Today marks the busy end to a busy week, so here are three blogs from yesteryear that outline exactly how the Sharks hit rock bottom last night. At the time, a lot of people asked, "Would you rather the Sharks trade places Florida or Atlanta." No, but it was clear that the wheels of mediocrity were in motion and the team was ripe for a plummet in the standings. San Jose's current nightmare has been years in the making, combining impatience, lack of accountability, poor personnel moves, inadequate coaching, and a reliance on players who simply don't have the desire or ability to elevate their game.
How the Boyle and Blake Acquisitions Wrecked the Sharks
July 14, 2009
Last offseason, the San Jose Sharks dealt Matt Carle, Ty Wishart, a first-round pick and a fourth-round pick to the Tampa Bay Lightning for Dan Boyle and Brad Lukowich. The team also signed Rob Blake, and dealt Craig Rivet to the Buffalo Sabres for two second-round picks.
After the overhaul, I wrote the blog “Can’t Approve of Those Defensive Moves,” explaining how I couldn’t see the logic in making the team worse down the road, limiting salary flexibility, and sacrificing the future in pursuit of the Sharks’ first Stanley Cup. One year later, with the Sharks coming of a first-round upset, slammed against the cap and unable to move contracts, maybe people will understand the argument I made on July 5, 2008.
To articulate my point, I’m going to break the moves down into four basic questions. Is the incoming talent an upgrade over the outgoing talent? Does it make sense financially? Does it move the team closer to a Stanley Cup? What impact does it have on the team’s long-term future?
Talent
There’s no question Dan Boyle, Rob Blake and Brad Lukowich are more talented than Matt Carle, Craig Rivet and Ty Wishart. Boyle is one of the best offensive defensemen in the league, Blake is going to the Hall of Fame after he hangs up the blades, and Lukowich has provided strong defensive play in a stay-at-home role.
Offensively, there’s no comparison. Boyle and Blake are going to produce more than Carle and Rivet. Defensively, it evens up a little bit but you still have to give the edge to the more experienced trio. It’s an easy comparison. If you have to win one game, you go with Boyle, Blake and Lukowich over Carle, Rivet and Wishart.
Money
Talent costs money, and the Sharks have shelled out quite a bit for the increase in talent along their blueline. Last season, the trio of incoming defensemen made up almost 25 percent of the team’s total salary.
Boyle - $6.66
Blake - $5
Lukowich - $1.56
Total - $13.22
The huge contracts to Boyle and Blake had a major impact on the Sharks roster. The most noticeable change was the demotion of Kyle McLaren to Worcester of the American Hockey League — a salary dump more than anything else, but a move that derailed the veteran defenseman’s career. If the Sharks hadn’t altered their blueline at all, they would have spent approximately $3.8 million less on three capable defensemen. Would they have made it to the first round of the playoffs with Rivet, Carle and McLaren? I don’t know, but I’m assuming they would have.
Rivet - $3.5
Carle - $3.43
McLaren - $2.5
Total - $9.43
The other side effect of the Blake and Boyle acquisitions — less tangible but more severe — was the team’s inability to round out the roster with NHL talent. Mediocre prospects or 43-year-old veterans plugged holes, and the Sharks’ lack of depth ultimately contributed to the team’s first-round playoff exit. That extra $3.8 million would have helped meet needs, and defense wasn’t one of them after a strong 2007-08 season when scoring dried up in the playoffs.
Stanley Cup
Everyone (myself included) always makes the argument that Boyle and Blake helped the Sharks’ transition game, producing more offense. The truth is, the Sharks rarely score off the rush, so whatever advantages they had on the transition game were largely negated by the fact the team plays puck possession rather than a North-South, up-tempo style. However, they did assist the power play, which went colder than an Eskimo’s nose once the playoffs began.
I’m not convinced the moves inched the Sharks any closer to the Stanley Cup. The huge salaries reduced the Sharks’ depth, forcing veterans to take on more minutes. That led to more injuries, which disrupted the chemistry, which left the team stumbling down the stretch. Just take a quick look at these two defensive groups and decide which one you’d rather have.
Boyle-Blake-Lukowich-Vlasic-Ehrhoff-Murray-Semenov-Huskins
Campbell-Rivet-Carle-Vlasic-Ehrhoff-Murray-McLaren-Ozolinsh-Semenov
Obviously the numbers are skewed because Campbell was a deadline addition, but the Sharks haven't been able to match the talent and depth they had two playoffs ago. If you prefer Alexei Semenov as your seventh defenseman rather than your ninth defenseman, you’re lying to yourself. San Jose’s lack of depth contributed to injuries at several positions and the cap crunch forced guys to play hurt because there wasn’t legitimate NHL talent backing them up.
Future
Doug Wilson took an aggressive run at the Stanley Cup last season and the gamble proved to be a disaster. You can respect him for rolling the dice, but you can’t ignore the fact that he destroyed the future in his pursuit of a Cup. Giving up the team’s top defensive prospect and a first-round pick only did more damage to a prospect system that had been picked clean by ambitious trade deadline deals.
Blake and Boyle’s salaries contributed to even more damage at the trade deadline. Since the Sharks had limited cap space, they had to take on limited salaries through deadline deals. That meant dealing promising prospects Nick Bonino and Timo Pielmeier for Travis Moen and Kent Huskins, two players who had little to no impact down the stretch.
The future isn’t very bright in San Jose because the Sharks don’t have the cap space to bolster the roster, don’t have the prospects to force their way onto the roster, and don’t have talent they can move because of either no-trade clauses or exorbitant salaries. Plus, since the team hasn’t had a first-round pick each of the last two years, there isn’t much promise in the pipeline. The Sharks would have a first-round prospect and a little more cap space if they hadn’t made the Blake-Boyle moves.
Conclusion
If you need a final reason to convince you that the Blake and Boyle moves wrecked the Sharks, consider that this is the San Jose roster today:
Marleau-Thornton-Setoguchi
Michalek-Pavelski-Clowe
Cheechoo-Shelley
Boyle-Lukowich
Vlasic-Blake
Ehrhoff-Murray
Huskins
Nabokov
RFA: Mitchell, Staubitz, Greiss
Cap space: $1.6 million
Now, there are several players to be signed, without much cap space remaining to sign them. That means someone is on the way out and it will most likely be a salary dump, with diminished talent coming back the other way. It could be any combination of Marleau, Michalek, Cheechoo, Vlasic or Ehrhoff.
Meanwhile, Wilson made the decision to re-sign Blake for $3.5 million. This is just my opinion, but I think you treat the veteran a little differently because of his name and resume. That money could have gone to cap space, and if I had to decide whether to part with Blake, Ehrhoff or Vlasic the future Hall of Famer would be the one to go. Wilson won’t make that decision, hampering the Sharks’ future even further.
If the Sharks had stayed on the path, ignoring the Blake and Boyle options, this would be their roster today:
Marleau-Thornton-Setoguchi
Michalek-Pavelski-Clowe
Cheechoo-Shelley
Carle-Rivet
Vlasic-Ehrhoff
Murray-Huskins
Nabokov
RFA: Mitchell, Staubitz, Greiss
Cap space: $6 million
The Sharks wouldn’t have a ton of money to spend, but at least they’d be able to re-sign their restricted free agents, keep the core intact, add some pieces to fill out the roster, and continue competing at a high level for another couple years at least. Plus, they would have Wishart and another first-round prospect in the system.
Obviously the Blake and Boyle acquisitions go much deeper than simply increasing your top-end talent. Wilson committed an overabundance of salary to an area where there was limited need, while sacrificing the future and continuing to ignore the problems that have plagued his team during each of the last four abbreviated playoff runs. Toss in horrible cap management and the insistence on giving no-trade clauses to troubled assets, and you can see why the Sharks are mired in a culture of failure.
It wasn’t a popular opinion at the time, but hopefully people are starting to come around on the issue. The Blake and Boyle acquisitions were mistakes. That’s as true today as it was a year ago.
The Morning After: Seller’s Remorse
August 29, 2009
I've woken up on several Saturday mornings confused and regretful. A couple times my eyes opened and I immediately wondered whose house I was in, one time I tried to figure out how I'd ended up falling asleep in a halter top, and on one particularly hazy morning I was shocked to find that I had vomited inside the tent. Occasionally, I've had to piece together the incidents of the previous night, trying to separate fact from fiction, reality from foggy recollection.
I woke up this morning in the same frame of mind, wondering why the Sharks dealt Christian Ehrhoff and Brad Lukowich to the Vancouver Canucks for two prospects who won't ever see an NHL regular season game without a ticket. In my search for answers I made a crucial mistake, and I'm going to provide my account of the event so others don't wander down the same frustrating path. Trust me Shark fans, it's not worth the time or the aggravation.
You see, I visited sjsharks.com this morning, and it's obvious the people running that website think we're all rather stupid. I noticed a headline that simply stated 'Sharks Add Depth.' I'll admit I made the mistake of clicking on the link and accessing the article - a decision I can only blame on morbid curiosity. Once inside, the headline proclaimed, 'Sharks continue to add blue line depth.' Continue? In my mind, the Sharks have only decreased their blueline depth over the last two seasons, going from nine NHL defensemen (Rivet, Ehrhoff, Murray, Vlasic, Carle, Campbell, McLaren, Ozolinsh, Semenov) to five (Boyle, Blake, Vlasic, Murray, Huskins) during that period of time.
Despite the facts, someone writing for the Sharks' website feels that trading two veteran NHL defensemen for an AHL defenseman improved the team's blueline depth. How? Well, the door is now open for players like Derek Joslin, Mike Moore, Nick Petrecki and Jason Demers to compete for a roster spot at training camp. Obviously, whoever wrote the article fails to grasp the meaning of simple words like 'depth' and 'add,' because nobody with a cognizant brain and understanding of the English language would argue that the Sharks have improved their defensive depth in the last 24 hours.
I shrugged off the article, figuring it wasn't the most atrocious spin doctoring I'd ever seen from sjsharks.com. Then I clicked on the video portion, featuring broadcaster Dan Rusanowsky interviewing general manager Doug Wilson, and I was floored by Rusanowsky's opening statement: "The Sharks executed a trade with the Vancouver Canucks today, sending Christian Ehrhoff and Brad Lukowich to Vancouver in exchange for two outstanding prospects."
Now, Rusanowsky is one of the best play-by-play men in the NHL, and I understand that he is an employee of the Sharks, but how am I able to trust anything he says after calling White and Rahimi outstanding prospects? Taking my own opinion out of the equation, the consensus is that White and Rahimi are significantly less than outstanding. However, I kept going, waiting for Wilson's justification of the trade.
Wilson pointed out a number of players who have earned the right to compete for a spot on the Sharks, specifically Moore, Joslin, Petrecki and Demers. Now, are any of those players better than Ehrhoff and Lukowich today? No. Sure, there are some decent young players who can come in and compete for jobs, but none of them are knocking the door down. Also, I found it interesting that Rahimi wasn't included in that group.
Rusanowsky came up with another silver-lining gem moments later, asking, "Isn't the essence of it you've created a great deal of competition with this move?" Sure there's increased competition for jobs at training camp, but it comes at the expense of the team's overall competitiveness, which I think would be preferable over seeing which marginal NHLer is going to be awarded a roster spot because of his low price tag.
It would just be nice to hear some honesty. I would love to hear that the move was simply necessitated by salary cap constraints and Wilson was forced to deal two established veterans who he felt were the most expendable. Also, while a salary dump was necessary, you aren't forced to take on toxic assets in order to make it happen. I would love to hear the admission that Wilson failed to manage the cap effectively. I'm not stupid and Shark fans aren't stupid. Don't insult our intelligence by claiming this was anything other than a salary dump for minimal returns.
The Sharks' summer can be summed up by a philosophy of talent over depth that's doing more damage than good. Ultimately, the Sharks have rid themselves of their least desirable and marketable players. While that in itself isn't a bad game plan, the departures of Mike Grier, Travis Moen, Marcel Goc, Tomas Plihal, Jeremy Roenick, Claude Lemieux, Brian Boucher, Alexei Semenov, Christian Ehrhoff and Brad Lukowich has done irreparable damage to the team's depth, without many suitable or proven replacements.
When I woke up in a halter top, I didn't claim I loved halter tops or I was starting a new fashion trend among adolescent males. I woke up and thought, "What the hell am I doing wearing a halter top?" After the vomit hit the tent, I wasn't putting any silver lining on that situation. Ever tried cleaning vomit from tent? It's a humbling experience. The Sharks dealt two NHL defensemen for two marginal prospects. Even the morning after, after separating fact from fiction, it's hard to justify what happened on Friday.
Time To Blow It Up After Sharks’ Latest, Greatest Choke
June 22, 2010
It’s fitting that the San Jose Sharks’ run of Stanley Cup contention ended exactly the same way it began, with an inexcusable and all-to-familiar choke job. Up 2-0 in Game 4 of the Western Conference final against the Chicago Blackhawks, the Sharks quit well before the finish line, allowing the home team to celebrate a 4-2 victory and series sweep. The same thing had occurred four years earlier against the Edmonton Oilers. Up 2-0 in the Western Conference semifinal, the Sharks allowed the eighth-seed Oilers to rally for a shocking and embarrassing 4-2 series victory.
Now that the window of contention has officially closed, it’s time for the Sharks to blow it up and start over. Salary cap demands and free agency will force another roster overhaul this offseason, and the chickens are coming home to roost for San Jose general manager Doug Wilson after years spent focusing on the present rather than the future. It’s going to be a long and painful road back to the top of the Western Conference, especially when you consider that the Sharks have one of the weakest prospect pools in the league and a shortage of high draft picks.
To his credit, Wilson remains positive that his forlorn team can continue their path to the Stanley Cup, even if his tone has changed considerably from last season. After San Jose’s first round loss to the Anaheim Ducks in 2009, Wilson outlined his team’s goals with a bold statement, eliminating any doubt about his priorities moving forward: “Someone called and tried to pacify me, saying the journey is the reward. That is a crock. This is pro sports, winning is the only thing that matters.”
Maybe that statement should have come with a qualifier; something along the lines of, “winning enough to keep my job is the only thing that matters.” I say that because of the contrast in his attitude between this offseason and last. Chicago captain Jonathan Toews was presented with the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl for winning the Western Conference and wouldn’t go near it, wouldn’t even touch the table it was sitting on. Wilson’s team got swept by the Blackhawks and he embraced it like it was the best thing that had ever happened to the franchise.
“Right out of the gate I am damn proud of this hockey team, the coaching staff, and the fanbase for the support they gave us,” Wilson said. “It is a different feeling than we have had. We made huge strides as an organization, the standards, and the expectations. I do thank this group for that. The key is to build upon that. A lot of good things happened this year, a lot of success. We didn’t get ultimately where we wanted to get to, but I do feel this organization is now in a place where the standards to understand what it takes to get to. A lot of guys in this room have a lot to do with setting those standards.”
Was the season a success? No. The Sharks have won three consecutive Pacific Division titles, finished first in the Western Conference each of the last two years, and averaged 108.8 points in the five seasons since the NHL lockout. With results like that they should have made it to the third round at least once before the 2010 playoffs. Therefore, making it to the Western Conference final does not qualify as a success, being swept by a lower-seeded team would indicate that you failed miserably, and failing to win a game when you score the first goal in the three of them means you choked away a golden opportunity to advance to the Stanley Cup final.
So where do the Sharks go from here? Apparently they’re overhauling the third and fourth lines once again, beginning with Brad Staubitz’s trade to the Minnesota Wild for a fifth round draft pick. The lack of consistency on the depth lines has been cause for concern and every year it seems these players are identified as the main culprits and shipped out of town. Just look at the depth forwards who have come and gone over the last four years: Mike Grier, Steve Bernier, Patrick Rissmiller, Curtis Brown, Mark Smith, Marcel Goc, Tomas Plihal, Jonathan Cheechoo, Jeremy Roenick, Jody Shelley, Brad Staubitz, Lukas Kaspar, Travis Moen, Claude Lemieux.
That constant turnover has left the Sharks searching for an identity each season, hoping the new additions can bring a spark that never seems to come. Unfortunately, none of those players have been good enough to compensate for the failures of the Sharks’ scoring lines, populated by players who always manage to fall short when the stakes are raised. So what do the Sharks do with their big-ticket players, the ones who have earned reputations of playoff ineptitude? That’s the challenge that awaits Wilson this offseason, so let’s run through each of them and see what the future holds.
Joe Thornton
Terrible at the Olympics (2 points in 7 games), underachieving throughout the playoffs (12 points, -11 plus-minus in 15 games), horrible against the Blackhawks (1 point, -5 plus-minus in 4 games), you’d think Wilson would finally realize it’s time to ship Chokin’ Joe out of town. He’s still one of the most productive centers in the league and he’s on a great deal for what he gives you during the regular season, but there won’t be a better time to move him. Thornton has one year remaining on his contract, and he’ll turn 32 next summer. That’s hardly over the hill, but only four players over the age of 31 have ranked among the top 10 in scoring since the NHL lockout —Daniel Alfredsson, Jaromir Jagr, Martin St. Louis and Joe Sakic.
Rumors have been circulating about a trade that would package Thornton to the Ottawa Senators in exchange for a group of players including Jason Spezza. The Sharks have developed a reputation as the Ottawa of the west, and reuniting Spezza and Heatley, along with the multitude of 67s draft picks, would literally make San Jose the Ottawa of the west. As much as I’d like to see Thornton dealt, Spezza and Heatley couldn’t take their team over the top when they were younger and cheaper in Ottawa, so there’s no reason to think they’d be able to do it today in San Jose. The Sharks would be better off moving Thornton to a team that’s simply looking to make the playoffs — Columbus, Edmonton, Florida or Atlanta — in exchange for picks and prospects.
Patrick Marleau
Dealing Thornton would free up the cap space required to sign Marleau. I’m not a big fan of the former captain or his disappearing acts, but he’s a much more versatile player and it would do irreparable damage to the Sharks to have him walk away as a free agent. We can compare the two all afternoon, deciding which would be better to have around going forward, although the debate is much more simple than that. Would you rather trade Thornton for something or lose Marleau for nothing? I don’t know anyone who would choose to let Marleau walk without anything in return, and the Sharks can’t afford to keep both of them without hurting their depth even more.
Even if they can free up the cap space, it could still be a hard sell convincing Marleau to stay in San Jose. Players work their entire careers waiting for those massive free agent paydays, and the skilled winger is coming off a career-high 44 goals at just the right time, to the detriment of Wilson and the Sharks. Aside from Ilya Kovalchuk, Marleau is the top free agent forward available this summer and teams are going to come calling on July 1 with their checkbooks open. Sorry Shark fans, you can cross your fingers, eyes and toes, but Marleau is worth big bucks and he will not sign a long-term hometown discount.
Dany Heatley
Heatley isn’t going anywhere. He’s locker room poison after last summer, makes a ton of money, didn’t manage 40 goals last season playing alongside Thornton, was absolutely atrocious in the playoffs (2 goals in 14 games) and horrible down the stretch (5 goals in last 30 games overall). He’s signed through 2014, and it appears the Sharks are stuck with him until then because I can’t imagine anyone who would want to trade for him, especially considering his recent playoff performance and the unpredictability of his trade demands. He was a short-term fix who could become a long-term headache.
Evgeni Nabokov
Nabokov is an excellent goaltender, but he’s really had his reputation and his playoff performance crippled by mismanagement behind the bench. He’s a fiercely competitive player and wants to start every game, even when it hurts him down the road, as we’ve seen each of the last two seasons. There’s no doubt we can blame Nabokov for his playoff failures, although when we do we also have to blame Sharks coach Todd McLellan for overworking him to the point where his play suffers. McLellan did it last season with disastrous results, and did it again this year with more of the same. So who do you get rid of, the goaltender who can’t say no when his number is called, or the coach who insists on calling his number?
All season long I argued that overworking Nabokov would hurt the Sharks in the playoffs, and all season long McLellan displayed his ignorance. Here are Nabokov’s numbers in the first half of the season, second half, and playoffs.
Oct.-Dec.
Games played – 35
Minutes – 2,092
Goals against – 80
Shots – 1,069
Goals against average – 2.29
Save percentage – 0.925
Jan.-April
Games played – 36
Minutes – 2,100
Goals against – 90
Shots – 1,099
Goals against average – 2.57
Save percentage – 0.918
Playoffs
Games played – 15
Minutes – 889
Goals against – 38
Shots – 407
Goals against average – 2.56
Save percentage – 0.907
It’s clear that Nabokov's play declined as the season progressed, and fatigue would appear to be the biggest factor for the drop in his performance. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the five goaltenders with the best playoff save percentage — Jaroslav Halak, Michael Leighton, Jimmy Howard, Tuukka Rask and Antti Niemi — averaged 41.8 starts this season, and none of them had more than 61. Nabokov started 71 games this season, not including the Olympics. He’s one of the best goaltenders in the league and the best one available in free agency this offseason, but the Sharks (or his future employer) would get a lot more out of him if they limited his starts. I can’t think of any easy fix for McLellan though.
[email protected] 
Join the Discussion:
»