Toggle sidebar

Speculation: 2023-24-25 Sharks Roster Discussion

  • We sincerely apologize for the extended downtime. Our hosting provider, XenForo Cloud, encountered a major issue with their backup system, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of some critical data from the past year.

    What This Means for You:

    • If you created an account after March 2024, it no longer exists. You will need to sign up again to access the forum.
    • If you registered before March 2024 but changed your email, username, or password in the past year, those changes were lost. You’ll need to update your account details manually once you're logged in.
    • Threads and posts created within the last year have been restored.

    Our team is working with Xenforo Cloud to recover data using backups, sitemaps, and other available resources. We know this is frustrating, and we deeply regret the impact on our community. We are taking steps with Xenforo Cloud to ensure this never happens again. This is work in progress. Thank you for your patience and support as we work through this.

    In the meantime, feel free to join our Discord Server
jarr92 said:
I’d used Dylan Guenther as a comp around the same age, same draft. He got 8y at $7.1m for similar effectiveness.
Click to expand...
This seems right, and I don't think Grier would go much higher, but we'll see. Whatever people think SHOULD happen, I think Grier has said enough and done enough to indicate that Eklund's contract won't be at the top of the range. We won't see a contract that "looks rich but just think about how little % of the cap that will be in three years." I don't think Grier is going to pay the max. He's going to get value, or he's going to trade Eklund for a piece he thinks he needs more to win. The bridge thing, which I am not advocating for, would happen in the event that Eklund's camp isn't happy with what's on the table, and is willing to take on the risk of not signing term, AND there are no trades that GMMG likes.

Eklund will score more with better players, he can still get a little faster and stronger and smarter, but he's not going to become a 90pt winger and he may not even be a consistent PPG player at his peak. We will overvalue him as a fan base because we love him, but since he isn't even Grier's pick, I doubt he does the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StrawHatEklund, vortexx, DG93 and 2 others
I think Gunther and Raymond are the comps for Eklund and both point to a contract that is less then or very close to 8x$8m.

Gunther had less game experience but scored at a significantly higher rate so it is debatable if Eklund compares favorably to him which is why he is the most commonly used comp.

Raymond played hardball and waited till the last minute to sign his deal and got less than $8.1m per year. Raymond has significantly better counting stats than Eklund. I find it hard to believe Eklund getting significantly more than Raymond even with the rising cap.

I think % of the cap is what agents will want to use but it doesn’t look like the GMs will agree and just increase each player by the % the cap increases. I think that the biggest winners with the rising cap are going to be the middle 6 FWs and middle pairing D. Wenberg and Toffoli are going to be the norm for contracts of middle 6 players.

I said it before but I predict 8x$7.2. Maybe I’m hoping that Eklund’s is a little superstitious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vortexx and coooldude
Barrie22 said:
Of the 8 year contract he would be eligible for 5 years of protection, he will be 24 (basically by the time his new contract kicks in, so 3 years left of rfa).
Click to expand...
No, he will only have 4 years of protection eligible. But even if he did, that's not a risk that becomes too much for this situation. For Eklund, age 24, 25, 26, and 27 are RFA years that he's ineligible for trade protection because of his late birthday.
STL Shark said:
There is good reason from Eklund's camp, which is important to remember in this situation. It's not a one way street where Grier can just wave his GM wand and get the deal done. If Eklund's camp wants to wait until there is more positive data in their favor (which a smart agent should do), then there will not be an extension in place until next offseason.

Given the way that the Sharks toyed with his ELC slide, I can see Eklund's camp playing some hard ball out of principle to claw some of that elongated ELC money back.
Click to expand...
It's not a one way street. That's why I'm saying the Sharks should act based on what they're getting from his camp. If he doesn't want to sign long term or wants to play hardball, trade him. As good as he is, he's still replaceable. Either he re-signs on their terms or they move him for things they can use to build a better roster. Wingers are still replaceable and we have a reasonable amount of them coming up. I'd like to keep Eklund long term but if he doesn't want to be here because he's still holding a grudge from a couple years ago or the trades that happened then so be it. We can get to a competitive status without Eklund.
 
Eklund isn’t gonna hold a grudge in terms of wanting to be here or not, but everything does factor into his contract demands and his willingness to come down from them.

The problem with only looking at cap percentage as the bottom line is knowing what the cap will be in three years and expecting a percentage of the expectation not what’s current. We look at 8.25-8.50 as an absurd amount now but in three four years time that will be about the average going rate for a player of his stature.
 
jarr92 said:
I’d used Dylan Guenther as a comp around the same age, same draft. He got 8y at $7.1m for similar effectiveness.
Click to expand...
And Guenther is and will always be a much better goal scorer which is a far more valuable trait than anything Eklund brings to the table. If Eky wants significantly more than the Guenther deal it's time to move on.
 
Hodge said:
And Guenther is and will always be a much better goal scorer which is a far more valuable trait than anything Eklund brings to the table. If Eky wants significantly more than the Guenther deal it's time to move on.
Click to expand...
As someone who never watches Utah, how's Guenther developing defensively compared to Eklund?
 
Hobocop said:


Looks like Desharnais might be ok, so maybe no callup is necessary.

They've got Lund with Dellandrea and Giles in practice.
Click to expand...

God, this lineup makes my eyes water.

I love Graf, but having a guy who spent half the year playing well in the A as your 2nd line winger, then an entire third line of basically AHL talent (plus a fresh NCAA signing), and 3 of your 6 D men have played more AHL games than NHL games this year... and Georgie in net!!! ... Woof, we're really limping to the finish line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vortexx
Hodge said:
And Guenther is and will always be a much better goal scorer which is a far more valuable trait than anything Eklund brings to the table. If Eky wants significantly more than the Guenther deal it's time to move on.
Click to expand...

0% chance I am making a first round offer sheet this offseason. 2nd round for a defenseman or Cuylle, absolutely. I’d even pay a 2nd or 3rd to sweeten the pot. Even if you add say Ekblad, Granlund, Marchment (trade), Fabbro, Allen, and offersheet say Peterka I think the likelihood you’re in the basement is still pretty damn high.

Eklund-Celebrini-Tof
Marchment-Smith-Peterka
Granny-Wenny-Graf
Goody-Chuck-Delly
Grundstrom, Giles

Ferraro-Ekblad
Muk-Fabbro
Dickinson-Liljigren
Desharnis/Thrun

Askarov
Allen

This also assumes we sign the top RHD, fourth best RHD (Pionk/Burns), best backup/1b, and fifth best center (Duchene, Nelson, Tavares, Bennet). Not real realistic.

It would be much better, certainly, but I’d take our medicine for one more year. Maybe if we got Schaefer, but I’d still prefer to replicate this past offseason one more time (Walman, Ceci, Tof, Wenny+Delly, Grundstrom, Goody), and then get after it in year 3 of Celebrini’s ELC. Give me the 10% chance of McKenna and 40% chance of him, Verhoeff, Roobrook, Ried, Belchetz, and Lin.

In the second round range, Romanov, Samberg, and to a lesser extent Lohrei might be interesting, but they’re all LHD. As would Cuylle (big physical LW). At the end of the day, any top half of the lineup who’s a young established veteran, is probably going to be more valuable than a 2026 2nd (even 33-38th OA).

Muhk is showing enough at RHD where if I could get a 25 year old 2nd pair LHD for future 2nd I’d take it. If it means 19-22 year old Sam Dickinson pays third pair/PP for a few years, I’m cool with it. Romanov and Samberg are both capable steady dmen who I think I’d rather have than Ferraro moving forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hodge
LadyStanley said:
Click to expand...

Cranking the Sharks into High Grier | Puckpedia

Special for PuckPedia by Steve Werier, former Florida Panthers Assistant General Manager. Image © Eric Bolte-Imagn Images
www.puckpedia.com www.puckpedia.com

Gets Ryan mixed up with brother David Warshofsky but interesting take on the podcast and this write up. Being ultra aggressive on the RFA offer sheet would give up their 1st rd pick in the 2026 draft.
 
rekrul said:

Cranking the Sharks into High Grier | Puckpedia

Special for PuckPedia by Steve Werier, former Florida Panthers Assistant General Manager. Image © Eric Bolte-Imagn Images
www.puckpedia.com www.puckpedia.com
Click to expand...
Also gives some of the logic of trading Zetterlund, because the Seattle/Buffalo/Detroit/Utah ect endless treadmills of mediocrity are sealed with overpaying/committing to marginal talent. Only commit to elite talent.

I Agree with reason for trading Zetterlund in that context, just not liking the return
 
  • Like
Reactions: vortexx and weastern bias
rekrul said:

Cranking the Sharks into High Grier | Puckpedia

Special for PuckPedia by Steve Werier, former Florida Panthers Assistant General Manager. Image © Eric Bolte-Imagn Images
www.puckpedia.com www.puckpedia.com

Gets Ryan mixed up with brother David Warshofsky but interesting take on the podcast and this write up. Being ultra aggressive on the RFA offer sheet would give up their 1st rd pick in the 2026 draft.
Click to expand...
0% I give up that pick with who's on the table
 
  • Like
Reactions: vortexx
OrrNumber4 said:
Why do people want Marner? That guy is a playoff loser. He's fine as a support player, but obviously he's going to want big money.
Click to expand...
1743053439454.gif
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Shark Finn, Chinaski89, OversKy and 1 other person
rekrul said:

Cranking the Sharks into High Grier | Puckpedia

Special for PuckPedia by Steve Werier, former Florida Panthers Assistant General Manager. Image © Eric Bolte-Imagn Images
www.puckpedia.com www.puckpedia.com

Gets Ryan mixed up with brother David Warshofsky but interesting take on the podcast and this write up. Being ultra aggressive on the RFA offer sheet would give up their 1st rd pick in the 2026 draft.
Click to expand...

The offer sheet idea doesn't really make any sense. The Sharks are still likely to be somewhere in the bottom 8, more likely still the bottom 5 next year. Signing an offer sheet to give up their own 2026 1st and 2nd that will probably be in the opening stages of both rounds seems ludicrous for a team that will still have more holes to fill than just one splashy forward addition. I really don't see offer sheets ever going that hard on high end players because teams finally realize the value of draft picks when you're not a strong playoff team that's expecting to pick in the 20s+ and there's a big difference between using it to poach interesting mid-to-low level youngsters from cap-strapped teams like the Blues did and blowing your whole stash of draft capital on big, big names. Especially considering that the teams likely to have high value RFAs graduating from their rookie or bridge deals to a more expensive contract are probably going to be middling-to-bad teams that can afford to use up extra cap space retaining them. Teams that are hamstrung on the cap and won't be a threat to match an offer sheet are more likely farther along in their developmental cycle and less likely to have talent worthy of like $5m+ deals coming out of their rookie deals unless they hit some ungodly home run on one of their prospects.

Also that headline pun was terrible and the author/the editor who slapped the headline in when they published the article should feel ashamed of themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: weastern bias and vortexx
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom