollback.

And on Pavs and Couture, again, as many have said, DW structured their terms to coincide with the Big 3's deals ending. Their new deals will come from Boyle, Jumbo and Patty. Pavs and Couture know they'll get paid then.
I'm tired of repeating myself, but I think I made my point quite clear already.

I just don't see how signing a guy at 7.8 million with an increasing salary until 2018 is a good idea, not with our current roster, management, or ownership. There's better ways to spend that money without overloading our top guys and there's a reason why such practices aren't common. Is it doable? Sure, assuming the worst case scenario doesn't happen. Is it smart? Definitely not, IMO.

I shudder at the thought of Nash getting injured as well. There's not many players I would sign for six years to begin with, let alone for so much money.

ChubbChubby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:53 PM
  #388
Chairman Mallard
GO DUCKS
 
Chairman Mallard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pacifica / Sec 202
Country: United States
Posts: 15,551
vCash: 500
It took Clowe + Braun + 1st + Stalock for Nash in Nhl 12

Chairman Mallard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:57 PM
  #389
ChubbChubby
My life is a gym
 
ChubbChubby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Dismissing a point by saying in so many words that you're playing NHL 12 is the precise definition of condescending.
Sorry if I offended you then, but buyouts and huge roster moves isn't something I'd see our team doing.

Boyle will be smart to ship out before his production tails off, but I would rather spend his money on another defenseman or to fill other holes rather than put that money into Nash.

I still think trading for Nash is a bad idea, but I respect your opinion. You're entitled to believe what you want in the same way I am.

ChubbChubby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:58 PM
  #390
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 8,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

And if Winchester is your go-to big UFA signing then the Sharks are in big trouble.

The Sharks are a West coast team with a lot of travel, and players certainly do take that into huge consideration. The East will always have the edge in terms of attracting UFAs.
No, that's not what you wrote. You wrote we can't sign UFAs for cheap. I wrote Dw hasnt done that. There's a difference. I just think DW chooses not you pursue UFAs much at all.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:58 PM
  #391
sjshark91
Registered User
 
sjshark91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 24,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman Mallard View Post
It took Clowe + Braun + 1st + Stalock for Nash in Nhl 12
You could also use like 10 1st round picks to get Datsyuk in that game.

sjshark91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 07:59 PM
  #392
Chairman Mallard
GO DUCKS
 
Chairman Mallard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pacifica / Sec 202
Country: United States
Posts: 15,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjshark91 View Post
You could also use like 10 1st round picks to get Datsyuk in that game.
Yeah I know, I just wanted to see what it would take by trying to be somewhat realistic. I started with just Clowe, then added Braun, then added the first, and they all got rejected. Adding Stalock was enough to get it accepted.

Chairman Mallard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 08:00 PM
  #393
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular combo
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 12,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjshark91 View Post
You could also use like 10 1st round picks to get Datsyuk in that game.
Nah man, you don't go after Datsyuk, he's old. In every GM series, I start by trading Boyle, Thornton, and Marleau for people like Fowler, Toews, and Kane.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 08:02 PM
  #394
Phu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,028
vCash: 500
Question: What does Rick Nash bring that Patty doesn't have?

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 08:02 PM
  #395
ChubbChubby
My life is a gym
 
ChubbChubby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
No, that's not what you wrote. You wrote we can't sign UFAs for cheap. I wrote Dw hasnt done that. There's a difference. I just think DW chooses not you pursue UFAs much at all.
When I said "that's something we can't do" I meant it more along the lines of everything I said in that post as a whole. As far as quality UFAs go, the Sharks will have a hard time outbidding East coast teams. If we offered the same amount as a competitive East coast team, or maybe even slightly more, I think most players would still go to the East. That's not something we can do anything about though.

ChubbChubby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 08:03 PM
  #396
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
Sorry if I offended you then, but buyouts and huge roster moves isn't something I'd see our team doing.

Boyle will be smart to ship out before his production tails off, but I would rather spend his money on another defenseman or to fill other holes rather than put that money into Nash.

I still think trading for Nash is a bad idea, but I respect your opinion. You're entitled to believe what you want in the same way I am.
Buyouts are unlikely. Huge roster moves has been pretty much what Doug Wilson has done every off-season. I have no problems believing that if Handzus finishes the season as he has played thus far, even with his decent point production, DW will move him.

I agree that I'd like to see more depth on this team and agree that Nash isn't exactly the right fit either. I was merely arguing the handicap point. Personally, I think the team just needs to wait for Havlat to get healthy and if Murray is out for an extended period of time that could include the playoffs, they will have more pressing issues to deal with in getting a defenseman before they need to concern themselves with getting Rick Nash.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 08:04 PM
  #397
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
Question: What does Rick Nash bring that Patty doesn't have?
Nash is a better player down low than Marleau and a better net presence...maybe even a better shot. Has historically been more of a physical presence than Marleau but that's never been saying much.

Pinkfloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 08:05 PM
  #398
couturefan39
Registered User
 
couturefan39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
Question: What does Rick Nash bring that Patty doesn't have?
Heart.

Marleau lacks heart and has been playing like he doesn't give a ****.

couturefan39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 08:05 PM
  #399
Phu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Nash is a better player down low than Marleau and a better net presence...maybe even a better shot. Has historically been more of a physical presence than Marleau but that's never been saying much.
Can you direct me to the numbers that bear this out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by couturefan39 View Post
Heart.

Marleau lacks heart and has been playing like he doesn't give a ****.
Can you direct me to the numbers that bear this out?

I was not impressed with Nash in any of our games vs the BJs, but especially in the game we whupped on them in ... didn't really show any particular heart in that game. As opposed to a player like, say, Iginla who is known for his heart.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 08:07 PM
  #400
wtfisthis
Registered User
 
wtfisthis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,791
vCash: 500
Correct me if Im wrong but I think the only thing Marleau has on Nash is speed. I would take everything else of Nash over Marleau.

wtfisthis 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 03:35 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.