Oilers will look to sign Klefbom long term this summer

[Mr Positive]

I don't quite get it. He didn't even give Petry 4 mil, and not that hes a bad d-man but he looked terrible as our #1 (looking good in mtl). Now he wants to give Klef north of 4 long term, play him #1 minutes so he can look terrible and want out too?

nowhere is an amount given, and 'long term' could be 3 or 4 years.

 

[Kolja]

Similar sample size, similar money? 4,2 for 7 years.

 

[WoolyWhatsIt]

Yep, there is your comparable. Although I don't think Klingberg had the draft Pedigree that Klefbom has...


Question is I am sure if oilers signed this contract they would get vilified,

I kind of like it. Hedging your bets.... No worse then nikitin at 4.5

 

[Roof Daddy]

The whole problem with it, is that it is a high-risk/high-reward move. If Klefbom's development stalls or recedes, we could be in trouble with that kind of contract.

Did you not read my whole post explaining why I see no risk to it? The reasoning being:

1. He is already our best defenceman, and while that speaks more of how bad our D is, it is still quite obvious he is a top 4 D now.

2. The cost to get a D as good as him in free agency is around 4 million per. If he didn't develop at all the rest of his career (hard to believe), it would still cost 4 mil to find a similar player in free agency.

He may not have quite the resume Faulk/Brodin/McDonagh had when they got their deals, but had CAR/NYR waited an extra year on Faulk/McD, those guys would have 6+ mil deals now. I just don't see any risk here committing.

 

[WoolyWhatsIt]

Did you not read my whole post explaining why I see no risk to it? The reasoning being:

1. He is already our best defenceman, and while that speaks more of how bad our D is, it is still quite obvious he is a top 4 D now.

2. The cost to get a D as good as him in free agency is around 4 million per. If he didn't develop at all the rest of his career (hard to believe), it would still cost 4 mil to find a similar player in free agency.

He may not have quite the resume Faulk/Brodin/McDonagh had when they got their deals, but had CAR/NYR waited an extra year on Faulk/McD, those guys would have 6+ mil deals now. I just don't see any risk here committing.

The risk is he flops. Obviously that can't be denied, however I also think it's a good bet to make...good teams have value contracts. Oilers finally starting t get some... yak, lander, maybe klefbom. It's what has to be done for teams to survive. Can't pay everyone top dollar

 

[Fourier]

I've been wrong on this sort of thing before but I think a 7 year deal at $4M for Klefbom would be worth thinking about. It's pretty hard to imagine the downside risk being anything more than $1M by year two of the deal. But with the cost of even mid level second pairing defensemen starting to push up into the nearly $5M range on the UFA market there is a bigger upside risk.

I look at a guy like Emelin who signed a 4 year deal for $4.1M as an example of a rather ordinary defenseman making $4+.

 

[mactforcoach]

If they can sign him to a 5 or 6 year deal around $4 million per then it's a good deal all around. Klefboom is only going to get better, maybe not to the point of Norris but a good solid #2 for a long time to come.

 

[SDig14]

I've been wrong on this sort of thing before but I think a 7 year deal at $4M for Klefbom would be worth thinking about. It's pretty hard to imagine the downside risk being anything more than $1M by year two of the deal. But with the cost of even mid level second pairing defensemen starting to push up into the nearly $5M range on the UFA market there is a bigger upside risk.

I look at a guy like Emelin who signed a 4 year deal for $4.1M as an example of a rather ordinary defenseman making $4+.

The upside reward greatly exceeds any downside risk IMO.

I'd give him 7/8 x $4 all day long.

 

[Crobby]

Klingberg put up 40pts (including 11 goals) in 65 games and despite that i'd still be weary about giving a rookie a 7 year contract

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Yeah, Klingberg has far more offensive upside than Klefbom.

But, you gotta take risks.

Boldest MacT move yet. Give him 7 x 4

 

[LaGu]

Klingberg put up 40pts (including 11 goals) in 65 games and despite that i'd still be weary about giving a rookie a 7 year contract

Klingberg is a celebral player with skill and good feet. He is as close to a sure thing that you can find in my opinion. $4.2M is probably an over-payment for next season but in a couple of years this will look like a bargain for Dallas (IMO of course).

Klefbom doesn't have the poise of Klingberg, but I would still value them at about the same level due to Klefbom's potential to develop. I think Klefbom is farther away from his ceiling than Klingberg at the moment.

 

[Mr Sakich]

there is very little risk in signing klef long term. I saw him a few times at the world juniors and it was obvious that he was a player. If it was not for his injury, he was probably a two time World Junior All star. The list of guys who have done that is very short and they turned out to be nhl stars.

IF we can get him at 4 mill per for 7-8 years, then we have to do that. In an ideal world, we are going to be giving 10 mill to Hall and RNH. We are going to need some value contracts and 4 mill for a top pairing dman would be that.

 

[LaGu]

Yeah, Klingberg has far more offensive upside than Klefbom.

But, you gotta take risks.

Boldest MacT move yet. Give him 7 x 4

He definitely has more upside. I'd like to see Klefbom get an extended look on the PP before making a final ruling on if it should be 'far more' or just 'more'.

Klingberg had almost 3 mins of PP TOI/G vs Klefbom's 30 sec (although there is obvioulsy a reason for that difference).

 

[s7ark]

If he becomes as good as Seabrook I have no problem paying him 7M in two years when Ference is off the books. And no they don't need to have horrible contracts like Purcell/Nikitin on the team all the time. Hopefully they'll start getting rid of them as we go forward.

Even if you are ok with it and it's "fair" it isn't in the team's best interest. Klefbom has played well at every level. He's worth this risk locking him up long term, imo. As for bad contracts, almost all teams have one or two. It's almost inevitable that a team gets stuck with a contract they'd rather not have.

Klingberg put up 40pts (including 11 goals) in 65 games and despite that i'd still be weary about giving a rookie a 7 year contract

This Klingberg deal is great for us. He put up double Klefbom's points in similar games. If we could get Klef for 3.5-3.75 based on that comparable, that could be a fantastic deal for the team.

And for all the laments about MacT being an idiot for considering a deal like this, I am sure everyone would be thrilled if we swapped him with Nill. If Nill thinks there is a reason to give a 60 some game rookie a 7 year deal, then there must be some logic behind those kinds of deal.

I will still be very pleased if the Oilers can lock up Klefbom long term for a reasonable cap hit.

 

[joestevens29]

I see GM's just don't learn from past mistakes. This is why we have lockouts because GM's sign guys to stupid long-term deals after very small sample sizes. Sure some of the deals are going to look good, but all it takes is a few of these deals to start going sideways and **** hits the fan.

 

[Mr Positive]

Even if you are ok with it and it's "fair" it isn't in the team's best interest. Klefbom has played well at every level. He's worth this risk locking him up long term, imo. As for bad contracts, almost all teams have one or two. It's almost inevitable that a team gets stuck with a contract they'd rather not have.



This Klingberg deal is great for us. He put up double Klefbom's points in similar games. If we could get Klef for 3.5-3.75 based on that comparable, that could be a fantastic deal for the team.

And for all the laments about MacT being an idiot for considering a deal like this, I am sure everyone would be thrilled if we swapped him with Nill. If Nill thinks there is a reason to give a 60 some game rookie a 7 year deal, then there must be some logic behind those kinds of deal.

I will still be very pleased if the Oilers can lock up Klefbom long term for a reasonable cap hit.

also if we wait until he provens himself more, any potential deal we have now will be off the table. Maybe it's 3 or 3.5 million today, but before we know it we're talking 5+ if things go like they are trending. With how our cap is shaping up, we NEED a bargain contract or two. If Klef fails to meet expectations and his cap number is a liability we have options for dealing with that too.

 

[Beerfish]

Pure insanity to lock up a guy like this so far in front of his FA eligibility. Only give term if the guy signs dirt cheap.

 

[joestevens29]

also if we wait until he provens himself more, any potential deal we have now will be off the table. Maybe it's 3 or 3.5 million today, but before we know it we're talking 5+ if things go like they are trending. With how our cap is shaping up, we NEED a bargain contract or two. If Klef fails to meet expectations and his cap number is a liability we have options for dealing with that too.

I highly doubt Klefbom is going to be 3mil. You mention needing a bargain because of our cap, if we are in such trouble the last thing we need is to be taking risks on guys that haven't played a full NHL season. Especially considering how well their last Norris trophy winner did.

 

[Mr Positive]

I see GM's just don't learn from past mistakes. This is why we have lockouts because GM's sign guys to stupid long-term deals after very small sample sizes. Sure some of the deals are going to look good, but all it takes is a few of these deals to start going sideways and **** hits the fan.

what about all the times it goes right though. I remember that Kesler deal that was crazy good for the Nucks right when they needed cap relief, and look at Hamonic: 2.5 cap hit long term for a top pairing Dman, or Nick Leddy for 3.4. Bjugstad for 4.1

Do you really think Klefbom will bust? He was worth 3.5 to us even this season, his rookie season.

 

[joestevens29]

Pure insanity to lock up a guy like this so far in front of his FA eligibility. Only give term if the guy signs dirt cheap.

That's another issue, what kind of guy signs for 3mil for 7 years? Doesn't he have confidence in his game?

 

[joestevens29]

what about all the times it goes right though. I remember that Kesler deal that was crazy good for the Nucks right when they needed cap relief, and look at Hamonic: 2.5 cap hit long term for a top pairing Dman, or Nick Leddy for 3.4. Bjugstad for 4.1

Do you really think Klefbom will bust? He was worth 3.5 to us even this season, his rookie season.

It's not really about the player, it's about the stupidity of NHL GM's thinking they are smarter than they really are.

Has Bjustad proven he's worth that?

Leddy is a decent deal, but he also had a lot more experience.

Hamonic is 3.8 and not bad at this point

 

[Fourier]

I see GM's just don't learn from past mistakes. This is why we have lockouts because GM's sign guys to stupid long-term deals after very small sample sizes. Sure some of the deals are going to look good, but all it takes is a few of these deals to start going sideways and **** hits the fan.

The biggest mistakes are not deals where GM's sign a young guy with promise to a long term deal. Those work out almost all the time. It is the UFA deals that are the killers.

And these deals have nothing to do with why there are lockouts. The pot if fixed. All they do is impact who gets what share.

 

[Beerfish]

That's another issue, what kind of guy signs for 3mil for 7 years? Doesn't he have confidence in his game?

Exactly, he won't sign for that, which is certainly not a reason to give him 4.5 or so instead.

This is just another case of MacT deciding a guy is going to be great off of a very limited body of work. Zero reason to 'lock him up' at this point in time.

 

[Fourier]

That's another issue, what kind of guy signs for 3mil for 7 years? Doesn't he have confidence in his game?

What happens to a young guy who signs a short one term deal and then has a career ending injury. While it is unrealistic to assume Klefbom would sign for 5 years at $3M if he did at say $4M that insures he will make at least $28M over the course of his career. So the incentive is perhaps a guarantee of long term financial security.

 

[joestevens29]

What happens to a young guy who signs a short one term deal and then has a career ending injury. While it is unrealistic to assume Klefbom would sign for 5 years at $3M if he did at say $4M that insures he will make at least $28M over the course of his career. So the incentive is perhaps a guarantee of long term financial security.

I'd be more comfortable paying a bit more on 4-5 years. This whole 7-8 years is ridiculous. Then it sets the bar for everyone else as well.