Better Late than Never
May 27th, 2009, 9:07 am
First up, we have a new podcast, addressing the next two questions the Sharks need to think about.
I’m finally getting around to my take on the issues raised in Doug’s last post. I’m just going to talk about where we differ, because we really do agree on most of it. Although I do agree with his Step Two that we shouldn’t just trade away all the good players like Joe, Patty, and Nabby, I also think there needs to be a major change, that of leadership.
I’ve written many times in the past defending Marleau as captain, saying that quiet leaders have been successful on other teams. I still believe that. I just don’t believe anymore that it’s the right thing for this Sharks team. The experiment has played out, and the results are in. Maybe Yzerman or Lidstrom or Modano or whoever was able to lead his team to the promised land without kicking ass and taking names, but we now know that model isn’t working here. The leadership structure has to be modified, and Marleau should no longer wear the C.
If that means that Marleau has to be traded, I guess I’m ok with that. I’d like to think, like Dallas, that transition could be made with only moderate hurt feelings, and the team could still go forward. But I don’t think anybody but the management and players of the Sharks can predict that accurately (and maybe not even them). This might be one of those times where the lack of oppressive media scrutiny can help the situation. Sure, the fans and local media will make hay of the C being “stripped” off Marleau’s jersey, and there will be some difficult and awkward questions. But it won’t even be in the same ballpark as any of the Canadian or major east coast franchises.
Make no mistake, this will be a risky move. It could risk alienating popular players, and perhaps even break the locker room into opposing factions. But what we have now isn’t working. There’s no denying it. It’s certainly possible that giving Boyle or somebody else the C wouldn’t fix it, and we’ll see an invisible second and third line again next year, or a brand new way of wilting in the postseason. But somehow I doubt it. While each player is ultimately responsible for his output, and we should never forget that, to use a more business analogy, if you change the product leads, you can’t help but see changes to the product.
Loading ...
Why not move Thornton instead of Marleau? Maybe because Marleau wears the C and you have to remove him completely — if you decide on a change in leadership — but if we’re going to trade one of the two, I think trading Thornton is a better move.
1. Marleau is a better fit in the new system. He’s fast, kills penalties, and is more versatile. Case in point is Joe’s struggles to adapt to the new system — in fact, a lot of resistance, if you listen to some of the coach’s comments — and Marleau’s ability to thrive with the new system. Thornton is almost a non-entity in the new system. We have the franchise centremen standing in front of the net trying to screen the goalie, for example. Marleau is far more dynamic in this system.
2. Marleau is more difficult to defend. He has speed, size, and a reasonably good shot. Joe can pass. And, whether it was injuries or not, he has been far less effective in dominating possession along the boards and behind the net in recent seasons.
3. Thornton probably has higher trade value. He’s the 100-point centremen, former No. 1 pick overall, etc. Calgary and Toronto would go ape for Joe, for example, playoff warts and all. Marleau’s entire career has been under the radar and I think his trade value would be as well.
4. Thornton’s production has been decreasing consistently and further, his physical fitness is somewhat more questionable relative to Marleau. Patty entered the post-season hurt this year, but Joe has run out of gas the past two seasons by the playoffs. Also, everyone knows about his doughboy physique.
Adam,
You make an interesting argument, though I do have to quibble on several points:
Case in point is Joe’s struggles to adapt to the new system — in fact, a lot of resistance, if you listen to some of the coach’s comments
Not sure which comments you are referring to. If you mean the stuff about him not shooting, that was an issue during RW’s tenure as well.
We have the franchise centremen standing in front of the net trying to screen the goalie
This directly contradicts your previous point about Joe not adapting to the McLellan era. He didn’t do this before 08-09.
Thornton is almost a non-entity in the new system
He had 15 more points than Marleau overall, the same number of PP goals, and three times as many PP assists. How this counts as a ‘non-entity’ I’ve no idea. Agreed that Marleau was better even strength, but I think this team faces bigger challenges than trying to get an 80 pt scorer to produce more.
Marleau is more difficult to defend.
By what measure? In terms of both raw penalites drawn (33 vs 21) and penalties drawn per 60 minutes TOI (1.6 vs. 1.2) Joe is significantly better. I’m sure there are other metrics one can use, but I don’t know them.
Marleau’s entire career has been under the radar and I think his trade value would be as well.
All NHL teams scout the living hell out of each other. I think the likelihood of a 38 goal scorer not being known as a very good or great player is not too good.
Joe has run out of gas the past two seasons by the playoffs
And yet led the team in playoff points both years, after playing all 82 regular season games.
Also, everyone knows about his doughboy physique.
Hehe, you can’t just throw that out without citation. Link, please.
Overall, the argument that it should be Thornton that goes and not Marleau is an eminently defensible one (although I should state for the record that I didn’t advocate trading #12, just shaking up the leadership of the team). However, as we’ve made the point on the podcast and here on the blog, the problem would be replacing either of them with somebody else. Finding 80-100 points per year is not an easy task, and if we expect the Sharks to fill that role from within, we can kiss any short term Stanley Cup aspirations goodbye.
I have to agree with Doug’s take from the podcast regarding defensemen. The only reason to re-up Semenov, Huskins, or MacLaren is depth. But really that’s the kind of depth you go after at the trade deadline.
I think Doug is correct that Luko is the 7th D-man. Especially if you’re going to fill the first major hole you guys mentioned – upgrade at defenseman #2. Team should have: 1.Boyle – 2.tbd via trade – 3.Erhoff – 4.Blake or similar FA – 5.Vlasic – 6.Murray – 7.Luko.
If $3.5Mil is the cutoff for Blake, then others to look at might include Seidenberg, Bergeron, or Boynton. And each may be a better option than Blake.
As for the defenseman to be acquired via trade, why not look to Toronto, again? Burke is itching to get rid of Kaberle. He really wants to move up in the draft, which is something the Sharks cannot directly help him with. But maybe indirectly. If Tampa is going into full youth mode, package McGinn, Michalek, and Sexsmith for Kaberle, 2010 first rounder and 2009 third rounder, and let Burke try to turn McGinn into the #2 pick this year.
Mike, you bring up good points. I don’t really want to trade Joe, but in the same vein that it’s been mentioned that both he and Patty cannot be driving the team leadership, maybe that permeates to them as players, too.
Re: his bad physique, I thought the whole Boucher/Thornton mini-Olympics was started because Boucher capped on Thornton’s body.
http://communities.canada.com/theprovince/blogs/kurtenblog/archive/2009/04/01/the-links-nhl-hockey-news-milan-lucic-joe-thornton-calgary-flames.aspx (middle of the page)
Also, I recall that this came up the year before, when Ron Wilson made fun of Joe’s body. Joe then asked someone if “it was really that bad.” Now, he could have been joking, because he’s got a good sense of humour. And Ron himself was kind of joking (but with a lot of truthiness, which is Ronnie’s way). I can’t find a link to that one, but maybe someone else can back that story up.
There’s no argument: Joe has statistically out-performed Patty in the past, by any metric and by large margin, save for goals. I think that’s important, though. I am not that impressed with Joe’s transformation into Adam Oates. This was passable when he was racking up 100+ points. Now, he’s really an 80-90 point guy. Plus, his GF/60 is good but not great, especially for a guy everyone instinctively tabs as an elite offensive performer.
Look at the GF/60 from 2009 to 2007:
Thornton: 3.07, 3.18, 3.55
Spezza: 2.72, 4.26, 4.15
I’m not saying Thornton for Spezza — just that Spezza is probably a good comparison in general, to put Thornton’s numbers/performance in context.
When I say that he’s more easily defended, I will have to use anecdotal and visual evidence, which, I recognize is flimsy. But McCLellan has talked in the past of how predictable Joe’s game has/had become — especially in the playoffs. Every year we hear about how the opposition has taken away his time and space. Basically, every series except those against Nashville.
When I say Joe is misplaced in this system, I say that because it seems to be predicated on speed and making plays quickly — Joe likes to slow things down, curl toward the half boards, and wait for an opening. There are times when he makes plays quickly, and he goes into the zone with speed, and heads straight to the net. That is when he is most effective, in my opinion, and others who have expressed this at times like Bucci and McClellan himself.
Joe played like this for the first couple of months. Hitchcock talked about how Marleau and Thornton played with a mean streak/purpose and were fed up with past results. Then, he started to go back to the way things were. I think others in the blogosphere noted this as well. Was this because of the injuries to the roster? Was Joe himself hurt? Whatever it was, everyone kept talking about the first two months’ style of play that never returned and the offence plummeted.
Joe has *tried* to fit into this system at times — I don’t disagree with that. But, when your system utilizes your top centre as a goalie screen, it seems like the system isn’t for him. Or maybe that’s McClellan’s fault for using him this way. There were times in the playoffs where Joe didn’t even touch the puck on the powerplay. He looked lost at times, too. McClellan seemed to really go out of his way to utilize Marleau in various capacities, in contrast. Marleau is also a lot more physical on the forecheck. Joe peels off his many 95 percent of the time, unless you happen to high-stick him, and then he’s out for blood, maybe.
It’s probably the emotion and disappointment of being a Sharks fan, but really, I know that the stats show Joe has put up a decent number of points in the playoffs with San Jose. He’s led the team every year, as you pointed out. But, I can’t be impressed with his 6 goals and 35 points in 41 games. I get that his assists led to goals, but it goes back to being one-dimensional, and being easier to defend. He’s not a threat to score. Marleau has put up 16 goals and 31 points during the same time frame. And, that’s not too far off his pace in the regular season. Whereas Joe’s production falls off a cliff (relative to his regular season dominance). Of course Joe starts from a higher point.
I think for all these statistical reasons, Joe has a much higher trade value. Of course, the flip-side of that is for all these statistical reasons, Joe is maybe more important to the team (than Patty). I think that might not be true if you can re-invest his salary in other ways. For example, in a fantasy world, let’s say you somehow upgrade from Nabby to Luongo. Part of Joe’s $7.2M goes to that. Maybe the rest of the money goes to signing another legitimate/bonafide d-man, like Bouwmeester. Your centres are still Marleau/Pavs/Mitchell, and you still have Couture, who could be something (and cheap). I know scoring was a problem, but I felt like not having capable puck-moving defencemen was really telling. Lukowich was on the top pair. Jeez. I’d rather have Vesce/Couture types at forward than as defencemen, for example.
Jeremy: I think your Kaberle idea is something we should keep an eye on…but I don’t know if he solves our problem. His penalty kill time has been significantly decreased the last two seasons to basically Toronto’s 5th defensive kill option. He averaged 1:07 PK time per game, which was less than Luko’s 1:45 PK per this year.
Slick offensively – but I’m not sure he fits the bill of what San Jose should be looking for – but given the Ron Wilson/San Jose connection, I don’t think we can discount Kaberle or Kubina in the Sharks rumor mill.
Adam,
I think you’re right on the money on almost everything you said. I would like to visit this:
When I say Joe is misplaced in this system, I say that because it seems to be predicated on speed and making plays quickly — Joe likes to slow things down, curl toward the half boards, and wait for an opening.
Not sure if I necessarily agree with “misplaced”, but I certainly do agree that Joe’s comfort zone appears to be in slowing the game down. I hope McLellan will continue to convince him that that style of play in the NHL these days isn’t going to be too successful. If you look at all the conference finalists, none of them have a game like that. And I do believe that Joe is a smart enough player to see that, and change his game accordingly. I think we saw a fair amount of that this past season, and I hope to see more this coming season.
Maybe it’s also that my belief (or stubbornness) is that a player of Joe’s caliber can’t just be a loser that will never win. Not that I’m painting you with that brush, but others do believe that. My hope is that Patty and Joe can both stay on the team with their immense talent, and the tenor and culture of the room changes with a new voice. But I’m of the opinion that the second half of that past sentence is more important than the former.
I agree with the podcast in that the Sharks’ number one need is another bonafide defenceman, instead of the complementary defencemen they have right now (outside of Boyle, obviously).
I think there was the potential for Vlasic to be that guy, but this playoff series really exposed him, I thought. For all of Ehrhoff’s frustrations, he has a higher ceiling than Vlasic. Vlasic looks and plays like some combination of Martin Skoula and Scott Hannan (post-lockout). He’s only 22, but San Jose needs someone now.
To get a legitimate top pair defenceman, San Jose is going to have to move salary around. I have this fantasy that San Jose being sort of secluded would be attractive to Bouwmeester, who seems like a Thornton/Marleau personality.
I would inquire about Phaneuf, and see how serious Calgary is about needing salary relief and being frustrated with him. His game is surely flawed, but at his age and with his skill set, I would take on that risk and hope he blossoms here as a No. 1. (He seems far more projectible in this regard than Vlasic, for example.) The closest San Jose has come to that sort of development in house is maybe one year of Brad Stuart and one year of Matt Carle. These guys are like young starting pitchers in baseball — they don’t come on the market often and they’re extremely scarce — so it could be worth pursuing.
What would it take to get Phaneuf? Would they entertain a Thornton for Phaneuf swap? I think that would have more legs if Jokinen wasn’t there. And if not Joe, then what combination of pieces for Phaneuf would it take? One of Vlasic/Ehrhoff would have to go, and that would be the highest amount of salary I could see Calgary taking back. Pavs. Maybe Sexsmith, depending on their goalie pipeline. I’d want to keep Couture if we’re losing Pavs — not just in this deal, but any potential deal — but Calgary would probably want him, too.
Failing Bouwmeester and Phaneuf, I would then target, as others have mentioned, Kaberle. With Kaberle, though, I wouldn’t want to lose Vlasic (presumably who Ron Wilson would want) to get him. It’s an age and ceiling thing compared to Bouwmeester and Phaneuf.
Could San Jose get either Jovanovksi ($6.5M cap hit) or Souray ($5.4M) on the cheap, and should they be interested in those guys? They just spent $5M on Blake last year so it’s not that out of budget. Jovo has 2 years, $12M remaining. Souray is on the books for $14.5M for 3 years.
I really like Douglas Murray’s physical game. He is arguably the only physical defenceman the Sharks have and very effective in that regard. But, I feel like the $2.5M hit over the next 4 years is going to hurt. That’s too much money for a 3rd pairing guy. I would rather have Huskins for half the cost, spreading the difference up top — moving from a $5M guy to a $6.5M guy. Plus, maybe Mike Moore, at a third of the cost, could serve what Douglas provides. And if you want to push it, you throw Petrecki in there. Joslin. Whatever.
Just finished the podcast.
Personally, I wouldn’t pay Blake more than $3m a year. Sure, he’s had a good regular season, but it’s his playoff rather mediocre appearance that remains in my memory. He’s not getting any younger, and I don’t think we need to pay him more than $3m. In my eyes, he left a sour memory.
On the other hand, I have yet to hear anyone mention a possibility of signing Hossa. I think it is pretty obvious that RW decided to choose Franzen instead of Hossa, and Hossa has been somewhat invisible in playoffs for a player of caliber, but if we have a chance to get him, would that mean letting Joe or Patty go or make our defense weaker?
As far as Bouwmeester and Hossa go, I have the same reaction- the Sharks don’t sign top tier free agents, for whatever reason. So that leaves signing second tier guys, or make trades.
Phaneuf would be ideal – I’m not sure what Sutter would want, but I would probably trade Joe for that. Jokinen to me was a disappointment, and maybe he’s just a second line guy. As far a Jovo and Souray go, I’m worried about their contract status and term, and their ability to stay healthy. I’m not sure Jovo would be a huge upgrade over Blake, and Souray for 45 games isn’t that much better.