Are the Sharks the poster child of why you shoudn't rush into a rebuild? - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

GullFoss · 05-15-2016, 12:30 AM

I remember hearing a lot of discussion (perhaps not on Calgarypuck) that the San Jose Sharks needed to blow it up and start the rebuild after missing the playoffs last year. Namely, the discussion focused around Thorton and Marleau - two post apex players. Instead, the team signed Paul Martin, Joel Ward and traded for Jones and got a new coach. So to a lot of people it looked like the team was doubling down on an aging roster and was doomed to years of mediocrity.

Fast forward to Round 3: Have the Sharks become the poster child of why you shouldn't begin a rebuild too early? Sure if you jump the gun, you might get a bit more for the star players you unload and get a head start on the rebuild, but look at what a team might end up missing out on.

I think the timing of when to start blowing it up might be the hardest decision for a general manager to make.

Thoughts?

Roof-Daddy · 05-15-2016, 12:39 AM

The Sharks are the poster child for retooling on the fly and being a perennial playoff contender.

They've only missed the playoffs twice in the last 18 years, and have finished 1st or 2nd in the division 10 of those years.

I hate them, but that's a well run organization....and even after 18 years, and with Thornton and Marleau nearing the end, they still have many, many solid young players ready to take the torch and continue the success.

If it wasn't for the repeated playoff choking they'd probably be the model franchise of the NHL IMO.

GoJetsGo · 05-15-2016, 01:28 AM

It's a snap shot. One team, one season.

Not everything needs to be over-analyzed to that degree where conclusions on how franchises need to be built are drawn.

Vulcan · 05-15-2016, 01:30 AM

The reason they couldn't get rid of Thornton and Marleau to start a re-build is that they wouldn't waive their no trade contracts. That they are where they are isn't from good planning, it's just making the best of what they have although that it's turned out well may change some GMs thinking.

I think San Jose was built right in the first place with good drafting, good trades and didn't mortgage the future like happened in Calgary. Looking back we haven't gotten anything much from trading Iginla and Bouwmeester, we'd have probably been better off keeping them except that it made the owners get onside with building a team the right way.

Huntingwhale · 05-15-2016, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The Sharks are the poster child for retooling on the fly and being a perennial playoff contender.

They've only missed the playoffs twice in the last 18 years, and have finished 1st or 2nd in the division 10 of those years.

I hate them, but that's a well run organization....and even after 18 years, and with Thornton and Marleau nearing the end, they still have many, many solid young players ready to take the torch and continue the success.

If it wasn't for the repeated playoff choking they'd probably be the model franchise of the NHL IMO.

Pretty much this. The Sharks are the model of consistency. Constantly at the top of the standings. They've always been able to make trades for star players. Doug Wilson is one of the most shrewd and underrated GM's in the league. You never hear much about him. Yet he's results are undeniable. They also have a rabid loyal fanbase. And SJ is one of the best cities to live in.

Everyone wants to emulate the Detroit model. But to me , I've always wanted to be like the Sharks. Flames vs Sharks games are always exciting. And there's not really any players on the Sharks you can hate. I guess only Torres, but the team has dealt with him. Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski, Couture, Burns. All players you would want on your team. And they traded us Kipper for a 2nd which ended up being Vlasic. A win-win for both sides.

Division foe or not, I just can't hate the Sharks. More then anything, I admire them. And I think their playoff ''choke'' label is completely overblown. They have lost to cup winners like the Hawks and Kings. They have made the conference finals 4 times since '04. Something I can only dream of achieving as a Flames fan. I'll take that ''choke'' 10/10.

sa226 · 05-15-2016, 08:22 AM

They could have been the Flames of 2009 or the Canucks of right now with that aging core. The difference is that they have the Pavelskis the Burns' and the Coutures to take over from Thornton and Marleau. While the Flames had Dustin Boyd and the Canucks have Bo Horvat.

I admit I'm a bit of a casual viewer of these playoffs, but I'd love to see San Jose win it all. Just for seemingly coming out of nowhere. They were pegged as a team in need of an aggressive retool, now look at them.

Also I hate the notion of Stanley Cup copy cat-ing. "The Kings are a big truculent team, we need to be big and truculent!" How do you copy San Jose? Just try to build the best team that you can.

Vinny01 · 05-15-2016, 08:25 AM

The one thing I was completely wrong about was the Jones trade. I thought it was absolutely idiotic for Wilson to trade a 1st rounder for a goalie that was unproven to handle being a starter. Looking at that trade today it was a beauty move by the Sharks as they got a 25 year old solid number 1 and give up a 27-30 first rounder. I also thought the moves of bringing in more 34+ year old guys in Ward and Matrin was terrible but again I was wrong.

I thought the Sharks were done when they missed the playoffs last year. Looking at that team though they have an incredible blueline and are deep up front. They could win it all.

Trading for Brent Burns was a huge win. Pavelski has elevated his game to new heights over the last few seasons, and Couture is a great player. Having these guys has allowed them to keep the window open for Joe and Patty who still produce at a nice clip

Alberta_Beef · 05-15-2016, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The reason they couldn't get rid of Thornton and Marleau to start a re-build is that they wouldn't waive their no trade contracts. That they are where they are isn't from good planning, it's just making the best of what they have although that it's turned out well may change some GMs thinking.

I think San Jose was built right in the first place with good drafting, good trades and didn't mortgage the future like happened in Calgary. Looking back we haven't gotten anything much from trading Iginla and Bouwmeester, we'd have probably been better off keeping them except that it made the owners get onside with building a team the right way.

It's still too soon to judge the Iginla or Bouwmeester trades as not getting much. When you get picks in the 2nd half of the first round you need to be patient because you'll need to wait 5-6 years to see what you really have.

Vinny01 · 05-15-2016, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa226

They could have been the Flames of 2009 or the Canucks of right now with that aging core. The difference is that they have the Pavelskis the Burns' and the Coutures to take over from Thornton and Marleau. While the Flames had Dustin Boyd and the Canucks have Bo Horvat.

I recall Sutter saying that Stajan and Bourque were supposed to lead the Flames through the retool back in 2010

sa226 · 05-15-2016, 08:28 AM

I was kind of exaggerating, but yeah my point stands.

Fighting Banana Slug · 05-15-2016, 09:16 AM

Just a well run team that made the best of the hand that was dealt to them. Who is to say they didn't try and blow it up, but Thorton/Marleau refused to waive? Either way, they identified a few needs (tougher, more depth at D, better goaltending), and went out and got it. Good for them. Jones and the new coach were excellent choices in retrospect, although at the time I thought they were not the best.

EVERLAST · 05-15-2016, 10:10 AM

My only question is how many cups do they have?

Zero

How many coach killers on that team?? 2 or more I'd say.

Not a poster child I'd say at all. They have gotten pretty lucky I'd say in certain respects but choking as many times as they have done.....wowzers.

They were supposed to win the cup how many times according to experts??

Enoch Root · 05-15-2016, 10:11 AM

Generally, fans are far too impatient.

Chemistry is crucial to being a successful team, and sometimes you just have to give it a chance. Same thing with players - sometimes it takes a while for them to fit into the team, and hit their stride.

The difference between winning and losing in the NHL is razor thin and the difference can be one or two changes, and a couple guys having big years vs off years. Or a goalie getting hot.

Conversely, fans want to blow it up the minute it doesn't work. Especially Canadian fans.

Hackey · 05-15-2016, 10:20 AM

I think the same could be said for the Caps. Couple years ago I thought they might have to consider rebuilding.

Enoch Root · 05-15-2016, 10:22 AM

Less than a year ago, many fans were calling Pittsburgh a seriously flawed team that needed a major overhaul.

PeteMoss · 05-15-2016, 10:23 AM

I'd love to see proof that rebuilding is a better way to win than just retooling.

saillias · 05-15-2016, 10:35 AM

They're a poster child of why Todd McLellan sucks. Haha Oilers.

sharkov · 05-15-2016, 11:06 AM

The sharks have shifted their core group from Thornton and Marleau to Pavelski, Burns and Couture. Thornton and Marleau have handled this transition with grace and hence they have caught lightning in a bottle.

saillias · 05-15-2016, 11:23 AM

Also I read the thread title as "Starks" and got sad. They... were kind of forced into a rebuild.

Fire of the Phoenix · 05-15-2016, 11:24 AM

Lightning in a bottle with some good players. Probably going to be a 90ish point team going forward. Not really a model to follow, they went down a pretty unique path.