Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

[weastern bias]

A 50 point winger on a tank team will not be commanding the same salary as a 50 point top-pair D man on the best team in the league (who also has more goals), this is just more catastrophizing

 

[TheBeard]

A 50 point winger on a tank team will not be commanding the same salary as a 50 point top-pair D man on the best team in the league (who also has more goals), this is just more catastrophizing

You're paying for the age and future production, not necessarily as a reward. Eklund knows he'd ultimately leave money on the table if he signs longterm and his trajectory remains. Chychrun's injury history and the fact the last few years he'll be in his mid-thirties is a concern. If and when Eklund does sign, you're getting (hopefully) 8 years of someone in their prime.

I don't see it as "catasthropizing" so much as this is the reality of where contracts are headed. @Hodge is right. I think few saw Chychrun getting 9 AAV this time last year.

 

[weastern bias]

You're paying for the age and future production, not necessarily as a reward. Eklund knows he'd ultimately leave money on the table if he signs longterm and his trajectory remains. Chychrun's injury history and the fact the last few years he'll be in his mid-thirties is a concern. If and when Eklund does sign, you're getting (hopefully) 8 years of someone in their prime.

I don't see it as "catasthropizing" so much as this is the reality of where contracts are headed. @Hodge is right. I think few saw Chychrun getting 9 AAV this time last year.

Compare him to Dylan Cozens, who signed during a breakout season that is far more productive than anything Eklund has accomplished

He signed for 8.5% of the salary cap at the time of his signing ($7.1M under an $83.5M cap) for 7 years

If Eklund signs for that same figure next season (based on the projected $95.5M cap figure for next season) he'll be making $8.12M

So if he makes money in line with a player of a similar age for a similar term but who has proven far more productive than Eklund and plays a more premium position on a better team he would still be making nearly a million less a year than Chychrun just signed for

 

[TheBeard]

Compare him to Dylan Cozens, who signed during a breakout season that is far more productive than anything Eklund has accomplished

He signed for 8.5% of the salary cap at the time of his signing ($7.1M under an $83.5M cap) for 7 years

If Eklund signs for that same figure next season (based on the projected $95.5M cap figure for next season) he'll be making $8.12M

So if he makes money in line with a player of a similar age for a similar term but who has proven far more productive than Eklund and plays a more premium position on a better team he would still be making nearly a million less a year than Chychrun just signed for

Cozens signed after a season in which he averaged .84 PPG and on a team that blew up offensively (hell, Thompson almost had 100 points). Eklund is averaging .8 while getting shuffled between playing with teenagers and a male model. What's even odder is Cozens did it while averaging far less ice time. The following years when they increased his TOI, his production dwindled.

When Cozens signed the cap was stagnant. The NHL has already announced the projections for the next 5 years, which basically increases the cap 30%

Will he get 9.5? No, but I can see players in his boat signing between 8.5-9 AAV. Think about it, in 28-29, Cozens 7.1 hit will be down to 5.77% of the cap. Down from the aforementioned 8.5. So, let's do the math. If the cap is 113 million in 27-28 (which is expected), 9 million is less than 8% of the cap, which means 9 million will be less than the cap percentage of Cozens 7.1

We're no longer in a time where you simply compare players and production.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Compare him to Dylan Cozens, who signed during a breakout season that is far more productive than anything Eklund has accomplished

He signed for 8.5% of the salary cap at the time of his signing ($7.1M under an $83.5M cap) for 7 years

If Eklund signs for that same figure next season (based on the projected $95.5M cap figure for next season) he'll be making $8.12M

So if he makes money in line with a player of a similar age for a similar term but who has proven far more productive than Eklund and plays a more premium position on a better team he would still be making nearly a million less a year than Chychrun just signed for

If Eklund signs this offseason, he's still playing next year on his ELC so chances are his agent would be looking for a percentage of the 103.5 million cap figure when his extension would begin. Personally, I want to sign Eklund for 8 years now before he improves on his production next season (which he almost certainly will barring injury). Even if it means giving him 8.8 mil for 8 years which would be 8.5% of the 103.5 mil cap figure.

 

[weastern bias]

We're no longer in a time where you simply compare players and production.

Contracts are negotiated primarily based on raw box score numbers, positional value, age-based value and team success

Until we see trends change you absolutely do just compare players and production

 

[TheBeard]

Contracts are negotiated primarily based on raw box score numbers, positional value, age-based value and team success

Until we see trends change you absolutely do just compare players and production

I mean we’re seeing a trend this year based on contracts. Leon, Chychrun. Players want a percentage of the cap. That’s clear.

We’ve also never been in a situation where we know with absolute certainty how much the cap is increasing nor has it ever risen the way it’s expected to over the next handful of years.

 

[coooldude]

I mean we’re seeing a trend this year based on contracts. Leon, Chychrun. Players want a percentage of the cap. That’s clear.

We’ve also never been in a situation where we know with absolute certainty how much the cap is increasing nor has it ever risen the way it’s expected to over the next handful of years.

If there's a demand from Ekky to get 8.5%+ of the cap and using forward projected cap numbers, therefore his asking price is in the $9's or something, plus term, maybe we'll see a 3 year bridge deal for less than that or we'll see him moved in a package for a bigger W or more likely a D.

 

[weastern bias]

If William Eklund is demanding 9%+ of the cap without a sizable improvement in his boxscore production next year then he is going to be traded

You can't pay complimentary players like they're stars, not when you have a tentpole player like Celebrini with a contract looming, he is going to demand a massive payday in 2 seasons and if you overspend on supplemental pieces before the foundation is even laid then you will run out of cap space in a hurry

As much as people say "the cap is going up, it's okay to spend", the cap going up also means that every tier of salary will be similarly inflated, the cap increases only provided a benefit to teams with players on long term cost-controlled deals, the Sharks don't have anyone locked up yet so they still need to be really careful when deciding which players they are going to commit big money to for the long term

 

[vortexx]

Athletic Hockey Show podcast debated which bottom-10 team has the best path to a Stanley Cup in the next decade, Sharks were very highly regarded

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If William Eklund is demanding 9%+ of the cap without a sizable improvement in his boxscore production next year then he is going to be traded

You can't pay complimentary players like they're stars, not when you have a tentpole player like Celebrini with a contract looming, he is going to demand a massive payday in 2 seasons and if you overspend on supplemental pieces before the foundation is even laid then you will run out of cap space in a hurry

As much as people say "the cap is going up, it's okay to spend", the cap going up also means that every tier of salary will be similarly inflated, the cap increases only provided a benefit to teams with players on long term cost-controlled deals, the Sharks don't have anyone locked up yet so they still need to be really careful when deciding which players they are going to commit big money to for the long term

Chances are that if he's demanding 9% now to sign his extension, he's going to get traded before we see any results. There's no good reason to not resolve Eklund's status this offseason even with his final ELC year to come. If the team is not willing to sign him long term or his camp is not willing to sign long term, then he should be put on the trading block. You could wait him out until the trade deadline and rent him out at that point but the value shouldn't change all that much from June/July to next March since he's still on the ELC and probably getting a huge deal to follow.

I don't think Eklund's status will at all influence Celebrini's. We have next to nothing committed for when Celebrini's new contract would be needed and he's not getting anything more than 18 mil. We are plenty prepared for that with nobody other than Askarov, Eklund, and Smith needing significant money. We can afford to risk an Eklund contract at this time.

 

[TheBeard]

If there's a demand from Ekky to get 8.5%+ of the cap and using forward projected cap numbers, therefore his asking price is in the $9's or something, plus term, maybe we'll see a 3 year bridge deal for less than that or we'll see him moved in a package for a bigger W or more likely a D.

A bridge deal would be bad for the sharks simply because 8.5 percent now will be closer to 6.5 percent in three years. The whole point of locking him up long term now is to slightly overpay in the short term to get a bargain 5 years down the road. The only requirement is Eklund maintain his trajectory. A bridge deal now would mean if he becomes what we hope he will be, 8.5 percent of 115 million is close to 10 AAV.

 

[coooldude]

A bridge deal would be bad for the sharks simply because 8.5 percent now will be closer to 6.5 percent in three years. The whole point of locking him up long term now is to slightly overpay in the short term to get a bargain 5 years down the road. The only requirement is Eklund maintain his trajectory. A bridge deal now would mean if he becomes what we hope he will be, 8.5 percent of 115 million is close to 10 AAV.

I don't want to get bogged down in the details, my point (and weastern bias's) is that Eklund is not yet such an obvious core piece of a cup winner that he's guaranteed big term and AAV "betting on what he could become." If that's what he's asking to be paid as, he will likely not be paid as that, and instead will be traded, or there will be a bridge deal which allows him to "bet on himself" and allows the team to bet that he'll be about where they thought he'd be in 3 years.

 

[TheBeard]

If William Eklund is demanding 9%+ of the cap without a sizable improvement in his boxscore production next year then he is going to be traded

You can't pay complimentary players like they're stars, not when you have a tentpole player like Celebrini with a contract looming, he is going to demand a massive payday in 2 seasons and if you overspend on supplemental pieces before the foundation is even laid then you will run out of cap space in a hurry

As much as people say "the cap is going up, it's okay to spend", the cap going up also means that every tier of salary will be similarly inflated, the cap increases only provided a benefit to teams with players on long term cost-controlled deals, the Sharks don't have anyone locked up yet so they still need to be really careful when deciding which players they are going to commit big money to for the long term

But this is not just a case of “cap is going up”. It’s going up substantially so why would any player take current market value knowing for a fact that provided they’re still productive they’re going to be drastically underpaid sooner rather than later?

I don’t mind paying Eklund 8.5 percent now because when we need the actual cap space to sign the core guys 8.5 will be closer to 7.5-8%.

If Eklund took an AAV of 8.5, it would be close to 9% of next year’s 95 million dollar cap ceiling. That same 8.5 would be closer to 7.25% in three years time when it’s expected to be close to 115. If Ek continues his trajectory (on pace for 66 points which is a significant jump from last year’s 45), would you not want him at 7.25% of the cap?

 

[TheBeard]

I don't want to get bogged down in the details, my point (and weastern bias's) is that Eklund is not yet such an obvious core piece of a cup winner that he's guaranteed big term and AAV "betting on what he could become." If that's what he's asking to be paid as, he will likely not be paid as that, and instead will be traded, or there will be a bridge deal which allows him to "bet on himself" and allows the team to bet that he'll be about where they thought he'd be in 3 years.

Again, a bridge deal means we have to pay him the same time we’re paying everyone else, and his asking price will be higher. Good GMs take risks in locking up young pieces before they price themselves out.

It’s wild that a couple years back Eklund was a core piece. Continuing to kick the can because Grier isn’t ready to commit to any player is how we remain in purgatory. The team literally has every other core piece (for now) cost controlled for years.

 

[coooldude]

Again, a bridge deal means we have to pay him the same time we’re paying everyone else, and his asking price will be higher. Good GMs take risks in locking up young pieces before they price themselves out.

It’s wild that a couple years back Eklund was a core piece. Continuing to kick the can because Grier isn’t ready to commit to any player is how we remain in purgatory. The team literally has every other core piece (for now) cost controlled for years.

He doesn't have any leverage in the negotiations, except for an offer sheet. A bridge deal is a "hey, you're not worth $9MM for 8 years, but we'll pay you LESS, not more, for 2-3 years so you're only losing out for those 2-3 years. If you're on trajectory, you'll get the same deal with the same total money as you're currently asking, and maybe even more money if you kick ass." Zegras didn't get paid MORE than a long term high AAV deal on a bridge.

 

[TheBeard]

He doesn't have any leverage in the negotiations, except for an offer sheet. A bridge deal is a "hey, you're not worth $9MM for 8 years, but we'll pay you LESS, not more, for 2-3 years so you're only losing out for those 2-3 years. If you're on trajectory, you'll get the same deal with the same total money as you're currently asking, and maybe even more money if you kick ass." Zegras didn't get paid MORE than a long term high AAV deal on a bridge.

If Grier does not expect Eklund to become a vital core piece then he’s better off trading him. Eklund is not going to ask for less than 10 in three years time provided he’s continuing his rise. The cap will literally be 20% higher. 27 million more. If he agrees to a bridge deal now for less money I can all but guarantee he won’t be shark on his next contract.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

He doesn't have any leverage in the negotiations, except for an offer sheet. A bridge deal is a "hey, you're not worth $9MM for 8 years, but we'll pay you LESS, not more, for 2-3 years so you're only losing out for those 2-3 years. If you're on trajectory, you'll get the same deal with the same total money as you're currently asking, and maybe even more money if you kick ass." Zegras didn't get paid MORE than a long term high AAV deal on a bridge.

A bridge deal for Eklund is only delaying the inevitable. Using the Zegras comparable is not what I want for Eklund. Zegras has been shit since those negotiations and a big reason why the Ducks have stagnated in their rebuild. Even with all the leverage, Grier still needs to pick his fights wisely. And they don't need to be an obvious future core piece of a Cup winner to get the long term contract as Brady Tkachuk is a good example of someone who got the bag and isn't that player. If the team thinks Eklund is a core piece of the team's competitive future, they should pay him now and take the risk while the cap sheet is largely clear and won't impact the other parts that will need big investments like Celebrini, Askarov, and Smith. If they don't, they need to trade him this offseason before they start losing leverage and/or start having it impact his on-ice value. A bridge is a bad idea for Eklund all around.

 

[TheBeard]

A bridge deal for Eklund is only delaying the inevitable. Using the Zegras comparable is not what I want for Eklund. Zegras has been shit since those negotiations and a big reason why the Ducks have stagnated in their rebuild. Even with all the leverage, Grier still needs to pick his fights wisely. And they don't need to be an obvious future core piece of a Cup winner to get the long term contract as Brady Tkachuk is a good example of someone who got the bag and isn't that player. If the team thinks Eklund is a core piece of the team's competitive future, they should pay him now and take the risk while the cap sheet is largely clear and won't impact the other parts that will need big investments like Celebrini, Askarov, and Smith. If they don't, they need to trade him this offseason before they start losing leverage and/or start having it impact his on-ice value. A bridge is a bad idea for Eklund all around.

This is all I'm saying. Either Grier sees him as a part of the future or he doesn't, but if he's still unsure to the point they need a bridge deal to "evaluate" then it makes me question when exactly Grier intends to be competitive again.

 

[mogambomoroo]

I remember those days when I thought 7 mil per year was the limit I would personally want for Eklund, but you guys are right he needs to be locked in this summer because 8.5 could be a bargain in the long run.

 

[gaucholoco3]

Eklund has no leverage and would not get a signed offer sheet above $7 mil which is what the 1st, 2nd, 3rd compensation will be. He is also risking a lot by not locking in an 8 year deal this summer. Guys fall off cliffs all the time or get hurt. He can lock in guaranteed $56 million on an 8 x $7mil contract this summer. Yes maybe he could try and wait and squeeze an extra million per year but why risk it when he can grab the bag get generational wealth guaranteed at such a young age.

The reason all these 8 year deals are happening after ELCs is because they are in the best interest of team and player. It is a win win deal.

My prediction is 8 x $7.2 million for his contract this summer.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Eklund has no leverage and would not get a signed offer sheet above $7 mil which is what the 1st, 2nd, 3rd compensation will be. He is also risking a lot by not locking in an 8 year deal this summer. Guys fall off cliffs all the time or get hurt. He can lock in guaranteed $56 million on an 8 x $7mil contract this summer. Yes maybe he could try and wait and squeeze an extra million per year but why risk it when he can grab the bag get generational wealth guaranteed at such a young age.

The reason all these 8 year deals are happening after ELCs is because they are in the best interest of team and player. It is a win win deal.

My prediction is 8 x $7.2 million for his contract this summer.

Why wouldn't a team offer sheet Eklund at 7 mil? If we're already willing to entertain an 8x7.2 mil, some other team is probably willing to go into that compensation tier too.

 

[TheBeard]

Eklund has no leverage and would not get a signed offer sheet above $7 mil which is what the 1st, 2nd, 3rd compensation will be. He is also risking a lot by not locking in an 8 year deal this summer. Guys fall off cliffs all the time or get hurt. He can lock in guaranteed $56 million on an 8 x $7mil contract this summer. Yes maybe he could try and wait and squeeze an extra million per year but why risk it when he can grab the bag get generational wealth guaranteed at such a young age.

The reason all these 8 year deals are happening after ELCs is because they are in the best interest of team and player. It is a win win deal.

My prediction is 8 x $7.2 million for his contract this summer.

That compensation is actually for as high as 9.16 AAV.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

That compensation is actually for as high as 9.16 AAV.

That and those numbers will increase twice by the time his RFA period would hit. That 9.16 top end will be 10 mil after next season. The low end of that range will probably be 7.6 mil.

 

[gaucholoco3]

Why wouldn't a team offer sheet Eklund at 7 mil? If we're already willing to entertain an 8x7.2 mil, some other team is probably willing to go into that compensation tier too.

A team will not risk the week where their money is tied up when the Sharks have all the cap space in the world to match. Also not many teams actually have their unprotected 1st, 2nd, 3rd picks and would be willing to risk them. Besides the offer sheet wouldn’t be till the 2026 off season.

Teams treat unprotected 1st like gold (see Askarov) and only teams that have already traded picks for rentals would feel comfortable trading away an unprotected 1st.

The offer sheet leverage is in the 2nd round pick compensation. Very few teams will offer sheet players for 1st round pick compensation.

The only reason the St Louis offer sheets worked is because Edmonton was incompetent and had zero cap space.