Sheng Peng
There’s going to be a fresh batch of free agents starting tomorrow.
The NHL’s buyout window opens tomorrow and runs through October 8th. Bought-out players will become unrestricted free agents.
And there might be more buyouts than ever, because of the flat salary cap and teams looking to cut costs because of pandemic-reduced revenue.
Of course, “fresh” is generous. There’s a reason why these veterans are in danger of being axed.
But for the San Jose Sharks and other cap-strapped teams, these potential UFAs can be gold.
A buy-out means these players are still making the money from their old contracts, just over a longer period of time. Thus, when choosing a new team, money isn’t necessarily their primary motivation.
This is where you can find value, like when the 2014-15 Chicago Blackhawks were able to pick up bought-out Brad Richards for a reduced rate over the summer. The ex-New York Ranger would contribute 14 points in the playoffs to the 2015 Stanley Cup champs.
In a salary cap world, unearthing the gems who outperform their cap hits is the difference between a Stanley Cup or a second-round loss, a playoff appearance or lottery balls.
Three scouts offered their thoughts to San Jose Hockey Now about how some of the higher-profile potential buyouts — James Neal, Kyle Turris, Olli Maatta, Marc-Andre Fleury, and Henrik Lundqvist, to name a handful — could help or hurt the San Jose Sharks.
James Neal
Scout #1: When he was in Vegas and approaching UFA, he had a great year. That year, a lot of my reports were saying buyer beware. He’s got the reputation where people say he doesn’t get anything done until he gets something done. He’s one of those guys that can be kind of sleepy.
He’s not going to drive the culture in your locker room. But on a prove-it deal, he’s got some attributes you look for. It’s hard to score goals.
He does get sleepy some games and he will frustrate you, but when he’s out there with something to prove, he’s somebody the San Jose Sharks should consider. Just because they have an abundance of bottom-six role players, but they don’t have true middle-six and James Neal represents that.
He’s also a guy, come the deadline, if he is playing well, you can flip him.
Scout #2: He’s still a good player who can put the puck in the net. I can see him helping a playoff team in a middle-six role.
He needs to play with someone who can get him the puck.
Scout #3: Average for me, I don’t like him. He scores, but he’s just a bad guy [in the room]. That’s what I hear all the time.
I’m not a big fan of his. He scores, but he’s a real distraction it seems
Kyle Turris
Scout #1: Skating’s dropped off a little bit. He’s not great defensively, just OK. He’s not overly competitive. He’s got a good shot and he can score though.
Part of me wonders if he’d almost be better off on the wing. Just because he can shoot the puck.
I don’t doubt that he’s a better player than he showed in Nashville. But he’s not going to move the needle and make you a much better team.
I don’t think he can still play middle-six for a playoff team. You’d be really rolling the dice.
Scout #3: Turris for me has been a big disappointment. He’s so soft. He’s so soft.
Maybe in the right environment and linemates, he’s okay. But I wouldn’t be jumping through hoops there either.
David [Poile] doesn’t make that many mistakes with people. But he’s just too soft.
Mathieu Perreault
Scout #1: I like the player. I used to really like him.
He always competes. He’s always battling.
His skating though…I like him as a bottom-six role player, a good fourth-liner. He can play third line if you need him to, but he’s more of a fourth-line player.
I would take him on my team at the right number. But if you have some young kids, like maybe a Gregor can step in and give you what he does?
Same money, same term, I’d take Perreault over Turris because of the compete and effort. Come playoff time, if I’m lining up against Kyle Turris, when push comes to shove in playoff hockey, I feel like he’d be an easier opponent to play against.
Scout #2: He’s a better bottom-six player. He will certainly get some looks if he is bought out.
Scout #3: I really like Mathieu Perreault. He has versatility. He’s a compete guy. He’s consistent. He’s a good teammate. I have lots of time for him.
But yeah, I don’t see him in the top-nine anymore. Maybe for a year. He’s trending downward toward the fourth line.
Also, he’s been hurt. He’s banged up, he plays hard, but that wears on your body. When those guys hit the wall, it doesn’t go well for them. Once a guy’s broken, he’s always broken. He may have played out his course.
I don’t know if he has three years left in him.
Olli Maatta
Scout #1: He actually had a good playoff, he was one of their better defensemen.
But I’m lukewarm. He’s had some injury trouble and I question his decisions with the puck.
His skating is OK. The offense has dropped. He tries to play a simple game, that’s when he’s at his best.
For the right price, I’d take him for my bottom pair.
[His days as a top-four defenseman] are kind of past him. On a playoff team, he’s a 5-6.
Anton Stralman
Scout #3: Stralman, I like, but he doesn’t have a lot of time left either.
He would be good in a bottom pairing now. He’s smart. He can make plays. But his partner is the key. He’s lost a step a bit.
You need a guy who can skate. Because if I’m the opponent, I’m attacking Stralman all night through the neutral zone, chipping it by him and going around him and getting the puck. So the partner has to do all the work, race to the puck.
He could be a really good bottom-pairing defenseman with the right partner.
Marc-Andre Fleury
Scout #1: I’m higher on Fleury than most people just because of the character and the compete and the experience.
The last couple years, Vegas hasn’t had a steady partner for him. I think he’s been overplayed and overworked.
He’d be a great complement to a guy like Jones.
I can see Fleury coming in and relishing the opportunity in a place like San Jose. He knows he can probably be the guy.
Scout #2: He’s still a number-one goalie.
Henrik Lundqvist
Scout #2: He’s probably closer to a back-up now. But if bought out, he can certainly help a team. Just wouldn’t expect a starting role for him.
Scout #3: I think Lundqvist is on his last legs.
He had great quickness and anticipation. He could play on the goal line. That’s where he played, deep, because the game moves quickly side to side. But I don’t think he has the reflexes anymore.
This is problematic. Your whole life, you’ve been able to be quick as a cat. But now, you’re not quite as quick anymore.
His skills have eroded. Would I take him even as a back-up? That’s not who I’d take.
I might be wrong, but that’s my sense.
Devan Dubnyk
Scout #1: I don’t love Dubnyk. Fleury over Dubnyk for me.
I think his game really dropped off this year. It wasn’t as noticeable with Fleury.
When I was watching him, it seemed like he was guessing a bit. Didn’t really seem comfortable.
Scout #2: He’s still a good goalie. Had family issues this year that derailed his season, which is unfortunate.
I expect him to bounce back.