Talk:San Jose Sharks/Archive 1

Nabokov gone?

I've reverted moving Nabakov to the "not to be forgoten" section, as his filing for arbitration this week ensures he will play for the Sharks next season. See [1]. Gentgeen 18:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fact checking, re: Presidents' Trophy

Yes, I know the Sharks' upset of the Red Wings in 1993-94 was the toppling of a giant, but they didn't defeat a President's Trophy winner. Detroit didn't win the President's Trophy that year, the New York Rangers did. Reference: [2] Corrected this little mistake. NeoChaosX 00:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just did several edits to the team history again. This bit of misinformation got on there again, as well as understatements on the Sharks' playoff advances under the Darryl Sutter years that seems to have flown under the radar of a lot of readers of this article. Please, refer to the articles for the seasons and achievements you're talking about to make sure they're accurate! NeoChaosX 05:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

List of San Jose Sharks players

I have just made a List of San Jose Sharks players. As of the end of the 2003-04 NHL season, the list is 100% complete. When new players play for the Sharks, it would be a great help to keep that article complete if they were added. Thanks! Masterhatch 16 August 2005

Did this yesterday, roster is up-to-date as of 16 October 2005. NeoChaosX 05:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Preseason record

Does anyone else find the inclusion of comments about the 2005 preseason record of the Sharks silly? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not the booster section of the Sharks' website. Is their won-loss record (so far) in the 2005 preseason genuinely worthy of permanent historical note? I'm minded to strike it. RGTraynor 00:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing... I wasn't around wiki last time the NHL played... Is that normal? I hope not. ccwaters 01:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't around wiki then either. I too really hope that that won't become a regular thing. Masterhatch 01:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, delete it. Pre-season records mean little in the long run anyway. I was going to leave it in until the season started and then delete it. But if you want to delete it now, then by all means go for it. Masterhatch 01:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the relevance there should be tied to the injury to Scott Parker. The article spends a lot of time discussing minutia of player development and slumps without considering the loss of a player significant. I believe it would be of historical interest to note a career ending injury suffered during a perfect pre-season game. Deleting it is asking for a bunch of stubs.

"Los Tiburones"?

Alright Mark Purdy, give yourself up.

All kidding aside, who aside from the aformentioned San Jose Mercury News sports editor refer to the team as "Los Tiburones"? Does this necessitate mention in the article? NeoChaosX 00:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I do on occassion, as do a few of my friends. I think its a valid mention because lots of teams have nicknames... the Nucks' the Devs, the Ducks.... (yeah i know the ducks are going to be their official nameafter this year) WSUCanuck 00:05, 2 May 2006 (PDT)?

Yeah, in the 8+ months that have passed since I made that comment, I've found the nickname has became pretty common among Sharks fans for awhile now. Never knew it was that well known, I guess. NeoChaosX 00:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Marleau

When did the Sharks annouce, they were no longer Rotating the captaincy? When did they name Patrick Marleau permanent captain? Yes, I know Marleau has worn the 'C" since the later-half of the 2003-04 season, but when did the franchise make it offical? Mightberight/wrong 21:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll answer my own question; in the later-half of the 2003-04 season, previous captain Alyn McCauley (with support from the other players), asked Management to end the rotating captaincy and make Marleau (who was nearing the end of his 10-game tenure with the 'C'), the permanent captain. Management complied with the request. GoodDay 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

The table of information given at the beginning of the article seems to be the same as the info given below the picture. superman 04:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Tom Preissing

What's the story with Preissing? Official sources (nhl.com, nhlpa.com, sjsharks.com) have him listed from Illinois, but media outlets (espn.com, tsn.ca) all say Minnesota. ccwaters 03:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, and they're both wrong. The NHL Media Guide says Colorado College, and the Colorado College website thinks they own him too; he's on their list of school All-Americans. RGTraynor 14:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless you mean in what STATE was he born, and the Media Guide states Minnesota. RGTraynor 14:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Illinois doesn't have a hockey team :). Yeah, the discrepancy is place of birth. Some sources list Arlington Heights, Illinois, some sources list Rosemount, Minnesota. Are you looking at the NHL media guide? He's listed as IL at NHL.com, but all the news outlets I listed above should be using the media guide as a source. My guess is that the media guide is in error and that error propagated to espn, tsn, etc, etc. The league, the sharks, the nhlpa are primary sources and listed it correctly? Does that sound feasible? ccwaters 16:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Nabakov as a Russian?

This is a very controversial matter, I know, but Evgeni Nabakov was born in what today is now Kazakhstan. The reference to him in the History section as a "Russian goalie" seems somewhat...out of place given how countries have switched around since the fall of the U.S.S.R in 1991. NorseOdin 10:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'm sure that Rod Langway didn't regard himself as Taiwanese merely because (as an Army brat) he was born there. As it happens, Kazakhstan was majority ethnic-Russian, and for all we know Nabakov (which IS a Russian name, after all) was raised in Russia itself. RGTraynor 12:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Makes good sense. Thanks for the insight.

Just a note on that though: Owen Nolan was born in Belfast, Ireland, and has largely maintained the combination of "Ireland's (greatest/only) NHL player" with his Canadian identity. Just saying that in some cases (not this one, necessarily) birthplace can have a big impact on their identity. NorseOdin 12:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If the guy played for the Russian Olympic team he's Russian.

It's also important to remember that birth doesn't equal citizenship, in some countries. I'm a fine example of that -- I was born in Hong Kong but I hold Canadian citizenship only. Because of this, it's probably a better idea to use something definitive like international play. Just my two cents; I go by this rule. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nabby has played for Kazakhstan many times, though now he's playing for Russia.

Sturm scoring #'s

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Franchise scoring leaders" section should only include goals/assists/points that players accumulated while members of the San Jose Sharks, right? If so, Marco Sturm's numbers appear to be incorrect (they appear to include his Boston stats). --Brianvdb 22:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No. His TOTAL NHL reg season stats as of are 604GM 151G 165A 316P 274PIM ccwaters 01:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mikael Samuelson

"Veteran Adam Graves was acquired for Ulf Samuelsson."

This is incorrect. He was acquired for Mikael Samuelson.

Season-by-season record

I changed the season-by-season record to conform to those of the other NHL team pages. I realised that the added number of wins, losses, ties and OTLs amount to 1117, despite the team only having played 1116 regular season games. Now, I'm no Sharks fan, so I can't be bothered to find the time to look through the annals of hockey to find the error and correct it. But perhaps someone else is enough of a die-hard Sharks fan to want to do it. JesperLærke 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone added an extra win to the 2005-06 record. Managed to fix it. NeoChaosX 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Scott Thornton UFA?

Thornton doesn't become an UFA until JULY 1ST, 2006. Until then Thornton should still be in the 'current roster' section. GoodDay 21:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just learned, that the Sharks won't be re-signing Scott Thornton, therefore he's being edited out of the current roster section makes sense. GoodDay 22:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

2005-06 season summary cleanup

Okay, just noticed the article is 32 kb, which apparently rather large for a Wiki article. The obvious offender in terms of size is the summary of the past season, which is larger than the rest of the History section combined! The fact that the playoff results take up more than half that subsection is pretty bad as well. I'm thinking a clean up is necessary for that section.

I'd start by reducing the playoff summary; we don't need a game-by-game description of both playoff series, and any attention to the anthem-booing incident during the Edmonton series seems to have passed. Additionally, listing each and every player transaction through out the season is too much; mention of just the Thornton and Nieminen trades will probably suffice, IMO. Anybody else agree, disagree or got other suggestions on what to cut? --NeoChaosX 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just finished editing that section when I thought to check the talk page. I put it into the Ron Wilson years section and shortened it back to the most important points. Any comments? --Stretch 05:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'd have to say that works. Short and summarizes the important parts of the season. Good job doing what managed to slip my mind. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Traverse

Where is Patrick Traverse in the Shark's current roster? Is he as of right now assigned to the Worcester Sharks or is he just missing from the current roster? If he is he should be added.

Same with Scott Ferguson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastic Pillow (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I'm certain that when their signings were announced, it was assumed they'd both be playing Worcester, not San Jose. —NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 02:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

== Sharks rotating captaincy == Just looking for Users views. Should the Sharks captains (During the Sharks rotating captaincy through the first-half of the 2003-04 season), be listed in the Sharks captains section? I believe it should be, as is the case in the Sabres & Wild articles. GoodDay 20:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thefeeder.com inclusion?

What's the rationale behind including Thefeeder.com, but not other fan sites, on this page? I figure that if one is included, other users are going to want THEIR fan site included. Thus, why Thefeeder and not others? Andy Saunders 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• From what I know of The Feeder and the local San Jose and Edmonton media, The Feeder is the only fansite which has received media attention from both television and newspapers in San Jose. It also was the subject of a few articles out of Edmonton during their playoff series last year. Whether that is grounds for inclusion is up in the air, but it seems more notable than some of the fansites users have been adding recently. Tachyon01 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a demerger of Stars/Barons

This morning, I read the Gil Stein source cited as the reference for the Sharks being a demerged Oakland Seals/Cleveland Barons franchise. It doesn't say that at all (ch 6, "The Noon Balloon to Saskatoon", p 116-137 in the copy at the Library of Congress). It says the Sharks are a new expansion franchise offered to the Gunds as a compromise to keep them from moving the North Stars to San Jose, and the Baldwin group originally looking for an SJ expansion franchise got the North Stars (before flipping them to Norman Green less than a year later). Which is what everybody else has said all along. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It was very easy to get confused about this back in 1991 because of the Gund brothers' ownership chronology of all three teams and the fact that the Sharks got to take a good chunk of the North Stars with them. The Gunds owned the Barons when they were folded into the North Stars, and the same Gunds owned the North Stars in 1991, selling them to get the Sharks expansion franchise, then taking 24 North Stars players to seed the new team. At the time, it actually looked as if the Gunds "spun off" their former team from the Stars, when in fact, it was a simple sale and expansion rolled up into one. SpanishCastleMagic 02:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you failing to remember that the North Stars were in the process of facilitating their move to Dallas when the Sharks spun-off from them. I would call taking 24 of a teams players spinning-off. The North Stars changed to their current uniform design the year that this occured and then moved to Dallas the year after. They may of gotten the better end of this deal since they got to keep Mike Modano but they were in the simplist terms disbanded and re-established as the Stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.14.197 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 May 2007

Continuity of franchises is an important point: the only situations I'm aware of in U.S. professional sport where franchise continuity was explicitly bypassed for record-keeping purposes were the Blues/Ralston Purina Saskatoon fiasco (also part of the Stein chapter mentioned above) where the franchise was technically revoked then re-established, and the better-known Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens two-step in the late '90s. The player roster of the North Stars was split in the dispersal draft, basically because the Gunds had threatened to move the team lock, stock and barrel to San Jose if they didn't get a better deal than your average expansion draft. But the Sharks were still an expansion franchise, albeit one with a slightly better roster than the Lightning, Senators, Ducks or Panthers were able to get in the following couple of years -- the Barons ended in '78, full stop. The North Stars franchise, despite its sale, remained the same franchise in Minnesota, but the fan base was justifiably irate over how the league had screwed them; that fan discontent helped give Green the excuse he was looking for to hit I-35 South. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Team Colors

Another team color for the San Jose Sharks is burnt orange. As seen on the stick in the shark's mouth in the logo. It is also listed in all their team yearbooks and official web site.

Under MISCELLANEOUS68.124.72.163 07:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Guest

2006-07 Season

I updated this section to make it more comprehensive. I retained what was already there, except for a few of the minor league transactions, as I do not feel they are worthy of inclusion. If there is a Worcester Sharks page they can be included in there. Just as a warning, I'm a fan of the team, and used somedescriptive language, so I'm not sure if everything I wrote is NPOV, but I spent a lot of time writing this so hopefully it is good enough :)

If anything, the current season's summary needs to be shorter, not longer. It's already longer than earlier summaries that cover multiple years. V-train 02:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't really be there at all unless something major happened. That's what the 2006-07 San Jose Sharks season article is for. --Djsasso 03:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's because it predates the 2006-2007 page. But you're right, the whole current season summary should just be shifted to that season page (and lengthened), and then at the end of the season a short concise summary can be incorporated into the main page. V-train 04:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I realize it did. I just meant that maybe it should be shifted there. --Djsasso 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the 2005-06 season summary that was on the team's main page earlier in the year, and it's almost as long as the revised one I wrote. It's only a page. I'm going to put my revised summary back and then if someone wants, put a tag on it or something, or revise it further. But I think my revision is at least better than the one that was there before.

A year ago, there was not a specific page for a season. That is the case now. Also, if the summary for that season was suitable for the main page, don't you think it would still be there? Put your summary here: 2006-07 San Jose Sharks season. It does not belong on the main page. V-train 10:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign your discussion posts, by putting four tildes (~) at the end. V-train 10:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The sections before 2006-07 Season, like Darryl Sutter years and Ron Wilson years, explain how the team did durintg those seasons, and a basic summary of the season, but the 2006-07 season section doesn't really say anything about the season at all. It just says what the team did at the trade deadling, including a few trivial moves like trading parker/schaefer and signing college players, takls about the goalie rotation (the one good part) and then a few trivia factoids that happened during the season, but do not define or relate to the season in any way. It doesn't even mention the team's record at the end of the year. If someone went to the page and wanted to know what kind of year the team has had compared to past years, the current season summary will not satisfy them. It has been said that a season summary does not belong on th is page, but there is a section titled 2006-07 season, and its current content does not do it justice. I tried to write a season summary in basically the exact same style as with the previous ones, like Ron Wilson years and Darryl Sutter years. It was too long the first couple of times, but I shortened it down to acceptable length and took out the filler. I know that the season is not complete until the playoffs end, and that ultimately this season summary will be later joined under the Ron Wilson years category, but for now I think the information in my revision is a lot more relevant than what is currently there. If you want to revise it further, then fine, but I suggest revising it from my version, and not to just keep reverting back to the current one, which is definitely insufficient.PrinceYumil 06:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, the reason there is a section on 2006-07 on the main page is because the current season page was only created recently. It doesn't really belong there, and can be fixed at the end of the season. You are just compounding the problem by making it longer. Your section on this year is almost longer than the Darryl Sutter and Ron Wilson sections combined, which cover 10 years! If you are so concerned about there being a comprehensive summary for this season, put it on the current season page and add a link on the main page saying something to the effect of "For more info on the current season, go here." What you keep putting there doesn't belong on the main page, so please stop. V-train 07:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And if you notice the Ron Wilson & Darryl Sutter years section cover multiple seasons. Very soon this one and last years season will be removed completely off here except for key highlights like the Joe Thorton trade which was a major impact. To be honest we should be reverting past what is there now and none of it should be there at all, nevermind yours. --Djsasso 13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Djsasso and V-train. The format in this article, as in the articles for each and every other NHL team, covers even Stanley Cup winning-seasons in little more than a paragraph, if that much. Especially since individual season pages exist now, there is no reason for having lengthy unencyclopedic sections on current seasons.  RGTraynor  13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the main page has been reorganized again, to clearly distinguish each season under the Ron Wilson era. Therefore, I felt there was a need to rewrite the 2006-07 season in the same mold that the previous seasons were written. The 2003-04 and 2005-06 season reviews both talked about the team's actual performance, and the highlights of the year. The 2006-07 section was just a few trivia factoids. No mention was made of the team's record, or how they played during the season, or how they are currently doing. The old review did not contain any information of significant relevance to the team as a whole. Also I see that the 2006-07 season page has the "summmary" that used to be on this page, and it is still woefully inadequate. Nobody who reads that page is going to care whether or not Nolan Schaefer was traded for a 7th round draft pick, or that the Sharks signed TJ Fox and Torrey Mitchell to essentially minor league contracts. I'm going to transfer my most recent season summary from this page (the one in my previous edit) to that page, because it is much more relevant to the actual season than the one currently on that page.PrinceYumil 08:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's where you are wrong. The purpose of having separate pages like that now is so that it CAN have that kind of detail cause there are people who care about those things. --Djsasso 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Top Infobox

Can we go back to the old Template, now? There wasn't anything wrong with it. GoodDay 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, there's new addition to it. It's acceptable now. GoodDay 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little tardy to the party, but I feel that I should interject the fact that all National Hockey League teams should use a uniform info box. And honestly, I see nothing special about this one. Furthermore, I also don't see a point in having a whole additional broken off box for franchise history, when only a third of the teams in the NHL have anything beyond their original name and one set of dates (e.g. 1991-Present, like with the Sharks).

If it makes that big of a deal, the method of showing championships on this info box can be used on the other template. However I don't see any reason to use this template's franchise history method, and am also adverse to removing local media affiliates, in large part because of the fact that, well ... frankly, this is the NHL. It's worthwhile to show just how one can find a team on the air, be it radio or television.

Besides, I don't think using a generic "pro hockey" template is a good idea for teams in the NHL. By all means, use it on AHL teams, ECHL teams, USHL teams ... whatever. But I'd like to believe that NHL teams are important enough to require their own type of info box where league is not a required category in it. -Resident Lune 18:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess...the only reason I tried it out was because the pro hockey template had optional fields, which would've been useful for the defunct NHL teams where half the fields would not have applied to them. I'll revert back to it and see if I can implement some of the code in Pro_hockey_team into NHL_Team. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why we should have different infoboxes for different leagues. It's better that we create a uniform look for all team pages. This infobox may not be the best but we can improve it so it fits for all leagues. --Krm500 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to consider that, now that I've had to step back and think about it. Though at the same time, there are some things that I think would have to be brought over from the NHL template to the pro hockey template. Just as an example, I don't know if an align-right works for the category name, and the use of a colon doesn't seem necessary just by comparing the pro hockey info box to the box of several other leagues (e.g. MLB, NFL, NBA, AFL, and so on) ... the line splitting the name of the category from the category's pertinent information should be sufficient, coupled with bolding the category name itself.

The idea of splitting championships away I can get behind, if only because it more prominently displays them for passing observers who want to know how successful a team is, without letting that information get lost in one long box.

I don't know if losing the alternating gray/white box way of splitting categories is a good idea or not, though. For the most part, it seems fine to have them, and probably makes the box look better as the whole so it isn't just a giant white box with lines. But it's not that big of a deal.

Lastly, it is probably in the best interest of the reader to specify just what an affiliate is. In the current box, it's specified that the teams being linked to are minor league affiliates. It's best to not assume that someone is going to understand right off the bat that an affiliate relates to a team's minor and junior league connections. As for my hooting about keeping local media affiliates in, I saw that this template actually does have that category, but only as media. Maybe a happy medium between that, and the mouthful that is local media affiliates, would be media affiliates. -Resident Lune 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New Sharks Logo

So, someone uploaded the new Sharks logo approximately a day before it was unveiled? How'd they get it? If you click the picture on the main article, you're taken to the image article page for the now old logo, but the point of interest is that the link which is the supposed source for the old logo is actually a link to the new logo. It links to someone's image storage account at Imageshack; see here. I didn't bother correcting it because I don't know if it's actually the new logo, or just someone's creative Photoshop work. Plus, in about 2 hours from now, if it is the new logo, the source will be correct, though the sourcing will likely have to be changed anyway. So, who's the mysterious "party crasher" at 76.211.242.117? I guess it's one of the rare few who got an early look at it and decided to spoil it early, if it's genuine that is. I guess it's cool that I, and anyone else who visited the Sharks' Wikipedia article looking for info about the new logo, got to see it early. I hope it is the new logo because I'm the kind of person that doesn't like change, but I have to admit it does look pretty cool for an update and it should be an easy transition. A lot of times they really screw it up, but this new logo has the same energy and design/style as the old one, but with a fresher look. If I like it, it must be okay. I still think the original logo would work fine for the next 100+ years. Classic things in modern times are cool. Why is it that when things finally become recognizable, experienced, etc., they up and change what makes them a now classic entity? Anyone remember New Coke? How about Felicity's hair? Wilhelm Screamer 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That leaked image is all over If you look for it...Google: new sharks logo. I think I started seeing it here about a week ago. Whatever: the new logo will be unveiled at 10am PDT. ccwaters 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just went looking for it on the net after typing all that, so nevermind the whole rare few, lol. What do I know. I just thought it was "sneaky" that the old logo is currently sourced to a leaked image of the "new" logo. Wilhelm Screamer 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So which one is the real logo? The one currently on the article is dubbed the "Primary Crest", but then there's a "full logo" with a full-bodied shark. REF: http://sharks.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=335227 ccwaters 17:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Primary Crest is the "real" logo - it's what the team will use in most cases. It should be the one at the top of the article. Anyone who's interested should feel free to add the multitude of alternate logos to the body of the article. And for future reference, it really should not have been posted here until it was officially unveiled by the club. --Chancemichaels 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Has anyone seen this? http://sharks.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=MediaGalleryPlayer&galleryId=1685 Casemods 03:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Article needs a specific Jerseys section, complete with photos and info. Also, the team mascot needs to be mentioned. Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 04:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How come the German players are from West Germany and not just Germany. It seems stupid to say West Germany seeing as that was the state over fifteen years ago. - Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.126.17 (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the player wasn't born in Germany, he was born in West Germany. And birth places are listed by what it was called at the time of their birth. -Djsasso (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, when the player(s) (i.e.: Goc) were born, there was no entity called "Germany", so how could he have been born to a country that did not exist? Resolute 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Eras in Franchise History

I liked that they were named after the coaches. The new names reflect subjective opinions on the team, and they're kind of boring.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think that seperating it by each coach's legacy is an appropriate way to organize the information and is a more objective presentation.--Brianvdb (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unmerger

The Sharks are officially listed at the Hockey HOF in Toronto as both an expansion team and an product of the Gund's merger with the North Stars (Cleveland Barons) being dissolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. On their own website the Sharks also still claim ownership of the name "Cleveland Barons" and all properties associated with that name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While people do say that the sharks are a result of an unmerger and I am one of them, the NHL does not officially consider it an unmerger, they consider it an expansion team. The reason their website claims ownership of the Barons name is that the Gunds never sold the rights to the NHL when they merged with Minnesota like other teams have done when moving or shutting down operations. -Djsasso (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The USPTO says a Tom Goebel, the Director of the Ohio Junior Blue Jackets, owns the trademark "Cleveland Barons". ccwaters (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he was basing it on the fact that a privacy statement on the san jose sharks site seems to indicate the Cleveland Barons info belongs to them as well. Here is a quote "This privacy statement is applicable to the website of the San Jose Sharks, sjsharks.com, and its affiliates, including without limitation, HP Pavilion at San Jose, Cleveland Barons, San Jose Stealth, Logitech Ice at San Jose, SAP Open, San Jose Stealth, Fight Night at the Tank, SVSE Publishing, SVSE Merchandise, Sharks Ice at Fremont, SVSE Sponsor Connect, and Silicon Valley Sports & Entertainment (herein " the Sharks")." Personally its not good enough in my humble opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the Cleveland Barons AHL team that the Sharks own. They became the Worcester Sharks. Someone in the legal department forgot to update it. I don't see anything referencing an "unmerger". His argument is: the Sharks had an AHL team called the Cleveland Barons, therefore the Sharks are an "unmerger" of the North Stars/Barons. ccwaters (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, I was just pointing out where he got his information that the name was owned at one point by the sharks organization. -Djsasso (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hockey HOF lists both expansion and unmerger so why are some Wikipedia Nazis so against listing both as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a source showing the HHOF as listing it as both then it will be valid to add. However, no one has been able to find such a source, which is why it hasn't been included in the article yet. -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Added Lake Erie Monsters reference. This is a PRO TEAM'S site so, I don't know how much more refs are needed. When a pro team has it listed as history I think it's worth putting in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you would have discussed before reverting yet again, we would have explained to you that none of those sources are the NHL. We need a source from the NHL itself saying they consider it an unmerger. None of these references are the NHL. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, alternately, citations from books or newspapers, which if nothing else could allow the phrasing "Some consider it to be an demerger ..." That aside, getting into reversion wars in violation of WP:3RR and throwing insults in violation of WP:CIVIL will not end well, and I strongly recommend you stop.  RGTraynor  20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I already blocked him and he has appologized and has promissed to discuss it when his 24 hours are up. -Djsasso (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(nods) It isn't as if he hasn't been blocked before. Certainly one thing he can chew over, with mentioning the Monsters' website, is something we've hit before with the Habs: that team webmasters aren't notable for their command of hockey history.  RGTraynor  21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Nazis? Gee wheez, who spit in that anon's soup? GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I could not find a reference in Canadian newsstand to support the 'unmerger' 'characterization'. Since the previous expansion (Ottawa and Tampa) paid in money, the Gunds had to pay to get the Sharks franchise. But they did sell the Stars. You could call it an un-merger, but the actual transaction was a sale of the Stars, then a purchase of an expansion franchise. From the Montreal Gazette, May 10, 1990: (Copyright The Gazette) CHICAGO - The National Hockey League has approved the sale of the Minnesota North Stars to a group headed by Howard Baldwin, former minority owner of the Hartford Whalers, league president John Ziegler said yesterday. As expected, the deal includes a condition that will allow the Gund family - who are selling the North Stars - to start an expansion team in the San Francisco Bay-area in the 1991-92 season. After two days of a closed-door meeting of the NHL board of governors, Ziegler told a news conference the sale was approved with several conditions. But he said the North Stars will remain in Bloomington, Minn. Baldwin will pay $31.5 U.S. million for the North Stars and the Gunds will pay $50 million for the expansion franchise. The new team may play in San Jose, San Francisco or another Bay-area region, said Gordon Gund. "It was very important for all the governors to do everything necessary to make sure that the capital city of hockey in the U.S.A. was being represented by a good product and a good ownership," said Marcel Aubut of the Quebec Nordiques. Baldwin and partner Morris Belzberg, the former president of Budget Rent-A-Car in the United States, recently struck the deal to buy the North Stars. New arena in 1992-93 The Gunds, who have owned the North Stars since they merged their Cleveland Barons with the Minnesota team in 1978, will likely house their new club in the Cow Palace near San Francisco in 1991-92 before moving it to a new arena in San Jose the next season. While the North Stars flourished for several years, the Gunds said they lost 16 million in the last three years. Baldwin, decked out in a tie covered with stars, said he's glad to be in the NHL. "This is a very positive solution," said Baldwin, who turns 48 on Monday. "I'm thrilled to be back in the NHL." The Gunds will also get an undisclosed number of players and draft choices from Minnesota to form a nucleus of the new club. Then, to stock the Gunds' franchise and restock Minnesota, an expansion draft will be held in June 1991. Clubs will be allowed to protect 16 skaters and two goaltenders. Unsigned draft choices and players with less than two seasons won't be eligible for the draft. First pick in draft The Gunds will have first selection in the expansion draft, followed by Minnesota. Ziegler, who invited applications for two more franchises to begin play in 1992-93, said there will be another expansion draft tentatively set for June 1992 for up to two more new clubs. NHL clubs will then be allowed to protect only 14 skaters and two goaltenders. Again, players who have played less than two seasons and unsigned draft picks will not be eligible. Ziegler, discussing the decision to accept applications for two NHL expansion franchises, said they must prove the availability of a state-of-the-art facility with luxury seating. [Illustration] Black & White Photo; Howard Baldwin. $31.5 million Credit: CP Not an unmerger. Alaney2k (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It really is just a terminology thing. Because of things like the ability to take half of the players with them that indicates it was atleast partially an unmerger. But as mentioned above, without a direct source stating it was an unmerger we can't overly emphasize it in the article. *grin* Not to mention the Sharks franchise came before Ottawa and Tampa. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are sort of arguing both sides here. Make up your mind. It was done as sale and expansion to protect the value of expansion at $50 mil. And it kept the Stars or "Half-Stars" as they were nicknamed, in Minn. The Gunds sold the North Stars organization. The Gunds got no assets per se, but the right to draft players/choices from the Stars. They took no management, farm teams, personnel, equipment, leases or anything else. An unmerger would split an organization. The Sharks were new. They cannot claim on the history of the Seals/Barons/North Stars as part of the Sharks, so it is not an unmerger. Only superficially is it an unmerger. Alaney2k (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe it is an unmerger as they did take assets, in hockey, players are considered assets of the company. As well they took cash out of the team by taking money from the minority shareholders (Baldwin). However, I believe that since we do not have a specific reference stating it was an unmerger we can't claim it is on the wiki. I have stated this pretty clearly I think throughout. It wasn't me that was arguing to add it to the page. It's really no different than the situation you were arguing in Ottawa. Calling it an unmerger was a promotional way to link the Sharks to the old bay area team the Golden Seals. Just like the new senators were promotionally linked to the old senators. -Djsasso (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it is mentioned in Gil Stein's book. As for the Sens, the intent was from the start to revive the old name. They had to get permission from past owners. I don't see any revival in the Sharks. Did they hire any old Seals? The Sharks did revive the Seals' poor performance. Alaney2k (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Stein's book is dealt with on the Not a demerger of Stars/Barons topic earlier on this page. Nowhere in the book does the word "demerger" come up in regards to the Sharks. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. That's got to put it to rest. Alaney2k (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What is amusing is the only person who was arguing it was a merger isn't even here at the moment. So we all preaching to the choir. lol. -Djsasso (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness, it's all cleared up. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just saying there should be something in the article about it. Maybe as a "dispute" or something because in no other time in sports history has an established team had it's players stripped for an expansion team. No other time has an established team parcipated in an "expansion draft" like the North Stars did. That would have never happened had it not been for the Seals/Barons mergining with Minnesota. They didn't let Levin farm the Celtics roster when he traded teams with the Buffalo Braves. And that certainly didn't happen when Roosenbloom traded the Colts for the Los Angeles Rams.

This is the only time in pro sports history that a team was allowed to be farmed by a team their owners "traded" franchises for. Even if it's under a "Dispute as to Origins of the Franchise" section it should still be on there. Alot of people I know take this as fact, I'm one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing sematics: produce a reliable source that calls it an "unmerger" or whatever. Otherwise the article 1991 NHL Dispersal and Expansion Drafts outlines the proceedings. And I'm really not sure how the Seals or Barons come into play in your argument. ccwaters (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

McLellan as new coach - update now or wait

According to Helene St. James of the Detroit Free Press and David Pollak of the SJ Mercury News, the Sharks have hired Todd McLellan as the team's new coach - however, the hiring won't be officially announced until a scheduled press conference tommorow. Would it be okay to update the article right now, or wait until the hiring is official? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not official, it shouldn't be on the page. There's not reason to rush, all will be revealed tomorrow. V-train (talk)

Nevermind, it's official now. V-train (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Counting Chickens

My numbers on how many wins and points the Sharks are on pace for, and that these numbers would be NHL records, was removed with reference to the above idiom. I think that's a bad reason, and that these numbers are indicative of how well they're doing, which is relevant for the article. The sentence wasn't "so bet that they're going to win the President's Trophy!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.109.241 (talk • contribs)

This information is important but is on its own page 2008-09 San Jose Sharks season so that the main page can focus on information about the franchise itself and not its current season. -Djsasso (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)