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/

Lebanezer

I'unno? Coast Guard?
Jul 24, 2006
15,289
11,671
San Jose
Is there that much of a distinction with Eklund now? We’ve seen Eklund in 97 games over three seasons with only one real one. We know he’s a core piece as a winger. Identifying it early and committing wisely is how we keep the cap to the team’s competitive advantage.
It’s a complicated balancing act and is Eklund even a core piece yet? Best case scenario is Celebrini, Smith, 3rd forward, Dickinson/Other D (1st ‘25?), Askarov. Eklund can be a great complimentary winger, but not necessarily a core piece. Especially considering he’s battling with Musty for that 3rd core forward spot and Musty has a distinct size advantage, which is more important given that neither Celebrini nor smith are particularly tall. Using Tampa as an example, the core was Stamkos, Point, Kucherov, Hedman and Vasilevskiy. The complimentary players like McDonagh, Sergachev, Killorn, Gourde and Palat were important but paid a more market friendly amount and inevitably not retained. To be fair though, they were moved after winning cups, so if they give Eklund 7 I won’t be upset.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
17,127
19,501
Vegass
It’s a complicated balancing act and is Eklund even a core piece yet? Best case scenario is Celebrini, Smith, 3rd forward, Dickinson/Other D (1st ‘25?), Askarov. Eklund can be a great complimentary winger, but not necessarily a core piece. Especially considering he’s battling with Musty for that 3rd core forward spot and Musty has a distinct size advantage, which is more important given that neither Celebrini nor smith are particularly tall. Using Tampa as an example, the core was Stamkos, Point, Kucherov, Hedman and Vasilevskiy. The complimentary players like McDonagh, Sergachev, Killorn, Gourde and Palat were important but paid a more market friendly amount and inevitably not retained. To be fair though, they were moved after winning cups, so if they give Eklund 7 I won’t be upset.
As of now Eklund is the ONLY core player on the entire team that’s proven he can play in the NHL.
 

weastern bias

worst team in the league
Feb 3, 2012
11,183
7,460
SJ
If Eklund breaks out and scores over 60 points this year he's going to get between $7M and $8M on a long term 7 or 8 year extention

The market has spoken, promising young talents coming off their ELC get overpays in the hope it is a steal later in the contract, Jake Sanderson got $8.05Mx8Y after playing a single season of 77 games, if you belive in the player you take the risk on the big deal, if it doesn't work out you weren't gonna win anything anyway so you reset and move on with the next young player to emerge afterwards
 

Juxtaposer

Outro: Divina Comedia
Dec 21, 2009
49,426
21,960
Bay Area
If Eklund breaks out and scores over 60 points this year he's going to get between $7M and $8M on a long term 7 or 8 year extention

The market has spoken, promising young talents coming off their ELC get overpays in the hope it is a steal later in the contract, Jake Sanderson got $8.05Mx8Y after playing a single season of 77 games, if you belive in the player you take the risk on the big deal, if it doesn't work out you weren't gonna win anything anyway so you reset and move on with the next young player to emerge afterwards
If Eklund breaks out and scores 60 points this season, then I'm perfectly happy to give him $7M long-term.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
17,127
19,501
Vegass
If Eklund breaks out and scores 60 points this season, then I'm perfectly happy to give him $7M long-term.
Frankly, I'd be disappointed if he didn't. He was on a 68 point pace last year in March and April once there was chemistry formed with the Lunds. It's not as if he was doing most of his damage on the PP either so the worry he'll lose time on PP1 shouldn't affect his totals.

If Eklund breaks out and scores over 60 points this year he's going to get between $7M and $8M on a long term 7 or 8 year extention

The market has spoken, promising young talents coming off their ELC get overpays in the hope it is a steal later in the contract, Jake Sanderson got $8.05Mx8Y after playing a single season of 77 games, if you belive in the player you take the risk on the big deal, if it doesn't work out you weren't gonna win anything anyway so you reset and move on with the next young player to emerge afterwards
I think a lot of people forget that the cap was essentially frozen for a few years and now that it's going up pretty substantially for the next few years so too will salaries.
 

Jargon

Registered User
Apr 12, 2011
6,128
10,828
Venice, California
I have high hopes for Eklund. My production at the top of last season was that Eklund would have a steep improvement in the latter half of the season — I think he’s a little robot that processes the game at a high level and adds skills to constantly get better. I predict he’ll hit 60 this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,166
14,796
Folsom
It’s a complicated balancing act and is Eklund even a core piece yet? Best case scenario is Celebrini, Smith, 3rd forward, Dickinson/Other D (1st ‘25?), Askarov. Eklund can be a great complimentary winger, but not necessarily a core piece. Especially considering he’s battling with Musty for that 3rd core forward spot and Musty has a distinct size advantage, which is more important given that neither Celebrini nor smith are particularly tall. Using Tampa as an example, the core was Stamkos, Point, Kucherov, Hedman and Vasilevskiy. The complimentary players like McDonagh, Sergachev, Killorn, Gourde and Palat were important but paid a more market friendly amount and inevitably not retained. To be fair though, they were moved after winning cups, so if they give Eklund 7 I won’t be upset.
Even if Eklund isn’t a core piece, it still makes cap sense to commit. Plenty of wingers that aren’t core to their team make around 8 mil and that number is going to go up as the cap goes up. The way you stay ahead of it is to throw long contracts that keep wingers for cheaper in their prime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mogambomoroo

STL Shark

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
4,378
5,406
So you wouldn't draft Matthew Schaefer with our 1st round pick just because he's a left shot? After all, that would be parting with a 1st rounder to fill a position "that might already be sufficiently filled internally" (which is just another way of saying the position is not currently filled and might never be).

I like Shak and Dickinson as prospects. The key words being "as prospects." They've played 3 combined NHL games. For all we know neither guy will even be able to hack it in a third pairing role. Hopefully not, but the fact is we have zero evidence that either one can play in the NHL let alone at a high enough level to warrant consideration when making moves to improve the team.

We need quality defensemen, period, and it's always going to be easier to find quality left-handed defensemen than right-handed defensemen given the disparity between how many LHD vs. RHD play in the league.
Wouldn't be having to pay Schaefer $8M+ the day that we acquire him, so I don't see the situations all that similarly because of that and the massive age gap. Schaefer also profiles as a guy that could be a #1, while Miller, Harley, and Byram all look much more like 2/3's. Can put them on a top pairing with a super high end partner and they keep up nicely, but unlikely to be able to be the best D-Man on a top pairing.

That sounds too similar to what Muk/Dickinson profile to be to me to be willing to give the haul of assets needed to acquire one of them at this stage of the rebuild. If you're moving valuable assets right now, it should be to get something that you don't have as opposed to something that you project to have. If Muk/Dickinson flop, then go and get the next version of Miller, Harley, Byram in 3 years when we're actually ready to compete.
 

JotAlan

Registered User
Apr 21, 2020
411
212
If at the end of the ELC Celly-Smitty reaches the expected level, what would their contracts be like? Something around 11/10 million for 8 years respectively?
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,166
14,796
Folsom
If at the end of the ELC Celly-Smitty reaches the expected level, what would their contracts be like? Something around 11/10 million for 8 years respectively?
I'm not sure what the expected level is for Smith but Celebrini will probably break that 10 mil mark by then. Smith probably has a wider range of possible results but he's probably around 8 mil as a Couture-like replacement.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
17,127
19,501
Vegass
If at the end of the ELC Celly-Smitty reaches the expected level, what would their contracts be like? Something around 11/10 million for 8 years respectively?
Realistically? I’d say about 12 for smith, 14 for Celebrini. Sounds like a lot but the cap will probably be closer to 98-100 million by then, Connor McDavid will have reset the market at 16-17 and who knows what Bedard will be earning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JotAlan

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
16,464
5,838
If at the end of the ELC Celly-Smitty reaches the expected level, what would their contracts be like? Something around 11/10 million for 8 years respectively?

Realistically? I’d say about 12 for smith, 14 for Celebrini. Sounds like a lot but the cap will probably be closer to 98-100 million by then, Connor McDavid will have reset the market at 16-17 and who knows what Bedard will be earning.
If they are worth that amount then that's a great situation to be in!
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
17,127
19,501
Vegass
If they are worth that amount then that's a great situation to be in!
I agree. I think a lot of people have a hard time realizing that because the cap was frozen salaries more or less remained in the same range for the production, but now that the cap is rising almost 4-5 mil a year for the next few, so will AAVs. The idea of a player on an 8million dollar hit now isn't as backbreaking or excessive as it was even as recently as a couple years back. If Bedard breaks 90-100 points in the next couple seasons (which I don't think would be a huge shock), the hawks will have no problems foregoing a bridge deal and pay him as one of the top 5 highest paid players in the league already. And with Leon and Matthews already over 13.5 and McDavid needing a contract as soon as next year, by the time the next generation of elite are able to they'll get paid what we'll initially declare as an absurd amount but ultimately will just be new benchmarks.
 

JotAlan

Registered User
Apr 21, 2020
411
212
I'm not sure what the expected level is for Smith but Celebrini will probably break that 10 mil mark by then. Smith probably has a wider range of possible results but he's probably around 8 mil as a Couture-like replacement.

I think 8 million for Smitty is too little considering that most are in the 7 million range for Eklund and in 3 years the cap will increase a lot. 10 for Celebrini will also seem too little to me, when the best in the league will be at least in the 12+ range.
 

gaucholoco3

Registered User
Jun 22, 2015
1,334
1,690
I think 8 million for Smitty is too little considering that most are in the 7 million range for Eklund and in 3 years the cap will increase a lot. 10 for Celebrini will also seem too little to me, when the best in the league will be at least in the 12+ range.
I think what Bedard signs for will help provide a baseline for Macklin.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,166
14,796
Folsom
I think 8 million for Smitty is too little considering that most are in the 7 million range for Eklund and in 3 years the cap will increase a lot. 10 for Celebrini will also seem too little to me, when the best in the league will be at least in the 12+ range.
Possibly. It depends on what their comparables are and what the cap projections look like. I would be looking to give them eight years after their 2nd year of their ELC's. But with a rising cap and likely expansion, the figures could inflate from that figure. Right now, there are only three players in the 12+ range. The closest comparable to Celebrini in this context is McDavid who had a 30-70-100 season when he signed that contract. That put him at about 15.7% of the cap when the extension kicked in. If Celebrini is to make in that range, that's what he'll need to do in year two. I have high hopes for Celebrini but I don't think his production will skyrocket to that degree that early. Smith is a whole different animal because his situation likely includes a lot more variables that will impact his cap hit than Celebrini. It's possible his numbers get him into the 10 mil range if the cap goes up enough and he produces well enough but he has to put up for that and we don't know what he's actually capable of and even promising players sometimes take a while to put up big numbers. We'll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JotAlan

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
17,127
19,501
Vegass
Possibly. It depends on what their comparables are and what the cap projections look like. I would be looking to give them eight years after their 2nd year of their ELC's. But with a rising cap and likely expansion, the figures could inflate from that figure. Right now, there are only three players in the 12+ range. The closest comparable to Celebrini in this context is McDavid who had a 30-70-100 season when he signed that contract. That put him at about 15.7% of the cap when the extension kicked in. If Celebrini is to make in that range, that's what he'll need to do in year two. I have high hopes for Celebrini but I don't think his production will skyrocket to that degree that early. Smith is a whole different animal because his situation likely includes a lot more variables that will impact his cap hit than Celebrini. It's possible his numbers get him into the 10 mil range if the cap goes up enough and he produces well enough but he has to put up for that and we don't know what he's actually capable of and even promising players sometimes take a while to put up big numbers. We'll see.
If he does all that and the cap continues to rise by 4 mil approx. then 15.7 of 96 would be just a little of 16 per.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,166
14,796
Folsom
If he does all that and the cap continues to rise by 4 mil approx. then 15.7 of 96 would be just a little of 16 per.
Yeah, it's just a shade over 15 mil and people may want to start wrapping their brains around that one now considering how people reacted to Karlsson's 11.5 mil contract extension that was pretty well in line with the market due to the consistent cap rises that were happening. 15 mil for Celebrini after his ELC is not out of the question.
 

JoeThorntonsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,409
25,548
Fremont, CA
The most reasonable assessment of Celebrini seems to be that he is an Eichel-level prospect and a reasonable forecast could see him doing about as well as Eichel did in his first 2 seasons. Eichel got an 8-year extension at 12.58% of the cap. That should be right around $12M/Y based on reasonable cap growth.

If Celebrini is earning $15M on his second contract, then he’s a borderline generational talent, second only to McDavid and perhaps Bedard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JotAlan

JotAlan

Registered User
Apr 21, 2020
411
212
The most reasonable assessment of Celebrini seems to be that he is an Eichel-level prospect and a reasonable forecast could see him doing about as well as Eichel did in his first 2 seasons. Eichel got an 8-year extension at 12.58% of the cap. That should be right around $12M/Y based on reasonable cap growth.

If Celebrini is earning $15M on his second contract, then he’s a borderline generational talent, second only to McDavid and perhaps Bedard.

It's more or less how I think. I put Celebrini at around 11 million, but I think he's in the 11 to 13 range. More than that, I think he'd be in Bedard territory and I don't think he'll reach it. In Smith's case, I mentioned 10 because he has a very high potential, but depending on the GM's confidence in his potential and how much he can blossom in these 3 years, I can see him around 9 to 12 million, because in my view, Will's potential may take longer to be reached and by the time his second contract comes around, he still hasn't reached where he's expected to be, which could make him sign for 9 and in the long run be a bargain.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad