The San Jose Sharks are quickly moving through their rebuild, but they’re still at a point where Stanley Cup contention seems years away. As a result, retaining veterans may be difficult but with Mikael Granlund, it may be an option they should look at exploring. General manager Mike Grier has options with the 32-year-old, and the most likely of them will result in him departing the Bay Area at the trade deadline. With that being said, there’s a legitimate case that can be made that keeping Granlund would be in the organization’s best interest. Let’s dive into the pros and cons of both keeping and trading the Finnish forward.
Keeping Granlund
The Pros
In a season that left very few positives in the minds of Sharks fans, at least until after it was over and they drafted Macklin Celebrini, Granlund was one of the few bright spots. He led the team in both points and assists with 60 and 48 respectively, in just 68 games. While those numbers aren’t earth-shattering in the modern NHL, when you factor in just how bad the 2023-24 Sharks were, it’s a massively impressive feat.
Granlund brings veteran leadership to the locker room. In a team full of young players, veterans are needed to help ease the growing pains and help each individual player reach their full potential. Often when a rebuild relies solely on young talent, it fails. Teams consistently try it by accumulating elite young talent, but they’re rarely able to become perennial contenders by taking that approach. Some are exceptions to the rule, but those cases are few and far between. Other times, the teams never even break into the playoffs and start long droughts. Having a perfect balance of veterans and prospects is the best way to succeed in a rebuild, and Granlund helps accomplish that.
On top of that, keeping Granlund prevents the organization from rushing prospects who may not be NHL-ready. While everyone enjoys seeing prospects take the ice at the NHL level, if they do it too soon in their development cycle it can have massively negative effects on their careers as a whole. If it’s possible to keep players who are proven at the NHL level in the lineup, it’s best to do so until management is 100% certain they have a player who can effectively take over the role.
The Cons
Earlier this week, I talked about the uncertainty surrounding Logan Couture. If he is healthy, there’s less of a reason to have Granlund in the locker room past the trade deadline. He’s an effective player, and his point totals are certainly beneficial, but he does take a roster spot away from a younger player like Filip Bystedt, Thomas Bordeleau, or Daniil Gushchin who would undoubtedly benefit from time in the NHL.
Related: Logan Couture’s Injury Status Could Impact Sharks Significantly
The question then becomes, is what Granlund brings to the Sharks worth potentially stunting the growth of a prospect who is ready for the next step in their career? It’s a difficult decision to make, as the prospect will certainly have long-term benefits but prospects are never a guarantee. There’s always a chance that Granlund leaves and whoever takes his place never truly settles in at the NHL level.
Lastly, suppose Granlund remains in San Jose as they move out of a rebuild. In that case, he’s likely agreeing to forego the opportunity to win a Stanley Cup, as he’ll likely be too old to be a major player for them when they’re finally contenders again. As a result, he’s probably going to ask for a significantly higher salary than he would from a team in a position to win. While cap space isn’t an issue for the Sharks now, it certainly could be in the future depending on the term of a contract extension.
Trading Granlund
The Pros
By trading Granlund to a contender, the Sharks would undoubtedly gain strong assets in return. Looking at what they received for Tomas Hertl isn’t exactly the best way to approach the potential return considering the amount of term he had on his contract and the salary retention that went along with it. Since the Sharks will be unable to retain salary in a Granlund deal, it will significantly lower the return and likely force a third team into the mix. Now with that being said, his level of production could easily get some valuable assets regardless of the financial circumstances. A first-round pick would likely be the starting point, and they may even be able to get more than that strictly as a rental.
The Cons
The Sharks have reached a point where they have enough young talent to establish their future core for the most part. While they could certainly use some more specific pieces such as defensive prospects, they have the majority of their long-term players already in the system. As a result, adding more players who fit the timeline for them to contend will certainly help them make sure they have pieces that reach their potential, but it could also hold others back and create an unnecessary logjam where players don’t develop properly because they can’t get the proper amount of playing time.
A big part of the reason the Sharks landed Collin Graf last season was because he could jump into the lineup immediately. As they continue adding more and more assets, they’re going to struggle to bring in players who want immediate playing time, especially when it comes to their prospects playing overseas. As a result, keeping Granlund’s veteran leadership for the time being could be beneficial. While it’s hard to have too many prospects, it’s not impossible despite the standard belief.
The Sharks face an interesting fork in the road this season when it comes to how they handle Granlund’s future. I’d say there’s a 75% chance he leaves the team in teal this spring, but that’s certainly not set in stone.
