Confirmed with Link: Bordeleau re-signed. 1 year x $874k

mogambomoroo

Registered User
Sponsor
Oct 12, 2020
1,587
2,781
That's a very cheap deal. I thought it would've been at least a 1mil x 1 year + higher minors salary. I guess it's really a prove it year for Bordeleau. I think he could be one of the players they swap next year similar to Wiesblatt. There is just so much logjam in forwards right now and Bordeleau is probably projected to play in AHL with this depth.
 

gaucholoco3

Registered User
Jun 22, 2015
1,294
1,636
That's a very cheap deal. I thought it would've been at least a 1mil x 1 year + higher minors salary. I guess it's really a prove it year for Bordeleau. I think he could be one of the players they swap next year similar to Wiesblatt. There is just so much logjam in forwards right now and Bordeleau is probably projected to play in AHL with this depth.
It looks like the Sharks just said take the QO because you won’t get any more. So they didn’t want to give up but wouldn’t do anything above the care min to keep his rights.
 

coooldude

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 25, 2007
4,024
4,276
LOL 80k in the minors is insulting
I truly wonder if the handshake agreement is "you make the team out of camp, then you have the chance to prove yourself. If you don't make the team, your contract is so cheap that we'll move you ASAP and the $ won't be in the way."
 

mogambomoroo

Registered User
Sponsor
Oct 12, 2020
1,587
2,781
I truly wonder if the handshake agreement is "you make the team out of camp, then you have the chance to prove yourself. If you don't make the team, your contract is so cheap that we'll move you ASAP and the $ won't be in the way."
This makes a lot of sense to be honest. I feel like Nashville or Montreal being the targets if he gets traded.
 

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,200
7,458
3LW spot is there for the taking. If Bordeleau can't beat out the likes of Kostin and Grundstrom for it, probably time for both parties to move on.
 

gaucholoco3

Registered User
Jun 22, 2015
1,294
1,636
I truly wonder if the handshake agreement is "you make the team out of camp, then you have the chance to prove yourself. If you don't make the team, your contract is so cheap that we'll move you ASAP and the $ won't be in the way."
It was the QO. The Sharks said take it or leave it. I bet they didn’t even listen if he would take less NHL for more AHL. It was not a negotiation because Bordeleau had no leverage.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
16,407
5,758
I'm surprised that this was reported as "deal was close". That implies that they were working on a longer-term, complicated offer. On a one-year-deal, Bordeleau is a player who takes what he can get and nothing else.
 

one2gamble

Registered User
Dec 24, 2007
17,342
8,589
Seriously, that was the thing that was the most shocking to me about this contract. He’s a pretty good AHLer.

Is he waiver eligible? Without CapFriendly I have no idea.
Im still baffled by that AHL number. Did they forget a 1 in front of it.

Do they understand hes still playing in SJ?
Is he working the pro shop at night for extra money?
 

gaucholoco3

Registered User
Jun 22, 2015
1,294
1,636
LOL 80k in the minors is insulting

Seriously, that was the thing that was the most shocking to me about this contract. He’s a pretty good AHLer.

Is he waiver eligible? Without CapFriendly I have no idea.

Im still baffled by that AHL number. Did they forget a 1 in front of it.

Do they understand hes still playing in SJ?
Is he working the pro shop at night for extra money?
If you look at the tweet the contract terms are the exact same as the QO. There was no negotiation. I’m sure Bords wanted more AHL money and the Sharks said no. He has no leverage and was forced to take his QO.
 

tiburon12

Registered User
Jul 18, 2009
4,964
4,962
3LW spot is there for the taking. If Bordeleau can't beat out the likes of Kostin and Grundstrom for it, probably time for both parties to move on.
This is how I view it too (same for all the spots that are "taken" by vets.

There is a long history of guys who had to change their game from being a stud in juniors/college to being a role player in the NHL, Grier being one of them. Bords looked like he accepted that transition last year, let's see how he works his game under that scope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chinaski89

matt trick

Registered User
Jun 12, 2007
10,005
1,811
This is how I view it too (same for all the spots that are "taken" by vets.

There is a long history of guys who had to change their game from being a stud in juniors/college to being a role player in the NHL, Grier being one of them. Bords looked like he accepted that transition last year, let's see how he works his game under that scope.

Eklund-Granlund-Zetterlund
Koistin-Celebrini-Tofolli
Wennberg-Smith-Dellandrea
Goodrow-Sturm-Kunin
Grundstrom

Assuming Couture is injured:

Top 6: Eklund, Granlund, Zetterlund, Tofolli, and Celebrini (1 available)
Top 9: Wennberg, Smith (1 available)
Next up: Koistin, Dellandrea, Grundstrom, Goodrow, Kunin, Bordeleau, Gushchin

Bords and Gushchin are 22, you want a spot go beat out four of Koistin, Dellandrea, Grundstrom, Kunin and Goodrow. I like that they have to beat NHL caliber guys, but it's not like we have 9 top 6 forwards. If either takes a significant step they can earn that top 6 spot. I will say aside from Wennberg, the other six top 9 forwards pencilled in are also smallish (Celebrini and Zetts are/will be short tanks). Koistin, Goodrow and Musty/Chernyshov (in future years) bring needed size to the top 9. Gushchin and Bords do not.

Would love to see either force themselves into the lineup though.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad