Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[Pinkfloyd]

On the contrary, Jones should never have been bought out.

He would be off the books by now instead of staining our cap sheet for three more seasons.

It's not like he has performed any worse since leaving the Sharks than the parade of losers we got to replace him like Reimer and Kahkonen.

That's a different decision as well. I agree that Jones shouldn't have been bought out. After consecutive seasons missing the playoffs where the team clearly was a far way off from competing again, they should've just taken their lumps and eat Jones' contract or bury it through the rebuild. If we're okay with eating Vlasic's contract, when he was just as bad relative to his contract, we should've been alright with doing the same for Jones but the buyout term is still okay since it coincides with the ELC expirations of Celebrini and Smith.

I think originally someone brought up trading Jones after the 2019 playoffs. That probably wasn't very feasible considering how bad Jones was that year, his five years remaining, and his three team trade list. At least not without giving up someone like Timo Meier at the time and even that may not get anyone to bite.

 

[Hodge]

That's a different decision as well. I agree that Jones shouldn't have been bought out. After consecutive seasons missing the playoffs where the team clearly was a far way off from competing again, they should've just taken their lumps and eat Jones' contract or bury it through the rebuild. If we're okay with eating Vlasic's contract, when he was just as bad relative to his contract, we should've been alright with doing the same for Jones but the buyout term is still okay since it coincides with the ELC expirations of Celebrini and Smith.

I think originally someone brought up trading Jones after the 2019 playoffs. That probably wasn't very feasible considering how bad Jones was that year, his five years remaining, and his three team trade list. At least not without giving up someone like Timo Meier at the time and even that may not get anyone to bite.

Worst case, we could have just waived Jones and reassigned him to the Barracuda or ECHL or something. Another idiotic decision driven by DW's loyalty towards players who didn't win us a single Cup.

 

[weastern bias]

I was also adamantly against the Jones buyout, not because he was good, but because we were bad either way so stretching the penalty into the future made no sense

The fact that we suffer a cap penalty in 2027 because Doug Wilson was trying to enhance roster flexibility in 2021 in an attempt to make "win now" moves coming off back to back playoff misses shows just how heavily in denial he was of our situation at the time, and it shows just what a disadvantageous position Mike Grier inherited when he got the job, it's amazing what he's done in 2 short years at the helm, we're in a whole different world now

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Worst case, we could have just waived Jones and reassigned him to the Barracuda or ECHL or something. Another idiotic decision driven by DW's loyalty towards players who didn't win us a single Cup.

Could've or just used him as one of the two goalies through these lean years and just live with it. I think him buying Jones out was more out of desperation to try and get another real answer in net to compete than loyalty. Still suffering from delusions of believing the team was capable of being competitive.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Wasn't it widely accepted at the time of the buyout that it was done because Jones was a toxic presence in the locker room? Not to say that he was a bad guy but that a lot of the perceived losing juju was associated with Jones. I don't think he was bought out strictly for performance reasons.

 

[weastern bias]

Wasn't it widely accepted at the time of the buyout that it was done because Jones was a toxic presence in the locker room? Not to say that he was a bad guy but that a lot of the perceived losing juju was associated with Jones. I don't think he was bought out strictly for performance reasons.

Good thing they did too, as soon as they burnt that sage and cleansed those spirits the winning immediately followed, lol

I do think they were probably gonna buy out Kane because of vibes too, we just got lucky he couldn't stop breaking the law, he really saved us from himself

 

[Juxtaposer]

Good thing they did too, as soon as they burnt that sage and cleansed those spirits the winning immediately followed, lol

I do think they were probably gonna buy out Kane because of vibes too, we just got lucky he couldn't stop breaking the law, he really saved us from himself

The team was obviously still bad, but Jones' last few seasons were absolutely rancid both in performance and in vibes. I remember watching the 2021 team have absolutely no confidence because Jones would give up back-breakers every time they had any kind of momentum. It felt like the skaters played worse because Jones was in net.

FWIW, we did improve from 2021 to 2022. I stand by the Jones buy-out; just because we haven't found a better goaltender since, doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it.

 

[Barrie22]

Wasn't it widely accepted at the time of the buyout that it was done because Jones was a toxic presence in the locker room? Not to say that he was a bad guy but that a lot of the perceived losing juju was associated with Jones. I don't think he was bought out strictly for performance reasons.

If it was then it is no worse then vlasic has been in that locker.

 

[Juxtaposer]

If it was then it is no worse then vlasic has been in that locker.

Vlasic doesn't play 60 minutes a game. Like I said, I think the skaters lost confidence in Jones to the point where it affected their performance. Jones as a person seems like a decent guy, but if you're worried every shot against is going to end up in the back of your net no matter how harmless, it affects how you play.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Wasn't it widely accepted at the time of the buyout that it was done because Jones was a toxic presence in the locker room? Not to say that he was a bad guy but that a lot of the perceived losing juju was associated with Jones. I don't think he was bought out strictly for performance reasons.

I don't think so but it's possible. I wouldn't be surprised that the perceived juju thing was a shared belief potentially within the organization. I think that does still stem from the delusion of being able to continue competing for a playoff spot. The defensive capability of the team was gone after 2017-18. They were able to outscore it in 2018-19 but the defense was just as bad but with a much worse group of skaters after that. They changed the goalies and the defense was still very bad. Jones was certainly a contributing factor and his performance was certainly enough on its own to justify buying out his contract but it was far too late for it to have made the competitive difference they were looking for.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The team was obviously still bad, but Jones' last few seasons were absolutely rancid both in performance and in vibes. I remember watching the 2021 team have absolutely no confidence because Jones would give up back-breakers every time they had any kind of momentum. It felt like the skaters played worse because Jones was in net.

FWIW, we did improve from 2021 to 2022. I stand by the Jones buy-out; just because we haven't found a better goaltender since, doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it.

Jones did give up a lot of back-breakers but the team was also routinely giving up breakaways and odd-man rushes early in games and periods. Jones' last year the team gave up 3.5 goals per game. That number went down to 3.2 the following year. Certainly an improvement but nowhere near competitive. It was already too late but managers almost never handle the misses well after a lengthy period of competing.

I don't think they should've done it but I also don't think it was a bad decision either. The buyout term being six years after missing two years already with no pipeline really to speak of wasn't going to impact the next competitive Sharks team in all likelihood. If the team finds a way to be competitive during the ELC years of Celebrini and Smith, they can make due with a 1.7 cap penalty now that the cap is rising again. Cap isn't going to be the reason these teams do or don't succeed.

 

[Saskatoon]

Jones was the worst starter in the league for a few years but yea - the team wasn't turning it around so they bought him out

I think they could have ate the years but yea it was bad.

 

[Cas]

Jones was the worst starter in the league for a few years but yea - the team wasn't turning it around so they bought him out

I think they could have ate the years but yea it was bad.

Frankly I'm just happy I haven't had to watch Martin Jones for the last three years.

 

[Sandisfan]

Jones did give up a lot of back-breakers but the team was also routinely giving up breakaways and odd-man rushes early in games and periods. Jones' last year the team gave up 3.5 goals per game. That number went down to 3.2 the following year. Certainly an improvement but nowhere near competitive. It was already too late but managers almost never handle the misses well after a lengthy period of competing.

I don't think they should've done it but I also don't think it was a bad decision either. The buyout term being six years after missing two years already with no pipeline really to speak of wasn't going to impact the next competitive Sharks team in all likelihood. If the team finds a way to be competitive during the ELC years of Celebrini and Smith, they can make due with a 1.7 cap penalty now that the cap is rising again. Cap isn't going to be the reason these teams do or don't succeed.

Remember that whatever system "TheBore" had it was one that created many more Breakaways and odd man rushes, so part of that was on the Coach.

P.S. as a Boomer (peak year LOL) I thought that going with "ThaBore" might get me banned LOL.

 

[DG93]

On the contrary, Jones should never have been bought out.

He would be off the books by now instead of staining our cap sheet for three more seasons.

It's not like he has performed any worse since leaving the Sharks than the parade of losers we got to replace him like Reimer and Kahkonen.

But also, who cares about him being on the cap sheet? By the time ELCs for Smith and Celebrini run out, his buyout cap hit will be off the books in addition to everything else other 6Mx1yr left on Toffoli's deal + the Hertl retention slot.

 

[Hodge]

But also, who cares about him being on the cap sheet? By the time ELCs for Smith and Celebrini run out, his buyout cap hit will be off the books in addition to everything else other 6Mx1yr left on Toffoli's deal + the Hertl retention slot.

Sure, it doesn't really matter, but it's an annoying hindrance that provided absolutely zero benefit to the team. At least we got assets for retaining salary on Karlsson and Hertl.

 

[CupfortheSharks]

Sure, it doesn't really matter, but it's an annoying hindrance that provided absolutely zero benefit to the team. At least we got assets for retaining salary on Karlsson and Hertl.

I never agreed with the Jones buyout.

I still think we should have retained more on the Karlsson trade. Pittsburgh would have paid for that extra cap space because they are trying to win another cup before Crosby retires. We didn’t use the extra cap space last year and it doesn’t look like we are going to use it this year either. Will what Grier does with the extra cap space for the last 2 years of retention be better than what Pittsburgh was offering? We will see.

 

[Gecklund]

I never agreed with the Jones buyout.

I still think we should have retained more on the Karlsson trade. Pittsburgh would have paid for that extra cap space because they are trying to win another cup before Crosby retires. We didn’t use the extra cap space last year and it doesn’t look like we are going to use it this year either. Will what Grier does with the extra cap space for the last 2 years of retention be better than what Pittsburgh was offering? We will see.

And what would you have required PIT pay for that extra cap space? I highly doubt they were offering another first. They have literally no interesting prospects. They have no young players.

 

[CupfortheSharks]

And what would you have required PIT pay for that extra cap space? I highly doubt they were offering another first. They have literally no interesting prospects. They have no young players.

We could have retained $4.25M more for 4 years. That’s $17M in cap space at a time when Pittsburgh it trying to get over the top. I don’t think we will ever know for certain what Pittsburgh offered but so far we have gotten absolutely nothing for $8.5M in cap space that hasn’t been used.

 

[Gecklund]

We could have retained $4.25M more for 4 years. That’s $17M in cap space at a time when Pittsburgh it trying to get over the top. I don’t think we will ever know for certain what Pittsburgh offered but so far we have gotten absolutely nothing for $8.5M in cap space that hasn’t been used.

I mean you could say we got Dickinson for that cap space but also you’re assuming there was more that Grier wanted that PIT was offering when that’s a pretty big assumption considering PIT has very little.

 

[sampler]

I never agreed with the Jones buyout.

I still think we should have retained more on the Karlsson trade. Pittsburgh would have paid for that extra cap space because they are trying to win another cup before Crosby retires. We didn’t use the extra cap space last year and it doesn’t look like we are going to use it this year either. Will what Grier does with the extra cap space for the last 2 years of retention be better than what Pittsburgh was offering? We will see.

Im very glad we didnt retain more on EK. Obviously, you are right about not using the saved space last yera or this year, but that was clearly the plan. Thats why we took on hoffman, granlund (who was supposed to be pure slaary dump but has played shockingly well), and ruuta.

The whole idea was to be a cap wash in years 1 and 2, and then get the big cap savings in years 3,4. Pitt wanted to "win now" while the sharks knew they were not going to compete for a few years.

Obviously, the trade backfired big on Pitt. But it's going to plan for us. Next summer 2025, if this year's development goes to plan, then I expect grier will deploy the 10m savings rather fully.

lastly, I don't think Pitt wanted us to retain that much more, and I dont think they had much more to give. They dished out a 2025 2nd to mtl in the deal, and they wouldnt have given their 2025 1st too, and retaining more salary for 4 years for a depth pick/prospect makes little sense. The deal was done right and was supposed to make Pitt a contender last year and this year as crosby, malkin, and letang's last hurrah. And, it was supposed to give the sharks assets while shedding big salary in 2025-26, and 26-27 in time for the sharks to be emerging from the rebuild.

So far, all according to plan for us. Dickinson and 2 years of 10m savings starting next summer, and if granny has another very good year, it might yield another 1st in rental. I dont see how it could have gone differently/better for the sharks.

(if there was a way to retain alot more salary in year 1 and 2, and none in year 3/4, then the sharks would do it. And, I suppose, thats exactly what they did taking granny, hoff, and ruuta. Perfecly designed deal for both teams... Too bad it didnt work for pitt! hahaha....)

 

[sampler]

We could have retained $4.25M more for 4 years. That’s $17M in cap space at a time when Pittsburgh it trying to get over the top. I don’t think we will ever know for certain what Pittsburgh offered but so far we have gotten absolutely nothing for $8.5M in cap space that hasn’t been used.

As I mentioned, you are absolutely right about the first two years of the deal. We could have retained way more ,but it would suck to be missing that $4.25M for the next two years, when the sharks may be in the market for some bigger UFAs looking to build out the roster around celly, smith, etc.

Also, As I mentioned, the sharks took over 10m in mostly dead salary in the form of hoff, granny, and ruuta. Hoff is gone after year one, but granny and ruuta still cost almost 8m this year. The fact that granny happens to be playing really well was a very unexpected surprise, as he had just 1 goals and 5 points with pitt last year and just 41 pts total. His 60 point production was a major unexpected gain, but in short, the sharks did "retain" nearly all of EK's slary in years 1 and 2.

And, as mentioned, pitt had nothing to give. The only thing the sharks would have wanted is more picks. We have enough existing prospects that getting another depth one is unneeded. Instead, more draft capital is what the sharks would have wanted. But pitt didnt have it. Maybe another 2024 2nd? No way they add their 2025 1st. But, I dont think that's worth 17m in retention, including 8.5M in the key years.

 

[DG93]

I never agreed with the Jones buyout.

I still think we should have retained more on the Karlsson trade. Pittsburgh would have paid for that extra cap space because they are trying to win another cup before Crosby retires. We didn’t use the extra cap space last year and it doesn’t look like we are going to use it this year either. Will what Grier does with the extra cap space for the last 2 years of retention be better than what Pittsburgh was offering? We will see.

In an ideal world, I would agree. I think Hasso buying into this was probably dependent on limited retention though. I'd say it worked out just fine.

 

[coooldude]

In an ideal world, I would agree. I think Hasso buying into this was probably dependent on limited retention though. I'd say it worked out just fine.

I'm sure that Hasso limited the retention, I also agree with the posters who have said that a) PIT didn't have much to give on roster or in the prospect pool and b) they probably wouldn't have paid future draft picks for the extra retention. Sure, we could have retained 100%, but is a GM going to give up their next 4-5 first round picks for a free EK? IN theory it sounds good but in practice there's a realistic overlap in a negotiation and it's not clear there was a much bigger return PIT was willing to pay for more retention. Any claim there could have been us pure speculation, so who cares, is my opinion.

So far the trade looks pretty good.

 

[Shark Finn]

Maybe Sharks retain more on Karlsson, Pittsburgh adds another player who helps them make the playoffs, they win a round or two and the first rounder is nowhere near #14. Who knows.