The Cost of Buying Out Martin Jones | SJHN+

The San Jose Sharks are moving on from Martin Jones, right?

“Our goaltending has to be better,” GM Doug Wilson said in his recent exit interview.

Jones has an .896 Save % over the last three seasons, tied with Jonathan Quick for worst among all NHL goaltenders (75+ games). Safe to say, that needs to be better, and after three straight seasons of sub-.900 save percentages, better probably isn’t coming from Jones.

So au revoir, Martin?

If only it were that simple – Jones also has three years left on his contract, $5.75 million per. Nobody is trading for the full freight there unless you attach significant premiums – a couple sources recently suggested two first-round picks at minimum. Even trading part of Jones’s contract – San Jose can retain up to 50% of the cap hit – would cost the Sharks plenty.

That leaves, of course, the buyout.

This off-season, the NHL’s buyout window opens 48 hours after the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Final, so we’re looking at early to mid-July. The buyout will extract a heavy price from San Jose too, as two-thirds of Jones’s remaining salary is essentially divvied up over six seasons.

Per Puckpedia, here’s the buyout cap hit breakdown for Jones:

That’s not pretty. So is there a scenario where it might make sense…to keep Jones?

For this thought exercise, let’s assume that with or without Jones, the San Jose Sharks will bring in a new starting-caliber netminder. Next, we’ll run through various potential cap hit scenarios, with or without Jones.

Chris Driedger

The 27-year-old UFA has put up some gaudy back-up numbers (.925 Save %) over the last two seasons. Bad news for Driedger, it was a tough market for free agents last off-season, and it figures to be more of the same this time around.

Here are some UFA comps for Driedger – successful back-up, unproven starter, insignificant playoff resume, expected to come in and be at least a 1B – from last off-season:

None of these are exact Driedger comps, there weren’t any last free agency period – Talbot was the Oilers’ starter from 2015-19, Khudobin backstopped the Stars to the 2020 Stanley Cup Final, and Greiss was the Islanders’ 1B from 2015-20 – but they provide more accurate comps than, for example, backup-at-best Aaron Dell (signed with Toronto for one year and $800K) or premier UFA netminder Jacob Markstrom (signed with Calgary for six years and $36 million).

Let’s say Driedger commands two years and $6 million, $3M cap hit. I’m factoring in Driedger’s inexperience – just 34 career starts under his belt, along with an unimpressive 2021 post-season – for a smaller, shorter deal.

The other complication for the San Jose Sharks, of course, is the expansion draft. Let’s assume the Seattle Kraken have either passed on Driedger or the Sharks trade for the Florida back-up’s rights — it shouldn’t be a significant price — before Seattle gets a crack.

By the way, in this thought exercise, I’m tabbing Ryan Donato as the player that San Jose loses to the Kraken in the expansion draft.

So before we think about Driedger to the Sharks, here’s a very rough guess at the overall cap space that San Jose could have available for him.

That’s $69.75 million — projected cap hits, like Rudolfs Balcers, are all capitalized — committed to 12 forwards, seven defensemen, and zero goalies. That’s $11.75M open for a new third-line center and two goalies.

What would San Jose’s cap situation be with Driedger?

I actually believe Jones can still be an effective back-up. But obviously, $5.75 million is a lot to spend on your back-up. For what it’s worth, they entered the 2020-21 campaign with $7.92M committed to Jones and Devan Dubnyk.

So let’s buy out Jones and include his accompanying cap hit – do you believe in Josef Korenar as the Sharks’ back-up? That would be a significant savings on a Driedger-Jones tandem and free up a lot of other money elsewhere.

But let’s be honest, Korenar is probably best suited right now to be a No. 3 netminder in an organization. That could change at the drop of a dime – Korenar is just 23, so there’s some untapped potential – but if you want to really address San Jose’s goaltending, it could make sense to acquire two potential No. 1 goalies and let them duke it out.

The good news for Doug Wilson? In a buyer’s UFA market, you can acquire two Driedger types and stomach Jones’s buyout for the same cost as a Driedger-Jones tandem.

James Reimer

The Talbot, Greiss, and Khudobin comps probably apply more toward the 33-year-old Reimer than Driedger.

Can the same two-year, $6 million dollar offer reel in Reimer? That’s still cheaper than a hypothetical Driedger-Jones duo. There are no guarantees, of course, but chances are, you feel better going into the season with Driedger and/or Reimer than Jones.

This leaves about $3 million to spend elsewhere for the San Jose Sharks. Of course, there are potentially cheaper goaltending options than Driedger and Reimer available – but still high-ceiling – Linus Ullmark, Petr Mrazek, Antti Raanta, or Jaroslav Halak come to mind.

Philipp Grubauer

Or forget Driedger or Reimer – what if the San Jose Sharks target an undisputed No. 1 netminder in free agency? Tuukka Rask and Philipp Grubauer, anybody?

In this scenario, of course, you would almost certainly have to buy out Jones, unless you’re prepared to invest an eight-figure cap hit into your goaltending. So you’ll need a cheap back-up too.

Using Markstrom’s pact as a model, let’s say Grubauer comes in at five years, $27.5 million, $5.5M cap hit. Going into free agency, 30-year-old Markstrom had a superior track record and less durability concerns, so I’m guessing 29-year-old Grubauer will receive slightly lower offers.

Is it possible for San Jose to start the season with a 2021 Vezina candidate between the pipes? That would be a welcome change of pace.

Cam Talbot

Meanwhile, the San Jose Sharks can also take advantage of teams that are about to be squeezed by the expansion draft.

The Minnesota Wild, for example, might opt to protect the younger, cheaper Kakko Kahkonen over Talbot. Could the Wild be motivated to move Talbot and his $3.67M cap hit instead of losing him for nothing to the Kraken?

“We also think this being an expansion year,” Wilson shared in his exit interview, “that there will be a pool of goaltenders available when we decide to add one.”

Martin Jones

The point is: If the San Jose Sharks have $11.75 million available for a new third-line center and two goalies, spending $5.75M of that on Jones doesn’t seem advisable. And since you’re probably not trading Jones, unless you’re giving up first-round picks, it’s buyout or bust.

Even factoring in Jones’s buyout figure, Wilson can probably upgrade from Jones – Driedger, Reimer, or Talbot, for example, plus Jones’s buyout hit – for less than $5.75 million in 2021-22.

I understood not buying out Jones after 2018-19: Too much term left, just one bad year. Even after 2019-20, there was probably too much term left and it had been a season of upheaval for the Sharks, between the team’s failing fortunes and a coaching change. But after this year?

If Wilson is serious about getting San Jose back in the playoffs, biting the bullet on Jones will probably have to be the first big step. It’s hard to see how the Sharks get better otherwise. It’s a short-term gain, a long-term pain – but even in the long term, you hope the cap goes up again, so the last three years of Jones’s buyout isn’t such a bitter pill.