Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[Eklund72]

Im starting to warm up to the idea of trading for Dobson if we don’t land Schaefer. I like Byram and Nemec but Dobson has proven more and he would change this team immensely. We would have to pay a high price but it could really get us out of the basement. Him being 25 is also ideal.

I’m not sure it would get it done, but I’d offer Musty, Mukhamadullin/Bystedt, DAL 1st and COL 2nd (2026).

A core of:

Eklund-Celebrini-XXXXX
Misa-Smith-Chernyshov
XXXXX-XXXXX-Zetterlund
XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX

Dickinson-Dobson
Mukhamadullin-XXXXX
Cagnoni-XXXXX

Askarov

 

[gaucholoco3]

I also think it is important to try and be aggressive in FA since the Sharks have near unlimited cap space and there is no guarantee they can sign a big FA when they are “ready”. If a solid top 4 RD is willing to sign at slightly above market rate then sign the player. Same thing for an established top 6 FW.

It helps the team improve next season which is a stated goal of nearly everyone here.

Signing players in FA is getting a free asset and only costing cap space. If they can sign Marner then it is much easier to justify including Eklund in a Dobson trade.

Grier can hand out 3 $10 million AAV contracts in FA and still have a ton of space for all of the upcoming extensions.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

I would largely advocate for the inverse of this idea. What we have an abundance of right now is cap space. Especially with the cap going up considerably in the next few years, we have the ability to commit cap space to players that can fill the role of stopgap for several years until we have a better idea of what our prospects are going to be. Additionally, these contracts should be relatively easy to trade off in the future under a higher cap, allowing us to fill holes in the roster, as well as accumulate more draft capital. And while we certainly have a much better prospect pool than we did a couple of years ago, I wouldn't necessarily say we have an abundance. The only trades I would really advocate for are ones that either involve easily replaceable depth (two nickels for a dime), or trading from positions of relative strength for those of weakness (forwards for defenseman) that fill long-term needs.

I'm in agreement with you in regards to Gavrikov. He's the only UFA LD that I view as fulfilling an immediate team need, as well as several years into the future. I would be more than happy with presenting his agent with a five or six year offer, to see if it would be of interest to him.

I also think it is important to try and be aggressive in FA since the Sharks have near unlimited cap space and there is no guarantee they can sign a big FA when they are “ready”. If a solid top 4 RD is willing to sign at slightly above market rate then sign the player. Same thing for an established top 6 FW.

It helps the team improve next season which is a stated goal of nearly everyone here.

Signing players in FA is getting a free asset and only costing cap space. If they can sign Marner then it is much easier to justify including Eklund in a Dobson trade.

Grier can hand out 3 $10 million AAV contracts in FA and still have a ton of space for all of the upcoming extensions.

The problem is not with the upcoming extensions. The problem is taking the team from mediocre to contender status in 3-4 years when you have those extensions signed and you also have Pionk/Ekblad on your blue line and Bennett in your bottom-6 in their early to mid 30s, stinking up the joint and only halfway through their max term contracts, which have NMCs as well since that's probably the only way we're signing those guys.

Trading bad contracts is always harder than it sounds and often really hurts teams. Toronto lost Seth Jarvis to get rid of one year of Patrick Marleau. Chicago lost Teuvo Teravainen to get rid of one year of Bryan Bickell's contract. We're talking about signing contracts that could very well leave us trying to offload the final 3-4 years at a higher AAV (as a percentage of the cap) than the contracts shed in the deals I just referenced.

I fully support us going absolutely nuts on shorter term deals (e.g. I'd give $10M/2Y to Kovacevic, or $15M/2Y to Gavrikov) but max term commitments stand to bite us in the ass way harder in the long term than they stand to help us in the short term.

 

[Sendhelplease]

I am concerned that this NHL off-season may be remembered similarly to the NBA’s 2016 off-season which had a cap increase similar to the one the NHL is projected for. I don’t want us to end up like the Portland trailblazers who had a young up and coming team and trapped themselves in mediocrity by overpaying average players and justified it by the cap increases.

 

[Hodge]

I am concerned that this NHL off-season may be remembered similarly to the NBA’s 2016 off-season which had a cap increase similar to the one the NHL is projected for. I don’t want us to end up like the Portland trailblazers who had a young up and coming team and trapped themselves in mediocrity by overpaying average players and justified it by the cap increases.

Who's going to be the NHL's Timofei Mozgov? I could see Jakob Chychrun getting a mind boggling deal.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I also think it is important to try and be aggressive in FA since the Sharks have near unlimited cap space and there is no guarantee they can sign a big FA when they are “ready”. If a solid top 4 RD is willing to sign at slightly above market rate then sign the player. Same thing for an established top 6 FW.

It helps the team improve next season which is a stated goal of nearly everyone here.

Signing players in FA is getting a free asset and only costing cap space. If they can sign Marner then it is much easier to justify including Eklund in a Dobson trade.

Grier can hand out 3 $10 million AAV contracts in FA and still have a ton of space for all of the upcoming extensions.

I agree on defense. I'm not sure about the forwards. Some of it is pending how Smith finishes this season and how the draft plays out. We probably will need a 2C in the short term but if Smith eventually gets moved to the middle or we end up drafting Misa, that need lessens. Even if we draft Schaefer, we need lots of improvement on the blue line to be competitive. Even if Schaefer is drafted and Dickinson is ready for the NHL next season, we still need two dependable top four quality partners for them. If we need to make Eklund available to acquire one of those defensemen, we still don't need to invest into someone like Marner that's probably asking for a full 7 years when we have guys like Graf, Musty, Chernyshov, and Halttunen knocking on the door themselves. We don't need to give blank checks to premier free agents just because we have the money now to spend. We still need to spend it wisely and in positions that need filling at an appropriate level because our core forwards will be getting huge chunks of the cap.

 

[Sendhelplease]

Who's going to be the NHL's Timofei Mozgov? I could see Jakob Chychrun getting a mind boggling deal.

I am unsure of Mozgov but I am sorry to say that Sam Bennett seems destined to be the hockey equivalent to Luol Deng.

 

[gaucholoco3]

The problem is not with the upcoming extensions. The problem is taking the team from mediocre to contender status in 3-4 years when you have those extensions signed and you also have Pionk/Ekblad on your blue line and Bennett in your bottom-6 in their early to mid 30s, stinking up the joint and only halfway through their max term contracts, which have NMCs as well since that's probably the only way we're signing those guys.

Trading bad contracts is always harder than it sounds and often really hurts teams. Toronto lost Seth Jarvis to get rid of one year of Patrick Marleau. Chicago lost Teuvo Teravainen to get rid of one year of Bryan Bickell's contract. We're talking about signing contracts that could very well leave us trying to offload the final 3-4 years at a higher AAV (as a percentage of the cap) than the contracts shed in the deals I just referenced.

I fully support us going absolutely nuts on shorter term deals (e.g. I'd give $10M/2Y to Kovacevic, or $15M/2Y to Gavrikov) but max term commitments stand to bite us in the ass way harder in the long term than they stand to help us in the short term.

For many teams I would say yes that is a problem but for the Sharks their cap sheet is as clean as can be in 3-4 years. They have literally $100 million in cap space in 26-27. Every team can afford one or two suboptimal contracts. If Ekblad is your #5 making $8 million and Bennett is your 3C/LW making $9 million it’s not the end of the world.

If this were the Rangers, Chicago or a no tax state then I would be fine waiting since those teams can always sign UFA’s every year. For the Sharks it is likely none of those players will be willing to sign anyway.

If the Sharks can acquire a top 6/top 4 player using only cap space they should do so every time!

 

[ThePlanet]

The problem is not with the upcoming extensions. The problem is taking the team from mediocre to contender status in 3-4 years when you have those extensions signed and you also have Pionk/Ekblad on your blue line and Bennett in your bottom-6 in their early to mid 30s, stinking up the joint and only halfway through their max term contracts, which have NMCs as well since that's probably the only way we're signing those guys.

Trading bad contracts is always harder than it sounds and often really hurts teams. Toronto lost Seth Jarvis to get rid of one year of Patrick Marleau. Chicago lost Teuvo Teravainen to get rid of one year of Bryan Bickell's contract. We're talking about signing contracts that could very well leave us trying to offload the final 3-4 years at a higher AAV (as a percentage of the cap) than the contracts shed in the deals I just referenced.

I fully support us going absolutely nuts on shorter term deals (e.g. I'd give $10M/2Y to Kovacevic, or $15M/2Y to Gavrikov) but max term commitments stand to bite us in the ass way harder in the long term than they stand to help us in the short term.

I think one of the key distinctions that needs to be made here is the fact that both Chicago and Toronto were up against the cap when they signed both of those players. Additionally, in the case of Marleau, the Leafs offered that contract to a 35-year-old, which has a far greater chance of backfiring than giving a contract to somebody still in their late 20's. I'm not saying we go absolutely crazy in handing out contracts left and right, but with as much cap space as we have, we absolutely have the ability to improve our roster without spending assets beyond salary.

 

[Juxtaposer]

While I get not wanting to mess up our nice clean cap sheet by overpaying UFAs, who exactly do we have in our org right now who even needs to get paid? Celebrini, obviously, is going to get an eight-figure AAV right off his ELC, but who else? Smith would have to score a ton to get a huge contract given that he's a zero defensively. You could see if Eklund bites on a $7M x eight year extension this summer, which I have no doubt would age well. Zetterlund, I'd be happy to give $5M x five years. None of the D in our org project to be big point scorers except maybe Cagnoni, and that would only really be if he boomed, which would be beating some pretty long odds. Askarov doesn't seem like a nickel-and-dimer, especially given that Grier showed him some faith by extending him soon as he got in the org. He'd have to perform at an elite level statistically to get a big contract in two years, which would be a great problem to have.

Basically, my point is that I really can't imagine any possible UFA contract (or group of contracts) that the Sharks could ink this summer that would possibly hurt us long-term, unless they did something insane like offer a depth player a seven year contract (which I don't think Grier is stupid enough to do, pointed glance at Lou Lamoriello). Any $6M contract signed this summer is going to look like $4.5M does now in two years time. Any $8M contract signed now will look like $6M. It's just not a concern for me.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Basically, my point is that I really can't imagine any possible UFA contract (or group of contracts) that the Sharks could ink this summer that would possibly hurt us long-term, unless they did something insane like offer a depth player a seven year contract (which I don't think Grier is stupid enough to do, pointed glance at Lou Lamoriello). Any $6M contract signed this summer is going to look like $4.5M does now in two years time. Any $8M contract signed now will look like $6M. It's just not a concern for me.

This is a great point. Also, consider that while some players age poorly, some age very gracefully. It is possible that Ekblad is still a #3-4 defenseman 5-6 years into his contract, which could even be a steal if the cap rises that much...

 

[Jargon]

Grier has very specifically said he didn’t want to sign FAs to very long contracts so I think the far likelier thing is, yeah, he throws a couple of dumb short term amounts at a few guys. If they can make in 2 years with the Sharks what other teams are offering them for 5, they might do it and we start learning how to win/get time to see how the prospects are developing.

 

[Grinner]

We were never a draw for big named FA even when we were long time cup contenders. I can't see us being one now that we sit in the cellar. Thanks to the larger increases in the cap, any team that wishes to spend will be in the market for those same commodities/ players

 

[Star Platinum]

We were never a draw for big named FA even when we were long time cup contenders. I can't see us being one now that we sit in the cellar. Thanks to the larger increases in the cap, any team that wishes to spend will be in the market for those same commodities/ players

Let's not lay Doug Wilson's failures at Grier's feet until he has a reason to own them. Grier already managed to get one free agent nobody expected he could to join a team with zero hope last year. Now they at least have "some" hope and a league full of people that largely view this team as headed in the right direction, even if the short-term results aren't there yet. Reassess in July.

 

[tiburon12]

I fully support us going absolutely nuts on shorter term deals (e.g. I'd give $10M/2Y to Kovacevic, or $15M/2Y to Gavrikov) but max term commitments stand to bite us in the ass way harder in the long term than they stand to help us in the short term.

If this is possible, obviously it's ideal.

But what if it isn't - what if players want term and cash and we are stuck deciding on long term deals for UFA's in their late 20s or not making improvements to the roster, what do we pick?

It's far more likely we end up in that scenario than players taking a short term deal to be on a basement team.

This is all to my concern. Contending teams today will have tons of cap space to add over the next few seasons, enough to add a star player every year - why would a promising UFA even considering signing short term with the sharks over a contender when our short term window doesn't spell playoffs? And further, if in 2 years we are ready to push, why would a UFA then choose us then over a legit contender who is also flush with cap space?

We have to plant our flag somewhere

 

[Juxtaposer]

Grier has very specifically said he didn’t want to sign FAs to very long contracts so I think the far likelier thing is, yeah, he throws a couple of dumb short term amounts at a few guys. If they can make in 2 years with the Sharks what other teams are offering them for 5, they might do it and we start learning how to win/get time to see how the prospects are developing.

He very specifically said that last summer. Doesn't mean it'll be the same situation this summer.

If this is possible, obviously it's ideal.

But what if it isn't - what if players want term and cash and we are stuck deciding on long term deals for UFA's in their late 20s or not making improvements to the roster, what do we pick?

I wonder if you could convince a 27-28 year old that if they take a high AAV three year contract now, they're setting themselves up to get a HUGE final career contract in three years when the cap is much higher. Probably most of them will be risk-adverse and choose security, but with the right amount of creativity and persuasion, maybe it's possible.

 

[Jargon]

He very specifically said that last summer. Doesn't mean it'll be the same situation this summer.


I wonder if you could convince a 27-28 year old that if they take a high AAV three year contract now, they're setting themselves up to get a HUGE final career contract in three years when the cap is much higher. Probably most of them will be risk-adverse and choose security, but with the right amount of creativity and persuasion, maybe it's possible.

From Grier’s half season availability:

“I think we’re on track of what we hope to do,” Grier said. “When I say go too fast, it’s you go out and sign three guys for nine million bucks apiece, two of them don’t work out, then you’re on the hook five years from now when we have some young players and we need to pay them, or we’re stuck with some contracts we’re not thrilled about.”

Seems fairly clear to me. I don’t think he’s keen on long-term deals currently, unless it’s for a young player.

 

[WSS11]

This is a great point. Also, consider that while some players age poorly, some age very gracefully. It is possible that Ekblad is still a #3-4 defenseman 5-6 years into his contract, which could even be a steal if the cap rises that much...

Ekblad’s body is beat to hell and is nearing 30. Giving him anything longer than 4 years would be a brutal mistake. We’re one year away from Vlasic’s contract coming off the books. Hopefully Grier doesn’t add another.

 

[Grinner]

Let's not lay Doug Wilson's failures at Grier's feet until he has a reason to own them. Grier already managed to get one free agent nobody expected he could to join a team with zero hope last year. Now they at least have "some" hope and a league full of people that largely view this team as headed in the right direction, even if the short-term results aren't there yet. Reassess in July.

I haven't laid "failures " to sign bug named FA at anyone's feet. I always believed other factors were involved. Wilson managed to trade for big names and then signed to new deals.
Toffoli?

 

[ThePlanet]

From Grier’s half season availability:

“I think we’re on track of what we hope to do,” Grier said. “When I say go too fast, it’s you go out and sign three guys for nine million bucks apiece, two of them don’t work out, then you’re on the hook five years from now when we have some young players and we need to pay them, or we’re stuck with some contracts we’re not thrilled about.”

Seems fairly clear to me. I don’t think he’s keen on long-term deals currently, unless it’s for a young player.

I don't think anyone here would reasonably expect to add three bigger ticket players through UFA, and I take Grier at face value when he states that he doesn't wish to do so either. With that said, taking the slow and steady approach doesn't preclude us from targeting one or two higher ticket players this off-season in hopes of signing one that GMMG might highly covet. Regardless of that panning out, we're still likely to be looking at complimentary players willing to take shorter term deals with slightly inflated averages, ala Wennberg. As long as we add enough talent to push more depth players into lineup spots that are better suited to their skill set, we should see better results than what we'll have by the end of this season.

 

[gaucholoco3]

He very specifically said that last summer. Doesn't mean it'll be the same situation this summer.


I wonder if you could convince a 27-28 year old that if they take a high AAV three year contract now, they're setting themselves up to get a HUGE final career contract in three years when the cap is much higher. Probably most of them will be risk-adverse and choose security, but with the right amount of creativity and persuasion, maybe it's possible.

That’s why I think Marner is a good candidate for this. He has seen Matthews take shorter deals.

It has also been apparent when looking at when some guys have their contracts expire that 29 is the prime age that agents want players to walk into free agency at. It is young enough that teams won’t completely freak out about age. It also can allow a player to retire at the end at an earlier age as opposed to hanging on at 38 when they can’t play just to collect a paycheck.

From Grier’s half season availability:

“I think we’re on track of what we hope to do,” Grier said. “When I say go too fast, it’s you go out and sign three guys for nine million bucks apiece, two of them don’t work out, then you’re on the hook five years from now when we have some young players and we need to pay them, or we’re stuck with some contracts we’re not thrilled about.”

Seems fairly clear to me. I don’t think he’s keen on long-term deals currently, unless it’s for a young player.

I read that as not to expect multiple big contracts for role players. The top UFAs are all different. Also he just said not to sign 3 big contracts. Two is perfect reasonable.

 

[Juxtaposer]

From Grier’s half season availability:

“I think we’re on track of what we hope to do,” Grier said. “When I say go too fast, it’s you go out and sign three guys for nine million bucks apiece, two of them don’t work out, then you’re on the hook five years from now when we have some young players and we need to pay them, or we’re stuck with some contracts we’re not thrilled about.”

Seems fairly clear to me. I don’t think he’s keen on long-term deals currently, unless it’s for a young player.

I read that more as there being a need to be discerning. Not just to try and throw money at your problem. Not that he wouldn't try and sign a big name UFA to a big contract.

Again, not that this is going to be a problem, we aren't going to sign a big name UFA. I just mean that he should try.

That’s why I think Marner is a good candidate for this. He has seen Matthews take shorter deals.

It has also been apparent when looking at when some guys have their contracts expire that 29 is the prime age that agents want players to walk into free agency at. It is young enough that teams won’t completely freak out about age. It also can allow a player to retire at the end at an earlier age as opposed to hanging on at 38 when they can’t play just to collect a paycheck.

Marner has always been a contract min-maxer, but I kinda feel like the only way he hits UFA is if McDavid is genuinely planning to sign in Toronto as a UFA. We'll see how it goes.

I was actually more thinking of Brock Boeser. Seems like a guy who might look to rebuild his value a little before signing another big contract. He may be Minnesota-bound, but like I said, worth a try.

Gavrikov is another interesting option for sure. He's a lefty who often plays the right side, so I'd be open to giving him some term.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Good gods, NO NO NO on Marner. Haven't the Sharks learned their lesson from Joe Thornton?

 

[Cas]

Good gods, NO NO NO on Marner. Haven't the Sharks learned their lesson from Joe Thornton?

I wasn't aware they were the same person.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

RFA offer sheets to Dobson and Romanov, pay with picks.......

Edited....Nick Perbix Sucks.