On this weeks podcast, Mike and I identify the areas we think the San Jose Sharks need to address this offseason. These are roster weaknesses that can either be filled from within the organization, by trade, or by signing a free agent (but we know how unlikely it is for San Jose to land a premium one of those). Here is our shopping list.

Number Two Defensemen (Doug and Mike)
Legitimate Checking Line A#*hole (Doug and Mike)
Back-up goalie (Doug and Mike)
Top six forward (Doug)

Not exactly the kind of stuff you can pick up at Trader Joe’s, although some current players might be working there next year – “Hey Plihal, we’re all out of Two-Buck Chuck.”

I think we spent enough time explaining and beginning to explore the first three items on the list, but what about a new Top Six forward. This isn’t exactly something the Sharks are lacking in terms of what they have on their current roster – you could make a case that the Sharks have eight “top six” guys to choose from: Thornton, Marleau, Seto, Pavs, Clowe, Michalek, Cheechoo and toss in Jamie McGinn. What I want management to do this summer is identify who the Top Six forwards are and then trade the odd-man out. Watching Cheechoo attempt to do 3rd line duty again next year will be unacceptable for the progress of the franchise. He isn’t a 3rd line guy, can’t play solid defense, doesn’t have great speed, doesn’t kill penalties well. Make a decision and move forward – but I would even advocate that there will be a few attainable UFA’s that can do the job if the Sharks need to part with Michalek, Cheechoo or both to get the #2 D-man we desperately need. I’ll name some names when we get to that step – feel free to toss a few around now.

Mike and I did dive into a wish-list of 3rd line guys we’d like Doug Wilson to chase on the market. Chris Neil and Ian Laperierre are both very attainable names, guys who are mid-level UFA’s that won’t command more than 2-2.5M in salary and would likely consider a West-Coast move – heck Laperierre played for eight seasons in LA, so he knows the California life. Downside to him is his age at 35, but his speed and ability to be King-A#*hole makes him a very attractive guy at a two year deal. Chris Neil will likely be looking for a three year deal, and at 30 years old, this guy could be the Holmstrom type that McLellan is begging for – he scored eight PP goals in 2005-06 for Ottawa and can fight anyone, including Milan Lucic. One of these guys needs to be a Sharks next year. Gotta happen. The trade market for this type of player I think will be pretty slim – although if Carolina decides they can’t afford to resign RFA Tuomo Ruutu, the Sharks should consider making that phone call – but signing Ruutu will cost about 3-3.5M. That’s another topic for another day.

Mike and Doug tackle the next two questions the Sharks need to answer: What do the Sharks need (and can they fill that need from within) and which UFAs and RFA should be retained?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

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.

On our recent podcast, we get into our seven step offseason plan for the San Jose Sharks in what might be the most important offseason in franchise history.

Step One: Define the Budget. I believe the Sharks will be spending in the 53-54M range, operating about 3M under the cap – which is a change from this year being right up against it. I think the Sharks will cut salary, disposing of two current roster players in the 3-4M range to allow for the resigning of their own RFA’s, UFA’s and adding a few new faces. More specifics later on who goes…

Step Two: Change at the Top. As I’ve said before, and after stewing about this for a few weeks now, I don’t hold Marleau and Thornton accountable for the playoff failure. They did their part and the supporting cast didn’t hold up their end of the bargain. Dan Boyle? He bares no real blame here, he was the Sharks best player, no doubt. That leaves Nabby as the only player at the top who could find themselves on the block. So, does trading our starting goalie since 2000 who has 492 NHL starts for the Sharks make sense? What could we get in return?

Here’s a recap of five major trades involving starting goalies in the NHL. Check out the return value.

2008: Montreal trades Huet to Washington for a 2nd round pick.

2007: San Jose trades Toskala to Toronto for a 1st, 2nd and 4th round pick.
Nashville trades Vokoun to Florida for a 1st and two 2nd round picks.
Buffalo trades Biron to Philadelphia for a 2nd round pick.

2006: Florida trades Luongo to Vancouver for Bertuzzi, Bryan Allen and Alex Auld.

Looking at these five trades, I would place Nabby’s trade value on par with Vokoun’s. Their career numbers are similar but the thing working against Nabby’s value would be the one year left on his contract. So, I’m guessing the likely return for Nabby would be a 1st round pick. Is that enough? If he’s traded (and that is a GIANT IF because Nabby would have to approve any deal since he has a no-trade clause) who the hell is going to play in net for a team that has the Stanley Cup finals as their goal?

Khabibulin? Manny Fernandez? Martin Biron? Dwayne Roloson? Ray Emery? Arturs Irbe?

See what I’m getting at? There is no one on the market that is an upgrade over a motivated Nabokov going into a contract year. The Sharks have three red-hot goalie prospects waiting in the wings to take over in 2010: Greiss just had a solid year as the full time starter in Worcester, carrying what is an otherwise mediocre AHL team to the 2nd round of the playoffs with his solid play in net. Alex Stalock was a First-Team All American this year and took his Minnesota Duluth team to the NCAA West Regionals. His .981% save percentage in the tournament speaks of his big game ability. Tyson Sexsmith won 39 games for the Vancouver Giants in the WHL junior league and played great hockey before his team lost in the Western Conf. Finals to the eventual champion Kelowna Rockets. The Sharks have invested roughly 2M in these three players combined.

One of these three guys is the future in net for the Sharks (my early money is on Stalock, just a hunch) but none of them are ready to be a full time NHL goalie. For now, dumping Nabby for the sake of making a change doesn’t make much sense to me.

One more year of Nabby. Enjoy him while he lasts – then with him and Marleau both UFA’s – if the team doesn’t achieve the goal of appearing in the Cup finals – we’ll see the dramatic changes at the top.

Even though there’s not much Sharks to talk about, we are still here, and still podcasting.  We are asking big questions this week in the podcast, and we need your help.  We’ve answered the first two in this episode, but there are more to come.  If you have answers, or quibbles with ours, make sure to email us, and we’ll address all comers on the next show.

After breaking down the State of the Sharks, Mike and Doug start the first of several episodes where the Sharks big questions are asked and answered.  Like the Sharks organization, the dudes want to ask the right questions in the right order, and they start this week with the two biggest- 1) how much do we spend, and 2) what do you do with the big stars.  Several more questions will follow in later episodes.

A CORRECTION TO SOMETHING DOUG SAID ON THE PODCAST. ALEX STALOCK WAS DRAFTED BY THE SHARKS IN THE 4TH ROUND IN 2005.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Better than expected.

Those were my first impressions leaving last night’s State of the Sharks event. While there were some awkward moments inspired by some awkward questions from some awkward fans, the overall quality of the event was higher than 2008. Mike and I are going to split up the post and share four observations from an event that we all hope we never have to attend again in May.

DOUG’S STATE OF THE SHARKS MUSINGS

1. Joe Thornton is not going anywhere. Doug Wilson and Todd McLellan spoke of Joe making a commitment to come into camp earlier than previous years. Why would you even bother having that conversation with a player you’re going to shop around the league? Joe is staying. Ignore the rumors, that’s all they are.
2. Joe Thornton is not captain material. I don’t mean this as a slap in the face, it’s just the truth. He was great last night, kept his answers light hearted and his answer to the fan who asked why didn’t shoot more was classic. To paraphrase Joe, “You know, I wish the fans would tell me to shoot more on the power play. I just can’t hear you when I’m on the ice.” While he brought levity to some uncomfortable questions, he didn’t demonstrate the determination, frustration and winning is all I want attitude that Dan Boyle or Todd McLellan did. He’s not a leader like that and we can’t force him to be – you are who you are. He’s more of a big class clown with a boatload of talent.
3. Rob Blake is coming back. Doug Wilson and McLellan mentioned the big guy a few times when discussing the team going forward when they were otherwise being guarded about the future roster. While there was no statement like “Rob Blake is coming back”, I got the impression that the plan is to have him and his booming shot return. He had his best year in three seasons and didn’t look like a guy ready to hang ’em up. If he can reduce his price to 3M, he’s a bargain as a #4 guy…but I think it’s clear we need a different partner on the top pairing for Boyle. More on that later.
4. Doug Wilson and Todd McLellan referenced bringing in “grit”. Thank you, lord! Without mentioning specific players (other than a long response about Brad Staubitz, who is clearly being considered for a featured role next season) management is aware that the lack of grit and a player who is willing to stand in front of the opposing goalie and take a beating is lacking and will be addressed.

Your turn, Mikey.

State of the Sharks for me is always a double-edged sword. On the plus side, the questions seemed to be generally better than last year, more hockey focused.  On the minus side, more people took their opportunity at the mic as some sort of audition for This is Your Life, recapping how they became fans in 1977 when a clown beat them with a hockey stick at the county fair.

The key to State of the Sharks is to try and find those little interesting nuggets of information that get released amidst the fountains of fluff.  Because I’m squirming in my seat most of the time when people are wasting the time of thousands of people talking about how they love the Sharks more than their children, some of this “insight” may be just a figment of my imagination.  I have to keep my mind occupied somehow, so I don’t run down the stairs of the arena and hit the questioner with a shovel.

1. Todd McLellan knows a ton about hockey.  Okay, not really much of an insight.  I have to get warmed up here.  But his analysis of the PP issues in the postseason was pretty impressive.
2. Patrick Marleau said that his captaincy could be competently held by others.  Not much of an insight in and of itself, but I this means he understands (welcomes?) the fact that the threads holding the C to his sweater are fraying.
3. Boyle essentially said the team didn’t think they could win the series after losing game 4.  What he did say was something like, “We thought we could still win down 0-2, but then we had a horrible game 4.”  Same thing to me.
4. When Wilson said that some players could get “overripe”, and that guys need to make the transition to pulling their own weight instead of leaning on Patty and Joe, I had two names immediately pop into my head: Vlasic and Michalek.  I could easily see a big change being made in this area.

Check out the first All Star round-table discussion in Dudes On Hockey history, with three distinguished Sharks bloggers: Jon Swenson from Sharkspage and Battle of California, Mike Chen from Kukla’s Korner and BoC, and Jason Plank from Fear the Fin. This heavyweight panel tackles the biggest Sharks questions out there- what the Sharks major problems are, who should stay, who should go, and what question would you ask at State of the Sharks if everyone there took truth serum.

I got an email from my old friend asking me what’s the difference between the Sharks and the Blackhawks – did the Sharks just get a nightmare draw in the Ducks? Would the Sharks be playing still right now if they had drawn the Flames and Canucks? Why are the Blackhawks, who play a similar style to the Sharks and have considerably less NHL experience on the roster, still going strong and the Sharks are sitting at home watching the Biggest Loser finale?

The Answer: The 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines.

The Sharks forwards had 18 points in their first round series, and Joe Thornton, Marleau, and Seto (the Sharks leadership) accounted for 11 of those points, or 61%.

Check out the Blackhawks, with 84 total forward points:
Toews/Kane/Brouwer – 24 (28.5%)
Havlat/Ladd/Bolland – 25 (29.7%)
Burish/Eager/Sharp – 15 (17.8%)
Byfuglien/Versteeg/Pahlsson – 20 (23.8%)

There’s your answer. I’m getting closer to forming an opinion on the changes that I want to suggest, and I think these numbers are telling. Are Marleau and Thornton really to blame? Shouldn’t we be pointing the finger at the 2nd and 3rd lines that did nothing to support them?

This episode is the first round-table discussion in Dudes On Hockey history, with three distinguished Sharks bloggers: Jon Swenson from Sharkspage and Battle of California, Mike Chen from Kukla’s Korner and BoC, and Jason Plank from Fear the Fin.  This heavyweight panel tackles the biggest Sharks questions out there- what the Sharks major problems are, who should stay, who should go, and what question would you ask at State of the Sharks if everyone there took truth serum.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

The San Jose Sharks released information for their annual State of the Sharks event, where fans get to ask questions of Doug Wilson, Todd McLellan, and Team President, Greg Jamison. We went to this event last year and it was incredibly painful, mostly because of the abundance of lame questions from the fans who made their way to the mic. Their insightfulness included musing on the 49ers in the 80s, someone complaining about the water temp. in the bathrooms and a personal invitation for Cheech to visit them in Gilroy.

God help us all.

This year, the team is trotting out three players to sit on the panel to endure the torture – Joe Thornton, Joe Pavelski and Dan Boyle to join team captain, Patrick…oh…sorry. Looks like Captain Patty gets a pass on this one…

Huh?

Shouldn’t the captain be on the podium to hear the frustration of the fans and take accountability for their collective failures? We know Marleau won’t have anything “quote worthy” to say in response, but he should be there, as the face of the franchise and team captain, right?

So, if we’re looking to read tea leaves and glimpse into the mind of Doug Wilson – is this an unspoken hint?