Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

gaucholoco3

Registered User
Jun 22, 2015
1,320
1,666
Wennberg is a defensively responsible low-event bottom-6 center with limited offensive upside, I like the idea of pairing him with Smith so that he doesn't have to shoulder all the responsibilities a centerman needs to take on from day one, he'd spend a little bit of time flip-flopping with Wennberg on the RW in that setup

Smith still has some details to clean up on his defensive game that Wennberg is a natural complement to aid him with, but if he can handle top-6 minutes Granlund is the higher end option there, but with more holes in his own defensive game to worry about
I can see the benefit by supporting Smith defensively but neither of those guys are good as an F1 on the forecheck.

Smith needs a strong F1 to retrieve pucks so Zetterlund, Eklund, and Kunin are options.

This is why I think the “lund” line should be broken up. Since Eklund and Zetterlund are the only potential F1’s in the top 6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Star Platinum

gaucholoco3

Registered User
Jun 22, 2015
1,320
1,666
Well, like I said I have no problem with Zetterlund on the second line, we just definitely need six forwards who are better than him. If Chernyshov develops into a legit second liner (think he has a solid chance) then I have no problem deploying him on the third line.

Short- and medium-term, Toffoli is good on the top line, but probably the ideal long-term solution is something like:

Eklund-Celebrini-[Martone]
Musty-Smith-Zetterlund
Chernyshov-Bystedt-Toffoli
Cardwell-[vet 4C]-[vet 4W]

I just feel like we need one more high-end scoring forward long-term to truly be a contender. That forward could be next year's 1st rounder or a trade target akin to the Devils acquiring a prime-aged Timo Meier.
I still have hope that Halttunen can be a trigger man on that top line. He has the size and shot. If he can build a little more compete into his game he could be the ideal wing complement to Eklund for Celebrini. Since Eklund can also forecheck it would still allow Halttunen to spend some shifts up high finding the soft spots to release his lethal shot, while also having the ability to forecheck and let Eklund and Celebrini work together in the offensive zone. Eklund and Celebrini are more than competent enough to carry Halttunen in his own zone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timorous me

Juxtaposer

Outro: Divina Comedia
Dec 21, 2009
49,359
21,780
Bay Area
I still have hope that Halttunen can be a trigger man on that top line. He has the size and shot. If he can build a little more compete into his game he could be the ideal wing complement to Eklund for Celebrini. Since Eklund can also forecheck it would still allow Halttunen to spend some shifts up high finding the soft spots to release his lethal shot, while also having the ability to forecheck and let Eklund and Celebrini work together in the offensive zone. Eklund and Celebrini are more than competent enough to carry Halttunen in his own zone.
Hmm, I just don't believe in Halttunen's offense translating at the next level. His shot is obviously undeniable, but I worry that he projects as basically a bigger Victor Olofsson, who has PP value but is basically a zero at evens Halttunen is not a great forechecker, not a high-energy puck-retriever, not a defensive asset, and doesn't have elite offensive tools other than his shot. His skating is poor, he's not very smart, and his playmaking is average at best. I really want him to succeed but personally I'm just not too high on him. Having a great shot isn't helpful if you're never in position to get it off.
 

STL Shark

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
4,370
5,391
I like the idea of Eklund-Celebrini-Toffoli a lot, because Celebrini deserves to have wingers who are high hockey IQ players and can keep up with him pace-wise. I like the idea of Zetterlund on Smith's wing a lot because Zetterlund can skate well and is a good forechecker, but I'm not sure who I want on their left wing. A healthy Couture would obviously be ideal, but since that's unlikely maybe Granlund or Wennberg is the best fit. Maybe if Dellandrea takes an offensive step forward, that could work? It'll be interesting to see how Wennberg, Dellandrea, and any other new guy slots in.
Don't think going 3 right shots on 1 line would be the best, so would be one of Granlund or Wennberg with Smith and Zetterlund. Think I'd lean Granlund there since he packs more offensive punch and then let Wennberg center a 3rd line of Kostin-Wennberg-Dellandrea with Goodrow-Sturm-Kunin on the 4th line.
 

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,235
7,505
So we can then price out Dickinson or Muk on our left side? Left side of the defense is not going to be the problem as we move on with this rebuild. It's the right side that we need to be using assets and cap space to acquire. We shouldn't be the ones offering the best trade package (starts with at least a 1st+) to one of those teams to go out and get LHD until we see what we have in Dickinson/Muk as NHL players.

I suppose you could offer Muk for one of them straight up in a deal to give the other team cap space for a less proven (but heralded) LHD, but beyond that I don't see where a deal for one of those guys is a pressing need in terms of giving up assets that should be used to add on the right side.

Rather give a little runway to let the guys that Grier has targeted in trades and drafts to develop. Muk was the top asset of the Meier deal. Dickinson is someone we targeted to move up for ahead of the draft. I know you love Grier's eye, so let's see his guys before we go and chase a position where we actually have organizational depth and talent. I'm all for chasing a RHD though and think that is the top priority for the next 12 months (outside of Celebrini development).
Let me get this straight...you don't want to acquire a top pairing defenseman because Mukhamadullin and/or Dickinson may someday also develop into top pairing defensemen? Is there a limit on how many great defensemen you're allowed to have? Did Tampa not win back to back Cups running Hedman, McDonagh and Sergachev down the left side?
 

Juxtaposer

Outro: Divina Comedia
Dec 21, 2009
49,359
21,780
Bay Area
Don't think going 3 right shots on 1 line would be the best, so would be one of Granlund or Wennberg with Smith and Zetterlund. Think I'd lean Granlund there since he packs more offensive punch and then let Wennberg center a 3rd line of Kostin-Wennberg-Dellandrea with Goodrow-Sturm-Kunin on the 4th line.
Huh, I didn't even realize how many right shots we have up front between Toffoli, Zetterlund, Smith, Dellandrea, Kunin, and potentially Graf.

On one hand, Wennberg would probably be better for Smith defensively, but I think Granlund would be significantly better offensively and in the interest of maximizing our Granlund trade deadline return, maybe Granlund-Smith-Zetterlund is the way to go.

All said, it's nice to have what looks to be two solid second lines, a strong third line, and a very good fourth line, instead of the bad second line/three bad fourth line setup we had last year after Hertl got moved. :laugh:
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,137
14,765
Folsom
Hey, I just happened to have agreed with the majority opinion at the time the second I saw that signing. I had a dollar figure in mind for what Patty was worth and would have preferred to ship him if we went over that caphit I had in my mind. 5 million dollar player at 2-3 years was what I saw Patty as. I could live it it went to 5.5. Didn't like seeing the 6.3 million caphit when a significantly better player did the team right by taking way less than his market value.

As I recall we had a large amount of RFA's who needed new contracts and not much wiggle room.

-Ehrhoff's 2 year bridge was done and he was up for a big raise
- Ryane Clowe was done his ELC and looked really good
- Steve Bernier's ELC was up and I still thought he was going to break out eventually because Power forwards take longer to develop and he was a 1st rounder.
- Ill be honest, i didn't feel the same about Marcel Goc, despite him being a 1st rounder. and yeah, his ELC was also up.
- Matt Carle's ELC was up the next year and he had just scored a decent chunk for a rookie Dman
- Milan Michalek's ELC was up shortly the next year and he was already looking great

And for the record, at the time, I did not think the Salary cap would keep increasing as much as it did. A lot of people didn't. It was all still new to us.
39 million to 44 million to 50 million, but then they started talking about pumping the breaks on increases for a few years because Sather was causing complaints by doing Sather things and overspending.

So yeah, there was a real fear. We had already lost Hannan on july 1st and he was considered a top 3 defensive defenseman in the game at the time. I was actually sad to lose Toskala, but that couldn't be helped. Thankfully we were able to eject Bell with him and get the Cooter pick.

At the time all we could see was "wow, we are paying Marleau almost 2 million more a year than Spezza when he isn't as good", or 'wow, Marleau makes more than Sundin or Kovalchuk now and he's just a supporting player"

They lied and let it go up one more year to 56 million before pumping the breaks in 08/09, so the Marleau contract became acceptable to me.

So yeah, sure, in hindsight, its fine. At the time? Marleau was to Thornton what Kadri was to Mackinnon a few years back
I'm still not seeing any real justification for the contract figures you're throwing out there. The market clearly showed otherwise. Marleau's contract didn't prevent them from taking care of any of those RFA's and a big reason why Michalek and Bernier were looking promising was by playing on Marleau's wings. Also, why wouldn't you think the cap was going to keep increasing as it did? They didn't exactly have a choice in terms of how the cap would rise as it was a collectively bargained agreement that still had multiple years to go. Why would you let Sather's complaints about it influence you about the cap but not influence you in the possibility of him throwing money at Marleau in the open market? I don't think you can have that both ways.

Hannan left before they even signed Marleau to that extension. They let him go because they already had Ehrhoff and Vlasic and were working on getting Boyle that included them taking Lukowich.

Why would you compare Marleau to Spezza like that though? At no point did Marleau make more than Spezza. At no point did Marleau make more than Kovalchuk. The only time Marleau made more than Sundin was in that first year of his extension by like 800k when Marleau was 29 and Sundin was 37 playing his final season.

Like this all comes off as bellyaching that Marleau wasn't the player you wanted him to be and thus value him less and looking for reasons to justify it when the market doesn't support that view. If Marleau wanted to sign for a longer term, they could have given him that for less of a cap but they chose a shorter commitment. But plenty of Marleau-like forwards in the NHL were getting 3-6 year contracts and the average was probably around 4. Any top center hitting the open market, regardless of their warts, was going to get paid. I really don't understand the thought process that just because he wasn't Joe Thornton or that caliber of center that he still wouldn't have been sought after given the numerous overpayments that had already happened before the 2008-09 season started.
 

timorous me

Gristled Veteran
Apr 14, 2010
2,127
3,479
Let me get this straight...you don't want to acquire a top pairing defenseman because Mukhamadullin and/or Dickinson may someday also develop into top pairing defensemen? Is there a limit on how many great defensemen you're allowed to have? Did Tampa not win back to back Cups running Hedman, McDonagh and Sergachev down the left side?
I would love to have those guys--especially Harley or Miller--on the Sharks. But I have to imagine the demands would be prohibitive. You'd have some serious bidding wars going on (and I'm also skeptical that either Dallas or the Rangers would be willing to move those guys; especially with the cap going up in the future, if there's a will, there's a way to keep them) and I don't know if the Sharks are in a position to get involved in those just yet. Maybe. With long-term extensions those guys would be tremendous to have as lynchpins of your defense going forward.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
17,057
19,428
Vegass
Well, like I said I have no problem with Zetterlund on the second line, we just definitely need six forwards who are better than him. If Chernyshov develops into a legit second liner (think he has a solid chance) then I have no problem deploying him on the third line.

Short- and medium-term, Toffoli is good on the top line, but probably the ideal long-term solution is something like:

Eklund-Celebrini-[Martone]
Musty-Smith-Zetterlund
Chernyshov-Bystedt-Toffoli
Cardwell-[vet 4C]-[vet 4W]

I just feel like we need one more high-end scoring forward long-term to truly be a contender. That forward could be next year's 1st rounder or a trade target akin to the Devils acquiring a prime-aged Timo Meier.
At a certain point we're going to have to trade one of the higher end prospects for immediate top 6 help because no way in hell we're able to make this work for the cap.

I would love to have those guys--especially Harley or Miller--on the Sharks. But I have to imagine the demands would be prohibitive. You'd have some serious bidding wars going on (and I'm also skeptical that either Dallas or the Rangers would be willing to move those guys; especially with the cap going up in the future, if there's a will, there's a way to keep them) and I don't know if the Sharks are in a position to get involved in those just yet. Maybe. With long-term extensions those guys would be tremendous to have as lynchpins of your defense going forward.
I would make a move now because we're gonna have 50 guys on ELC all due substantial raises (if they pan out) at the same time. Overpaying someone now for 7 years will ultimately be a bargain in 3-4 when everyone else is up or close to needing new contracts.
 

sampler

Registered User
Aug 3, 2018
515
465
The post ELC (second contract) doesnt have to be a 7 year behemoth. As mentioned in a post a while ago, bridge deals are your friend. 2-3 years at about 1/2 to 2/3 the AAV of a UFA deal.

The sharks do have an army of kids ready for the NHL, or soon to be within 1-2 years. They have at least 4 clear top 9 forwards with at least 2 years of ELC remaining in Eklund, Smith, Celly, and Musty and possibly a half dozen others with Cherny, bystedt, bordy, cardwell, gushkin... not to mention outside shots like Lund... Zetterlund is also at an age where he should be good for at least 5+ years.

They also have at least two likely top 4 in Mukh and dick with some outside shots like cags, pohlcamp, LSW and maybe even thrun.

They also have the #1 goalie signed for at least 3 years.

Yes, adding 1 or 2 more top end prospects, especially one on D, would be very nice, but I am not sure they need it.

At this point, it's about savvy trades and vet signings. The toffoli signing is a prime example. Now, its about getting 4-6 of those level players, even if it means overpaying since you have so much of your roster built at rock bottom ELC prices. Wennberg and Goodrow for nearly 9m is not what I have in mind, although the term of those is not so bad. I am hoping for a bigger splash going forward, like 2-3 more toffoli-like players, and at least 1-2 similar level defenders.

On the trade front, I am perfectly good trading future assets now for top end young D if one hits the market. I would be especially fine dealing someone not named Smith ,Musty, Celly, Askarov, or Dickinson. Grier flipped some forward prospect depth (edstrom) into a top end goalie that was much needed. I would be fine if he flipped even more forward depth (bystedt? cherny? Cardwell? Gush? Bordy? Haltunnen? Lund? Graf?) and a 2nd round pick for high end D. Obviously, this is not a deal that would happen now, but instead either midyear (if the team shocks to the upside) or next summer.

The sharks rookies just destroyed the rookie faceoff scoring at will, and there are many teams looking for better prospect depth, who were likely watching that display. The sharks are working from a position of strength here, and grier has already shown an aptitude for leveraging strength to fill holes.
 

sampler

Registered User
Aug 3, 2018
515
465
BTW, I realize that it really is remarkable the forward prospect depth. I mean, the sharks really do have an entire forward roster 22 or younger not currently playing the NHL, nearly all of which likely could and may well play in the NHL eventually. I cannot remember a time when the sharks had this many potential NHL forwards.

Smith, Celebrini, Musty, Bystedt, haltunnen, Chernyshov, Gushkin, Cardwell, Bordeleau, Graf... thats TEN very legit NHL potential forwards, and does not inlcude Lund, Rimashevky, Wetsch and a few others (Svoboda entered the radar with his summer showcase performance too). It also doesnt include Eklund who is already a clear established NHLer. That's insane forward depth and no wonder we put up 16 goals in 3 games against other teams' rookies, even with several of these out of the lineup on a given night.

This year is going to be a massively important time for the sharks prospect crew and for setting up future trades. If the Cuda are unstoppable, like the rookies were this past weekend, it will give Grier so many trump cards to play.
 

67 others

Registered User
Jul 30, 2010
2,907
2,062
Moose country
I'm still not seeing any real justification for the contract figures you're throwing out there. The market clearly showed otherwise. Marleau's contract didn't prevent them from taking care of any of those RFA's and a big reason why Michalek and Bernier were looking promising was by playing on Marleau's wings.
Then don't see it. The archives of internet comments don't share the hindsight. And yeah, i know you don't agree with the old "majority opinion" because you said so in your last post. im merely saying i was far from alone in my thoughts.

Michalek and Bernier looked promising because they were high first rounders and could break out at any time.

Also, why wouldn't you think the cap was going to keep increasing as it did? They didn't exactly have a choice in terms of how the cap would rise as it was a collectively bargained agreement that still had multiple years to go. Why would you let Sather's complaints about it influence you about the cap but not influence you in the possibility of him throwing money at Marleau in the open market? I don't think you can have that both ways.
Because they literally talked about it not going up. it wasn't Sather's complaints. it was complaints about Sather again throwing huge money at marginal players.

And yeah, they did stop raising the cap. They just waited another year, and it went up only a trickle of 100k more. Some teams were banking on it going up 5 million again and it hurt them when they stopped the increase that year.

Hannan left before they even signed Marleau to that extension. They let him go because they already had Ehrhoff and Vlasic and were working on getting Boyle that included them taking Lukowich.
That changes what about Hannan being on of the best defensive Dman in the game? yes it was before Marleau signed. the point is, we were feeling the strain of knowing we had to let some folks go because we could not afford them due to cap constraints. So yes, the hope was players would give nice hometown discounts on their caphits. Marleau didn't.
Why would you compare Marleau to Spezza like that though? At no point did Marleau make more than Spezza. At no point did Marleau make more than Kovalchuk. The only time Marleau made more than Sundin was in that first year of his extension by like 800k when Marleau was 29 and Sundin was 37 playing his final season.
Spezza at the time, was getting under 5 million a year. He signed an extension for 7 million later in the season after Marleau signed his. But he was considered significantly better than Marleau at the time.

And oh, sorry. That should have read "makes as Much as Kovalchuk", who was a game breaker who was a regular 40-50+ goal scorer and a line driver(And yeah, had a 6.38m caphit)

Sundin looked consistent and ageless at the time and was largely considered a better player who constantly put up a ppg playing with guys like Darcy Tucker lol. And no, his last year as a leaf he was signed for 5.5 million on a one year deal, then he signed for 5.6m for 4 years with the Nucks before the injury and early retirement.

Joe Sakic produced 100 points at age 40. most people figured Sundin would keep producing.
Like this all comes off as bellyaching that Marleau wasn't the player you wanted him to be and thus value him less and looking for reasons to justify it when the market doesn't support that view. If Marleau wanted to sign for a longer term, they could have given him that for less of a cap but they chose a shorter commitment. But plenty of Marleau-like forwards in the NHL were getting 3-6 year contracts and the average was probably around 4. Any top center hitting the open market, regardless of their warts, was going to get paid. I really don't understand the thought process that just because he wasn't Joe Thornton or that caliber of center that he still wouldn't have been sought after given the numerous overpayments that had already happened before the 2008-09 season started.
All the bellyaching seems to be you? I get it. You are Patty's big fan and feel a certain way about him. That's your right. I don't feel that way about him.

its forgivable that he wasn't a Jumbo caliber center. He was probably one of the best 2nd line Centers at the time(or a poor team's 1st line C).
The thought process and perception was, he was so much less a player that many felt his Caphit should have been 5.3 million tops because of all factors at the time, regardless of contract length. Many felt 6.3 million caphits should be for game breaking, play driving first liners, not perceived good 2nd line centers whose numbers seem inflated by playing on the PP with a Franchise level Jumbo. Jumbo had a history of inflating people's numbers so they seemed better than they actually were and Marleau had spent his first 7 years as a 20-28 goal, 40 to 57 point forward until Jumbo came and dragged the team out of that 10 game loss slump and propelled Marleau to be better

If that widely shared perception of the time bothers you, I don't know what to tell you. Eventually Marleau became the new dependable Mike Gartner lite. A terrific complimentary player, never among the great or a scoring title/Selke/Hart finalist threat, but solid and dependable.
 

Star Platinum

Registered User
May 11, 2024
456
718
Hmm, I just don't believe in Halttunen's offense translating at the next level. His shot is obviously undeniable, but I worry that he projects as basically a bigger Victor Olofsson, who has PP value but is basically a zero at evens Halttunen is not a great forechecker, not a high-energy puck-retriever, not a defensive asset, and doesn't have elite offensive tools other than his shot. His skating is poor, he's not very smart, and his playmaking is average at best. I really want him to succeed but personally I'm just not too high on him. Having a great shot isn't helpful if you're never in position to get it off.
I don't perceive him getting in position to get his shot off to be a problem (unless you mean he skates the puck into a good scoring chance). But he definitely needs to add other assets to his game. In the Rookie Challenge, the only two times you noticed him were when he was shooting or when he was taking dumb penalties. At his size, I think he needs to become a guy who can be more physical on both ends, become a good forechecker, and be a plus puck retrieval guy on the boards if he's gonna be an NHL Top 6 forward because if he's not, you can always find other guys that have hard accurate shots who can do other things as well.

But he's also pretty early in his development. I want to see what he looks like after a full year in London with more responsibility.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,137
14,765
Folsom
Then don't see it. The archives of internet comments don't share the hindsight. And yeah, i know you don't agree with the old "majority opinion" because you said so in your last post. im merely saying i was far from alone in my thoughts.

Michalek and Bernier looked promising because they were high first rounders and could break out at any time.


Because they literally talked about it not going up. it wasn't Sather's complaints. it was complaints about Sather again throwing huge money at marginal players.

And yeah, they did stop raising the cap. They just waited another year, and it went up only a trickle of 100k more. Some teams were banking on it going up 5 million again and it hurt them when they stopped the increase that year.


That changes what about Hannan being on of the best defensive Dman in the game? yes it was before Marleau signed. the point is, we were feeling the strain of knowing we had to let some folks go because we could afford them due to cap constraints. So yes, the hope was players would give nice hometown discounts. Marleau didn't.

Spezza at the time, was getting under 5 million a year. He signed an extension for 7 million later in the season after Marleau signed his. But he was considered significantly better than Marleau at the time.

And oh, sorry. That should have read "makes as Much as Kovalchuk", who was a game breaker who was a regular 40-50+ goal scorer and a line driver(And yeah, had a 6.38m caphit)

Sundin looked consistent and ageless at the time and was largely considered a better player who constantly put up a ppg playing with guys like Darcy Tucker lol. And no, his last year as a leaf he was signed for 5.5 million on a one year deal, then he signed for 5.6m for 4 years with the Nucks before the injury and early retirement.

Joe Sakic produced 100 points at age 40. most people figured Sundin would keep producing.

All the bellyaching seems to be you? I get it. You are Patty's big fan and feel a certain way about him. That's your right. I don't feel that way about him.

its forgivable that he wasn't a Jumbo caliber center. He was probably one of the best 2nd line Centers at the time(or a poor team's 1st line C).
The thought process and perception was, he was so much less a player that many felt his Caphit should have been 5.3 million tops because of all factors at the time, regardless of contract length. Many felt 6.3 million caphits should be for game breaking, play driving first liners, not perceived good 2nd line centers whose numbers seem inflated by playing on the PP with a Franchise level Jumbo. Jumbo had a history of inflating people's numbers so they seemed better than they actually were and Marleau had spent his first 7 years as a 20-28 goal, 40 to 57 point forward until Jumbo came and dragged the team out of that 10 game loss slump and propelled Marleau to be better

If that widely shared perception of the time bothers you, I don't know what to tell you. Eventually Marleau became the new dependable Mike Gartner lite. A terrific complimentary player, never among the great or a scoring title/Selke/Hart finalist threat, but solid and dependable.
Being alone or not in your thoughts doesn't change whether they were accurate or not. There are numerous 1st round picks that struggle to break out as Bernier and Michalek both showed. They played with an impact center that helped them. The fact you cannot even give the one veteran between them any credit for helping them as young players says everything about your place on this as it relates to your bias. The cap stopped going up by the previous figures because of the economy but then it went up by another 3 mil after that.

The idea that Hannan was one of the best defensive defensemen in the game is a bit of revisionist history to me. Hannan struggled post-lockout because of the changes to penalizing obstruction. The strain you speak of was not a strain but a choice made by Wilson. Seeing how Campbell's offensive impact from the blue line transformed how well the team would perform, he decided to let Hannan go because he had two young defensemen coming up in Vlasic and Ehrhoff and in the process of working to trade for Dan Boyle, had to take Brad Lukowich with him, and also go out and sign Rob Blake. Hannan simply wasn't in their plans rather than someone that just got squeezed out because of the cap. But even if you wanted to blame cap constraints on Marleau in 2007, that still makes no sense because Marleau was still under contract at 4.16 mil for the 2008-09 season. Why you would think that figure is a problem after the two post-lockout seasons Marleau had is beyond me. Either way, it had no impact on Hannan's status.

As far as Spezza goes, you're doing mental gymnastics. At the time Spezza was making 4.5 mil, Marleau was making 4.16 mil. Both their extensions kicked in the same year with Marleau making 6.3 mil for 2 years and Spezza making 7 mil for 7 years. Yes, Spezza was better at the time and his contract reflected that. If anything, that Spezza extension is another indicator that Marleau took significantly less than he could've gotten.

Kovalchuk also makes no sense as a comparable to Marleau for multiple reasons. Kovalchuk signed the contract he was on in 2005 as an RFA and a winger. Marleau was set to be a UFA in 2008 and was a center. These fundamentally alter the asking prices of each of these players with about 18 mil of cap for teams separating them. Marleau's contract was going to reflect the inflated cap his contract was going to start in compared to what Kovalchuk signed on for at the end of the lockout.

Mats Sundin's last year with the Maple Leafs at 5.5 mil was the final year of Marleau's 4.16 mil contract. And no, he did not sign with the Canucks for 4 years. It was a one year deal around 5 mil for a 37 year old who was already missing part of that season considering retirement. It's hardly a relevant comparable.

It's funny that you want to try and throw it back to me about bellyaching but you've only misremembered a lot of things about this. However, saying that regardless of contract length, he tops out at anything is a baseless belief. That is simply not how the economics work in professional sports. I'm just here to tell you that your memory of the perception is very much exaggerated and was nonetheless incorrect. You still haven't and probably can't address the point made about the length of the contract. You're only trying to dismiss it which only tells me that you don't know the sort of impact that actually makes when talking about this sort of thing. You can try and claim bias on my end all you want but that applies to you as well so then we're left with all the other points. For instance, you have brought up multiple players to compare to Marleau and I have directly addressed every single one of those and shown you how most of those guys got longer term that lowered their cap hits. Yet for you it only doesn't matter for Marleau because of your feelings.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 67 others

weastern bias

worst team in the league
Feb 3, 2012
11,156
7,364
SJ
Bridge deals are not your friend unless you are already in a cup window and have other large contracts that you are trying to hold onto

Bridging your talented young players while you're still in a rebuild is almost always a mistake, it hurts you way worse in the long run when you pay out a huge contract after the player has already broken out and they'll begin declining before the deal ends
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,137
14,765
Folsom
Bridge deals are not your friend unless you are already in a cup window and have other large contracts that you are trying to hold onto

Bridging your talented young players while you're still in a rebuild is almost always a mistake, it hurts you way worse in the long run when you pay out a huge contract after the player has already broken out and they'll begin declining before the deal ends
I agree with this. If Celebrini and Smith prove to be the centers we're building around, they should get 8 year deals off their ELC. You can dick around with wingers and I think you can do the same for goalies too when it comes to their contracts but centers and franchise defensemen need to be locked in as long as possible.
 

sampler

Registered User
Aug 3, 2018
515
465
I agree with this. If Celebrini and Smith prove to be the centers we're building around, they should get 8 year deals off their ELC. You can dick around with wingers and I think you can do the same for goalies too when it comes to their contracts but centers and franchise defensemen need to be locked in as long as possible.
Several problems with locking in 21 year olds to 7 year deals:

1. One injury and you are screwed. True for all long term deals, but sometimes you have to take that risk to keep/land a player. Not a necessary risk to take for a 21 year old.

2. 2-3 years in the NHL is not long enough to properly value a player. You could give huge money and term only to find you overpaid, especially relative to a bridge deal.

3. As you mentioned bridge deals are good cap management for contending. I see no reason why the sharks cannot contend within the next few years. They need to add some more quality vet talent and will need the cap space to do it. The keep that space with smart bridge deals.

4. Lastly, signing a 21 or 22 year old to a 2-3 year bridge takes them to 24 or 25. A subsequent 7 year deal with the team still holding rfa leverage from there takes them to just 31 or 32 year old. While a 7 year deal at 21,22 means they hit ufa at just 28 or 29, still well within prime years and forcing a team to offer another 7 years at UFA market rates to keep them. Those are the deals that can hurt as they expire at 35/36/37 years old.

Look at Edmonton with draisaitl. Had to overpay and over term to keep him or risk losing him at just 29. 14m until age 37!!! Same problem coming for McDavid.

The best contract progression for a centerpiece is:

1. Age 18-21/22: elc
2 age 21/22-24/25: 3 year bridge at 1/2 UFA value. (A player like draisaitl or McDavid woulda been in the 6-7m range for 2-3 years)
3. 24/25-31/32: 7 year at slight discount to ufa.

Then at 31/32, you can asses whether to resign or let walk.
 

weastern bias

worst team in the league
Feb 3, 2012
11,156
7,364
SJ
Scoring forwards' peak years are their age 24-26 seasons, those are the years you want to have locked up below their market value so you have more space to build a contender around them

There's actually a lot of reason to believe this team won't be in cup contention in 4 years, they're starting from a base of the worst team in the history of the salary cap, that kind of scorched earth turnaround doesn't happen in just a few years, the Oilers already had 3 straight 1st overall picks BEFORE the best prospect since Crosby fell into their lap and they didn't make it to the 3rd round until his 7th season
 
  • Like
Reactions: coooldude

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
16,433
5,795
Several problems with locking in 21 year olds to 7 year deals:

1. One injury and you are screwed. True for all long term deals, but sometimes you have to take that risk to keep/land a player. Not a necessary risk to take for a 21 year old.

2. 2-3 years in the NHL is not long enough to properly value a player. You could give huge money and term only to find you overpaid, especially relative to a bridge deal.

3. As you mentioned bridge deals are good cap management for contending. I see no reason why the sharks cannot contend within the next few years. They need to add some more quality vet talent and will need the cap space to do it. The keep that space with smart bridge deals.

4. Lastly, signing a 21 or 22 year old to a 2-3 year bridge takes them to 24 or 25. A subsequent 7 year deal with the team still holding rfa leverage from there takes them to just 31 or 32 year old. While a 7 year deal at 21,22 means they hit ufa at just 28 or 29, still well within prime years and forcing a team to offer another 7 years at UFA market rates to keep them. Those are the deals that can hurt as they expire at 35/36/37 years old.

Look at Edmonton with draisaitl. Had to overpay and over term to keep him or risk losing him at just 29. 14m until age 37!!! Same problem coming for McDavid.

The best contract progression for a centerpiece is:

1. Age 18-21/22: elc
2 age 21/22-24/25: 3 year bridge at 1/2 UFA value. (A player like draisaitl or McDavid woulda been in the 6-7m range for 2-3 years)
3. 24/25-31/32: 7 year at slight discount to ufa.

Then at 31/32, you can asses whether to resign or let walk.
These are all salient points.

But:

1) The Sharks's hand might get forced
2) To win big you have to risk big. Giving a player a 7-year deal at 21/22 means you might have them at a real steal between ages 25-29ish.
 

67 others

Registered User
Jul 30, 2010
2,907
2,062
Moose country
Being alone or not in your thoughts doesn't change whether they were accurate or not. There are numerous 1st round picks that struggle to break out as Bernier and Michalek both showed. They played with an impact center that helped them. The fact you cannot even give the one veteran between them any credit for helping them as young players says everything about your place on this as it relates to your bias.
I'm tired of this circular argument so keep arguing to your hearts content. Im done after this post. Marleau was a complimentary player, not an impact player, at the time, numbers inflated by playing on a franchise player's pp. As his 7 years prior to Thornton arriving show. A 20-28 goal, 45-57 point player. A poor teams 1st line C, but very good 2nd line C

He got better with time and eventually became Mike Gartner lite. Never special or among league best. But solid and dependable.

But at the time, he was paid more than he had earned, and I felt, like most did, his caphit was too high when I saw the caphit and wished he took a discount like Jumbo did. His comparable was price range Tanguay

If that bothers you, then so be it lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Star Platinum

gaucholoco3

Registered User
Jun 22, 2015
1,320
1,666
I disagree and feel like for star players the 8 yr extension after ELC is the best option.
1. One injury and you are screwed. True for all long term deals, but sometimes you have to take that risk to keep/land a player. Not a necessary risk to take for a 21 year old.
LTIR limits the downside of injuries. Also for sub 26 the buyout is only 1/3 so if structured without bonuses and front loaded as much as possible the buyout can mitigate a lot of the risk.

2. 2-3 years in the NHL is not long enough to properly value a player. You could give huge money and term only to find you overpaid, especially relative to a bridge deal.
While this is true for a lot of prospects but the Star players usually only need 2-3 years to identify they are a star. Also regarding risk the 1/3 buyout limits that risk.

3. As you mentioned bridge deals are good cap management for contending. I see no reason why the sharks cannot contend within the next few years. They need to add some more quality vet talent and will need the cap space to do it. The keep that space with smart bridge deals.

Bridge deals should be a last resort for star players. Just look at the high profile RFA’s that were bridged and how difficult those negotiations are. Also the Sharks have virtually unlimited cap space for the Eklund, Smith, and Celebrini extensions. They don’t need the extra cap space that bridge deals provide. Maybe in 2028 they will start needing to bridge some guys but if they limit dead cap they should be able to extend the players they want to.

4. Lastly, signing a 21 or 22 year old to a 2-3 year bridge takes them to 24 or 25. A subsequent 7 year deal with the team still holding rfa leverage from there takes them to just 31 or 32 year old. While a 7 year deal at 21,22 means they hit ufa at just 28 or 29, still well within prime years and forcing a team to offer another 7 years at UFA market rates to keep them. Those are the deals that can hurt as they expire at 35/36/37 years old.

First off it is 8 year extensions. If you sign a 21 or 22 year old to an 8 year extension you basically lock in 11 years of a star under team control. Yes they hit UFA at 29 or 30 which at that point the decision can be made on how long of term to give but that is better then trying to negotiate with a 32 year old star. Signing a 29 or 30 year old to an 8 year contract would hurt but it would come after 11 years of a discounted price.

Look at Edmonton with draisaitl. Had to overpay and over term to keep him or risk losing him at just 29. 14m until age 37!!! Same problem coming for McDavid.

The best contract progression for a centerpiece is:

1. Age 18-21/22: elc
2 age 21/22-24/25: 3 year bridge at 1/2 UFA value. (A player like draisaitl or McDavid woulda been in the 6-7m range for 2-3 years)
3. 24/25-31/32: 7 year at slight discount to ufa.

Then at 31/32, you can asses whether to resign or let walk.

McDavid would have made $10 million on a bridge deal easy not 6 or 7. The Oilers had McDavid and Draisaitl on discounted deals for the past 4 seasons and missed their chance at a cup.

Basically with the 8 year extension after a ELC it gives the team an 11 year window to win a cup. So that 11 year window for the Sharks starts this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vortexy

hohosaregood

Banned
Sep 1, 2011
32,676
13,155
Several problems with locking in 21 year olds to 7 year deals:

1. One injury and you are screwed. True for all long term deals, but sometimes you have to take that risk to keep/land a player. Not a necessary risk to take for a 21 year old.

2. 2-3 years in the NHL is not long enough to properly value a player. You could give huge money and term only to find you overpaid, especially relative to a bridge deal.

3. As you mentioned bridge deals are good cap management for contending. I see no reason why the sharks cannot contend within the next few years. They need to add some more quality vet talent and will need the cap space to do it. The keep that space with smart bridge deals.

4. Lastly, signing a 21 or 22 year old to a 2-3 year bridge takes them to 24 or 25. A subsequent 7 year deal with the team still holding rfa leverage from there takes them to just 31 or 32 year old. While a 7 year deal at 21,22 means they hit ufa at just 28 or 29, still well within prime years and forcing a team to offer another 7 years at UFA market rates to keep them. Those are the deals that can hurt as they expire at 35/36/37 years old.

Look at Edmonton with draisaitl. Had to overpay and over term to keep him or risk losing him at just 29. 14m until age 37!!! Same problem coming for McDavid.

The best contract progression for a centerpiece is:

1. Age 18-21/22: elc
2 age 21/22-24/25: 3 year bridge at 1/2 UFA value. (A player like draisaitl or McDavid woulda been in the 6-7m range for 2-3 years)
3. 24/25-31/32: 7 year at slight discount to ufa.

Then at 31/32, you can asses whether to resign or let walk.
You're better off doing it now rather than later. There's a better chance they bounce back if they have a down year, you're more likely to recoup value on a moderately overpaid 26 yo than an older version of them, and if they really fall off early, the buyout is much more affordable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: weastern bias

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,235
7,505
Bridge deals are completely idiotic. You're just walking the guy to pre-agency. When the contract expires the player will have arbitration rights and can force a 1-year arb award or just accept his QO to walk straight into unrestricted free agency. This gives the player tremendous leverage to either squeeze every last cent out of the team or demand a trade.
 

sampler

Registered User
Aug 3, 2018
515
465
You're better off doing it now rather than later. There's a better chance they bounce back if they have a down year, you're more likely to recoup value on a moderately overpaid 26 yo than an older version of them, and if they really fall off early, the buyout is much more affordable.
I appreciate your thoughts and your points are well taken and the same for Gaucholoco 3. At the end of the day, I suppose it doesn't make THAT much of a difference. Long term deals like the 8 year lock in does give an assurance of the 18-29 year ages of having that player. it also gives cost assurance for teams for manage the cap as they dont have to wonder how much it will cost to keep a player. They also have the potential upside of the player "outplaying" their contract and thus providing great value.

I guess my counter points would be centered around the general downside to all 8 year deals:

1. Buyouts suck. They should be avoided at all costs if possible. The longer the term, the more costly the buyout, even for a younger player.
2. Performance decline risk: The longer the term, the more the risk of a player not playing up to the value of the contract. This tends to be more common for older players, but its also not that uncommon for younger guys too.
3. Character risk: if you give a long term deal to a guy who turns out to be bad in the locker room, it can really hurt (see Evander Kane)
4. Loss of leverage: The RFA rules are big advantage to the team. Signing an 8 year deal out of ELC does get 3-4 years of UFA value, but it also gives up all leverage for future signings.
5. Cap risk: one of the reasons the sharks suck is COVID. When making long term deals, you take into consideration expected cap increases, but if the cap doesnt go up as expected, you can be saddled with a bad contract.

A bridge deal allows you to collect data on the player and more accurately assess them, take less risk on injury, maintain RFA leverage for an 8 year deal from age 24-31, keep the player for 13 years instead of 11, get a nice discount for 2-3 years compared to an 8 year deal... Also, players on bridge deals are extra incentivized to do well as they will have THE big contract coming up next. a 21 year old who signs an 8 year deal has less potential motivation.

All in all, its likely not all that big of a deal either way. I suppose it depends on where the sharks are in two years when eklund's elc expires. If they seem ready to contend already, then I would prefer a bridge that allows Grier to spend well on solid vets. If they are still in the basement, then I suppose longer term at higher $ is OK.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad