Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[OrrNumber4]

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)

You'd think the 3 years with the player on an ELC would help you detect this, no?

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.

The real true star players already have all the leverage.

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.

COVID was really a one-off event. It'd be irresponsible to build in contingencies for it.

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.

Ultimately, if you always do the safe thing, you'll be a team that hovers around the top-10. To really become an elite team, risks must be taken.

 

[sampler]

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.

This all depends on the player, doesn't it? Consider the sharks history with bridge deals... Cooch, pavs, hertl, meier... they all did bridge deals. Meier woulda signed with us long term if we didnt suck, but thankfully we didnt have another 3-4 years at big $$$ to pay him during this rebuild.

You are right that after the 2-3 year bridge, the player has arb rights and can far more easily walk in just 1-2 years later. However, at age 24 or 25, if the player is happy, the team is competitive, and the culture is good, then the player will do what cooch, hertl, pavs, jumbo, patty, and would-have-been meier, etc did which is stick around long term.

The bridge gives significant cap savings for 2-3 years, it gives longer to assess the player both on the ice and in the locker room, it gives team longer...

As for demanding a trade, if a player wants out, you want them out too. You want volunteers not hostages. The immediate 8 year deal means either overpaying or losing the player from age 29. The bridge followed by 8 year deal means overpaying or losing the player from age 32. the years 29-32 are usually prime production years.

 

[coooldude]

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

For the same exact reasons, I also think it's premature to worry about too many ELCs or too many top 6/top pair players being ready for the NHL. I'm guessing it would be among the best draft outcomes in history if even half of our top prospects establish themselves at their ceilings and need major deals after their ELC. We have an amazing pipeline but the reality is we will see setbacks, failures, injuries, etc. Let's see how these guys do for a few years before we declare victory and start worrying about cap problems with too many 22 year olds to sign.

 

[Hodge]

This all depends on the player, doesn't it? Consider the sharks history with bridge deals... Cooch, pavs, hertl, meier... they all did bridge deals. Meier woulda signed with us long term if we didnt suck, but thankfully we didnt have another 3-4 years at big $$$ to pay him during this rebuild.

You are right that after the 2-3 year bridge, the player has arb rights and can far more easily walk in just 1-2 years later. However, at age 24 or 25, if the player is happy, the team is competitive, and the culture is good, then the player will do what cooch, hertl, pavs, jumbo, patty, and would-have-been meier, etc did which is stick around long term.

The bridge gives significant cap savings for 2-3 years, it gives longer to assess the player both on the ice and in the locker room, it gives team longer...

As for demanding a trade, if a player wants out, you want them out too. You want volunteers not hostages. The immediate 8 year deal means either overpaying or losing the player from age 29. The bridge followed by 8 year deal means overpaying or losing the player from age 32. the years 29-32 are usually prime production years.

We were forced to bridge Couture and Pavelski because of our other cap commitments at the time. The Hertl and Meier bridge deals were disasters that led to us getting less in return when we traded those players than we otherwise could have if we had just signed them to max term contracts after their ELCs.

Prime production years are 21-24 not 29-32. Consistently letting players walk at 29 is going to work out in favor of the team far more often than not.

 

[sampler]

You'd think the 3 years with the player on an ELC would help you detect this, no?

The real true star players already have all the leverage.

COVID was really a one-off event. It'd be irresponsible to build in contingencies for it.

Ultimately, if you always do the safe thing, you'll be a team that hovers around the top-10. To really become an elite team, risks must be taken.

1. I don't three years of ELC tells you all you need to know. Certainly it tell you alot, but a 21 year old is not set in stone.

2. True star players do not have all the leverage as RFAs. RFA rules are what they are. True star players will be paid more than duds, but they are not as powerful as UFAs. Its basic rules of negotiation: BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement). The player's BATNA is to take an arb decided deal which will be underpaid, and also to somewhat burn their reputation. Players demanding trades looks bad for the player too. As UFA's, the player's alternative is to sign with another team. That is not available to them (other than an offer sheet which would be 3 1sts for a true star).

3. COVID was one off. I agree. But there is always a certain uncertainty around cap increases. The longer the term, the more uncertainty.

4. I am not advocating against all 7-8 year deals. Sometimes, you have to take that risk to assemble a contender. I had no problem with the deals to pickles, cooch, burns, etc when they signed them (between 2017-2019). Even Erik Karlsson. The sharks had just been in the final 4. The cap was rising steadily making those deals more reasonable. No one easily foresaw COVID and then the sharp decline. Those were risks worth taking.

Im sure edmonton knows that draisaitl is unlikely to be worth $14m 8 years from now at age 37 (though 14m in 8 years is likely around 10m in todays cap dollars), but its a risk worth taking for the first half of the contract.

5. The sharks may already have the farm in house to be an elite team in the rather near future. From the best goalie prospect in hockey (arguably), the best forward prospect in hockey (arguably), one of the best D prospects in hockey, and several other top guys, the sharks window is opening very fast. To win, the sharks have to complement the kids with high quality vets. These vets costs $$$. and they could cost risk with term as well. Bridge deals starting 2-4 years from now allow Grier to keep all the kids at 1/2 price while signing quality vets long term. If done right, the sharks should be able to compete very soon...

 

[sampler]

For the same exact reasons, I also think it's premature to worry about too many ELCs or too many top 6/top pair players being ready for the NHL. I'm guessing it would be among the best draft outcomes in history if even half of our top prospects establish themselves at their ceilings and need major deals after their ELC. We have an amazing pipeline but the reality is we will see setbacks, failures, injuries, etc. Let's see how these guys do for a few years before we declare victory and start worrying about cap problems with too many 22 year olds to sign.

wisdom.

Of course it's premature, but that's the fun of it

There are always surprises, both positive and negative. Who saw the emergence of Zetterlund coming at the start of last year after his literally ZERO goals in 22 games with the sharks the previous year?

Who saw granlund, a cap throw in to ditch EK65, leading the team in scoring with 60 points after just 5 pts in 21 games with the high flying pens?

Who saw the complete dinintegration of barabanov with just 13 pts after a 39 and 47 pt seasons the two prior years?

Who saw the sharks nabbing a top 10, potential star D prospect with the pens pick in that EK trade?

Who saw the incredibly emergence of musty on the scene?

Who saw Cooch playing just 6 games, which may be the last 6 games he ever plays?

I could go on and on, but there are indeed always surprises. Nothing will or has to be done anytime soon other than training camp and filling out the NHL roster.

Alot of questions will be answered by New years:

1. Who makes the team form the kids?
2. Are the sharks close to competing or still clearly a bottom feeder?
3. are smith and celly for real just yet, or do they need a few more years of seasoning before becoming true staples of the franchise? or might they be basically busts?
4. All those kids: Who is for real and who isnt?
5. Can warsofsky coach in the NHL?

The list is long, but by new years, we will have a far more clear picture of the future of the franchise seeing how celly and smith do in the NHL, where musty lands and how he does, cags, bystedt, and maybe haltunnen as rookies in the A, Pohlcamp at Denver, Lund, Klee, Svoboda in the NCAA too, LSW and havelid in sweden, Cherny when he returns in saginaw, Wetsch, roberts, and misskey in the CHL, Cardwell, gush, bordy, thomspon and the rest of the cuda "vets" as well as sleepers like robins, laraque, or coe. All these guys are going to be playing nightly and we'll swiftly see who is for real and who falls by the wayside.

So yes, its too early. But thats the whole fun of it!

 

[coooldude]

I had no problem with the deals to pickles, cooch, burns, etc when they signed them (between 2017-2019). Even Erik Karlsson. The sharks had just been in the final 4. The cap was rising steadily making those deals more reasonable. No one easily foresaw COVID and then the sharp decline. Those were risks worth taking.

Boy howdy, that's where I very strongly disagree with you. I think anyone could see the train wreck coming but it was so far in advance that we were willing to mortgage our souls for the chance at a cup as our window closed at the end of Patty/Jumbo's careers... and we never got back to the SCF again anyway. Honestly these contracts were how I started losing hope, because you could just see the problems coming quickly.

The only one of those contracts that I thought might hold up was Burns. And sure as shit, Burns/Karlsson were not good contracts by the time we moved them, and the other two are immovable.

 

[OrrNumber4]

1. I don't three years of ELC tells you all you need to know. Certainly it tell you alot, but a 21 year old is not set in stone.

No, but it is enough to see the real red flags. Bounds of reasons...

2. True star players do not have all the leverage as RFAs. RFA rules are what they are. True star players will be paid more than duds, but they are not as powerful as UFAs. Its basic rules of negotiation: BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement). The player's BATNA is to take an arb decided deal which will be underpaid, and also to somewhat burn their reputation. Players demanding trades looks bad for the player too. As UFA's, the player's alternative is to sign with another team. That is not available to them (other than an offer sheet which would be 3 1sts for a true star).

The big guns like Celebrini and Smith, if all works out, will be the type of player where 3 1sts would be nothing.

The sharks may already have the farm in house to be an elite team in the rather near future. From the best goalie prospect in hockey (arguably), the best forward prospect in hockey (arguably), one of the best D prospects in hockey, and several other top guys, the sharks window is opening very fast. To win, the sharks have to complement the kids with high quality vets. These vets costs $$$. and they could cost risk with term as well. Bridge deals starting 2-4 years from now allow Grier to keep all the kids at 1/2 price while signing quality vets long term. If done right, the sharks should be able to compete very soon...

Optimism is warranted. But with the exception of Celebrini, the Sharks have had similar prospect pools in the past...so the fans should remember how often prospects fail.

You also have to consider that a team can only be so young. If Celebrini, Smith, Askarov, and Dickinson are going to be the tip of the spear, they'll need to be surrounded by veterans like Granlund, Toffoli, and Wennberg. I don't think having a lineup with under a combined 2000 games of NHL experience is a great idea.

 

[weastern bias]

I had no problem with the deals to pickles, cooch, burns, etc when they signed them (between 2017-2019). Even Erik Karlsson.

Boy howdy, that's where I very strongly disagree with you. I think anyone could see the train wreck coming but it was so far in advance that we were willing to mortgage our souls for the chance at a cup as our window closed at the end of Patty/Jumbo's careers... and we never got back to the SCF again anyway. Honestly these contracts were how I started losing hope, because you could just see the problems coming quickly.

The only one of those contracts that I thought might hold up was Burns. And sure as shit, Burns/Karlsson were not good contracts by the time we moved them, and the other two are immovable.

Seriously, all 4 of those were obvious bad deals the moment they were signed, it's probably time to reassess your evaluation, the Burns deal was the only one that looked good even in the moment but everyone knew the back half would be ugly and we ended up trading him with retention on term for little value just because of how bad his contract was

Look at the best value deals in the NHL right now

Makar
J. Hughes
Fox
McDavid
Draisaitl

All of them are long term, big money deals signed immediately coming off the their ELC, if any of those teams bridged they'd just have given out a much bigger payday a few years later and they would have less flexibility in their competitive window and would be stuck overpaying them as they began to decline at the end of the deal

The bridge is dead in the meta, it literally only makes sense if a team that can win the cup right now, like this year, has a stud breaking out on his ELC and they need to suppress his value to keep the team together so they can go for it, Bouchard is in this situation right now, but if Bouchard was on the Sharks it would be much smarter to take the risk and just give him 8 years right now because if he repeats his performance he'll just get paid even more in 2 years and will be past his peak by the end of the actual long term deal

 

[gaucholoco3]

One other reason why 8 year deals are the way to go after an ELC is that it’s also in the best interest of the player. Guaranteeing the most possible money as early as possible is a win for the player and the team as has been discussed already.

 

[TheBeard]

Seriously, all 4 of those were obvious bad deals the moment they were signed, it's probably time to reassess your evaluation, the Burns deal was the only one that looked good even in the moment but everyone knew the back half would be ugly and we ended up trading him with retention on term for little value just because of how bad his contract was

Look at the best value deals in the NHL right now

Makar
J. Hughes
Fox
McDavid
Draisaitl

All of them are long term, big money deals signed immediately coming off the their ELC, if any of those teams bridged they'd just have given out a much bigger payday a few years later and they would have less flexibility in their competitive window and would be stuck overpaying them as they began to decline at the end of the deal

The bridge is dead in the meta, it literally only makes sense if a team that can win the cup right now, like this year, has a stud breaking out on his ELC and they need to suppress his value to keep the team together so they can go for it, Bouchard is in this situation right now, but if Bouchard was on the Sharks it would be much smarter to take the risk and just give him 8 years right now because if he repeats his performance he'll just get paid even more in 2 years and will be past his peak by the end of the actual long term deal

I had no issue with the Burns deal and he's certainly shown he was worth every penny of it.

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.

Also, you'll have a pretty solid idea of what they're capable of by then (I would hope). If they're as good as advertised then I have no problems going another 5-6 beyond.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Feels like it's pretentious to say something so obvious, but to build a championship team you have to take risks. That's the fun; seeing the bets pay off.

I'm guilty as anyone else at panicking at certain moves (Askarov, trading up in the draft) and of course there's little harm in doing so...but there's no way to win a cup always by always making the safe, prudent move.

Regarding contracts and star players I think we overestimate the GM's power. DW could have said "no" to Vlasic/Karlsson/Burns/Couture etc. But he wasn't going to get them for anything less than eight years.

 

[mogambomoroo]

I would agree that you have to lock your star prospects for as long as you can.
8-year deal for both Celebrini and Smith will also build a strong core and clear vision of what the team needs.
Free agents will be more attracted to come, other players young and old would want to stay here and win.

These 3 years will hopefully prove that we can safely sign those players to long contracts. Hopefully Celebrini has the same superstition as Crosby and signs 7.1mil x 8 years (not happening haha)

The thing is that if you get those star players below their market price long term, you automatically have a platform to build in. You will probably get other discounted deals there and have a chance to win.

If there is a core, the other pieces will naturally gather around.

 

[spintops]

Man it sounds like Couture is done. That's a bummer

 

[weastern bias]

I had no issue with the Burns deal and he's certainly shown he was worth every penny of it.

Burns was absolutely worth it in the first 4 years of the deal and absolutely not worth it in the last 4 years of the deal, which was the prevailing thought the day it was signed

This isn't revisionist history, it was pretty obvious when we signed a 32 year old to an 8 year contract that the back half would get ugly and those concerns bore out

I was just saying that between him, Vlasic, Couture and Karlsson his was the only one that WASN'T an overpay on day one, but it still had the problems I've been pointing to in this thread with the big contract after a bridge where you're paying premium dollars at the end when the player is already in decline due to age

 

[weastern bias]

Man it sounds like Couture is done. That's a bummer

Not encouraging, after last year I wasn't expecting to see much of him again but I feel bad for him, you know this is wearing heavy on him

 

[landshark]

Can someone good at player comparisons please measure up Kasper Halttunen to Jonathan Cheechoo?

The more I read about Haltunen the more he screams, "I am super-sized Jonathan Cheechoo!!" But, maybe with a little less heart or a little less of a motor?

 

[sampler]

Burns was absolutely worth it in the first 4 years of the deal and absolutely not worth it in the last 4 years of the deal, which was the prevailing thought the day it was signed

This isn't revisionist history, it was pretty obvious when we signed a 32 year old to an 8 year contract that the back half would get ugly and those concerns bore out

I was just saying that between him, Vlasic, Couture and Karlsson his was the only one that WASN'T an overpay on day one, but it still had the problems I've been pointing to in this thread with the big contract after a bridge where you're paying premium dollars at the end when the player is already in decline due to age

yes. These kind of deals are the only way to keep 30+ year olds, just like the Draisaitl deal.

The key to not getting destroyed by these kind of deals is simple:
1. The cap keeps rising. The biggest mistake people make is judging year 6 by the price in year one. an AAV of 14M in year one is really only the equivalent of 9M in year 5, and 7m in year 8 if the cap keeps rising 3M per year. In short, it means by year 8, the team have over 20M more in cap space and that 14M deal is not nearly the albatross...

2. slow aging. If you sign the deal at 32, and by 34 the guy is completely useless, then it bites. However, if you get 4 good years and 4 weak years, its not that bad.

Older guys should be the drains on your cap, but they also add vet presence, leadership, and experience, something that may not show up in stats, but does in wins. It shows the younger guys how to work hard, how to win, how to be professional. So I don't mind these kind of deals.

For those deals I mentioned, the sharks got very unlucky. The cap didnt rise due to the COVID. Cooch got this weird disease. EK65 got hurt. A bunch of things went wrong for them. At the time of signings (2017-19), the sharks were among the best teams in the league, and the signings were known to be risky in the latter halves, but still have good value through around 2022, long eough to continue to cycle in younger guys...

DW knew that burns,cooch, and pickles would be bad deals around now, but look at the future of the team in 2019:

meier 21, Hertl 24, Lebanc 22, Donskoi 26, Sorensen 26, kane 27, Dillon 27, Goodrow 25, Jones 28, Cooch 29, karlsson 28. Burns was 32, pickles 31.

This was a winning core that had just come within 2 wins of another SCF appearance without marleau and with a nearly finished jumbo. It was transition time to these guys to carry the mantle and it sure looked like they would. In that context, if DW does NOT resign cooch, burns, and pickles, he is gutting the core, losing all vet leadership, and such a move would be strange. And, to keep those guys, especially at reasonable cap hits, required giving term as none would have stayed for a 2 or 3 year deal.

In hindsight, the next year the sharks stunk, covid hit, and all went down the toilet, but how anyone could see that coming after a season inches from the stanley cup final after the most dramatic and exciting playoff series win in decades is beyond me. This is why I don't buy the argument that they were bad deals AT THE TIME. The young core was very much still in place and entering its prime: hertl, meier, lebanc, kane, couture, donskoi.... these were very good players all in their 20s., so it made absolutely ZERO sense to tear the whole thing down by not keeping your leading scorer [burns] and your top line C [cooch] as well as your best shutdown Dman [pickles].

To tear it down and purposely stink in that context is ridiculous.

 

[weastern bias]

The Sharks downfall isn't directly tied to the kind of contracts I'm talking about, our problems were due to contracts that never should have been signed in the first place in Vlasic, Jones, Kane and Karlsson

An 8 year extention for a 30 year old defenseman who never put up points

A 6 year deal for a 27 year old goalie with 2 years of elite starting under his belt

A 7 year deal for a 27 year old winger with 0 history of performing in the playoffs and a long track record of blowing up teams

An 8 year deal at the highest cap hit in the league for a 29 year old defenseman who didn’t want to be here with a surgically repaired lower body

Those were bad deals on day one, not just in hindsight

 

[Pinkfloyd]

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.

The problem with your progression is that once a player gets the contract at stage two, you're giving them the leverage to walk a year after that contract completes through arbitration. And why? If you know a guy is your centerpiece, there's no reason not to commit to them. Centerpiece guys are guys you make room for and not worry about paying 14 mil for if that's what it takes. I'd much rather commit to 8 years to Celebrini after his ELC and have him walk of his own free will at 28 or 29 than bridge him and risk losing him at 25 or 26 through arbitration.

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

Marleau may have been a complimentary player but it doesn't change the fact that he was the anchor to a 2nd line that was flanked by two young 1st round pick wingers that needed him. You're also pointing to pre-lockout numbers when the game fundamentally changed. None of your opinions prevent a player from making the money they did because there was a significant amount of production that came with it and he was a UFA. Again, you're only looking at the cap hit and not taking into account the term when the economic realities of the time and now still show that term is a fundamental aspect of evaluating contract quality. To continue to ignore that as you are is to be caught in your own fee-fees. That's on you, buddy.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I'm genuinely so sad to see Logan go out this way.

 

[STL Shark]

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?

My point is that I'm not willing to part with 1st rounders right now to go fill a position that might already be sufficiently filled internally when we have very glaring holes on the right side of the defense. If we had a Cernak, Shattenkirk, Bogosian group on the right side, then sure go ahead and move some stuff around and go get a guy.

We currently have nothing close to that guy and that should be the focus if you're moving assets and spending money. I don't feel overly inclined to pay a top 10 pick plus more to go and acquire a non-#1 when we have nobody on the right side of the defense right now.

It's not that there is a limit on good players on the left side, it's that there are no good players on the right side and there is a limit on available assets to trade. Right now, those assets should go to addressing the most pressing needs, of which another top 4 but not bonafide #1 LHD is not one of right now. If it was merely cap space, go ahead. It's just going to be so much more than that required to get any of those three players that makes the juice not worth the squeeze given where we're at right now at that position and our competitive window.

 

[TheBeard]

Burns was absolutely worth it in the first 4 years of the deal and absolutely not worth it in the last 4 years of the deal, which was the prevailing thought the day it was signed

This isn't revisionist history, it was pretty obvious when we signed a 32 year old to an 8 year contract that the back half would get ugly and those concerns bore out

I was just saying that between him, Vlasic, Couture and Karlsson his was the only one that WASN'T an overpay on day one, but it still had the problems I've been pointing to in this thread with the big contract after a bridge where you're paying premium dollars at the end when the player is already in decline due to age

He wasn’t worth it for us but he’s been a mainstay on that Carolina blue line since traded there. He was overused on the sharks and at a time we were clearly on the downside, his bloated salary served no purpose. But he’s one of the few players I can think of who will actually play out his 8th year without being an absolute anchor.

 

[weastern bias]

Can someone good at player comparisons please measure up Kasper Haltunen to Jonathan Cheechoo?

The more I read about Haltunen the more he screams, "I am super-sized Jonathan Cheechoo!!" But, maybe with a little less heart or a little less of a motor?

Same jersey number, same player, those are the rules

 

[TheBeard]

and risk losing him at 25 or 26 through arbitration.

If he’s as good as advertised then the only way we risk losing him is he doesn’t want to be here.

Same jersey number, same player, those are the rules

Same number of letters in last name.

Edit: aw crap, he only had one t. There’s 2.