I can see Couture get you to a 3-10 range
- SRam19

I think Coots plus gets us Hanifin. Im not sure if this hurts us or helps us.

Unfortunately I actually think Kurz is right and Doug Wilson will once again do a U-Turn. Guy can never make up his mind really. First its win now, then it a 2-3 yr rebuild, now its win now again.

With that being said I have this bad feeling that Couture is scapegoat this time around. I personally think the guy is a good player, but was hamstrung by having to play with Marleau. It made Couture basically play two positions on defense.

The real blockbuster of course would be trading the real culprit in the Sharks post season failure and we all know who that is? Yes the real block buster would be to trade the leopard in the pack of wolfs that being #12
- Sharkfan48

What are you talking about with DW U-turn analogy? DW has been in win-now mode for almost all of his tenure, with last year being the lone exception. IMO he's done a fantastic job of icing a lineup that COULD win a cup in most of his years as GM. Last year he did something nobody in teal wanted to see, which is begin a rebuild/refresh, but it's also interesting that he is rebuilding from a position of strength. When you take a contending team, as they had in 2013-2014, and go into a rebuild, you do so with tangible assets that most rebuilding teams don't have. This is a move that has rarely been seen in the history of the NHL and we will see how it turns out. Unfortunately much of that will come down to luck in drafting and development, but that's the risk you take in a rebuild.

The players that hold the most value in a trade would be Pavs, Burns, Vlasic and Couture. And of that list it's probably safe to say that Pavs and Vlasic aren't going anywhere. Burns' value is at a high and Couture is 25, coming off his best statistic season and signed to a reasonable long term contract. Unfortunately Patty and Joe are too comfortable. They'll never waive.
- Papa Joe19

Patty was quoted saying he would waive if not wanted. Joe will retire with us as he should. Marleau can retire a Shark after hes done elsewhere.

Tim, I think you're undervaluing Tommy Wingels. Only in a buyer's market would he be worth a 3rd rounder, and you've mentioned twice now that you think he should be dealt for a 3rd rounder. I think it's pretty well established that Wingels is a 2nd/3rd line tweener on most teams who will give you 30-40 points, play responsible defense and bring a strong forecheck in addition to his leadership abilities. He's on a fair-value contract in his prime and has a good reputation around the league.

This isn't the type of player you give up for a draft pick in the 3rd round. Your average 3rd rounder produces less than 0.1 pts/game in an NHL career. Wingels put up close to 0.5 pts/game last season with a very sustainable shooting percentage.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you would rather strip a quality depth player from the organization in exchange for a draft pick that is much more likely to never play a game in the NHL than to become a player comparable to Wingels. Not trying to be overly critical but I think you're overvaluing draft picks.
- toaster12

Based upon his entire hockey career, and never having scored 20 goals in a single season at any level, a 3rd ring pick is just about right for Wingels.

Sharkfans love this kid because he goes all out, but he's a marginal scorer, not a top 6, and you can find about 40 such players in AHL on any given night.

If DW would trade Wingels (And he won't. focus group studies), getting a 3rd rounder or higher for him would be a steal by Wilson.

Some random thoughts:

1) Would people be okay with splitting up Pavs and Jumbo in an attempt to win more faceoffs. We would start with the puck more increasing our puck possession time. The trade off might be some goals but then again anyone who has been on jumbos line produced and pavs is one heck of a player too.

2) I think Ben Smith has some hidden value. He was good in the faceoff circle and again could help retain more puck possession. He was our 2nd best faceoff guy last year in his 19 games as a shark. Increasing the offensive talent around him and starting him in the offensive zone could give us more depth scoring with retaining the puck in the offensive zone. Then again if he couldn't get depth scoring playing with John Scott, Mike Brown, and Goodrow who could.

3) With the talk of big changes from doug wilson, , does that mean we actually use free agency this year and sign guys that wont be burish 2.0? These next two weeks could get interesting
- Sharkssince1995

We used to be strong with Pavs as third C but I think hes wasted there. We have Center depth so I would prefer him to get fed by Jumbo now. Hertl to line two with Coots and a winger upgrade. Tierney 3c. Ben Smith line 4th center. Fourth line not even going to speculate wingers. If we keep Patty then he can slot in on line two or three. Alot depends on what happens this week I guess...

Some random thoughts:

1) Would people be okay with splitting up Pavs and Jumbo in an attempt to win more faceoffs. We would start with the puck more increasing our puck possession time. The trade off might be some goals but then again anyone who has been on jumbos line produced and pavs is one heck of a player too.

2) I think Ben Smith has some hidden value. He was good in the faceoff circle and again could help retain more puck possession. He was our 2nd best faceoff guy last year in his 19 games as a shark. Increasing the offensive talent around him and starting him in the offensive zone could give us more depth scoring with retaining the puck in the offensive zone. Then again if he couldn't get depth scoring playing with John Scott, Mike Brown, and Goodrow who could.

3) With the talk of big changes from doug wilson, , does that mean we actually use free agency this year and sign guys that wont be burish 2.0? These next two weeks could get interesting
- Sharkssince1995

In regards to your first point, faceoffs are an overemphasized stat in today's game. Analysis of the impact faceoffs have on teams has shown this. A 5v5 non-neutral zone faceoff +/- of +41 on average equates to a goal differential of +1. Meaning you have to win 41 more draws than your opponent to generate a goal at even-strength. There are much more important factors than winning a couple more faceoffs every game.

What are you talking about with DW U-turn analogy? DW has been in win-now mode for almost all of his tenure, with last year being the lone exception. IMO he's done a fantastic job of icing a lineup that COULD win a cup in most of his years as GM. Last year he did something nobody in teal wanted to see, which is begin a rebuild/refresh, but it's also interesting that he is rebuilding from a position of strength. When you take a contending team, as they had in 2013-2014, and go into a rebuild, you do so with tangible assets that most rebuilding teams don't have. This is a move that has rarely been seen in the history of the NHL and we will see how it turns out. Unfortunately much of that will come down to luck in drafting and development, but that's the risk you take in a rebuild.
- toaster12

LOL! Where to start

You must be on his staff if you think the slick talking, used car salesman known as Doug Wilson is a great GM. then you must of loved the free agent signings of Burish, Nittymaki, and how can we forget his brilliant move to sign Claude Lemieux, those are moves legends are made of. Trading for Havlat, Wallin, Huskins all brilliant moves. As for his drafting, well I went through that before and am not rehashing it only to say the two best goalies he has drafted in 11 seasons are 1. Tomas Greiss and 2. Alex Stalock.

The U-Turn analogy is pretty easy to see he has been claiming for almost a year now it will take 2-3 years for a full rebuild, make over, what ever the heck he's calling it now. After copying the Red Wings for years, now he trying to do something on his own. Rebuild through the draft, trade for young players etc.., now after all the season ticket cancellations and pressure from the NO-Show owner Dougie is in full panic mode. Watch out we could be seeing the next Danny Heatley trade coming.

I am glad you're happy to have an underachieving playoff team, with all those great division championship banners hanging from the rafters at Sap center. Maybe the first time we actually get out of the 3rd round we can have a 2nd place parade in San Jose, after all that's a great accomplishment according to most Shark fans.

Tim, I think you're undervaluing Tommy Wingels. Only in a buyer's market would he be worth a 3rd rounder, and you've mentioned twice now that you think he should be dealt for a 3rd rounder. I think it's pretty well established that Wingels is a 2nd/3rd line tweener on most teams who will give you 30-40 points, play responsible defense and bring a strong forecheck in addition to his leadership abilities. He's on a fair-value contract in his prime and has a good reputation around the league.

This isn't the type of player you give up for a draft pick in the 3rd round. Your average 3rd rounder produces less than 0.1 pts/game in an NHL career. Wingels put up close to 0.5 pts/game last season with a very sustainable shooting percentage.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you would rather strip a quality depth player from the organization in exchange for a draft pick that is much more likely to never play a game in the NHL than to become a player comparable to Wingels. Not trying to be overly critical but I think you're overvaluing draft picks.
- toaster12

Wingels is a good fourth line player and an average at best third liner in my opinion. He does more bad than good for the team when he's on the ice. I'd rather have a player that doesn't negatively impact the shot differential than a player who gets paid $2.5M to under-perform annually.

It's as much about giving someone else within the organization a chance to have an expected impact on the bottom six as it is trying again with a draft pick.

Just my opinion, I know most on here disagree and that's fine.

In regards to your first point, faceoffs are an overemphasized stat in today's game. Analysis of the impact faceoffs have on teams has shown this. A 5v5 non-neutral zone faceoff +/- of +41 on average equates to a goal differential of +1. Meaning you have to win 41 more draws than your opponent to generate a goal at even-strength. There are much more important factors than winning a couple more faceoffs every game.
- toaster12

The more faceoffs you win equates to higher possesion time, more offensive chances and less puck chasing in your own zone. I think you underestimate the importance a bit.

We used to be strong with Pavs as third C but I think hes wasted there. We have Center depth so I would prefer him to get fed by Jumbo now. Hertl to line two with Coots and a winger upgrade. Ben Smith line three center. Fourth line not even going to speculate. If we keep Patty then he can slot in on line two or three. Alot depends on what happens this week I guess...
- BeastModeS62

Hey.............you shuning Tierney or something?

Dregs has us with Oil, Sabres and Dallas as front runners for Talbot. The GM of NYR thinks Talbot has a great contract that requires great return. yeah ok such a great contract that is non negotiable until 2016, what a load of crap. If he thinks we are paying more than a second and a B prospect then hes crazy. Let the other teams overpay.

Edmonton will get Nemo if we dont sign him

Dallas has tenders dont they? Campbell and I can think of their starters name right now.

Seems like its us or Buff. But DW will end up over paying for Duby

Hey.............you shuning Tierney or something?
- SJSharks39

My bad Smith 4c, Tierney 3. Slipped my mind.

Wingels is a good fourth line player and an average at best third liner in my opinion. He does more bad than good for the team when he's on the ice. I'd rather have a player that doesn't negatively impact the shot differential than a player who gets paid $2.5M to under-perform annually.

It's as much about giving someone else within the organization a chance to have an expected impact on the bottom six as it is trying again with a draft pick.

Just my opinion, I know most on here disagree and that's fine.
- Tim Chiasson

To me once the Milk man came up & did his thing, Wingels became expendable.

To me once the Milk man came up & did his thing, Wingels became expendable.
- SJSharks39

Semi agree, if we need him for trade bait then do it. A fourth line of Tommy, Smith and Torres would be a nice setup.

Some random thoughts:

1) Would people be okay with splitting up Pavs and Jumbo in an attempt to win more faceoffs. We would start with the puck more increasing our puck possession time. The trade off might be some goals but then again anyone who has been on jumbos line produced and pavs is one heck of a player too.

2) I think Ben Smith has some hidden value. He was good in the faceoff circle and again could help retain more puck possession. He was our 2nd best faceoff guy last year in his 19 games as a shark. Increasing the offensive talent around him and starting him in the offensive zone could give us more depth scoring with retaining the puck in the offensive zone. Then again if he couldn't get depth scoring playing with John Scott, Mike Brown, and Goodrow who could.

3) With the talk of big changes from doug wilson, , does that mean we actually use free agency this year and sign guys that wont be burish 2.0? These next two weeks could get interesting
- Sharkssince1995

I wouldn't seperate the Joe's. To me that's the one thing DeBoer shouldn't change up with our lines.

I agree there will need to be a shakeup. Its time for less talk and more walk. Wilson is the king of propaganda.

Get the goal tender trade done.
Add a third to the draft.
Trade a core member for an upgrade on D, pick or no picks included.
Make a minor move for a bottom sixer.
Get Deboer some coaches.
Drop the puck...
- BeastModeS62

I like it, Beast. We're on the same page here. Hopefully DW sticks to this outline and doesn't make another McGinn/Kennedy trade. Or sign another Burish deal, we should be ok. He needs to avoid negative transactions.

Semi agree, if we need him for trade bait then do it. A fourth line of Tommy, Smith and Torres would be a nice setup.
- BeastModeS62

I hear ya.......but someone or someones inthe forwards group is getting moved, just don't have enough spots for everybody. We've got 12 under contract now resign the milkman & that's 13 forwards......with Brown & Torres being the extras that leaves one spot somebody. Wingels is the most likely candidate to get moved his stock will never be higher than it is right now.

I like it, Beast. We're on the same page here. Hopefully DW sticks to this outline and doesn't make another McGinn/Kennedy trade. Or sign another Burish deal, we should be ok. He needs to avoid negative transactions.
- Papa Joe19

Hopefully D dubs has gotten all that out of his system. If he pulls a similar off season as last year he will be fired next year.

I hear ya.......but someone or someones inthe forwards group is getting moved, just don't have enough spots for everybody. We've got 12 under contract now resign the milkman & that's 13 forwards......with Brown & Torres being the extras that leaves one spot somebody. Wingels is the most likely candidate to get moved his stock will never be higher than it is right now.
- SJSharks39

While I like Brown and his bowling for Quicky I dont see a place for him on this roster anymore. The Melkman isnt going anywhere. If Torres is back Brown needs to go. A trade is going to happen or DW sits on his hands and goes down with the ship.

Hopefully D dubs has gotten all that out of his system. If he pulls a similar off season as last year he will be fired next year.
- BeastModeS62

D Dubs I love it.

Kurz is an idiot. Who just throws crap against the wall......he has no sources confirming this just his opinion so people will read his garbage. He's by far & by a longshot the worst csn bay area insider.
- SJSharks39

Agreed BRod agreed

D Dubs I love it.
- SJSharks39

From my days as a VW guy

If I was DW, I'd try and work a deal out with Garth for Okposo. He would be a solid addition to our core/top-6. I'm just not sure what the cost would be. I also get the feeling that Talbot is DW's target in net. I'm just hoping that he goes big and gets Yandle as well.

To NYR:
Nieto
Dillon
SJS 2016 1st
NYR 2016 4th

To SJS:
Yandle
Talbot

Then...

To NYI:
Wingles
NYI 2015 5th
COL 2016 2nd

To SJS:
Okposo

I'm confident in the Rangers deal but I know the Okposo one is weak.

From my days as a VW guy
- BeastModeS62

If I was DW, I'd try and work a deal out with Garth for Okposo. He would be a solid addition to our core/top-6. I'm just not sure what the cost would be. I also get the feeling that Talbot is DW's target in net. I'm just hoping that he goes big and gets Yandle as well.

To NYR:
Nieto
Dillon
SJS 2016 1st
NYR 2016 4th

To SJS:
Yandle
Talbot

Then...

To NYI:
Wingles
NYI 2015 5th
COL 2016 2nd

To SJS:
Okposo

I'm confident in the Rangers deal but I know the Okposo one is weak.
- Papa Joe19

I just dont want Nieto to go. Hes got potential. Bluerags seem high on Yandle so im not sure it goes down. Hes got a nice contract after Yotes retained.