HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

Off-season Armchair GM Thread Part IX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-30-2012, 04:32 PM
  #476
RammsteinGT
Prairie Shark
 
RammsteinGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,484
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
What Easy said is probably close to the case. They are not going to drop the cap without some kind of way to adjust that for teams over the cap already. They've already mentioned somedthing to do with the players escrow accounts. The Sharks may not need to shed any payroll at all realistically.
I agree.

If they calculate cap hits on an 85% basis while not touching salary, the Sharks are at $55.4M, a full $2.5M under the cap. 90% and we have to start looking at trimming the fat. But realistically, 85% seems like a good number as no teams will be in much of a crunch. Still, we're easily in the top 5 worst cap positions today and I firmly believe we'll have one more signing to go (which further complicates things).

RammsteinGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 05:09 PM
  #477
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RammsteinGT View Post
I agree.

If they calculate cap hits on an 85% basis while not touching salary, the Sharks are at $55.4M, a full $2.5M under the cap. 90% and we have to start looking at trimming the fat. But realistically, 85% seems like a good number as no teams will be in much of a crunch. Still, we're easily in the top 5 worst cap positions today and I firmly believe we'll have one more signing to go (which further complicates things).
I checked capgeek and the Sharks have a 20man roster. Most other teams are at 22 or 23. I checked all teams and used 22 as the roster for those teams under 22 as a proposed forward-going roster. There are 13 spots that need to be filled to bring all teams to 22. The Sharks are behind the eightball.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 05:36 PM
  #478
Tkachuk4MVP
22 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 8,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I checked capgeek and the Sharks have a 20man roster. Most other teams are at 22 or 23. I checked all teams and used 22 as the roster for those teams under 22 as a proposed forward-going roster. There are 13 spots that need to be filled to bring all teams to 22. The Sharks are behind the eightball.

I thought capgeek said they had 21 when I checked it earlier today.

Tkachuk4MVP is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 06:07 PM
  #479
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
I thought capgeek said they had 21 when I checked it earlier today.
Thanks.

I checked it about a week ago and couldn't recall any new signings. I see that they have now put McCarthy in a roster slot. I don't think that will hold for long.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 06:22 PM
  #480
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Thanks.

I checked it about a week ago and couldn't recall any new signings. I see that they have now put McCarthy in a roster slot. I don't think that will hold for long.
Yah but realistically 1 forward and 1 d-man from Worcester will likely make the cut (Barring more signings). Oleksuk, Stalberg, Irwin, Pelech, Tennyson, etc.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 08:47 PM
  #481
SactoShork
fun must be alwalys
 
SactoShork's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 9,197
vCash: 137
Perhaps it's already been summarized and I missed it… but can anyone give me a really dumbed down reason as to why the players association would agree to this?

SactoShork is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 09:13 PM
  #482
Nighthock
**** the Kings ...
 
Nighthock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 15,606
vCash: 1004
paycheck > no paycheck

Nighthock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 10:51 PM
  #483
VP and GM
Havlat Sucks!
 
VP and GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at home
Country: United States
Posts: 5,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoShark View Post
Perhaps it's already been summarized and I missed it… but can anyone give me a really dumbed down reason as to why the players association would agree to this?
don't think they will agree to it as is...

VP and GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 12:01 AM
  #484
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 29,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeedingFrenzy View Post
Go read it again HM... Never said that...Dont throw me in the noose with you...

My point still remains: Those who say Demers has a higher offensive ceiling are just wrong..You cant compare Demers and Brauns limited NHL action against each other..But you can compare their AHL/QM/UMass stats..And the stats says Braun produced .63ppg in college/AHL. Demers#'s at the Q/AHL puts him at .63ppg. Demers played 103 games in the AHL, Braun 44. Point being Braun is progressing faster than Demers. Braun's offensive upside is at worse equal to that of Demers.
lol what? You can't compare their production at the NHL level that they play at and will play at going forward but you can compare their junior/collegiate numbers and draw some conclusion to it? That may seem logical to you but it just doesn't work when it comes to pro sports.

Braun may be progressing faster in terms from last year to now but that doesn't mean much. Your opinion that he's got more potential is certainly arguable but people who believe Demers has a higher ceiling aren't wrong and you can't really prove it otherwise and the stats you bring certainly don't help you in that regard because it is irrelevant at this level.

In terms of offensive potential, you can say what you want but Demers had a poor year by most people's standards and still out-produced Braun in similar minutes when Braun was having a good year AND while playing 9 less games.


Last edited by Pinkfloyd: 08-31-2012 at 12:14 AM.
Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 01:14 AM
  #485
sharski
Registered User
 
sharski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoShark View Post
Perhaps it's already been summarized and I missed it… but can anyone give me a really dumbed down reason as to why the players association would agree to this?
they won't agree to THIS offer, but in the end they'll be the ones to cave...

when the 1% negotiates against the 2%, the 1% always wins and of course the 98% come crawling back on our hands and knees begging for them to take our money

sharski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 03:01 AM
  #486
Led Zappa
Steady As She Goes
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 31,769
vCash: 500
Demers has the best chance at sticking because he isn't likely to dip much and may exceed expectations.

Braun has an excellent chance to supersede Demers, but could also dip and fall further than I ever expect Demers to fall.

Only those who personally interact with them have a realistic gauge on which outcome is more likely.

__________________

There’s a lot of things wrong with this country, but one of the few things still right with it is that a man can steer clear of the organized ******** if he really wants to. It’s a goddamned luxury, and if I were you, I’d take advantage of it while you can.
-- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

Last edited by Led Zappa: 08-31-2012 at 03:09 AM.
Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 11:52 AM
  #487
SactoShork
fun must be alwalys
 
SactoShork's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 9,197
vCash: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP and GM View Post
don't think they will agree to it as is...
Seems worse than the original proposal, but I guess I'm missing something. I've seen player tweets that make it seem like it's a win, and talk seems to have shifted from lockout to salary caps.

SactoShork is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 12:06 PM
  #488
CupfortheSharks
Registered User
 
CupfortheSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
....1 d-man from Worcester will likely make the cut (Barring more signings). Oleksuk, Stalberg, Irwin, Pelech, Tennyson, etc.
Boyle
Burns
Vlasic
Stuart
Murray
Braun
Demers

No room for a D-man from Worcester right now.

CupfortheSharks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 12:17 PM
  #489
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupfortheSharks View Post
Boyle
Burns
Vlasic
Stuart
Murray
Braun
Demers

No room for a D-man from Worcester right now.
... go back and read the post. I was refering to the '20 man roster' issue, as in we don't 'need' to acquire a #7 dman because a Worcester player will likely be given a shot at that.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 01:13 PM
  #490
TheJuxtaposer
#healBurish
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 23,673
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
... go back and read the post. I was refering to the '20 man roster' issue, as in we don't 'need' to acquire a #7 dman because a Worcester player will likely be given a shot at that.
We don't need to acquire a 7th defenseman because we have 7 on the roster already, yeah?

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 01:20 PM
  #491
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
We don't need to acquire a 7th defenseman because we have 7 on the roster already, yeah?
Holy crap you guys!

Let me lay this out for you...

Someone mentioned trading Boyle

I said we don't need to trade Boyle, we could trade Murray+Handzus and possibly Clowe.

Easy pointed out we only have a 20 man roster as is, if we lose those guys we'd have a difficult job filling a roster.

I pointed out in that situation we would at least likely fill 2 spots with Worcester guys.

OK!? yikes.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 01:32 PM
  #492
CBJenga
Registered User
 
CBJenga's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Holy crap you guys!

Let me lay this out for you...

Someone mentioned trading Boyle

I said we don't need to trade Boyle, we could trade Murray+Handzus and possibly Clowe.

Easy pointed out we only have a 20 man roster as is, if we lose those guys we'd have a difficult job filling a roster.

I pointed out in that situation we would at least likely fill 2 spots with Worcester guys.

OK!? yikes.

NO! How dare you provide context! People might know what's going on!!!!

CBJenga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 01:39 PM
  #493
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJenga View Post
NO! How dare you provide context! People might know what's going on!!!!
I figured the thread itself provided context... but I guess not.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 01:40 PM
  #494
hateseed
TentacleGrapeSoda
 
hateseed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Coastal California
Posts: 430
vCash: 116

hateseed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 02:32 PM
  #495
TheJuxtaposer
#healBurish
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 23,673
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Holy crap you guys!

Let me lay this out for you...

Someone mentioned trading Boyle

I said we don't need to trade Boyle, we could trade Murray+Handzus and possibly Clowe.

Easy pointed out we only have a 20 man roster as is, if we lose those guys we'd have a difficult job filling a roster.

I pointed out in that situation we would at least likely fill 2 spots with Worcester guys.

OK!? yikes.
Sorry, I didn't get the context, obviously. Yeah, if Boyle/Murray were traded, I'd expect a Worcester kid to get the #7 role.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 04:54 PM
  #496
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,578
vCash: 500
A part of me would rather have someone like Vandermeer as the 7th, but another part of me is really interested to see how Pelech, Irwin, etc. do in the NHL. Pelech was always my 6th in my SC winning teams in Be A GM.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 05:27 PM
  #497
DarrylshutzSydor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: California
Country: Palestine
Posts: 797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
A part of me would rather have someone like Vandermeer as the 7th, but another part of me is really interested to see how Pelech, Irwin, etc. do in the NHL. Pelech was always my 6th in my SC winning teams in Be A GM.
I've never seen anything useful in Vandermeer no matter where he has played. On another note, there is always the waiver wire to pick additional players up.

DarrylshutzSydor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 09:31 PM
  #498
Graveland
HONE YOUR CRAFT
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: United States
Posts: 10,759
vCash: 50
Oh god the annual Spezza vs Thornton debate is happening again. When will it ever end.

Graveland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 09:46 PM
  #499
sjshark91
Registered User
 
sjshark91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: I.E.
Country: United States
Posts: 22,779
vCash: 2810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burt Macklin View Post
Oh god the annual Spezza vs Thornton debate is happening again. When will it ever end.
When one wins a cup maybe?

sjshark91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2012, 05:52 PM
  #500
ToursLepantoVienna
Registered User
 
ToursLepantoVienna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country:
Posts: 1,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharski View Post
they won't agree to THIS offer, but in the end they'll be the ones to cave...

when the 1% negotiates against the 2%, the 1% always wins and of course the 98% come crawling back on our hands and knees begging for them to take our money
Those despicable owners, forcing even the most marginal NHLer to eke out an existence on a mere $525K annual salary for a maximum of 9 months work.

NHL Players of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!

ToursLepantoVienna is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.