Two for Elbowing

A belated update on Ehrhoff, Clowe, Goc and, yes, Semenov

A belated update on Ehrhoff, Clowe, Goc and, yes, Semenov | Working the Corners:

One other bit of information to pass along: Alexei Semenov is not out of the picture for next season.

As the commenters on David's site all start screaming "NO!" in unison, I'll just quietly remind folks that the Sharks do need guys to sit in the press box and fill in for injuries (aka, the "black aces"); honestly, if you asked me "Ozolinsh or Semenov", I'd pick Semenov.

Given the Sharks preference for kids to play in Worcester instead of sit in San Jose, it surprises me not at all that they're looking at veteran depth to fill out the Sharks roster instead of bringing up youth to not play. And if Semenov is their 7th or 8th defenseman, it simply isn't something to be worried about -- his impact on the team just isn't going to be big, barring a major injury of some sort (and then the Sharks will bring someone up or make a trade, anyway). The people screaming and whining about this need to look at the bigger picture (not that they will). It's a nice, inexpensive (I hope) depth deal. And Semenov wasn't a GREAT defenseman last season, but the sharks could do a lot worse and pay a lot more for it...

Heck, I don't even think he's really an NHL caliber defenseman, but a 7th or 8th guy playing 8 minutes a night for 20 games in a season, he's actually a smart player to look at here, because he knows the system and the players, and you can bet the Sharks know he won't complain about not playing -- and he lets the kids play in Worcester and develop.

Sharks deal Craig Rivet to Sabres for draft picks

Sharks deal Craig Rivet to Sabres for draft picks - NHL - Yahoo! Sports:

The San Jose Sharks traded veteran defenseman Craig Rivet to the Buffalo Sabres on Friday for two second-round draft choices.

The Sharks also gave up a seventh-round pick in 2010 along with Rivet, the longtime Montreal defenseman who joined the Sharks in a trade late in the 2006-07 season. San Jose gets a second-round draft choice in each of the last two drafts.

Here's one I didn't expect. Interesting.

so my posting earlier this morning's already obsolete. D now looks more like:

Two for Elbowing:

So our D now looks like:

Rob Blake-Dan Boyle
Vlasic-McLaren
Murray-lukowich

I'm not all that surprised, in retrospect, given that someone like McLaren or Lukowich or even Rivet might have been odd man out. Now we have six solid D, and McLaren when healthy brings a level of grit. Only worry I have there is his knees. Evidently Wilson isn't so worried.

Canucks Trade for Steve Bernier

KuklasKorner : Canucks and Beyond : Canucks Trade for Steve Bernier:

Vancouver Canucks General Manager Mike Gillis announced today that the club has acquired right wing, Steve Bernier from the Buffalo Sabres in exchange for a second round Draft pick in 2010 and third round pick (Los Angeles’ selection) in 2009.

“Steve Bernier is a highly regarded young player who’s enjoyed success early in his career,” said Gillis. “With his right-handed shot he will be a great addition to our top six forward group and an asset to our power play.”

Alanah just posted a pointer to this. I find it -- curious.

Steve Bernier is a young player with good talent and a lot of potential, yet when the Campbell trade was made, the Sharks considered him expendable. His problem: games and shifts where he played without intensity. It got him sat a few times, but at his age, that's not unusual, and very teachable.

Even recently, Bernier was being touted as a key cog in the Buffalo future.

And now he's off to Vancouver for a 2nd and a third draft pick?

Alarm bells are going off here. When a player starts becoming the pass-around pack, unless it's Mike Sillinger, you have to wonder why; especially when teams say nice things about them and then trade them.

It's more alarming when the value for that player is decreasing, and let's be blunt: a 2nd and a third here mean's Bernier's stock isn't exactly peaking. And (sorry, Alanah), when these things happen and the player is being moved to teams lower in the pecking order? Vancouver isn't Buffalo or San Jose; this isn't Brad Stuart going to Detroit.

So I have to wonder what is happening with Bernier, that teams not only find him expendable, but now in Buffalo, moved him for mid-level draft picks. It's little more than a salary/depth dump here; maybe they're freeing up room to make a signing of some sort, but Steve Bernier shouldn't be a player that's moving around for draft picks -- at this point in his career. Or moving around this often.

If he goes to the Canucks and becomes the Bernier I think he can be, Vancouver gets a bargain; he wouldn't be the first player to be traded into the right organization, or get his head on straight (think Brad Boyes). On the other hand, he also wouldn't be the first player to get bounced around a bit and then fade to black, never to be heard from again (think Jeff Jillson).

Canucks fans, however, should see this kid as a project, not a solution, because Ottawa dumping him off makes me believe they decided his negatives outweighed his positives. Steve, if you read this -- don't be Jeff Jillson. Get back in the weight room...

(historical sharks scuttlebutt: both Boyes and Jillson were sharks prospects who, if rumors prove correct, earned their way out of the organization by not being committed to the Sharks idea of "game shape". Boyes is rumored to have basically taken a summer off from his weight training and coming into camp in poor shape, Jillson, I was told, arrived in camp something like 15 pounds overweight. Boyes bounced around the league a bit, grew up, got his act together, and is a pretty good player today. Jillson -- well, not so.

The biggest complaint I've ever heard about Bernier is he loses focus and his head isn't always in games. that's eminently trainable, if a player wants to be trained. But now, two teams have basically decided not to wait for him to mature. Canucks fans should be a bit careful about their expectations for the kid. I sincerely hope he makes the Sharks regret he came back into the west, but he'll have to prove it)

(update: buffalo, not ottawa. my bad...)

Looking at Sharks 2009.....

So the dust is settling, and the new sharks roster is taking shape, and I'm finally back at a point in my life where blogging seems not only possible, but interesting. Been an interesting three months.

So now we can start to look at the Sharks for 2008-2009 and see if this is a better team. Is it?

First, coaching: I like the hiring of McLellan, but it's not without risks. Sometimes a really top-notch assistant coach is -- a top-notch assistant coach. He could be the next Bruce Boudreau or John Anderson, but he could also be Dave Lewis or Wayne Cashman, two guys who tried to make the leap to NHL coach and found out they made damn good assistant coaches. Or he could be Kevin Constantine, who's a pretty damn good coach, just not at the NHL level.

So the move is not without risk, but the Sharks aren't afraid of taking risks, and I think this one makes sense. I'm a lot happier with the idea of bringing in a new voice that has some ability to relate to younger kids than to bring in a "safe" retread who overplays veterans and doesn't grow his players. I think it's a good hiring, and I'm looking forward to seeing how he fills out his assistants.

A while back, I wrote about what I thought should be (or would be) changed in the roster offseason. A few highlights and lowlights:

Two for Elbowing: Picking up pieces and an update on Michalek - The San Jose Mercury News Sharks Hockey Blog -:

the Sharks are a damn good team, but it's clear changes need to be made for the team to get better.

I'd like to see Nabokov backed off to 60-65 games next year (his going to the world championships notwithstanding). Rest him a bit more, keep him a bit fresher.

If that means bringing back Boucher, or someone else, so be it.

And so it is.

Core group (do not touch under penalty of death):

Thornton
Marleau
Pavelski
Mitchell
Grier
Clowe
Setoguchi

Not coming back:

Curtis Brown (Sorry, Brownie, but I think it's time).

All of which happened. I honestly felt a top six forward would go -- I'm happy that McLellan and Wilson think this group can be kept together and improved without being swapped around.

Players I expect back, but which aren't "no trade under any cirucmstance" types (as part of the right deal? sure):

Tomas Plihal
Patrick Rissmiller
Jody Shelley
Marcel Goc

I want to see come back:

Jeremy Roenick

Rissmiller was allowed to leave, Shelley is back, as far as I can tell, Plihal and Goc are still unsigned. Plihal will be, Goc, not so sure. If of this crew we lose Rissmiller (like him, replaceable) and Goc (like him, somewhat disappointing), I don't think the sharks miss a beat. No game changers.

So where does this put the Sharks?

Thornton-Cheechoo-Michalek
Pavelski-Marleau-Clowe
Grier-Roenick-Setoguchi
Shelley-Plihal (probably)-Mitchell

and two black aces to be named. Goc maybe one of them.

It's kinda hard to complain about this roster, especially if they play to potential. So I won't. you can see why Rissmiller wasn't kept, when guys like Setoguchi and MItchell and Plihal are having to fight for third line time?

Now the fun begins. The Defense was the thin spot on depth last year. I thought going into the season it was good enough. I was wrong. This year, it's looking a lot different:

Core group (do not touch under penalty of death):

Douglas Murray (what an improvement this year!)

Matt Carle (struggled at times, but seems to be growing into it; I'd hate to give up too soon)

M-E Vlasic (wow; at his age?)

Craig Rivet

I'd like to see back:

Brian Campbell (but not for Phaneuf money; if someone wants to pay him that, be my guest. he's missing that "punk brat" aspect to his game, which keeps him a rung below Phaneuf on the ladder. But $25m over 5 years? sure. Just not $30 over 5.

hint: I expect Campbell to stay. He seems happy. He likes playing 30 minutes a game. Why screw it up?

Not coming back:

Sandis Ozolinsh: thanks, Sandis. for everything.

Alexei Semenov: ditto. Neither of these are NHL caliber in today's NHL.

Kyle McLaren: love his guts and drive, but his knees are problematic. I think it's time to consider an upgrade.

So one of my "untouchables" goes away in Matt Carle, but we're getting (if rumors are true) Dan Boyle in return. We lose Brian Campbell, but for the money he's getting, I hope Chicago enjoys his play. Carle was a lot more expendable to me than Vlasic, so I'm happy.

So our D now looks like:

Rob Blake-Dan Boyle
Vlasic-Rivet
Murray-lukowich (rumored coming from tampa)

McLaren

Again, not much to complain about here. Blake/Boyle/Lukowich instead of Campbell/Carle and either Semenov or Ozolinsh? It's a more veteran crew, but I like what Blake brings to the team in intrinsics, even if we're giving up some youth to get it (indirectly, because losing Campbell makes bringing Blake in and getting Boyle possible -- although I get the impression Wilson was going to bring Blake in anyway).

This is a team that's now completely oriented towards the next two season. Yeah, after that we'll have to see about bringing youth in and reloading, but that's wilson's problem later. This team needed to be about "NOW OR ELSE", and now it truly is.

In retrospect, two problems last year:

no backup goalie to take the load off of Nabby and limit his playing time a bit. I don't think this really hurt the sharks, but I don't want my goalie playing that many games.

The defense was too young and too thin; trying to patch in with Semenov and Ozolinsh was the red flag, and that proved to be true.

One thing I can guarantee: Doug Wilson will do something completely different than this, and when he does, I'll go "wow, I never would have thought of that" and like it. Whcih is why he's GM, and I'm a blogger...

Well actually, Wilson's done pretty much what I expected; couldn't re-sign Campbell, went and got Boyle. I have to admit that Rob Blake was one of the guys I thought would be great on the Sharks -- only I never thought he'd leave the Kings, so I didn't really consider it an option. Fortunately, Wilson did, and Lombardi (if you ask me) mis-stepped here. but more on that later. But thanks, Dean. I expect Detroit will send you flowers for helping us (not).

I can't see how Wilson could have handled this better, given things not under his control (campbell couldn't be forced back without seriously overpaying him, which the Sharks don't do). I'm really happy they didn't move Marleau, I'm really happy they didn't make any "make a splash" moves at the draft and overpaying to do so. It's all a very solid, methodical, well-thought out strategy.

So far, a great offseason. And what it ends up doing is sending a big message to the players: no excuses. Now, it's up to the players.

Can't wait for camp.

Will he stay or will he go?

Why trade Cheechoo?

Sharks captain Patrick Marleau is a name making the rounds this week along with his teammate Jonathan Cheechoo.
Ok, I get the Marleau rumors. His salary, and last season’s performance, warrant rumors and speculation. But why in the world would the Sharks want to trade Cheechoo?

So the hot rumor is that Marleau or Cheechoo might be leaving San jose in the next 36 hours or so. or maybe not...

Mike Chen wonders why. As I said about a month ago:

Everyone should just be happy Michalek can still eat solid food after that Brenden Morrow hit. As for Cheechoo, he could no doubt bring back something substantial ... as long as opposing general managers don't have access to his postseason stats.

or as long as opposing general managers see the upside Chechoo has, and see their ability to pull it forward in their system. The same exact comment could have been made a year ago about, say, Mike Ribiero in Dallas, no?

And both Michalek and Cheechoo could continue to mature and bloom in San Jose, too. I certainly don't want to see both leave. I'd personally not want to see either leave. But if (as people keep saying, and I don't really disagree) there's a chemistry issue, or a "not clicking" issue among the forwards, then things need to get shuffled; and you don't five a problem with the top six forwards by trading a fourth liner. These are bold and clearly controversial moves -- but if the answer was simple and easy, it'd have been done by now.

To be honest, my feeling hasn't changed much.

My view of this falls down to a simple logic puzzle:

If new coach Todd McLellan feels that Marleau is his captain moving forward, and that he can fix this team without changes, you do nothing.

If McLellan wants to change captains, then you trade Marleau.

If McLellan wants to keep Marleau as captain, but feels a change is needed among the top six forwards, you trade Cheechoo.

You CAN remove a C from a player and keep them on a team, but teams rarely seem to do that, and it rarely seems to go well; it's a bit of a slap at the player, no matter how it's framed, and a fresh start seems to work best for everyone. It did happen in Dallas with Modano and Morrow, but bluntly, there were hurt feelings all over the place (and honestly, I think Modano is still hurt and pissed) -- but the two players and the team made it work, and they have the professionalism and personality to do so.

I'm not implying that Marleau DOESN'T -- if anyone on the Sharks team could take a demotion with grace, it's Patty -- but it just seems like a high risk move to remove the C and not trade him. This team doesn't need internal controversies and schisms. So either Marleau is the captain, or he's playing elsewhere. you can bet taht's been a continuing discussion among Wilson, Marleau and McLellan since the hiring.

My gut feel? I think a deal's going to get done. Maybe 70% likelihood. If a deal gets done, 75% chance it's Marleau that moves. 5% chance both get moved in separate deals.

We'll know soon.

Update: from Edward Fraser at the Hockey News. He's right, unless McLellan doesn't see Marleau as Captain.

The Hockey News: Edward Fraser's blog: THN.com Blog: Sharks would regret trading captain Marleau:

One of the names most bandied about – as it seems to be year after year – is Sharks center Patrick Marleau.

While his rumored deal to Columbus makes perfect sense for the Blue Jackets –filling their No. 1 center role, allowing Derick Brassard to slide onto the second line – it would be a mistake for the Sharks to part with their captain, unless they received a deal that (pardon the pun) blows them out of the water.

So what did the Dallas series prove to us about the Sharks?

A couple of quick musings on the Detroit/Dallas series. Dallas came out of the 4 overtime game with little rest, and proceeded to hand Detroit three games before getting their game back and making it a series.

Sound familiar? And both Mike Modano and Brendan Morrow were quoted in the press about how that overtime game took it out of them.

A lot of this is biology; it takes a certain amount of time to flush out the lactic acid and replace the glucogen. It doesn't matter HOW GOOD your conditioning it, if you don't have time to rest up, you simply can't perform at a top level. Detroit only had 1 extra day of rest over Dallas, but that one extra day was enough for the legs to recover.

And it wasn't until about game four that both teams got back to equivalent levels of physical exhaustion.

So it's really safe to claim that even though San Jose beat Calgary in 7, Calgary making the series that tough was the key factor in losing to the Stars. And the Sharks series was a key factor in the Stars losing to the Wings.

That's why killer instinct is so important. That's why you need to put a team away and finish off a series when you can. It's because a four game series gives you the ability to play full out in the next series, where a seven game series leaves you worn out and easy (easier) pickings in the next round.

And the Sharks lack of a killer instinct against Calgary cost them a chance at Detroit. And that lack of killer instinct (which fluttered in and out of view all season like a butterfly, kicked in hard for that 20 game run, and then wandered off again in search of nectar...) is what ultimately cost Wilson his job.

Crash Davis points out that the difference between a AAA catcher and a major league catcher is a hit a week. Figure out how to go 2-4 one game a week instead of 1-4, and you're in the bigs. the problem is: it's just not easy to DO. But the ones that make the majors are the ones that do find a way. Not the most talented guys -- the ones that find a way to make it happen. Talent helps, but it's not the prime determiner of success.

The same is true in hockey in its way.

An example I like to use is goaltending. Take a goalie that lets in four goals in a game. For each goal in isolation, you may look at it and go "man, I don't know how he could have stopped it".

But taken in the larger view, the top goalies will find a way to stop ONE of those pucks. or two. That's what makes them the top goalies. It's easy to look at any one goal and think "tough save" -- but look at a series of them, and you start realizing that the goalie needs to make SOME of them, or they shouldn't be your goalie.

Same for teams. You can look at the Sharks playoff run (and I have), and find reasons why, if a bounce went this way instead of that, if Pavelski didn't blow a tire, if this penalty wasn't called, if that penalty WAS called, the results could be very different.

All very true. And I did exactly that. but sitting back and thinking on it a bit more, and talking about it with others, I started to realize the same thing about the Sharks that I did about those goals: yeah, the breaks went against the team, but the team needed to find ways to win anyway in some of those games. And it only would have taken a game or two to fight beyond those bad breaks to change the calgary series or the dallas series, because they really were that close.

Good teams have three attributes taht are relevant here:

they make their own luck through hard work and execution. Many times "luck" is nothing more than battling to be in the place you know you need to be at the time you need to be there.

they don't let a bad break beat them. They find a way to overcome it.

And where possible, the top teams -- and just look at Detroit here -- make sure that they're not in a position where a bad break CAN beat them. If you're up 2-3 goals and in the offensive zone, a bad break simply isn't as damaging as if you're protecting your own goal and thegame is tied late, or you're only up one goal.

And that, in a nutshell, is what's missing from the Sharks. they played too many games too close to the edge, and when you do that and the breaks go against you, you lose. That's a lack of the killer instinct, it's letting your victim get back up and take a swipe at your kidneys. If you do, sometimes they'll connect, adn then you have problems.

That's why Wilson got fired, he didn't find the way to inject that killer instinct into the team. And that's the primary job of the new coach (I wish him luck). And if you want to see it in action, watch the Red Wings.

So it's no surprise that this is the team Doug Wilson is looking to for inspiration on taking the Sharks to the next level.

Coach Q shows up in San Jose for a visit

Coach Q shows up in San Jose for a visit - The San Jose Mercury News Sharks Hockey Blog -:

Joel Quenneville arrived here on a United flight from Denver on Wednesday and it’s a safe bet that the former Avalanche coach is on Sharks General Manager Doug Wilson’s list of 40 candidates to replace Ron Wilson.

Interesting....

More thoughts on Ron Wilson and the next Sharks coach..

I've been thinking and talking offline more about the Sharks and Wilson, how we got here, where we go, more or less following up on my previous musings on the topics.

Ultimately, Ron Wilson wasn't fired because he failed. He didn't; just look at his numbers with the Sharks, and this season. 2nd best record, Division championship, 5th team left standing, and game 6 in the second round of the playoffs. Oh, and basically running the table the last quarter of the season....

The problem ("see, THERE's your problem!") is that this simply isn't good enough, given this team's talent. There have those of us who've felt -- and I believe Doug Wilson would agree -- that this team underperformed, both on an individual basis and as a team.

So if I'm Doug Wilson, I would need to sit down with Ron Wilson and have a very uncomfortable (but short) conversation, that goes something like this:

Given that this team didn't play to its full potential (It was damn good. It should have been even better), what can you do as a coach to help these players reach this potential that you haven't already done?

And given you've had five years as coach, if you haven't done it yet, why not?

In other words, Ron Wilson's damned no matter what. By this time, he's taken this team as far as he can take it, and everything he does from here on are variations on a known theme. Given the Wilsons likely had this discussion after LAST season -- and yes, the team and Wilson both improved, just not enough -- it's hard to see Doug Wilson saying "hey, let's go one more year and see what happens".

That's why Ron Wilson's unemployed today. Not that he did a bad job by any means, but he did the best possible job he could with this team -- and it wasn't good enough.

And honestly? That seems to be how to define Ron Wilson's career: he can turn players into a really good team, but can't quite get them over the hump. Anyone need to build a franchise? He's your guy (and Atlanta ought to be talking to him already; that may be the best fit for him now. Or maybe Florida).

Now, I don't envy the next coach. He comes in with even higher expectations, if that's possible. He has to be: (a) as good a coach as Wilson, (b) a better motivator than Wilson, (c) personable, and (d) even better able to work with and get these players to buy into his system. that's a bit set of shoes to fill.

It's not as simple as replacing Wilson with a hard-ass coach (no Pat Quinn or Mike Keenan) or a "player's coach", although I get the impression that Doug Wilson thinks that the players need someone who'll give this team more of an edge, so he seems to be leaning towards hard-ass.

The Sharks need a coach that can instill a "no prisoners" mentality into the team; a good start there is a coach who's a former player with that kind of mentality. That drives my thinking on the next coach as much as anything, and it changes my list somewhat.

It makes me now think that NHL playing experience is key, and so is NHL coaching experience. That means, at least to me, that Roy Sommer isn't a good candidate, and makes me lower Mike Sullivan further down my list.

But let me digress a bit -- Two things about the Sharks organization I like is that they care about their alumni, and that they are loyal to those that are loyal to the organization. Roy Sommer has been coaching at the AHL level for the Sharks for years, and many of the Sharks prospects succeeded at the NHL level. At some point, I believe he should get a shot at the NHL (assuming, of course, he wants one) -- and maybe it's time to bring him to the San Jose organization as an assistant under the new coach, perhaps the eye in the sky guy.

And I'd love to see Rob Zettler and Tim Hunter stay with the organization. Will they stay assistant coaches under the next regime? Unlikely, but wouldn't it be appropriate for them to take their next step forward with the team as well? I'd love to see the chance for them to go and take the helm at Worcester and get experience as a coach; I'd tend to think Hunter as the bench boss, but both of them deserve a chance to move forward and stay with the organization.

And having said that, back to the coach...

So after a couple of days reflection, what's my short list?

Pat Burns - may be an old-school coach, but also seems to understand the newer generation players. Has a good Joe Thornton connection, and Thornton has gone to him when he's had questions in the past. That seems like a good recommendation, and he has a solid resume, and wants to get back in the game. I wouldn't mind seeing it happen in San Jose.

John Anderson - coach of the Chicago Wolves, in reality the best coach who hasn't gone to the NHL. His IHL/AHL winning percentage? Right around .700, coaching a team taht in many cases had no affiliation, or one with a weaker team. If Bruce Boudreau is an example of the trend to moving from re-hiring the same set of coaches, then John Anderson is probably the next one to be brought up from the minors. And his teams win.

Joel Quenneville - I like what he did in Colorado, and I think his attitudes are compatible with the team and what the Sharks want to have happen. And he's a lot like Wilson, so I dn't see a need to tweak the team or the system heavily to fit into his visions.

Tony Granato - Speaking of Colorado, Granato is exactly the kind of player the Sharks need to have more of, and the kind of person that players can look up to and learn from. He's someone I"d like to see have a good senior assistant staff with, but I think Granato could do some interesting things in San Jose. And he's an alum. And a heck of a nice guy. And his sister's cute. Wait, that's not a reason to hire him... forget I said that.

How about Dale Hunter? Not an Alum, but... again, exactly the kind of player we need the sharks players to be more like. Currently an owner, president and head coach of the OHL's London Knights. He doesn't have the NHL coaching experience yet, but again, with the proper support structure, that wouldn't worry me so much. I know it wouldn't worry him...

So right now, those are my five favorites. Fortunately for Sharks fans, I don't get a vote. It'll be interesting to see what Doug Wilson does, though.

Coaches NOT on my candidate list:

Barry Melrose: there's a reason why he's worked for ESPN all these years. And a reason why he'll continue. Anyone who seriously floats him as a coaching candidate for any job should be someone you stop taking seriously.

Drew Remenda: they'll rehire Kevin Constantine first. Mostly because Remenda knows he's a much better TV guy than a coach. And he wasn't a bad coach, FWIW.

One local pundit suggested Mike Ricci, and even seemed serious about it. My only thought: that's a good reason to stop reading this person's writings about hockey. Ricci is many things, msot of the positive for the organization, but at least Jamie Baker has experience coaching his daughter's rep team. Might as well make Joe Thornton player/coach. Heck, that'd probably work better. And that's no rip against Mike Ricci -- but Ricci isn't qualified to be an NHL coach yet and won't be for many years, if ever. And no, I"m not linking to him. Don't want to either embarass him or make it easier for you to find him...

Sharkspage on Ron Wilson

Great coverage of the Wilson firing on Sharkspage. Go read it.

Sharkspage - San Jose Sharks, Hockey, NHL sports blog:

Sharks EVP and General Manager Doug Wilson announced late this afternoon that Ron Wilson was fired after four and a half years behind the bench in San Jose. Ron Wilson was hired as the sixth San Jose Sharks head coach on December 4th 2002, recording a 206-134-45 record, .535 winning percentage, and two Pacific Division Championships (2004, 2008) in 385 regular season games.

Who's the next Sharks coach?

The media is pulling out all of the old names: Quinn, Burns, Hartley. Amusing, but... that's why they're media, and the media guys doing that are guys you should stop paying attention to. They're pulling it out of their butt, and not worth the time you waste reading them.

Who's going to be the next Sharks coach? I certainly don't have the answer, but I can think of a few names that I expect the Sharks to think about.

One is Roy Sommers, who's been cultivating the kids and doing the loyal person thing down in Worcester (and K.C., and Kentucky, and...). At some point, someone's going to notice him and give him a shot in the NHL, or the Sharks are going to move him up to the parent club. He's good, especially with younger players, and a lot of the current sharks were taught by him and coached by him during development. Which sounds a lot like the story of Bruce Boudreau, no?

Joel Quenneville intrigues me. He did some good things in Colorado, can deal with younger players, and has success. His system would work well in San Jose.

But two names that the big name folks aren't as likely to think of, and both have Sharks connections:

Tony Granato, former Shark, former Av coach and Av assistant coach.

Mike Sullivan, former Bruins coach, and former Shark.

Both have history with Doug Wilson, both have good coaching credentials, both have history with the Sharks (which is important to the Sharks, alumni credit goes a long way here) and with Doug Wilson, and both are really class individuals who handle people well.

And frankly? Colorado could do a lot worse than hire Ron Wilson.... especially if they hire Melrose, or Quinn, or Hartley, or...

The day of re-hiring retread old-school coaches is going away folks. Except for old-school media types (and franchises like the Leafs, who will hire a "big name" and then wonder why they continue to suck....). The hockey player of today is a different kind of player, and it's time for the newer, up and coming coaches who understand that to come and coach. Not just bring back the same old names that have been fired 20 times before for the same old reasons...

Don't believe me? Look at Calgary and Keenan. Brought in to "take taht team to the next level". the "next level" was the same number of regular season points, and the same first round exit. Way to go, Mike. Nice improvement. Only now, the players up there are unhappy,b ecause Mike's not exactly a "people" guy, especially around goaltenders. Fortunately, the Flames goaltender isn't anything special, so it doesn't matter if he's unhappy, right?

right.

The ONLY "old school" coach I'd consider hiring for any position in the NHL is Pat Burns. The day for guys like Quinn and Hartley and Keenan is past. Smart franchises understand that... Adn the Sharks are a smart franchise.