Thread: Heatley a Shark -done deal

Originally Posted by Iron Duke

I agree with this. Only way I think it's realistic for Marleau to be dealt to the Kings is if it's a three-team deal with him going to another team and then to us. Stripping the long-time captain of his captaincy, then trading him to a division rival in a contract year is just tempting the hockey gods a little too much.

If they are going to move him to dump salary, they have to move him to a team that's got the cap space, or be close enough that they can send a smaller amount of salary back to make the deal work for both teams.

The only logical choices I can see are us, the Preds, and the Blue Jackets. Marleau has to agree to a trade to one of those teams. From a Salary Cap perspective, a Frolov for Marleau deal is as close to the perfect trade for both sides that's possible. Columbus and Nashville can both absorb his salary without sending anyone else back. Dallas also appears to have the cap room to take him on.

If they waive him right before the season starts, then its the draft order from last summer, and we're the first logical team to take him, Toronto and Dallas the next 2 in that order. Dallas has the cap room, Toronto does not.

Originally Posted by jt

No, at worst, Heatley comes in and further erodes the heart of the Sharks, causing them to implode the way the Senators have the last couple seasons.

I think the Sharks should be just as good as last season, but this isn't fantasy hockey and it's not all about stats - Heatley brings some serious problems and that can't be ignored.

Barring a total collapse, which I find very, very unlikely, I see the worst being another first round bounce. As you state, they should be just as good as last season. If Heatley causes the whole thing to come crashing down, the team was already in trouble to begin with.

Originally Posted by jt

Can't similar things be said of Frolov and the Kings trading him within the division?

Yes, and I would be one pissed off Kings fan if Lombardi traded Frolov within the division, only tempered by the fact that it could only be for one season.

Originally Posted by jt

I agree that if the Sharks can get what they want by trading Marleau outside the division, that's best. But if Frolov is the best player they can get, should they trade Marleau for less outside the division?

Good question, and all comes down to an individual perspective, I suppose. Personally, I would rather get less return in a trade than to deal that kind of a player to a team in my own division, unless it's a deadline type deal (e.g. Moen and Huskins last year).

Originally Posted by ardegilio

I just don't see SJ keeping Marleau in the same division. If it happens it is a last ditch effort. Also Nabakov and jumbo Jo better bring the A game, cause another 1st or second round exit will be all on them if Marleau is gone...I think their GM will take the fall...as he well should.

Perhaps Wilson might not see the young Kings as a potentially serious challenge this year. The Sharks biggest challenge right now is the cap. Adding Frolov to their second line and shedding $2 Mil in salary may easily offset the "within the division" taboo in Wilson's mind. After last season's crushing failure, it's all about this season for San Jose, Joe Thornton and Doug Wilson.

The Kings will be 0 for the season against the Sharks. Sharks are going to be fun to watch in the coming years.

Originally Posted by Iron Duke

Barring a total collapse, which I find very, very unlikely, I see the worst being another first round bounce. As you state, they should be just as good as last season. If Heatley causes the whole thing to come crashing down, the team was already in trouble to begin with.

And I believe they already are in trouble to begin with. I think their team is walking a tightrope in having so much high end talent that has the head of a 12 yr old and the heart of the Wizard of Oz lion.

Yes, and I would be one pissed off Kings fan if Lombardi traded Frolov within the division, only tempered by the fact that it could only be for one season.

Even if his plan worked and Marleau made them a playoff team that won a round of the playoffs?

Good question, and all comes down to an individual perspective, I suppose. Personally, I would rather get less return in a trade than to deal that kind of a player to a team in my own division, unless it's a deadline type deal (e.g. Moen and Huskins last year).

Even if the return is also a guy from your own division who's younger and might have just as much motivation to prove his old team wrong?

Originally Posted by jt

And I believe they already are in trouble to begin with. I think their team is walking a tightrope in having so much high end talent that has the head of a 12 yr old and the heart of the Wizard of Oz lion.

I don't disagree, but their problems were there whether it was Heatley on the roster or Michalek and Cheechoo. Plug in a talent like Heatley and it could be the catalyst that pushes them over the top, or, it could leave them as first round busts. I don't really see the risk, they weren't getting a Cup with the roster they had. At that, they probably still aren't.

Originally Posted by jt

Even if his plan worked and Marleau made them a playoff team that won a round of the playoffs?

There's just as much a chance of Frolov having a career year and helping push the Kings into the playoffs. I like Marleau a lot, but he's not "the missing piece." If such a trade happened AND Frolov had a down year AND Marleau had a great year AND the Kings made the playoffs, AND Marleau did well in the playoffs, looking back, I would be ok with the trade.

But that's a lot of ifs and contingencies. If his plan didn't work and Marleau bottomed out or spent the year on IR and Frolov put up 35g/40a, is it STILL a good trade? Of course it isn't.

Originally Posted by jt

Even if the return is also a guy from your own division who's younger and might have just as much motivation to prove his old team wrong?

If an opposing GM was dumb enough to offer that up for the right price, you'd have to consider it. In general, I still wouldn't trade to a divisional opponent.

Originally Posted by Iron Duke

I don't disagree, but their problems were there whether it was Heatley on the roster or Michalek and Cheechoo. Plug in a talent like Heatley and it could be the catalyst that pushes them over the top, or, it could leave them as first round busts. I don't really see the risk, they weren't getting a Cup with the roster they had. At that, they probably still aren't.

I'm not sure I would agree with that. It seemed to me that whatever knocks on him, Cheechoo always brought the proverbial "heart" to the rink.

Originally Posted by Goallum

I'm not sure I would agree with that. It seemed to me that whatever knocks on him, Cheechoo always brought the proverbial "heart" to the rink.

Yeah, Cheechoo was absolutely one of the more effective players during the Anaheim series, last spring. His motor never stops. His shot is what failed him last year.

Originally Posted by Goallum

I'm not sure I would agree with that. It seemed to me that whatever knocks on him, Cheechoo always brought the proverbial "heart" to the rink.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make, as I agree with that assessment. Moreso that if the team has that big a heart/compete issue, it's beyond the scope of one player making or breaking it, IMO. I wasn't singling Cheechoo and Michalek out as problem players, my bad if it came out that way.