On Frozen Blog

On the intrigue front: San Jose Sharks’ management, we learned from TSN this week, is looking for a playoff failure scapegoat. According to the Associated Press account, Sharks’ GM Doug Wilson needed “two weeks to calm down” after his team’s second-round ouster by the Red Wings. Ron Wilson may get the boot, or a high-profile player or two may get moved. Or both.

The intrigue, for me, arrived with this AP observation:

“Though he has built a sturdy, young team with no obvious weaknesses, Doug Wilson said he is determined to re-examine the Sharks’ structure. Any player seems available in a trade discussion — except Joe Thornton, last season’s MVP, who’s already had informal discussions about a long-term contract.”

Anyone but Thornton would bring into play Captain Patrick Marleau, who will enter the final year of his contract prior to UFA eligibility in 2008-09. In addition to his captain’s pedigree, he’s a first-line center — in his prime. He’ll be 28 this September, and he’s posted more than 30 goals in each of his past two seasons.

Why would GM Wilson potentially move his in-his-prime-and-peaking captain? For starters, Wilson appears to be in scapegoat mode, but Marleau also had a lousy playoffs. In 11 postseason games this spring Marleau tallied just 3 goals and 3 assists, and skated a -5. He went pointless in seven of those games.

Without question any club interested in prying Marleau away from the only NHL club he’s ever dressed for would have to pony up some serious assets. He scores goals, piles up assists, skates brilliantly, punishes opponents with his 6′2, 220-lb. frame, and this postseason notwithstanding, has a reputation for coming up large in crunch time. Perhaps the only thing average about his game is in the faceoff department — he won about 50 percent of his draws this past season, and he’s never been reknown for that skill.

He’s also distinctly durable: in his nine NHL seasons in San Jose, he’s skated 80 or more games in the regular season six times. In his three other campaigns he skated well over 70 games; the low tally came in his rookie season, when he dressed for 74 games.

You have to think that were he a UFA this summer he’d be more popular a pivot pick than his contemporaries Chris Drury and Daniel Briere. And in 2007-08 he will earn considerably less than those guys — $4.5 million.

(Incidentally, TSN has a useful Marleau stats page. With respect to imagining him as AO’s man in the middle, I really liked reading this synopsis of Marleau: “blessed with great speed and can catch defenders off guard by blazing right by them. Has natural goal-scoring ability . . .”)

Why would the Caps potentially be interested in addressing their conspicuous need for a first-line center via a trade, such as one perhaps for Marleau? For starters, the entire ‘A’ list of free agent pivots is regularly pegged as landing in the usual suspect cities. It’s a bit of Catch-22 dilemma for the Caps: until Washington can establish itself as a year-in, year-out playoff contender, most if not all the elite free agents are likely to bypass the rebuilding Caps. Problem is, they need a couple of high-profile horses like Marleau to get them there.

Marleau’s pricetag is also appealing — in his contract year, a good $3 million shy of what the elite UFA centers are likely to fetch this summer. Admittedly it’d be a risk moving significant assets for a guy who might dress for you just one year and walk, but remember the salary cap flexibility George McPhee will need next summer, when a certain set of Russian left wings will need new deals, as will the captain and potentially the no.1 netminder.

I have no idea if the Sharks will move Marleau. I just recall that after a string of 100-point seasons, and a few 90-pt. ones in between, each followed by early playoff exits, then Caps’ GM David Poile did the unthinkable and moved Mike Gartner to try and shake things up. What would it likely cost the Caps to land Marleau? You have to think this year’s no. 5 pick, and a prime asset, like say Fleischmann or Mike Green. And even that might not get it done.

Quality costs quality, you know.