SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

jamnjon

Member Since
Jan. 15, 2017
Favourite Team
San Jose Sharks
Forum Posts
380
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Mock-DraftYesterday at 2:24 p.m.
Thread: 2024 with Trades
I'm not sure why you're suggesting the Ducks are getting the better of things in that trade. The Athletic's pick values have them exactly equal, but teams moving up generally overpay by about 10-20%. I'd expect if the trade were going to happen it would be 5+27ish for 3 which is the lower end of that (an 11.76% overpay), the Habs potentially throw in something additional.

The other move-up is in a similar range...12+51 for 9 is an 11.11% overpay, I'd expect the Flyers need to throw in a bit more. This is especially true because I suspect the Sharks would bid against them..14+33 would be a 22.22% overpay, if the Flames think the player they're targeting will still be available at 14 they probably take that. Of course if the Sharks knew Buium would still be there at 14 they wouldn't bother with the trade.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 4:22 a.m.
Thread: Run it back for disappointment again
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>kohnsharkosz</b></div><div>Exactly, I mentioned this previously when this type of deal came up. He's 23 and could absolutely still pop. Then you look like a genius only paying $4.8m. If not, his buyout, while long, maxes at $835k. I think for two second rounders you take a run at this.

Besides, the Sharks org seems to be committed to trying to get every 2018 first rounder at least a year in SJ.</div></div>

As a note, his buyout stays cheap (increases a bit to 850k) as long as he's bought out before July 6, 2026, so we could even give him a shot for two seasons and, barring another weird covid-like season pushing things back significantly, he'd maintain that 1/3 price. Doing that would also make it end after the 2033-34 season instead of 2035-36.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 7:30 p.m.
Thread: Prospect Pool post Draft
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Waffelz</b></div><div>But that's the case with every prospect group. When you say it doesn't look good, it objectively does compared to almost any other team in the league (except maybe the Sabres/Wings/Jackets). For the relatively short time that they have been rebuilding, San Jose has done an incredible job acquiring high tier assets. They jumped from 17th to 4th in rankings last year, and will almost certainly go to 1st or 2nd this year.</div></div>

I point this out frequently, but I give the Athletic's prospect pool rankings a major asterisk. The biggest thing for the Sharks is they've had very few prospects graduate. Teams like Chicago had Bedard, Korchinski, and Vlasic graduate while the Sharks only lost Eklund. That's not to downplay the massive growth of the Sharks' pool, I just think I'd rate them below a few more teams.
Forum: Mock-DraftThu. at 5:16 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed. at 5:51 p.m.
Thread: Young Talent
Hitting the floor really isn't that hard. The Sharks are currently at 52.9M with 13 players under contract (plus retained salary/buried contracts/buyout penalties). Let's call Emberson, Thrun, and Bordeleau 1M each, that's 52.5M with 16 players (2G, 6D, 8F). It sounds like there's mutual interest in re-signing Kunin, his QO is 3M, and the team can afford to overpay a bit so let's just say he gets 3M. That's now 55.5M with 3 forward slots to go for the 20-man lineup, 5 more roster spots for a 23-man roster. The floor will probably be around 65M so the team essentially needs to spend 9.5M split between 5 players.

Let's add Macklin to the roster so that's just shy of 1M before factoring in performance bonuses (Bedard and Slafkovsky each ended up getting 3.5M in bonuses but those can't be relied on to hit the floor) so 8.5M in 4 slots. If they sign one free agent to an overpay at 6.2M then even if the other 3 slots are league minimum they reach the floor. If Couture ends up playing then there's 1 fewer roster spot with the same cap situation.
Forum: Mock-DraftWed. at 2:47 p.m.
Thread: Corey Pronman's Top 16 Mock with a Trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SMH</b></div><div>In what world 29th and 9th gets you 5th</div></div>

Seems relatively reasonable to me, especially because the Canucks' pick isn't necessarily going to be 29th, it could be anywhere from 25-32 (25th if all 4 division winners lose this round). By the Athletic's pick values, pick 5 is 8.2 GSVA. I looked through 18 trades moving up in the first round and on average they gave around 10-20% over the value in return, so somewhere between 9.02 and 9.84 is the rough estimate of what it would cost, assuming the Habs were willing. Pick 9 is 6.3 GSVA and 29 is 3.0 GSVA and 9.3 is right in that range. In the unlikely scenario where it ends up as 25th that's 9.7 GSVA and if the Canucks win the cup it's 9.0. Obviously any trade like this will happen once the pick placement is known, but it really seems about right to me.

Considering in this case the Habs are trading back because they want a forward and they (accurately in this mock) think the next few players off the board will be d-men, essentially they lost nothing since their target was still there at 9 and they added a free late first.
Forum: Trade Machine ProposalsTue. at 6:36 p.m.
Thread: Dont roast me too badly
I definitely decline this if I'm the Sharks. The fact that Marner waived would seem to suggest he's willing to re-sign here, but we can't know for sure before the trade (draft is before he's eligible to sign an extension), so we're potentially getting Marner as a 1-year rental during a year that we're still rebuilding and Niemela (the rest of the things coming to the Sharks are just fluff I'm assuming to make contract numbers work since they're UFAs in a month and a half).

On the Sharks side of things you have pick 14, 42, likely around 35ish in 2025, and a mid/late 4th in 2025, Granlund and Ferraro who are among the best leaders in the locker room to help develop our future core and are likely a combined value of around a 1st and a 2nd to the Sharks, Halttunen who has looks like a prospect with some promise, Weisblatt who seems a long shot to make the NHL and doesn't change the value much, and the RFA rights to Addison (who many Sharks fans wouldn't mind if he didn't get his QO, also not much of a tweak to the value).

Essentially you're looking at around 4 mid to early seconds, a mid first, a late first, and a mid to late fourth in exchange for a rental and an alright defensive prospect (likely 4-5 ceiling) with the Sharks losing leadership players on a team that needs leadership players.
Forum: Armchair-GMTue. at 2:45 a.m.
Thread: Nuked again
Can a player be traded while he's in the Player Assistance Program? I think somebody asked it on 32 Thoughts recently but I can't recall the answer.

Even if they can, the Sharks don't take the gamble. They just moved on from 6.75M in cap hit until 2030 of a productive player's contract who had some issues (knees) but didn't really fit their timeline. Hertl's 1 year 4 months older than Nichushkin, but I truly can't imagine them acquiring a player who is a similar age earning a similar amount to what they're saving for exactly as long. They're not going to be competing for the playoffs for at least 3 years, but his contract goes an additional 3 years after that. This would be replacing a center with a less desirable position (wing) and only saving 625k.

*I'm aware Hertl's cap hit is larger than that, but the unretained portion of his contract is 6.75M