Sharks will deal with reduced cap in 2010-2011

by Mr. Plank on Jul 3, 2010 2:43 PM PDT in Sharks News

Joining the Chicago Blackhawks in the land of salary cap reductions, San Jose will have a slightly smaller amount of dollars to use next season due to bonus overage:

Sources tell capgeek.com nine teams will face a cap reduction this coming season because performance bonuses earned pushed them past the upper limit in 2009-2010. The Blackhawks lead the way by a long shot at an estimated $4.15 million, but the Boston Bruins and Toronto Maple Leafs are getting hit hard too.

Other notable penalties include the Edmonton Oilers, at $354,000, and the San Jose Sharks, at $327,500.

>> Cap Geek

A penalty of $327,500 isn't crippling by any means, but does give Sharks General Manager Doug Wilson a little less to play with when trying to land a top tier defenseman via the trade or free agent market. It will be interesting to see if this has any consequences on the acquisition of players, but due to the relatively small size of the reduction, I doubt it influences things all too much.

For all armchair GM's out there, Capgeek has updated their cap calculator to reflect the situation.The Sharks now have $6.637MM available to use, with three forwards needing to be signed. That short list includes restricted free agent Devin Setoguchi.

I'll be back later tonight with some potential trade targets San Jose could pursue.

Go Sharks.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I caught wind of this on Twitter. Guess we needed to use the Worcester shuttle more! :-P

I doubt this hurts us too much, the Sharks should have been planning on leaving themselves a few hundred thousand under the cap anyways, just so they didn’t have to use too much Shuttle. But the same thing remains…we need to sign Seto, and if we want to make a D acquisition that will make a difference, we’ll have to trade some salary. Nothings really changed.

Esta noche nosotros cenamos Tortugas
Así que bueno, ellos serán
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by ZeroIndulgence on Jul 3, 2010 3:04 PM PDT via mobile reply actions

I was thinking the same thing about the Worcester shuttle….lol.

by drthunder005 on Jul 3, 2010 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Capgeek has actually subtracted that 300k for a while now. It hasn’t hurt any of my rosterbations, so we should be good! lol

by Khaaz on Jul 3, 2010 3:08 PM PDT reply actions

nbd

MeThinksSports Q!!!

by serrapadre716 on Jul 3, 2010 3:12 PM PDT reply actions

Definitely going to be interesting seeing what DW has in store for trades.

Ideally we should have 20-21 players on our roster.

"Never start a fight, but ALWAYS finish it."
Bleeding teal since 1997

by Noctro on Jul 3, 2010 3:15 PM PDT via mobile reply actions

This headline scared the crap out of me.

I thought this meant we decided not to spend to the cap.

Sighed a sigh of relief when I read the article.

"Shave it, and you will score." - Randy Hahn
"The last time I made a video in a hotel room…..very different than this." – Drew Remenda
Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club

by jwizzle241 on Jul 3, 2010 3:22 PM PDT reply actions

Is there a reason why NHL Numbers and Cap Geek have different numbers?

NHL Numbers lists us as having at 7.782 mill in cap space, while Cap Geek says we have 6.637 mill. Is one more trustworthy or accurate than the other?

Fear the Fin: Where Sharks Fans Aren't Like Other Sharks Fans.

by SharksFanEst.1994 on Jul 3, 2010 3:32 PM PDT reply actions

Capgeek is generally more accurate. (It also might be that one of them is using the bonus cushion and the other isn’t.)

by tarlinian on Jul 3, 2010 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions

yea use capgeek

as the most accurate, never been mislead

by BL3ACH on Jul 4, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions

Looking at Chicagos cap situation on Capgeek made me feel good:

2010-11 CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS
FORWARDS
Jonathan Toews ($6.300m) / Patrick Kane ($6.300m) / Marian Hossa ($5.275m)
Patrick Sharp ($3.900m) / Dave Bolland ($3.375m) / Tomas Kopecky ($1.200m)
Marty Reasoner ($1.150m) / Troy Brouwer ($1.025m) / Viktor Stalberg ($0.850m)
DEFENSEMEN
Brian Campbell ($7.143m) / Duncan Keith ($5.538m)
Brent Seabrook ($3.500m) / John Scott ($0.512m)
GOALTENDERS
Cristobal Huet ($5.625m)
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS
(these totals are compiled using the bonus cushion)
ROSTER: 14; CAP:$59.4m; CARRY-OVER PENALTY: $4.158m;
PAYROLL: $55.852m; CAP ROOM: $3.613m; BONUSES: $0.065m

Notice they still need to sign their entire 4th forward line, and their 3rd defense pairing, and a goaltender. Even their young prospects that they would use to fill out their forward lines are pretty expensive. I don’t know if they can afford to sign Niemi or Hjalmarsson, let alone both of them.

We should sooo offersheet Hjalmarsson ahhh. Even if they dump Huet they probably couldn’t afford both Niemi and Hjalmarsson after filling out their lines with cheap young players.

by Khaaz on Jul 3, 2010 4:00 PM PDT reply actions

So true, been harping on this for awhile

Even if they send Huet down to the minors (a pretty awful move considering how much time he has left, this isn’t a Cheechoo or K. Mclaren one year thing), that leaves $9mil for 7 players. I have to believe Niemi is going to get paid as much as Jonas Hiller ($4mil/yr). $5mil for 6 players? Hjalmarrson is going to cost them at least $3mil.

In other words, their bottom line is going to be the equivalent of Vesce-Helminen-Staubtiz with a bottom pair of Jay Leach and Derek Joslin. So much for depth… but at least they won the Cup.

by ruben398 on Jul 3, 2010 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions

They’ll definately send Huet down. They pretty much have to. I don’t think Niemi will take more than 3 mil to sign. He’s not that good. I still suspect they’ll find a way to keep Hjalmarsson too. However, if we can snag him, either by trading for his rights or offer sheeting him (if he accepts), I’d be all for it.

Esta noche nosotros cenamos Tortugas
Así que bueno, ellos serán
Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by ZeroIndulgence on Jul 3, 2010 4:45 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

Yeah, Niemi will be closer to $2M than $4M. Their forward depth will definitely be getting worse, but Chicago will still be a force to contend with. Huet’s definitely going down, or being traded with picks as a dump to some team looking to make the cap floor.

by tarlinian on Jul 3, 2010 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Who is the likely culprit?

Blake, McGinn and Couture where the only ones with bonus clauses that I remember on the team. Maybe some of the other rookies that filtered up briefly, somehow I doubt they hit marks.

McGinn might have gotten days played, I don’t know what was in Blake’s, probably something to do with the post season, so that’s a definite possibility.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Jul 3, 2010 6:38 PM PDT reply actions

Some light reading...

http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf (it’s the contract between NHL and the Players) starts on page 260.

If I understand it correctly, bonuses paid by the club (some are paid by the League it seems) can be earned by the following players only:

- players on entry-level contracts
- veteran players (400 or more games) signing one-year contracts. after returning from long-term injuries (100 or more days on injured reserve in their most recent year).
- players who sign a one-year contract after the age of 35.

CapGeek has Blake (500,000), Seto (425,000), McGinn (315,000), Couture (425,000), Ferrerio (215,000) and Zalewski (10,000) earning performance bonuses.

Here’s how Blake could have earned his $500,000 in bonuses:

(b) Defensemen
(i) Ice time (aggregate and/or per Game). Player must be among top four (4)
defensemen on the Club (minimum 42 Regular Season Games played by
Player and comparison group). (Note: an Entry Level SPC may contain
bonuses for both aggregate and per Game ice time; however, the
maximum aggregate amount the Player may receive on account of the ice
time category is $212,500.)
(ii) Goals: 10 GoalMinimum
(iii) Assists: 25 Assist Minimum
(iv) Points: 40 Point Minimum
(v) Points Per Game: .49 Points Per Game Minimum (minimum 42 Regular
Season Games played)
(vi) Plus-Minus Rating: Among top three (3) defensemen on the Club
(minimum 42 Regular Season Games played by Player and comparison
group).
(vii) Blocked Shots: Among top two (2) defensemen on the Club (minimum
42 Regular Season Games played by Player and comparison group).
(viii) End-of-Season NHL All-Rookie Team
(ix) NHL All-Star Game (selected to play or plays)
(x) NHL All-Star Game MVP