Wouldn't he have to go through waivers to be sent to the AHL? I don't think it's a bad look if he is unplayable in the NHL and goes unclaimed. No one is owed a buyout because they underperform their contract.
I don’t think Simek has the same issues as last year under Boughner. They’ve played him pretty consistently when he’s been healthy. I think he’d be fine finishing out his final year when he’ll get 1.95 mil for doing so. If Karlsson is gone, we’d have Vlasic, Ferraro, Benning, MacDonald, Thrun, and Knyzhov for sure. Adding Simek to that mix isn’t a problem. I don’t think any of the kids you’re talking about pushing up the depth chart are likely to do so next year so just ride it out.
So hold the guy hostage and play him as an AHLer because the organization gave him too much money? He totally should have said that "You know DW, that $2.25M is probably more than I'm worth. Maybe make it $1.5M so someone might add me off waivers."
I don't think sending a guy down is "holding him hostage" when every other team in the league has a chance to claim him.
I just don't see where the push is to send Simek down or buy him out. If he can't be dealt, just ride it out.
The scenario is if he gets beat out by 7-8 other guys, I don't think we have to buy him out. Like you said, he will probably have a spot assuming EK65 gets traded,
Waiving him and letting every other team in the league have a chance at him seems like the most opposite thing allowed to holding him hostage.
You know that's disingenuous just as much as I do. Waiving him at $2.25M is not the same as letting everyone have a chance at him. He's not worth $2.25M and nobody is claiming him at that amount (and only a few teams will even have the cap space for that amount at the time he'd be waived at the end of training camp).
I agree that waiving him at 2.25 mil isn't the same as the ability to sign him for the minimum but I don't see it as the Sharks holding him hostage when they can and have played him extensively when healthy. At this stage, I feel like the most likely outcome to this upcoming offseason is trading Karlsson and continuing to run out the clock on a bunch of these contracts. I think you could buy out Simek but you don't have to either. The only guys next year to be concerned with potentially making room for is Thrun (but he could be sent down to the Barracuda next year) and Muk (who also may need a year with the Barracuda). I'd look to move Karlsson without taking back a defenseman to allow some flexibility with those two, then maybe find a team to rent Simek to at the deadline, and promote whoever's playing the best out of those two then.
It isn’t Simek’s fault that he signed his current contract? You don’t think that he and his agent talked through it and tried to maximize its value and were aware of the potential risks? Bad contracts are a two way street.
I disagree. I usually agree with your posts but here you are wrong. I don’t think the Sharks should be obligated to buy him out instead of sending him down and I don’t think Simek would even prefer to be bought out. Simek signed this contract for financial security. He signed a one way deal that guaranteed him $9M. He is still owed $2M and if he is bought out he loses $1.3M. That’s a lot of money for a guy who would like his hockey earnings to last for the rest of his life. I think Simek will be with the Sharks until his contract ends but IF he loses his spot, it’s in everyones best interest to just send him down.
f*** that. I agree with the tweet below. If Karlsson does not win the Norris, its a damn travesty.
I think a lot of it is just column inches and hot takes for engagement. I've argued that it shouldn't be a points trophy in the past, and still believe the Norris should go to the best all-around defenseman instead of the best scorer from the back. I probably argued here that Vlasic should've gotten votes prior to ~2014-15.
It is the trend with our media in general. Their job has largely become entertainment - hot takes to attract clicks rather than objectively reporting the news or publishing well-supported, uncontroversial opinion.
He loses $650k from a buyout compared to his salary and has the opportunity to sign a league minimum deal for $775k and come out $125k ahead actually.
I don't see a way that he's a regular when he's only playing 14:50 a night on an even worse defense group. If he were churning out 18-20 a night, then I'd buy into the staff liking and valuing him over merely needing a warm body to put on the ice on defense.
That's more than he was playing last year. He may be behind all those defensemen but he plays both sides and they can scratch him. Even if Muk earns a promotion by midseason, they don't need to buy out Simek to create the space. There will be ample injury opportunities, I'm sure. A buyout may be best for all parties involved but so might just letting him finish his contract here. They went through 10 defensemen this year and last year. Considering they're going to lose no matter what next season, another body to be in the lineup at least occasionally since they have to anyway is useful enough. Cap space is of no actual concern here so where's the push coming from to get rid of Simek now? Unless the way Simek was treated this year under new management and coaching wasn't good enough to change his mind about wanting out, I'd keep him and use him.
