I think you get him his 9 games regardless this year. He's eligible to slide his ELC another year so I would agree that unless he blows the doors off you keep him with the Cuda to dominate the AHL this year before bringing him up next year where there's more support from veterans that know the system and style expected of them under a new coach and GM.
Sliding it one more year is also taking a huge risk. Less risks for using up his 1st year then we get him longer at a lower price.
At the expense of starting his contract early, no. If you're starting him at the AHL level, you're already saying he needs time to develop so keep him there and let him work on that instead of worrying about NHL responsibilities on a losing team. Sure, give him his nine games at some point but I see more value in picking one or the other and keeping him there to figure certain things out.
The premise for my statement is that they don't think he's ready for a nine game NHL audition that typically happens to start the season. If they don't feel like he's earned that, you might as well defer the start of the contract and let him play the whole season there. Maybe late in the season you can pick out some games where the other team really needs the points and you can get him some experience in playoff-like games but that doesn't seem an option used at all for these sorts of situations. If the Sharks need a call-up down the road, it should be the vets they recently brought in like Suess, Agozzino, and Veronneau. Maybe Weatherby since he has experience playing lower lines in the NHL but I wouldn't want to bring up the kids to fill depth spots in injury situations.
I think the difference in risk as it relates to sliding it or not is pretty negligible.
So if he breaks out in the final year and the sharks are still not contenders, then you now need to probably sign him for 8 years at 7/8 mil a year.
The final year breakout into an 8 year deal is the least risky proposition though because it gives you low buyout options early on and if it works out, you've signed him through his prime years. The bridge contract scenario puts you in a position where you have to sign a 25 or 26 year old to the same sort of contract as the breakout and eat more downside years.
I think this sort of situation is making mountains out of mole hills. It's one year. Where he plays beyond that is going to be up to him and how well he plays. Nobody takes their ball and goes home over the slide.
I can't see it - the Sharks have already brought in a bunch of veterans to fill up the bottom six, and Thornton has almost certainly aged out of being a viable NHL forward. He wouldn't be among the Sharks twelve best forwards - he might not be among their fifteen best forwards.
This I could see (I don't expect it, but I think it would be a hypothetically viable option) - veteran player keeps in shape and around the team, gets some games in, and you reevaluate toward the middle of the season whether to bring the veteran up, sign and trade, let him be signed by someone else, etc, to allow him to chase a cup. He serves as a mentor/playing coach for younger players as well.
That was such an issue when Colorado did that to Rantanen the year he put up 60 points in 52 AHL games. Shame he's in Europe and mad at the Avalanche for not trading him.
That's not the way the league works anymore. Players are not rewarded for taking 3 year bridge deals and thus don't take them usually if they have any sort of pedigree. If we're at a point in 4 seasons where he deserves a big contract, sign him the hell up to a max term deal like every other team in the league is doing with their young players. I'd rather have him for 8 years in his age 24 through 31 seasons than for 8 years in his age 26-33 seasons.
So you want to, repeat the same mistake that happened with meier. Sharks do not slide his contract, and we get to sign him cheap after a 30 point season, but instead the sharks gave him that one extra year of development and was able to sign his current contract and had the leverage to not only up his contract from 900k to 6 mil but also to have his qualifying offer be 10 million.
Who exactly has been dominant who is close to 40 years old?
Crosby. Wheeler. Kessel. Pavelski, thornton did until he hit 40. And there are plenty more that have 40/50 points over the age of 35.
To be fair, Meier is notoriously inconsistent and has been in the NHL as well. For him it's all about effort and drive...that's why I'm hesitant to proclaim that he's a first liner. If he puts up a couple more seasons like last year, then he's a first liner.
From all reports Eklund was pretty frustrated about being sent back last season. How do you think he’d feel if they held him back again just to slide his contract.
Eklund was not put into a position to succeed in Sweden. Not only was he on a horrible team, he wasn’t put in an offensive position. He was 3rd line with no real scorers on his lines. He can drive play, but without people to capitalise it’s going to impact production.
I agree with the theory here about being challenged, but if i may hi-jack this to ask follow up adjacent:
