SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Bandaid

Created by: JumboFett
Team: 2020-21 San Jose Sharks
Initial Creation Date: May 6, 2020
Published: May 6, 2020
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
Constructive thoughts?? Let's maybe call this a retool? I dunno.

I feel like NSH should throw in an additional pick for taking on such a large salary they'd be all too happy to dump, but maybe I'm wrong, so I left it as is. Turris isn't bad, but he ain't $6M good either.
Free Agent Signings
RFAYEARSCAP HIT
4$3,250,000
3$925,000
3$900,000
UFAYEARSCAP HIT
1$850,000
1$700,000
2$950,000
1$1,500,000
Trades
1.
SJS
  1. Turris, Kyle
  2. 2020 1st round pick (NSH)
NSH
    I see a lot of talk about NSH using their CBO to buyout Turris, so in the case that there is no CBO would it make sense that they'd offer their first for another team to take on an aging $30M contract? My first inclination is a 2020 1st is NOT enough, but I may be wrong. Let's discuss... solutions and counteroffers only please.
    2.
    SJS
    1. 2020 4th round pick (ARI)
    3.
    SJS
    1. DeSmith, Casey
    Additional Details:
    I don't know much about DeSmith. Anybody know why he's buried? He seemed to perform well in the NHL, so I feel like I'm missing the story.
    PIT
    1. Gambrell, Dylan
    2. 2020 4th round pick (ARI)
    DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
    2020
    Logo of the TBL
    Logo of the NSH
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the COL
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the OTT
    Logo of the PIT
    Logo of the WSH
    2021
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the PIT
    Logo of the WSH
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the SJS
    2022
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the SJS
    ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
    22$81,500,000$69,290,833$0$1,260,000$12,209,167
    Left WingCentreRight Wing
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $7,000,000$7,000,000
    LW, RW
    M-NTC
    UFA - 5
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $8,000,000$8,000,000
    C
    M-NTC
    UFA - 7
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $3,000,000$3,000,000
    LW, RW
    UFA - 3
    $1,500,000$1,500,000
    LW, RW
    UFA
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $5,625,000$5,625,000
    C
    M-NTC
    UFA - 2
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $3,250,000$3,250,000
    RW, LW
    UFA - 4
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $768,333$768,333 (Performance Bonus$65,000$65K)
    LW, RW
    RFA - 1
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $850,000$850,000
    C, LW
    UFA - 1
    Logo of the Nashville Predators
    $1,650,000$1,650,000
    C, RW
    UFA - 2
    $700,000$700,000
    LW, C
    UFA - 1
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $792,500$792,500 (Performance Bonus$132,500$132K)
    C
    UFA - 1
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $925,000$925,000
    C
    UFA - 2
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $950,000$950,000
    LW, RW
    UFA - 1
    Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $7,000,000$7,000,000
    LD/RD
    NMC
    UFA - 6
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $10,000,000$10,000,000
    RD
    NMC
    UFA - 7
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $5,750,000$5,750,000
    G
    M-NTC
    UFA - 4
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $2,250,000$2,250,000
    LD/RD
    UFA - 4
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $5,280,000$5,280,000
    RD
    M-NTC
    UFA - 5
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$212,500$212K)
    LD
    UFA - 2
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $900,000$900,000
    RD
    UFA
    Logo of the Pittsburgh Penguins
    $1,250,000$1,250,000
    G
    UFA - 2
    Logo of the San Jose Sharks
    $925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
    LD
    UFA - 2

    Embed Code

    • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
    • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

    Text-Embed

    Click to Highlight
    May 6, 2020 at 4:49 p.m.
    #1
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Jan. 2020
    Posts: 4,422
    Likes: 1,457
    Kovy isn't coming that cheap
    May 6, 2020 at 4:57 p.m.
    #2
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2019
    Posts: 5,538
    Likes: 5,540
    The sharks are probably the last team that should be acquiring other teams cap dumps
    May 6, 2020 at 5:04 p.m.
    #3
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 1,421
    Likes: 313
    Edited May 6, 2020 at 5:11 p.m.
    Quoting: keep_ups12
    Kovy isn't coming that cheap


    With this year's financial hit nobody's catching fat raises. Dude is still a risk, so I doubt he sees the north side of $2M. $1.5M is a fair offer.

    Quoting: SociallyHawkward
    The sharks are probably the last team that should be acquiring other teams cap dumps


    True. But for a decent depth player and a 2020 mid-round 1st it wouldn't be the worst acquisition, especially during a period that might be considered a brief retool. It's also why I left the exchange open-ended; like, what would make it a fair deal for SJ? An extra 2020 or 2021 2nd or 3rd? Or, something else?

    Again, I encourage constructive discourse, not "this won't work (period)".
    May 6, 2020 at 5:10 p.m.
    #4
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2019
    Posts: 5,538
    Likes: 5,540
    Quoting: JumboFett
    With this year's financial hit nobody's catching fat raises. Dude is still a risk, so I doubt he sees the north side of $2M. $1.5M is a fair offer.



    True. But for a decent depth player and a 2020 mid-round 1st it wouldn't be the worst acquisition. It's also why I left the exchange open-ended; like, what would make it a fair deal for SJ? An extra 2020 or 2021 2nd or 3rd? Or, something else?

    Again, I encourage constructive discourse, not "this won't work (period)".


    It's a pretty fair deal but the sharks should be looking to she'd bad contracts not add more. Plus you don't pay a "decent depth player" 6 mil.
    May 6, 2020 at 5:13 p.m.
    #5
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 1,421
    Likes: 313
    Quoting: SociallyHawkward
    It's a pretty fair deal but the sharks should be looking to she'd bad contracts not add more. Plus you don't pay a "decent depth player" 6 mil.


    Yes, but sometimes the only way out is through. We're not likely to shed our contracts, so we might as well ride the wave.
    Turris will probably give us a couple 40pt seasons before he either gets bought out, traded, or we resign ourselves to his nominal depth contributions. But yes, it's also a lot of cash, which is why I'm thinking they should include another pick (preferably a 2020, but realistically a 2021)
    May 6, 2020 at 5:31 p.m.
    #6
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Jun. 2017
    Posts: 7,533
    Likes: 5,128
    Preds pass.
    May 6, 2020 at 5:33 p.m.
    #7
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2019
    Posts: 978
    Likes: 228
    Personally would avoid taking a 6mil contract that still has 4 more years on it unless we do a full rebuild. It won't be a "brief" retool if that's the case
    SociallyHawkward liked this.
    May 6, 2020 at 5:33 p.m.
    #8
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2019
    Posts: 5,538
    Likes: 5,540
    Quoting: JumboFett
    Yes, but sometimes the only way out is through. We're not likely to shed our contracts, so we might as well ride the wave.
    Turris will probably give us a couple 40pt seasons before he either gets bought out, traded, or we resign ourselves to his nominal depth contributions. But yes, it's also a lot of cash, which is why I'm thinking they should include another pick (preferably a 2020, but realistically a 2021)


    What's the point in getting more picks when by the time their elc's are up you have no cap space to resign them? None of your bad contracts are ending any time soon. The sharks are in the worst place to be, too good to tank and too bad to compete. Stop trading away their first rounders and keep making moves like that goodrow trade.
    May 6, 2020 at 5:46 p.m.
    #9
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 1,421
    Likes: 313
    Edited May 6, 2020 at 5:55 p.m.
    Quoting: sharks_1999
    Personally would avoid taking a 6mil contract that still has 4 more years on it unless we do a full rebuild. It won't be a "brief" retool if that's the case


    Turris wouldn't be the worst player to take with a cap dump, especially with guys like Okposo and Lucic out there. At least he's still capable of putting up 40pts/season. Also, full disclosure, I'm trying to figure out a creative way to select both Seth Jarvis and Jacob Perreault from this draft. We get them both, I'll happily eat $30M

    Quoting: SociallyHawkward
    What's the point in getting more picks when by the time their elc's are up you have no cap space to resign them? None of your bad contracts are ending any time soon. The sharks are in the worst place to be, too good to tank and too bad to compete. Stop trading away their first rounders and keep making moves like that goodrow trade.


    There'll be space when that time comes. Either because the cap is $10M+ higher than it is now, or being that it would be easier to buyout or trade those contracts in three years. Furthermore, for the record, I truly feel the only "bad" contracts we have are for EK65 and Jones. Lots of people want to talk about Pickles and Burns like they're on bad contracts, but Vlasic is still one the best shutdown Dmen and Burns is still a point getting beast. When you get used to players being at a 9-10 it's really easy to judge them as washed up when they have an off year. They're fine.
    May 6, 2020 at 5:57 p.m.
    #10
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2019
    Posts: 5,538
    Likes: 5,540
    Quoting: JumboFett
    Turris wouldn't be the worst player to take with a cap dump, especially with guys like Okposo and Lucic out there. At least he's still capable of putting up 40pts/season.



    There'll be space when that time comes. Either because the cap is $10M+ higher than it is now, or being that it would be easier to buyout or trade those contracts in three years. Furthermore, for the record, I truly feel the only "bad" contracts we have are for EK65 and Jones. Lots of people want to talk about Pickles and Burns like they're on bad contracts, but Vlasic is still one the best shutdown Dmen and Burns is still a point getting beast. When you get used to players being at a 9-10 it's really easy to judge them as washed up when they have an off year. They're fine.


    Idk when guys are 33 and 35 and have an "off year" it's more likely that they decline even more not get better. But good luck to you guys. I was rooting for ya against the pens. Seemed like that was finally going to be the year jumbo got his cup
    JumboFett liked this.
    May 6, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
    #11
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 10,970
    Likes: 4,542
    Edited May 6, 2020 at 6:13 p.m.
    Quoting: gmgb
    Preds pass.


    Just curious as to why the Pred’s passed? Toronto gave up a first for one year of Patrick Marleau at 6 million you guys are getting rid of 4 years at 6 million a year for the same first round pick. doesn’t sound astronomical to me! is it because you guys still like the guy or you don’t think you need to give up as much to dump him?
    JumboFett liked this.
    May 6, 2020 at 6:02 p.m.
    #12
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 10,970
    Likes: 4,542
    Nd as for taking on bad contracts To pick up a first in the deepest draft in 10 years I say let’s do it, we need to to get younger and cheaper and we have 4-5 years of bad contracts killing out potential to compete so take on anything that will lead to players in 4-5 years!
    A smart GM would see our window is closed and dump anyone over the age of 26 to help fast track a rebuild.
    I say we keep Hertl labanc mier Simek fassaro and dump everyone else we can and take on any bad deals to give us more top shelf prospects
    SociallyHawkward liked this.
    May 6, 2020 at 6:11 p.m.
    #13
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 10,970
    Likes: 4,542
    Quoting: SociallyHawkward
    What's the point in getting more picks when by the time their elc's are up you have no cap space to resign them? None of your bad contracts are ending any time soon. The sharks are in the worst place to be, too good to tank and too bad to compete. Stop trading away their first rounders and keep making moves like that goodrow trade.


    Yes more goodrow and Marleau trades please!
    No
    More sending our picks away and let’s be honest and 4 years or less cap dumps are ideal.
    Typical
    Draft picks
    1st round 1-5 play immediately- 1-2 years from drafting
    5-30 typically 2-3 years to NHL
    2nd & 3rd typically 2-5 years
    4-7 typically 5 years... if ever
    Meaning even if the players this year buck the trend they are still 4-7 years from big paydays ( 1draft 18 first legit pay day 22-24)
    This means any cap dump we can take will be off the books by the time we need to actually pay the kids.
    JumboFett liked this.
    May 6, 2020 at 6:22 p.m.
    #14
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 1,421
    Likes: 313
    Quoting: SociallyHawkward
    Idk when guys are 33 and 35 and have an "off year" it's more likely that they decline even more not get better. But good luck to you guys. I was rooting for ya against the pens. Seemed like that was finally going to be the year jumbo got his cup


    I really appreciate your kind sportsmanship. Thank you!

    Usually true, but when we examine all surrounding circumstances a much more realistic picture emerges. Pickles had his "worst year ever" last year, the results of which were 25 Reg Season points, and 8pts including a +6 in 18 Playoff games (as a defensive defenseman). Burns had 99pts total last year, and was yet again and Norris finalist. They are both also is impervious to injury and are basically never suspended for bad plays.

    This season was a total team-wide cratering, and I know for a fact that was because of management refusing to address the team for the loss in the locker room and DeBoer's refusal to restructure the on-ice strategy. In short, this season was a total fluke.
    May 6, 2020 at 6:25 p.m.
    #15
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 1,421
    Likes: 313
    Quoting: Rob32sjsharks
    Nd as for taking on bad contracts To pick up a first in the deepest draft in 10 years I say let’s do it, we need to to get younger and cheaper and we have 4-5 years of bad contracts killing out potential to compete so take on anything that will lead to players in 4-5 years!
    A smart GM would see our window is closed and dump anyone over the age of 26 to help fast track a rebuild.
    I say we keep Hertl labanc mier Simek fassaro and dump everyone else we can and take on any bad deals to give us more top shelf prospects


    I don't necessarily agree that we need a stripped down rebuild, but instead more like a Boston 2016/17 retool. They coasted in the middle of the road for 2 years and then they came back super strong without losing any significant core players.
    May 6, 2020 at 6:44 p.m.
    #16
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 10,970
    Likes: 4,542
    Quoting: JumboFett
    I don't necessarily agree that we need a stripped down rebuild, but instead more like a Boston 2016/17 retool. They coasted in the middle of the road for 2 years and then they came back super strong without losing any significant core players.


    I think we’re beyond a quick re-tool at this point, it’s possible we retool get back in the playoffs and maybe catch fire, more realistically we retool barely make the playoffs and bow out in the first round that much weaker and delaying the rebuild that much longer, time to tear off the bandaids
    SociallyHawkward liked this.
    May 6, 2020 at 6:48 p.m.
    #17
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 1,421
    Likes: 313
    Edited May 6, 2020 at 6:59 p.m.
    @Rob32sjsharks @sharks_1999 @SociallyHawkward

    I appreciate that we've covered a lot of ground with Turris and retooling whatnots, but anybody got any input on Casey DeSmith?
    May 6, 2020 at 6:51 p.m.
    #18
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 10,970
    Likes: 4,542
    Quoting: JumboFett
    @Rob32sjsharks @sharks_1999 @SociallyHawkward

    I appreciate that we've covered a lot of ground with Turris and retooling whatnots, but anybody got any input of Casey DeSmith?


    Wondering the same thing myself we need pitsburg fans in here
    JumboFett and sharks_1999 liked this.
    May 6, 2020 at 7:07 p.m.
    #19
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2019
    Posts: 7,120
    Likes: 1,640
    Quoting: SociallyHawkward
    It's a pretty fair deal but the sharks should be looking to she'd bad contracts not add more. Plus you don't pay a "decent depth player" 6 mil.


    Quoting: JumboFett
    Yes, but sometimes the only way out is through. We're not likely to shed our contracts, so we might as well ride the wave.
    Turris will probably give us a couple 40pt seasons before he either gets bought out, traded, or we resign ourselves to his nominal depth contributions. But yes, it's also a lot of cash, which is why I'm thinking they should include another pick (preferably a 2020, but realistically a 2021)


    Sharks don't really have the assets to give up to move their own aging contracts - I agree with the idea of aquiring other teams less than appealing contracts for a nice fee which will only help SJ 3-5 years down the road after they have restocked the prospect cupboard with their own top 15 picks and the several 15-31 picks they'd aquire - it's smart
    May 6, 2020 at 7:09 p.m.
    #20
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2019
    Posts: 7,120
    Likes: 1,640
    Quoting: JumboFett
    @Rob32sjsharks @sharks_1999 @SociallyHawkward

    I appreciate that we've covered a lot of ground with Turris and retooling whatnots, but anybody got any input on Casey DeSmith?


    DeSmith was just out played by a hot Jarry - he's a fine back up , he's a risk as a starter
    May 6, 2020 at 7:26 p.m.
    #21
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 1,421
    Likes: 313
    Quoting: Boomer125
    DeSmith was just out played by a hot Jarry - he's a fine back up , he's a risk as a starter


    I don't need him to be a starter, per sé, just an adequate 1B. Jones is still capable of brilliance, he just can't do 60+ reg seasons games plus Playoffs anymore. If we can give him a 47 game ceiling he could return to his former quality.

    Quoting: Boomer125
    Sharks don't really have the assets to give up to move their own aging contracts - I agree with the idea of aquiring other teams less than appealing contracts for a nice fee which will only help SJ 3-5 years down the road after they have restocked the prospect cupboard with their own top 15 picks and the several 15-31 picks they'd aquire - it's smart


    I mean, we kinda do a little. Just depends on the aging contract. Sharks have the 7th most cap space this off-season ($12M+), so taking on a player like Turris wouldn't be the end of the world. Turris is still a decent contributor, so he wouldn't kill us, and it would help NSH free up cap for filling the gaps caused by the the potential loss of 3 forwards and 3 defensemen.
    May 6, 2020 at 8:23 p.m.
    #22
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Jun. 2017
    Posts: 7,533
    Likes: 5,128
    Quoting: Rob32sjsharks
    Just curious as to why the Pred’s passed? Toronto gave up a first for one year of Patrick Marleau at 6 million you guys are getting rid of 4 years at 6 million a year for the same first round pick. doesn’t sound astronomical to me! is it because you guys still like the guy or you don’t think you need to give up as much to dump him?


    Turris was rebounding nicely after the coaching change, and finally getting healthy after last year's nightmare season. It would be smarter to see how much he can do with a fresh start, instead of trading a much needed 1st in a deep draft. NSH will need to move one or two of their centers this summer, but it makes more sense to trade one of Johansen, Bonino, Duchene (Duchene doesn't seem a likely candidate after just signing this past summer). Get some real assets back, instead of paying a high price to give up on a player who's been snake bit, but who hasn't lost his skill.
    JumboFett and ZPirtle liked this.
    May 6, 2020 at 8:45 p.m.
    #23
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 1,421
    Likes: 313
    Quoting: gmgb
    Turris was rebounding nicely after the coaching change, and finally getting healthy after last year's nightmare season. It would be smarter to see how much he can do with a fresh start, instead of trading a much needed 1st in a deep draft. NSH will need to move one or two of their centers this summer, but it makes more sense to trade one of Johansen, Bonino, Duchene (Duchene doesn't seem a likely candidate after just signing this past summer). Get some real assets back, instead of paying a high price to give up on a player who's been snake bit, but who hasn't lost his skill.


    Great explanation. Bonino is aging but he's still good, and Johansen would be fun to have in SJ alongside his hero, Jumbo.
    May 6, 2020 at 10:17 p.m.
    #24
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 10,970
    Likes: 4,542
    Quoting: Boomer125
    Sharks don't really have the assets to give up to move their own aging contracts - I agree with the idea of aquiring other teams less than appealing contracts for a nice fee which will only help SJ 3-5 years down the road after they have restocked the prospect cupboard with their own top 15 picks and the several 15-31 picks they'd aquire - it's smart


    You should look at my yard sale post I did about 2 hours ago!
    May 7, 2020 at 12:44 a.m.
    #25
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Apr. 2020
    Posts: 1,421
    Likes: 313
    Hey @papishark , whatchu think about this team and the subsequent discussion?
     
    Reply
    To create a post please Login or Register
    Question:
    Options:
    Add Option
    Submit Poll