GDT: Sharks vs Avalanche 7:30pm Trying to lose out

hohosaregood

Banned
Sep 1, 2011
32,281
12,447
His play reading is good in these highlights, he's not just barely making saves, he's fronting them, or he's getting plenty of pad in front of them. His mobility maybe allowed him to track pucks better, maybe the loss of lateral mobility makes it harder for him to navigate screens. Not sure what happened to his glove hand though, it didn't seem like such a weakness before. Was he just scouted?
I don't really think you can judge his glove by a highlights package tbh but I agree with you on the other parts.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,611
Folsom
Waive Jones, staple him to the taxi squad for the rest of the season. No one will touch him.

Start Korenar and let Melnichuk or Sawchenko act as backup (probably both), start whichever of them looks most impressive over the weekend. Doesn't matter if we lose and one shelling isn't going to ruin them permanently anyway.

Expose Jones at the draft and then buy him out. Ideally he never wears a Sharks uniform again.

Pick up a veteran goalie in the offseason and go with Vet/Korenar to start the season, with Melnichuk/Sawchenko on the Barracuda (I have no idea what to do with Emond but I'm sure they'll figure out something).

Korenar might not be any better than Jones, but at least he's cheaper and at least he has the potential to be better.

If it were me, I'm acknowledging the rebuild and making my moves based on that. I'm definitely for Jones not wearing a Sharks sweater again but it doesn't necessarily mean a buyout. If he's willing to toil in the minors to play out his contract, I'm for sending him to some other minor league team to accommodate that. I'd rather eat the 4.625 cap hit he'd have in the minors for three years than pay to have someone take him or buy him out. A buyout for me only happens if he's willing to sacrifice money for a theoretical better opportunity on an NHL team (good luck there even at minimum) or a year happens where the team actually competes and we need the cap dollars. By then, we're looking at a four year buyout at most and a two year buyout being the most probable outcome in that scenario.
 

NWSharkie

Registered User
Nov 4, 2018
1,522
1,394
PNW
If it were me, I'm acknowledging the rebuild and making my moves based on that. I'm definitely for Jones not wearing a Sharks sweater again but it doesn't necessarily mean a buyout. If he's willing to toil in the minors to play out his contract, I'm for sending him to some other minor league team to accommodate that. I'd rather eat the 4.625 cap hit he'd have in the minors for three years than pay to have someone take him or buy him out. A buyout for me only happens if he's willing to sacrifice money for a theoretical better opportunity on an NHL team (good luck there even at minimum) or a year happens where the team actually competes and we need the cap dollars. By then, we're looking at a four year buyout at most and a two year buyout being the most probable outcome in that scenario.
Is there precedent for a minor league loan of a veteran player? That would be a weird situation that I don't think I've ever heard of, but granted I don't pay a ton of attention to AHL rosters.

Would his NTC be a factor if his rights weren't traded? Even if it was letter-of-the-law OK, it seems pretty shiesty to give a guy a NTC and then bury him in the minors in a whole different city and probably wouldn't be a great look for the org.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,611
Folsom
Is there precedent for a minor league loan of a veteran player? That would be a weird situation that I don't think I've ever heard of, but granted I don't pay a ton of attention to AHL rosters.

Would his NTC be a factor if his rights weren't traded? Even if it was letter-of-the-law OK, it seems pretty shiesty to give a guy a NTC and then bury him in the minors in a whole different city and probably wouldn't be a great look for the org.

I don't think there's precedence for loaning a veteran to a minor league team that's not your own but I don't think that's a huge stretch to do. This is also under the premise that he'd prefer to play out his contract over getting bought out. That's not typical but if he wants to and there's no trade to be had that sacrifices futures then I'd ask him to play it out in the minors. I just wouldn't want it to be on the Barracuda because we need those spots for Melnichuk, Emond, Chrona, and Sawchenko at various stages. His NTC wouldn't be a factor in this because that's for trades and not for being reassigned. I understand the optics argument but that's why I'd ask him if that would be his preference before doing it. Jones playing out his contract in the minors gets him 15 mil. Jones getting bought out this offseason gets him 10 mil. So basically, he'd have to judge whether that extra five mil is worth playing in the minors for over three seasons.
 

Bleedred

Travis Green BLOWS! Bring back Nasreddine!
Sponsor
May 1, 2011
128,942
55,952
This might have been the worst game I’ve seen Martin Jones play, if we’re talking the quality of the goals scored and when they came and how a game went from 4-2 to a 5-4 OT loss in just a matter of minutes.

Goals 3, 4 and 5 were all horrific. And that’s not even counting goal 2, which was fluky and just bad luck IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alwalys

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,293
9,161
530
First thing i notice is his size. looks much bigger there, which fits with the narrative that the shrinking goalie pads threw off his positioning / affected his ability to make saves.
When he’s confident and playing well he’s outside his crease, active and big. When he’s struggling, he literally goes into his shell....er net in this case.
 

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,293
9,161
530
This might have been the worst game I’ve seen Martin Jones play, if we’re talking the quality of the goals scored and when they came and how a game went from 4-2 to a 5-4 OT loss in just a matter of minutes.

Goals 3, 4 and 5 were all horrific. And that’s not even counting goal 2, which was fluky and just bad luck IMO.
They asked Boughner what the difference in the game was and he said 3 bad goals. Glad he didn’t mince words.
 

DG93

Registered User
Jun 29, 2010
4,343
2,244
San Jose
Not that I’m a big Boughner fan, but we have a better record this year with a worse team than last year.

That's probably because Hertl and Karlsson weren't out for extended periods of time, so when you correct for that, it's actually a lot worse...

If anybody wants to feel more sad about Jones, here are some highlights of 2016 jones. he's just a completely different goalie compared to his prime



Goalies are f***ing weird...but I think when they look this broken, they're done... :(
 

Crazy Joe Divola

Registered User
Jun 20, 2009
3,398
2,611
Missed a 5 to 1 payout on a parlay cause of Jones. Figured it would be a trap game for the avs and Sharks would come to play since they needed to win to keep any hope of a postseason alive. I got Jones’d but good.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,611
Folsom
They asked Boughner what the difference in the game was and he said 3 bad goals. Glad he didn’t mince words.

Boughner should've said the difference in the game was poor coaching starting with the decision to start Jones and topped off with the decision to start Couture, Balcers, and Burns in OT when Kane and Hertl were monsters this game.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
The team is a bit better than they were last year, it’s just not reflected in the standings or goal differential because they had Devan Dubnyk playing terrible instead of Aaron Dell playing decent.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,611
Folsom
The team is a bit better than they were last year, it’s just not reflected in the standings or goal differential because they had Devan Dubnyk playing terrible instead of Aaron Dell playing decent.

Given the team's track record with goaltending, I feel like the only way they will get a good one is through sheer dumb luck rather than anything resembling skill or forethought. I mean, they should have known how bad Dubnyk was before they acquired him and while they came out ahead asset-wise, they're no better in the position than before so what they got out of it was Ryan Donato if you believe it was tied to the acquisition and a 7th round pick in 2022.
 

landshark

They'll paint the donkey teal if you pay.
Sponsor
Mar 15, 2003
3,367
2,587
outer richmond dist
This might have been the worst game I’ve seen Martin Jones play, if we’re talking the quality of the goals scored and when they came and how a game went from 4-2 to a 5-4 OT loss in just a matter of minutes.

Goals 3, 4 and 5 were all horrific. And that’s not even counting goal 2, which was fluky and just bad luck IMO.

Jones is all in on the tank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bleedred

tiburon12

Registered User
Jul 18, 2009
4,600
4,378
Given the team's track record with goaltending, I feel like the only way they will get a good one is through sheer dumb luck rather than anything resembling skill or forethought.

Just out of curiosity, i was thinking of some recent examples of goalies emerging as Elite/very good who were rated that way as a prospects before the draft.

Vasilevskiy, Gibson, Oettinger, Demko, Fleury, Lehner, Rask, Hart were are 2nd round or higher, maybe a few others, but it's a short list. Oettinger and Demko and Hart are too early in their career to make any statements about.

In contrast, you have the last 10 Vezina Winners being:
Hellebuyck (130th), Vasi, Rinne (258th), Bobrovsky (undrafted), Holtby (93rd), Price (5th), Rask (21st), Bobrovsky, Lundqvist (205th), Thomas (217th).

For cup winners over the past 10, Quick was a 3rd rounder, Crow was a 2nd, and Murray was a 3rd. The others are mentioned above, save Binnington, who clearly seems like a lightning in a bottle goalie.

Seems like most goalies are dumb luck.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,238
13,611
Folsom
Just out of curiosity, i was thinking of some recent examples of goalies emerging as Elite/very good who were rated that way as a prospects before the draft.

Vasilevskiy, Gibson, Oettinger, Demko, Fleury, Lehner, Rask, Hart were are 2nd round or higher, maybe a few others, but it's a short list. Oettinger and Demko and Hart are too early in their career to make any statements about.

In contrast, you have the last 10 Vezina Winners being:
Hellebuyck (130th), Vasi, Rinne (258th), Bobrovsky (undrafted), Holtby (93rd), Price (5th), Rask (21st), Bobrovsky, Lundqvist (205th), Thomas (217th).

For cup winners over the past 10, Quick was a 3rd rounder, Crow was a 2nd, and Murray was a 3rd. The others are mentioned above, save Binnington, who clearly seems like a lightning in a bottle goalie.

Seems like most goalies are dumb luck.

I'd be alright with that assessment if it reflects in how you decide to acquire them and pay them. I'm alright with picking goalies in the draft with your 2nd round picks or later. I'm alright with gambling on any goalie through free agency too. I just don't want to use 1st round draft picks to get them and I don't want to give them longer than four years at any given time. I just think it's too dicey to lose a pick that you need to hit on pretty regularly on a position so volatile unless you have a really good amount of confidence that what you have is elite because even elite ones have big luls in their careers. Price and Bob are good examples of it. I just don't want to be locked into such a pivotal position knowing they can fall off quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharksrule04

tiburon12

Registered User
Jul 18, 2009
4,600
4,378
I'd be alright with that assessment if it reflects in how you decide to acquire them and pay them. I'm alright with picking goalies in the draft with your 2nd round picks or later. I'm alright with gambling on any goalie through free agency too. I just don't want to use 1st round draft picks to get them and I don't want to give them longer than four years at any given time. I just think it's too dicey to lose a pick that you need to hit on pretty regularly on a position so volatile unless you have a really good amount of confidence that what you have is elite because even elite ones have big luls in their careers. Price and Bob are good examples of it. I just don't want to be locked into such a pivotal position knowing they can fall off quickly.

For sure. The reason i wrote all that out was to support the bolded opinion. It's far too risky

Curious to see how GMs handle max-term contracts moving forward. I wonder if Pietrangelo will be one of the last major contract extensions for players close to 30, and if 6+ year deals will be reserved for young guys.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->