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

If NTCs Were Not An Issue (mod: remaking the team)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-29-2012, 10:42 PM
  #1
matt trick
Registered User
 
matt trick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 7,901
vCash: 500
If NTCs Were Not An Issue (mod: remaking the team)

How would you proceed with building/rebuilding the team? Often, when thinking about the curent team structure, I feel that Wilson's rebuild options are severely limited by the nt/mcs held by Thornton, Marleau, Boyle, Zues, and Havlat. Do you agree? If their clauses were negated, would you take a different route than you would with ntc?

I know we already have an off-season thread, but I think this warrants a separate discussion. I think keeping the fantasy out of the off-season thread?

matt trick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 10:51 PM
  #2
sjshark91
Registered User
 
sjshark91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 24,930
vCash: 500
I have not thought about hockey for a while after looking at our roster and salaries.

LOL

sjshark91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2012, 07:06 PM
  #3
Mhoogasian94123
Registered User
 
Mhoogasian94123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 1,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt trick View Post
How would you proceed with building/rebuilding the team? Often, when thinking about the curent team structure, I feel that Wilson's rebuild options are severely limited by the nt/mcs held by Thornton, Marleau, Boyle, Zues, and Havlat. Do you agree? If their clauses were negated, would you take a different route than you would with ntc?

I know we already have an off-season thread, but I think this warrants a separate discussion. I think keeping the fantasy out of the off-season thread?
Well in NHL 13....

I think it has been said that if Marleau, Thornton, and Boyle were approached in the right manner, they MIGHT waive their clauses if they knew that it was in the best interest of the team. Those three are real class acts and wouldn't want to be a problem for the team.

Would it really happen? No.
-Thorton has, is, and probably always be a cash cow for the team. He won't be moved because he's only got two more years and then he's a UFA.
-Marleau is a Shark's player for life. You don't want to move someone like that because it won't make anyone want to come here.
-Boyle is still somewhat productive and (like Thornton) only has two more years left in his contract

With that being said, unless these guys have AMAZING stats the next two years they won't ask for the money they are making now. They MIGHT even take a huge discount so that the team can keep the core/future together for long term contracts.

Hanzs and Havlat will be gone after this year (I think) so wondering about if's and what's aren't that important.

Mhoogasian94123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2012, 07:32 PM
  #4
VP and GM
Bill Says Hey Baby!
 
VP and GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at home
Country: United States
Posts: 5,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt trick View Post
How would you proceed with building/rebuilding the team? Often, when thinking about the curent team structure, I feel that Wilson's rebuild options are severely limited by the nt/mcs held by Thornton, Marleau, Boyle, Zues, and Havlat. Do you agree? If their clauses were negated, would you take a different route than you would with ntc?

I know we already have an off-season thread, but I think this warrants a separate discussion. I think keeping the fantasy out of the off-season thread?
Not sure i'd use the term "severely limited" as players with nt/mcs are often moved anyway as we all know. Said another way, if a GM really wants to lose a player like this it's done in most cases. I don't think it makes a big deal in a rebuild, you can still move some players with nt/mcs as i've stated.

I'd offer that since so many of these so called nt/mcs contract players are moved anyway that they should be either strengthened to match their intent in the CBA or just eliminated from the CBA.

VP and GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2012, 09:37 PM
  #5
ChubbChubby
My life is a gym
 
ChubbChubby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mhoogasian94123 View Post
Hanzs and Havlat will be gone after this year (I think) so wondering about if's and what's aren't that important.
Havlat is exactly the type of player the Sharks need and he's on a good contract. Why would they trade him?

ChubbChubby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2012, 09:43 PM
  #6
VP and GM
Bill Says Hey Baby!
 
VP and GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at home
Country: United States
Posts: 5,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
Havlat is exactly the type of player the Sharks need and he's on a good contract. Why would they trade him?
I agree, i'd keep him. Only problem is he's injury prone, i'd still keep him.

VP and GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2012, 10:28 PM
  #7
JumboThornton92
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Atlantic Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP and GM View Post
I agree, i'd keep him. Only problem is he's injury prone, i'd still keep him.
If we can win one cup with him healthy, and he doesn't play another 20 games. It was well worth it.

JumboThornton92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2012, 10:34 PM
  #8
VP and GM
Bill Says Hey Baby!
 
VP and GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at home
Country: United States
Posts: 5,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JumboThornton92 View Post
If we can win one cup with him healthy, and he doesn't play another 20 games. It was well worth it.
That's all we need, one cup win. I don't care who is on the team really...

VP and GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2012, 10:44 PM
  #9
Mhoogasian94123
Registered User
 
Mhoogasian94123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 1,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubbs View Post
Havlat is exactly the type of player the Sharks need and he's on a good contract. Why would they trade him?
I didn't say I would want him gone. I was just saying that he might be gone since he is considered fragile goods. I think he could help us as well. Sorry for not being specific with my feels vs the teams potential plans

Mhoogasian94123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 02:21 AM
  #10
murdock1116
Registered User
 
murdock1116's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,551
vCash: 500
Marleau and Thornton seem like the type of players that will still be effective late in there careers. I'm sure Thornton could actually make a good 3rd line center of the future. The only one who probably doesn't fit is Boyle. I could see the line up four years from now being something like this:


- Couture - Pavelski
Marleau - Hertl - Havlat
Galiardi - Thornton - Wingels
? - ? - ?

Burns - Vlasic
Demers -
Stuart - Braun

murdock1116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 02:03 PM
  #11
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP and GM View Post
Not sure i'd use the term "severely limited" as players with nt/mcs are often moved anyway as we all know. Said another way, if a GM really wants to lose a player like this it's done in most cases. I don't think it makes a big deal in a rebuild, you can still move some players with nt/mcs as i've stated.

I'd offer that since so many of these so called nt/mcs contract players are moved anyway that they should be either strengthened to match their intent in the CBA or just eliminated from the CBA.
GMs are extremely reluctant to move clauses as has been repeatedly shown in the past. I haven't got stats, but my bet is that there is A LOT more movement of players without clauses. About the only exception is in the last year of the contract at the deadline on a team that is out of the playoffs.

For all,
As far as JT and Marleau go, best to use comps in terms of assets and deficits. Sundin and Modano. It does not mean they are better or worse than those two but the skills and deficits are similar. JT is not truly a third line player, speed. In a third line role, he would be an offensive specialist and would still pull down 17-18min with lots of PP time. Marleau would be a little more traditional third line with both PK and PP and similar minutes but not dominant PP like JT. In both cases, the team would tend to have a more even distribution of minutes across the 3 top lines. After this contract, they should have one more year as first liners and possibly a second year at which point they would drift down to lesser roles. This is going off the career paths of both Modano and Sundin.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 07:30 PM
  #12
VP and GM
Bill Says Hey Baby!
 
VP and GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at home
Country: United States
Posts: 5,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
GMs are extremely reluctant to move clauses as has been repeatedly shown in the past. I haven't got stats, but my bet is that there is A LOT more movement of players without clauses. About the only exception is in the last year of the contract at the deadline on a team that is out of the playoffs.
I will agree that there is more movement with players that do not have movement clauses. With all due respect, this is cause they are allowed to me moved!

I think the point is that players with no movement clauses get moved, even know their contract says that they can't be. I don't know what the percentage is either, you'd think that *no* players would get moved of they have this clause. I'll add that GMs give out no movement clauses to players, most of the time, that have no intent to move. Again, i hope the new CBA fixes this one way or another.

VP and GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 05:03 PM
  #13
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP and GM View Post
I will agree that there is more movement with players that do not have movement clauses. With all due respect, this is cause they are allowed to me moved!

I think the point is that players with no movement clauses get moved, even know their contract says that they can't be. I don't know what the percentage is either, you'd think that *no* players would get moved of they have this clause. I'll add that GMs give out no movement clauses to players, most of the time, that have no intent to move. Again, i hope the new CBA fixes this one way or another.
Generally, ones that do get moved with clauses tend to create a firestorm. Boyle, McCabe, Heatley, Nash . . . As a percentage the clauses strongly tend to prevent movement. It isn't no players, but
it is a very limited number.

IMO, the only way that DW would explore the issue is if the Sharks missed the playoffs.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-04-2012, 12:54 AM
  #14
Mhoogasian94123
Registered User
 
Mhoogasian94123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 1,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdock1116 View Post
Marleau and Thornton seem like the type of players that will still be effective late in there careers. I'm sure Thornton could actually make a good 3rd line center of the future. The only one who probably doesn't fit is Boyle. I could see the line up four years from now being something like this:


- Couture - Pavelski
Marleau - Hertl - Havlat
Galiardi - Thornton - Wingels
? - ? - ?

Burns - Vlasic
Demers -
Stuart - Braun
Where's Clowe? Dear God don't tell me he got traded for that Top 6 spot we're missing.

Mhoogasian94123 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 04:44 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.