You guys don't remember just how bad Kiprusoff was when he was on the Sharks. It was pretty clear he was 3rd on the totem pole behind Nabokov and Toskala.
You guys don't remember just how bad Kiprusoff was when he was on the Sharks. It was pretty clear he was 3rd on the totem pole behind Nabokov and Toskala.
To be fair in that trade, the Sharks knew that Kiprusoff could be a very good goaltender. Strelow after all thought he was the best of the trio. But, Nabokov and Toskala had performed while Kiprusoff had floundered, and DW felt that he couldn't reward potential and punish actual play. Still, when it comes to judgement, the Sharks lost a Vezina winner for a 2nd-rounder.
I wasn’t a Sharks fan in 2004 and I’m saying it was a bad trade. [Sharks trade Kiprusoff for a 2nd round pick] and [Sharks pick Vlasic with that 2nd round pick] are two separate events. You can’t connect them like that. The valuation by DW at the time of the trade was bad. He fixed that mistake by drafting Vlasic. But if you trade a player for a pick, you can’t judge the trade based on who the pick was used on.
Kipper and nabby's careers are nearly identical stat wise for the exact same years which is very helpful.
Nabby 2.44gaa. .911 sv%
Kipper 2.49gaa. .912 sv%
Playoffs is where it changes though.
Nabby 2.43gaa .908sv%
Kipper 2.32gaa .921sv%
I was one of three posters back then that supported Kipper to be kept and favored trading Nabokov. My reasoning at the time was that I believed Kipper was the more talented goalie and Nabokov would garner the higher return. I thought that Kipper would net the Sharks, at most, a 4th round pick. So, even though I was severely disappointed that Kipper was the one dealt (though not surprised) and I was happy that the fact the Sharks got a second round pick from Calgary. I attribute that to Sutter 's familiarity with Kipper. So while Kipper did prove me right in being the better goalie, his perceived value at the time of the trade and what he actually garnered made it a "win" in my book. That fact the pick became Vlasic just made it an outright win-win.
That's a different philosophy but one I can respect. Personally, judging trades is a combination of "at the time" and "what actually happened"; with draft picks, it is always almost entirely the former. What were the chances the Sharks were getting a Vlasic-caliber player from a mid-2nd-round pick? Even with the Sharks's strong drafting record, perhaps 5%? If you still disagree, do a simple thought experiment. What if the Sharks had instead traded Kiprusoff for Calgary's first round pick, and had drafted whatever player (considering I can't remember him, he couldn't have been very good!), would the trade have been a superior one?
When it comes to players, I lean towards judging the result. If the Sharks had boldly traded Nabokov and retained Kipper, they would have been rightfully praised for it. Despite that looking like a bad move at the time the end result stands on its on. Moreover, Kiprusoff breaking out was certainly a very plausible result.
So much discussion about the Kiprusoff trade, but no one seems all that upset about Ehrhoff and Lukowich for Daniel Rahimi and Patrick White. What they knew would only amount to one compensatory draft for Ehrhoff in his prime is hilariously awful.
So you think that a good return for Ehrhoff was a 2nd round pick 3 drafts later?Ehrhoff was addition by subtraction. His numbers in Vancouver were propped up by the Sedins. Then he unsurprisingly fell to Earth once he got to Buffalo, Washington, and LA. Less than 6 years later he was out of the league. Oh and that Compensatory pick, turned out to be some nobody named Chris Tierney.
So you think that a good return for Ehrhoff was a 2nd round pick 3 drafts later?
Ehrhoff was addition by subtraction. His numbers in Vancouver were propped up by the Sedins. Then he unsurprisingly fell to Earth once he got to Buffalo, Washington, and LA. Less than 6 years later he was out of the league. Oh and that Compensatory pick, turned out to be some nobody named Chris Tierney.
That is true, but they garnered far better returns than Ehrhoff.Tom Preissing and Jason Demers were young 40 point defensemen at one point.
That is true, but they garnered far better returns than Ehrhoff.
My only point in all this is the Sharks could have done better than a compensatory draft 3 years later for Ehrhoff. Just because that draft pick turned into Chris Tierney doesn’t suddenly makes that return ok.Chris Tierney>Brenden Dillon
Man, the Sedins propped him up in SJ, too? Ehrhoff was a pretty good, young, defenseman with some clear flaws. Even with those flaws, trading a young 40 point defenseman for what amounted to nothing is bad.
So all he did was score really well for 2 years while "propped up" by the Sedins, then was a 30ish point defenseman for another 4 years. When we were icing ******* Semenov and Wallin for years to come, this would have been amazing to have.
That was the bigger issue with the Ehrhoff trade. While he had his flaws, he was the type of defenseman (great skater, above average puck mover) that we badly needed from about 2010-2014. All that time we kept signing and burning assets and draft picks for slow, garbage, bottom four D-men. It was incredibly frustrating.
f***ing sucked.And that was mentioned in the article. As a young hockey fan who got into the Sharks because of Nolan, that was a sad day.
I wasn’t a Sharks fan in 2004 and I’m saying it was a bad trade. The valuation by DW at the time of the trade was bad. He fixed that mistake by drafting Vlasic. But if you trade a player for a pick, you can’t judge the trade based on who the pick was used on.