The San Jose Sharks, a critical look.
Chuq Von Rospach
together and figure out how I wanted to present this. This is both a look
back at the 1992-1993 season and a look forward to the Sharks future.
I base my player ratings on (a) 21 games at the Cow Palace, three rows back,
(b) doing a lot of reading, researching and listening (to people on this
list, to radio and TV broadcasts, to opinions of people I trust, and to the
discussions I've had with various Sharks staffers over the year), and (c)
that I'm egotisitcal enough to not only think that I might know what I'm
talking about, but that anyone out there would care. And also (d), Laurie,
my oft-undocumented sanity check and hockey teacher. If I get it right, she
deserves some of the credit. Where I screw up, I didn't listen well enough.
Overall Rating for the 1992-1993 season: D. If they'd played this badly
without all of the injuries, it would have been an F. If they'd played the
way I expected them to before everyone got hurt, it would have been a C.
With Sandis and Patty in the lineup all year, we double the number of
victories and Kingston would still be coach. For a second year expansion
team, a C ain't bad. A D ain't good enough, but I don't know what they could
have done under the cirmstances.
Sharks Management 1992-1993: B-. In general, I'm REAL impressed with the
Sharks organization. The serious screwups were few and fairly minor (the
autograph session at the all-star competition skate-off, overly optimistic
dates on season ticket purchases, etc). The Sharks were usually quite good
at trying to make these oopsies good, too, by doing things like mailing
autographed pictures to people who couldn't get in the hall, extending the
"early pay bonus" deadlines, etc. Personnel moves were generally pretty good
as well, and I don't thank any of the trades or personnel releases hurt the
Sharks this year (as of the time they were made. If we'd KNOWN about the
injuries, maybe we would have kept Skriko, but I'm not ranking down because
of my ability to use hindsight). A couple of the trades, for Mark Pederson
and Peter Ahola, I rate as positives. Some, like the Picard deal, can't be
fairly judged yet. I see no reason for the strong (and sometimes nasty)
criticism of the three-headed GM the Sharks used, except that it was
different, and therefore fair game.
Sharks Coaching 1992-1993: C. I've been trying to figure out what I think
about Kingston and how well he coached the team. I've been a strong
supporter of him, but now that he's gone, well, I'm not so sure. He was
brought in as a teacher of kids, a motivator, an instiller of values. I
think he did an admirable job, but at the same time, not without flaws. I
feel that for the first part of the season, he focussed too much on the
teaching aspects of his job and too little on the reality that he (and the
team) were ALSO there to play good hockey and win games where they could.
There were times when the team's motivation flagged, and places where the
team didn't play the way they could with the people they had, and he took
those lapses far too easily. It wasn't until later in the season that he
started visibly working to PLAY as well as teach. I don't think he took the
losing seriously enough, and ultimately that undermined the winning attitude
he was trying to teach, and at least partially short-circuited what he was
brought here for.
I'm not convinced that anyone else brought in under the circumstances he was
brought in under, with the instructions he was given and the team he had,
could have done better. I'm definitely convinced many would have done much
worse. But I don't believe that he really succeeded in doing what he came
here to do. A tough admission to make, but after long thought, I think the
firing was the right move.
One thing stands out in my mind as I think back through the season. Whenever
a time out was called, or play was stopped and the Sharks were around the
bench discussing strategy or setting up a special play, the huddles were
run, and the plays described, by Bob Murdoch, not Kingston. For some reason,
this sticks in my mind and bothers me. Who was coaching the team, and who
was running the team?
That is why I expect Murdoch back next year behind the bench, and give him a
rating of B. Kingston was the general (and ultimately fell on his sword),
but Murdoch was the 2nd Looie, who actually figured out how to get the
infantry to storm the hill, night after night, without going AWOL or
fragging the officers. I'd be thrilled with Murdoch as coach and K.C. coach
Constantine standing next to him.
The other coach, Drew Remenda, is pretty much a cypher to me, and gets a
ranking of U (for unknown). Throughout an entire season, he really never
left much of an impression. Dresses nice, though. (actually, not entirely
true. I did chat with him a couple of times, and he's a nice man. The last
game in the Palace, before the game, I was ragging on Andre (the equiptment
guy) about how we'd sat there an entire season and never even gotten ONE
puck (this was, by the way, a running joke. I never asked for anything,
since I figured the kids would appreciate the stuff more, since I'm not that
into collectibles). Rememda overhead, and told me he'd make sure I got a
puck. This was about 15 minutes before game time. A few minutes later, Andre
arrived with some pucks. The kids appreciated them. I never DID get a chance
to tell Drew it was a joke, but he had a good personality. As a coach,
though, I have no clue. I leave that up to the Sharks.
Now on to player rankings. I use the following basic scale:
Franchise players (Rated: A to A-). Key players on the team. Will be the
building blocks for next year. Not even considered for trades (except maybe
for Lindros, and then...).
Important players (Rated: B+ to B-). The second tier. Not franchise players,
but are expected to be on the team and produce results on a consistent
basis. I might trade one for the right deal.
Fill-in players (Rated: C+ to C-). People who fill roster spots. They won't
help us a lot, but won't necessarily hurt us, either. Whether they play for
the Sharks depends on who else steps up and challenges them for a position.
Unsuccessful Players (Rated: D+ to D-). People who didn't particularly cut the
mustard. If they're playing for the Sharks, we have a problem.
Disasters (Rated F). Have a nice life. Preferably somewhere else, okay?
In general, I'm discussing the previous season's performance. Where I think
a player either overstepped or fell away from his potential, I might add a
second, 'potential' ranking and note why.
First, Goalies, then position players.
Depth chart: Irbe, Flaherty, Hackett. Retired: Hayward.
Wade Flaherty (B). One game in the NHL this year and gave up five goals, but
he got plastered by a non-existant defense and still held up well. When you
add in his IHL performance, he's clearly able to be at least a backup goalie
at the NHL level. I don't think he's in Irbe's class, but he's my choice for
#2 goalie next year.
Jeff Hackett (C-). First year MVP, second year goat. Showed me a horribly
tendency to become a headcase and blow up at the wrong time. A good goalie
takes pressure and uses it to hone a performance, Hackett couldn't. As Irbe
got better and better and clearly took over the #1 slot, Hackett didn't
bring up his game to a competitive level, he fell apart. If I'm coaching, I
can't trust him in key games to come through until he shows me he's gotten
over this (and Kingston evidently felt the same way, playing Irbe the final
stretch of the season exclusively). With Flaherty breathing down his back, I
trade him to a team needing an expansion-draft goat if I can get anything
for him. If I can't trade him, I seriously consider eating his contract and
bringing up Flaherty anyway. Sorry, Jeff, I feel you played your way off the
team (unlike myllys, who I think did everything he could and simply fell
somewhat short). Hackett CAN do it. But he won't allow himself to. The John
Smoltz of goalies.
Brian Hayward (B/C-). First ranking was for early in the season, before his
back started getting to him. As he went along, his performance worsened,
then stopped. Have a nice life, Brian. A class act I'm going to miss. One of
the great tragedies of the Sharks short life is his inability ot come to the
team and do what he wanted to do, which was play goal.
Arturs Irbe (A-). Arturs played brilliantly a number of times, played
horribly occasionally, and could usually be counted on for at least a solid
performance. Has problems with long slap shots and shots right off a
faceoff, but improved as the season went on. As the season went on, he also
found a way to put his occasional disaster games behind him and play a more
consistent game. He's clearly a top-rank goalie who, if he gets some defense
in front of him, is going to become scary-good. The second half of the
season is an A ranking, and I expect nothing less.
Defensemen
(One note: my depth chart and my letter rankings do not match. The depth
chart is a ranked listing of what I consider to the skill/performance levels
of the players going into next year (i.e. who I want on the team most),
while the rankings deal more with how they performed this year.)
Also note that the Sharks have both Rathje and Sykora to fit into the
equation at some point or another. while both (according to Matt Levine) are
targeted for half a season or so at K.C., given a strong camp, I wouldn't be
suprised that one makes it for the openeer, and the other finds their way up
if there's an injury
Depth Chart:
Ozolinsh, More, Wilson, Zmolek, Ahola, Wilkinson,
Pederson, Zettler, MacLeod, Williams, Kolstad
Peter Ahola (C+). Came in late in the season. Took some time working into
the Sharks system, but showed himself to be a good, hard-working defensemen
with a fairly wicked slap shot, good passing, and was surprisingly effective
as the playmaker on the power play (which he'd never done before). The
latter was something sorely lacking in the Sharks when Wilson went down, and
unless some of the other defensemen step up to this, gives him an advantage
on making the roster against otherwise stronger players.
Dean Kolstad (F). At one point, was termed the "skating power play" by folks
in our area of the arena. Just never got in touch with NHL hockey.
Pat MacLeod (C+). In limited playing time, I liked what I saw. Has done
pretty well at K.C. on (very) extended rehab play. The Sharks were in a
bind, since he couldn't break the lineup to play here, and couldn't be sent
to K.C. without clearing waivers, and they were convinced he wouldn't clear,
so he sat until injuries got him skating, and then went down himself. Has a
nasty slapper (in the competition, 2nd to wilson for speed). I'd like to
think he fits into the Sharks long-term plans, but I'll be damned if I can
figure out where. Maybe going to the Ducks or Panthers is the best thing for
him.
Jayson More (B+). Held together the defense when all around him was
collapsing, Jay's hustle and play impressed me all season, and he showed
himself to be a much better player than I (or people within the Sharks)
thought. My only worry is that I'm not convinced it's a new Jayson, but that
he played beyond himself this year and won't sustain it. If he does, the
Sharks have a great, unepexcted gift. If he doesn't, he may well find
himself fighting for a job against Rathje and Sykora, and probably losing.
Sandis Ozlinsh (A). Rookie of the year candidate (although he would have
lost) until his injury. All signs point to him stepping back in next year
and continuing it. An occaisional defensive problem, when teamed with a
good, strong defensive defensemen he's a potent force on the ice and
impressive to watch. Too bad he fell so quickly.
Tom Pederson (B-). One of those players, like John Carter, who gives up a
lot in size but earns most of it back with hustle and strategy. Another good
power play playmaker, good passer, good, hard shot on offense but not a
defensive liability. His only problem is that hustle only makes up for size
to a point, and he got outgunned at times. Given the rest of the Sharks
lineup, he's on the bubble, and probably on the wrong side of it. Too bad.
Neil Wilkinson (C). A bad year for Neil. Back problems thought healed came
back, along with other injuries (foot, hand). Even when mostly healthy, his
play didn't exactly inspire. do we write off this year as just one of those
things that happens and expect the real Wilkinson to show up for camp? Or do
we decide that the real Wilkinson isn't as good as we thought, and fragile
to boot? My gut feeling is a new!improved! Wilkinson shows up next year --
if he isn't traded. If I'm the GM, I think long and hard about trading his
back and his contract away while he still has market value. Another sub-bar
or injury laden year, and he'll be worth very little on the market -- and
his back, frankly, worries me.
Williams (D+). A significantly worse year than 1991-1992 for Williams. Did
he play above his head the first season? Or have a bad season this year? I'm
not sure anyone knows, but while he finally got to the "not dangerous" point
later in the season, he was horrible on power play (especially at trapping
the puck along the bords to stop a clear) and just didn't impress. He's
moved from "prospect" status to "project" status, and I'm not sure the
Sharks can afford projects.
Wilson (B-). When Wilson is healthy, he's a strong offensive and defensive
defensemen. He's lost a step, but for the most part compensates well. His
problem is that he gets injured and heals a lot slower now. If you plan on
no more than 40 games and expect one of the hot prospects to be ready to
step in when he goes down, he will really help the team as long as he can
lace up the skates. The problem is that you can't expect him to lace them up
all season. 1993-94 is almost definitely his final year in the NHL, and I
hope he has a great one.
Rob Zettler (C-). Zettler is hustle personified. Unfortunately, given the
weakness of the Sharks most of the season, his attempts to give a little
more to make up for other player's problems tended to leave him out of
position and hung out to dry. For every instance where he might have saved a
goal by pushing, he probably gave one up. I think Rob will be a much better
player when surrounded by better players -- his sins are those of being
outmatched and trying to do too much because nobody else could. Now whether
he'll have a good chance to prove that in a strongly beefed up (and
hopefully healthy) defensive corp, I dunno.
Doug Zmolek (B-). Another player that will be much better when surrounded by
better players. Outmatched at times, he improved throughout the season to
the point where he was a decent defenseman towards the end of the year.
Still young, still learning, he took the unexpected role of protector of his
teammates (as opposed to enforcer or goon) and really started to project a
presence as the season progressed. Next year will be the year he blooms.
Forwards
(a very mixed bag. We have some that are real good, but not enough. And some
that are fairly bad, but mostly people who just were there)
Depth chart: Kisio, Falloon, Garpenlov, Gaudreau, Sullivan, Courtenay
Pederson, Bruce, Odgers, Evason, Morris, Berezan, Bawa, Maley
Robin Bawa (D+). Heart of gold, fist of putty. Hard worker, limited skills.
He filled a need as well as he could, but we need better skills.
Perry Berezan (C-). I just expected more from Berezan than I got. I can't
complain too much, except that he seemed invisible out on the ice a lot.
David Bruce (I). No real ranking due to limited playing time. If he's
healthy, think he's a solid addition to the team. Let's hope offseason
surgery fixes this.
Ed Courtenay (B). Hands of gold, feet of lead. An amazing passer and puck
handler, good enough to make up for his relative speed problems (and his
absolute speed probelms, too: Starkey: And the sharks have a breakaway!
Stemkowski: no they don't, that's Courtenay). On the other hand, one night
he got a puck that could have been a breakaway, fired up the diesels and
chugged down at the goalie, had a defensemen catch up and wrap himself
around him, and STILL skated down the ice and almost make the goalie eat the
puck with a good, solid shot. Speed isn't always the only thing of
importance. I'd love to see him feeding Falloon next year.
Dean Evason (C). Deano is one of those players you like having on the team
because of the drive and hustle. I just wish he wasn't one of the players we
have to depend on for performance, because he's not it. A good, solid,
third or fourth line forward being asked to do second or first line work and
in over his head. When better players come on board, he'll press less and
magically be a better player.
Pat Falloon (B). Started slow, but sophomore slumps aren't unusual, and was
just starting to really turn it on when he went down. A lot of people are
trying to define him as a disappointment because of his slow start. I say:
just wait and watch. He'll have a good year this year, and next year, he's
going to come into his own.
Johan Garpenlov (A-). What can I say? An extremely strong addition to the
team, a good, solid, first line compadre for Kisio. Let's do it again next
year, and see what happens when the opposition can't put their top line on
you, Johan.
Rob Gaudreau (A-). An amazing start, then tailed off because teams started
putting a shadow on him. Towards the end, he adjusted and warmed up again.
Strong, positive addition to the team. This year should be even better.
Kelly Kisio (A). Wow. My only question is if he can carry what he did into
another season. My only hope is that he doesn't have to. Singlehandedly
(with assists from his linemates and Arturs) kept us from being a laughing
stock.
David Maley (D+). See Robin Bawa.
Jon Morris (C). Not quite an (I) incomplete. didn't distinguish himself
during his time with the Sharks, either positively or negatively. Decent
skills, but let's wait and see what happens in camp.
Jeff Odgers (C+). Freddy Odgers deserves the John Carter Memorial hustle
your butt award. Always giving 110%. Always pushing, always scrapping, tried
his damndest to take over for Link AND do his own job. Skill level is
somewhat marginal, but his guts and his attitude take him far beyond
himself. In the same place as Berezan in my mind. Put better players around
him, and let him take an appropriate role on the team.
Mark Pederson (B-). Good addition to the team. Not quite as hustle-prone as
an Odgers, but better overall skills. Good third line or checking line
forward.
Mike Sullivan (B+). A wonderful defensive forward. Most fans don't realize
his positive impact on the team because they don't show up on the
scoreboard. Mike's skill is making sure stuff DOESN'T show up on the board,
but tends to get rated down for lack of offense. I don't care. I want him on
my team.
The rest of the bunch. People who don't have a future with the Sharks, don't
have a past with the Sharks, or just generally don't have a place on my
depth chart yet.
Mark Beaufait. Saw too little to really rate, what I saw didn't enthuse me.
Didn't depress me, either. Let's see what camp shows, but it's probably the
Blades for him.
Lyndon Byers. His future is in the minors. He came, he worked, he left
again. Never really made an impact.
John Carter. "At some point, you have to make room for the kids" (Mary
Lewis). At going-on-30, too small and a bundle of hustle-gut-check, Carter
lost out on the youth movement. Gave 120%, but was out muscled and
outmatched, and sometimes hustle isn't enough. Have a great life, John.
Dale Craigwell. Which is the real Craigwell? The end of 91-92? or the
beginning of 92-93? Slowed by a back injury, we're hoping for the former,
but we won't know until camp. When he and Pat clicked, it was wonderful.
This year, he just didn't do much. Let's hope he's healthy.
Larry DePalma. Played himself on the team, played himself back off with a
back injury. He won't be back, and while he filled a role when we needed
him, I don't think he'll be missed. I'd like to be wrong. If his back is
okay, maybe he'll catch with the Ducks or Panthers.
Mikhail Kravets. Who knows? He barely had time to be fitted for a uniform.
Hubie McDonough. See John Carter, but turn down the hustle knob a bit. Which
isn't a criticism. But his future is with the Gulls.
Jaroslav Oetrevel. Didn't see a lot. Wasn't impressed by what I saw. No
defense, and if he wants to come back, he better learn it.
Michel Picard. Too early to tell. I would have liked more progress by now,
though.
J-F Quintin. see Picard.
Claudio Scremin. See Kravets.
Petri Skriko. If we'd known about all the injuries, he probably would have
stayed and helped out. Hindsight is like that, but this was a waystation to
his new, post-hockey life. Enjoy it Petri.
Ray Whitney. For those of you expecting me to trash Whitney, sorry. I think
Whitney is going to be a pretty good center. Maybe not next year (almost
definitely not before the All Star break). But he has a lot of potential and
skills, and I like what I see. What I didn't like was his attitude, and I
think THAT got knocked out fairly early. The first place he'd ever hit a
level of competition where he couldn't thrive on raw talent, and he got
stomped. Now he's down in K.C. learning the stuff he needs to come up here
and win. He showed up as a bonus-baby, can't lose kid. Next time he shows
up, it'll be as a hockey player. Sometimes you can't be TOLD what you need
to learn, you need to be shown the hard way. Whitney will move forward and
succeed.
Dody Wood. To some degree, see Whitney. He was brought up to learn the
lesson that what made things click in the IHL wouldn't be enough to make the
jump. He found that out in spades. Where he differs from Whitney is that
he's not nearly as talented or as smart, and I'm not nearly as convinced
he'll ever play in the NHL regularly. It depends on which Dody Woods shows
up in camp and whether he works at moving to the new level. I'm not hopeful,
but I'm not convinced he's a bust yet, either. Ask me in a year.
--
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= ch...@apple.com
Member, SFWA =+= Editor, OtherRealms =+= GEnie: MAC.BIGOT =+= ALink:CHUQ
Minor League fans: minors-...@medraut.apple.com (San Jose Giants: A/1/9)
San Francisco Giants fans: giants-...@medraut.apple.com (The Stick?NOT!)
San Jose Sharks fans: sharks-...@medraut.apple.com (New seat: 127/TBD)