Speculation: 2021-22 Sharks Roster Discussion part X

[Dicdonya]

Exactly. This is why I don't really care what the Sharks get in return for Hertl because the value of a late 1st and mediocre prospect is dwarfed by the value of $8-9M of cap space for the next eight seasons. Every ounce of long term flexibility they can open up creates all sorts of interesting opportunities to improve the team down the line.

Yeah and how valuable in that cap space when DW immediately fills it with overpaid Vet UFAs this offseason because he and/or this org still think this team is a playoff hopeful team?

That is why not caring about the return for Hertl is impulsive and shortsighted. It assumes we will actually use the cap space for "all sorts of interesting opportunities" when DW has made no indication he has any desire or prerogative to do that.

I agree with you that the cap space is valuable, if and only if, DW and/or this organization actually intend to use it for interesting opportunities a la Arizona. If things are status quo with DW than that cap space is worthless in comparison to Hertl, and then adding insult to injury by only getting a late 1st and blah prospect for Hertl really starts to sting badly.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Would you same the same thing about the Avs and MacKinnon? He'll be 28 when his next deal starts. If you're the avs, do you sign him to 8 years at big money or let him walk?

obv I'm not comparing MacK to Hertl, i'm just trying to understand your logic. I'm of the understanding that you don't think signing any player after age 26 to a long contract is a good idea

I understand where Hodge is getting in, because you gotta take team situations into account. Hertl is no where near as impactful as Mackinnon first of all, but also the Avs are cup contenders, and we're just a borderline bottom-10 team. Would you rather sign Hertl for 8 years and the team stays at this level, or trade him and in turn acquire assets, open up cap space, and most likely improve our draft pick as we decline in the standings after losing Hertl.

 

[tiburon12]

I understand where Hodge is getting in, because you gotta take team situations into account. Hertl is no where near as impactful as Mackinnon first of all, but also the Avs are cup contenders, and we're just a borderline bottom-10 team. Would you rather sign Hertl for 8 years and the team stays at this level, or trade him and in turn acquire assets, open up cap space, and most likely improve our draft pick as we decline in the standings after losing Hertl.

My question, as I mentioned, has nothing to do with Hertl.

I'm simply curious their position since they are very against the long expensive contracts into a players 30s.

Colorado already has landeskog signed to a long expensive contract, and knowing what we as sharks fan know about these contracts, I want to know their thoughts. The situation they are in now is not much different than the Sharks in 2017

 

[Stewie Griffin]

My question, as I mentioned, has nothing to do with Hertl.

I'm simply curious their position since they are very against the long expensive contracts into a players 30s.

Colorado already has landeskog signed to a long expensive contract, and knowing what we as sharks fan know about these contracts, I want to know their thoughts. The situation they are in now is not much different than the Sharks in 2017

In 2017 San Jose was in a worse state then the current Avs. Sure we were coming off the cup final, but most of our core was already over 30. We did not have a Cale Makar level talent at age 22, or a top-3/5 esque playing like Nathan Mackinnon. Combine that with Colorado having a strong prospect pool, while ours was in the bottom-5 of the league.

Landeskog's contract will end when he's 36, but he will still be younger, and making less money then all of our current crap contracts.
Ages when current deals expire, and cap hits
Couture: 37 - $8M
Burns: 40 - $8M
Vlasic: 38 - $7M
Karlsson: 36 - $11.5M

 

[tiburon12]

In 2017 San Jose was in a worse state then the current Avs. Sure we were coming off the cup final, but most of our core was already over 30. We did not have a Cale Makar level talent at age 22, or a top-3/5 esque playing like Nathan Mackinnon. Combine that with Colorado having a strong prospect pool, while ours was in the bottom-5 of the league.

Landeskog's contract will end when he's 36, but he will still be younger, and making less money then all of our current crap contracts.
Ages when current deals expire, and cap hits
Couture: 37 - $8M
Burns: 40 - $8M
Vlasic: 38 - $7M
Karlsson: 36 - $11.5M

Sorry man, I'm not interested in debating anything about the Sharks and Avs. I simply want to know what Hodge would do with Mack.

Feel free to share your opinion on that if you'd like

 

[one2gamble]

The problem with Hodges opinion is that he thinks there will be something to do with that freed up cap space

 

[Kcoyote3]

As a smart woman once said "Stop doing wifey shit for men who deserve raviolis in a can".

Stop signing support players to all-star contracts.

 

[Hodge]

Would you same the same thing about the Avs and MacKinnon? He'll be 28 when his next deal starts. If you're the avs, do you sign him to 8 years at big money or let him walk?

obv I'm not comparing MacK to Hertl, i'm just trying to understand your logic. I'm of the understanding that you don't think signing any player after age 26 to a long contract is a good idea

Every situation is different and it would be silly to categorically oppose all X year deals for players aged Y or older. Assuming the Avs are still in their Cup window when MacKinnon's contract expires, which seems likely, it makes complete sense to re-sign their best player knowing full well they might be underwater on the final 2-3 years of the deal. Their chance to win is now when MacKinnon, Rantanen and Makar are all still in their primes. For the Sharks who are nowhere near even being a slam dunk playoff team let alone a contender, signing Hertl to an eight year deal makes no sense.

Yeah and how valuable in that cap space when DW immediately fills it with overpaid Vet UFAs this offseason because he and/or this org still think this team is a playoff hopeful team?

That is why not caring about the return for Hertl is impulsive and shortsighted. It assumes we will actually use the cap space for "all sorts of interesting opportunities" when DW has made no indication he has any desire or prerogative to do that.

I agree with you that the cap space is valuable, if and only if, DW and/or this organization actually intend to use it for interesting opportunities a la Arizona. If things are status quo with DW than that cap space is worthless in comparison to Hertl, and then adding insult to injury by only getting a late 1st and blah prospect for Hertl really starts to sting badly.

Obviously I think the front office needs to be cleaned out. Letting Hertl walk then turning around and signing Copp or Trocheck to a 6 or 7 year deal would be idiotic. By interesting opportunities I don't mean spending the money right away or even taking on cap dumps. They need to preserve the cap space so that if, for example, the Islanders can't re-sign Barzal next year or the Blues need to choose between Kyrou and Thomas the Sharks have the financial flexibility and pick/prospect capital to make an offer.

There are always good to great players that teams can't sign for whatever reason especially under a stagnant cap and one route back to competitiveness for the Sharks that doesn't rely on winning a draft lottery is just being patient and flexible enough that they're in a position to acquire those players.

 

[TreeLane]

Clean out the FO but leave DWJR. That dude can draft.

 

[tiburon12]

Every situation is different and it would be silly to categorically oppose all X year deals for players aged Y or older. Assuming the Avs are still in their Cup window when MacKinnon's contract expires, which seems likely, it makes complete sense to re-sign their best player knowing full well they might be underwater on the final 2-3 years of the deal. Their chance to win is now when MacKinnon, Rantanen and Makar are all still in their primes. For the Sharks who are nowhere near even being a slam dunk playoff team let alone a contender, signing Hertl to an eight year deal makes no sense.

Yea, for the third time now I'm not relating this to Hertl or the current Sharks, in any way. I guess that makes this OT, but i think it's interesting.

I was curious how you'd apply your logic of how the Sharks misstepped (which I think is sound but easier done on paper and in hindsight than it was in real life) to the Avs upcoming situation, especially if they don't win before Rantanen is up. Will they look at the Sharks, learn from those mistakes, and move on from those stars?

The Avs have their contracts staggered -Mack's ends in '23, Rantanen's in '25, and Makar in '27. So you can sign Mack until 2031, but after 2025 you need to make another major decision about Rantanen, who will be 29 at the time. Makar will also be 29 at the end of his deal. Do you sign Mack to 8 years knowing that after 2025 Rantanen might be gone and Landeskog 33? Or do you do what you think the Sharks should have done and sold high and built around young players?

This is why i see their situation as not so dissimilar from the Sharks, who faced a similar crunch when their stars were up - Couture was 29 when he signed (30 when it kicked in), Karlsson was 29, Burns 31 (32 when it kicked in), and Vlasic 30 (31 when it kicked in). They missed out when those guys were in their primes but bought heavy and late to try and keep the window open. And lets remember at the time Burns was Norris-level, Vlasic was the best shutdown D in the world, and Couture had 30+ points in the playoffs, and Karlsson was Karlsson.

 

[Hodge]

Yea, for the third time now I'm not relating this to Hertl or the current Sharks, in any way. I guess that makes this OT, but i think it's interesting.

I was curious how you'd apply your logic of how the Sharks misstepped (which I think is sound but easier done on paper and in hindsight than it was in real life) to the Avs upcoming situation, especially if they don't win before Rantanen is up. Will they look at the Sharks, learn from those mistakes, and move on from those stars?

The Avs have their contracts staggered -Mack's ends in '23, Rantanen's in '25, and Makar in '27. So you can sign Mack until 2031, but after 2025 you need to make another major decision about Rantanen, who will be 29 at the time. Makar will also be 29 at the end of his deal. Do you sign Mack to 8 years knowing that after 2025 Rantanen might be gone and Landeskog 33? Or do you do what you think the Sharks should have done and sold high and built around young players?

This is why i see their situation as not so dissimilar from the Sharks, who faced a similar crunch when their stars were up - Couture was 29 when he signed (30 when it kicked in), Karlsson was 29, Burns 31 (32 when it kicked in), and Vlasic 30 (31 when it kicked in). They missed out when those guys were in their primes but bought heavy and late to try and keep the window open. And lets remember at the time Burns was Norris-level, Vlasic was the best shutdown D in the world, and Couture had 30+ points in the playoffs, and Karlsson was Karlsson.

Sorry but these just aren't comparable situations. Couture, Burns and Vlasic were all great players but they weren't top ten players in the league like MacKinnon, Rantanen and Makar are. The closest was maybe Burns but as you pointed out he was 32 when his contract kicked in while MacKinnon will be 28 when his contract expires - that makes a huge difference when determining the expected value of an eight year contract. The big issue with all these deals the Sharks signed, Karlsson included, is that they weren't actually a legitimate contender at the time of signing. They were just fooling themselves.

The last time the Sharks had a comparable core to what the Avs currently have was with Thornton, Marleau and Boyle during the McLellan era. Obviously they got lucky with Jumbo's stance against signing long term deals but it would have been a totally sensible move to lock Thornton up for 8+ years when he was a UFA in 2008. It doesn't make sense to sign support players like Couture, Vlasic and Kane to 7+ year deals when you don't actually have a Cup-worthy core playing ahead of them.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Yea, for the third time now I'm not relating this to Hertl or the current Sharks, in any way. I guess that makes this OT, but i think it's interesting.

I was curious how you'd apply your logic of how the Sharks misstepped (which I think is sound but easier done on paper and in hindsight than it was in real life) to the Avs upcoming situation, especially if they don't win before Rantanen is up. Will they look at the Sharks, learn from those mistakes, and move on from those stars?

The Avs have their contracts staggered -Mack's ends in '23, Rantanen's in '25, and Makar in '27. So you can sign Mack until 2031, but after 2025 you need to make another major decision about Rantanen, who will be 29 at the time. Makar will also be 29 at the end of his deal. Do you sign Mack to 8 years knowing that after 2025 Rantanen might be gone and Landeskog 33? Or do you do what you think the Sharks should have done and sold high and built around young players?

This is why i see their situation as not so dissimilar from the Sharks, who faced a similar crunch when their stars were up - Couture was 29 when he signed (30 when it kicked in), Karlsson was 29, Burns 31 (32 when it kicked in), and Vlasic 30 (31 when it kicked in). They missed out when those guys were in their primes but bought heavy and late to try and keep the window open. And lets remember at the time Burns was Norris-level, Vlasic was the best shutdown D in the world, and Couture had 30+ points in the playoffs, and Karlsson was Karlsson.

You definitely sign Mackinnon to an 8 year deal. He's the best player on the team, 26 years old, and the team is arguably the most stacked on the planet. Even if Rantanen demands a huge raise that they can't afford...who cares because they would still have this entire current core for the next 3 seasons atleast. Given that the Avs are a young team compared to how talented they are...they're more comparable to the ~2010ish Sharks who were younger and had a much longer cup window.

You have been referencing the Sharks when all the current players signed their deals, but that's not fair because most of them are ~5+ years older than this current Avs situation.

 

[Hodge]

MacKinnon will actually only be 27 when he's due for a new contract. Just not reasonable to compare that to a decision to sign vastly inferior 30 year old Couture to an 8 year deal when the Sharks were nowhere near as good as the Avs currently are.

 

[Groo]

Clean out the FO but leave DWJR. That dude can draft.

Nope! Clean them all out
It's a no brainer

 

[TheBeard]

MacKinnon will actually only be 27 when he's due for a new contract. Just not reasonable to compare that to a decision to sign vastly inferior 30 year old Couture to an 8 year deal when the Sharks were nowhere near as good as the Avs currently are.

While true, it's not like the team was dead in the water when he signed that deal. Timo, Hertl, Bancer, Goodrow, Gambrell, Kane and EK65 were all 28 or younger at the time. Jones was coming off a fairly good season and he too was under 28. Colorado, at least up front, don't have a lot of proven talent under that age (aside from Mikko and Nate).

But still, it was a bad deal.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

The problem with Hodges opinion is that he thinks there will be something to do with that freed up cap space

One of the main reasons the Sharks keep signing their own players is because they continually lose out on the high end UFAs. We're back to the problem of the Sharks never having sighed a great UFA. They've only ever re-signed guys that got traded to SJ if even just for a little while. So cap space means very little if since they intend to try and compete since they won't be able to sign anyone near as good as Hertl in UFA. Basically the same reason I think they should re-sign Barbie too. Anyone near as good will cost significantly more since they'll have to over pay to entice them from signing with a better team or a location with no income tax.

 

[Hodge]

One of the main reasons the Sharks keep signing their own players is because they continually lose out on the high end UFAs. We're back to the problem of the Sharks never having sighed a great UFA. They've only ever re-signed guys that got traded to SJ if even just for a little while. So cap space means very little if since they intend to try and compete since they won't be able to sign anyone near as good as Hertl in UFA. Basically the same reason I think they should re-sign Barbie too. Anyone near as good will cost significantly more since they'll have to over pay to entice them from signing with a better team or a location with no income tax.

Only loser teams rely on big UFA signings. You can't build a contender that way in a hard cap league. The real value of cap space is that it puts you in position to acquire the next Reinhart or Buchnevich or Eichel or Chychrun who becomes available on the trade market - young players under team control. This is essentially how Doug built the Sharks into a contender in the first place.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Sorry but these just aren't comparable situations. Couture, Burns and Vlasic were all great players but they weren't top ten players in the league like MacKinnon, Rantanen and Makar are. The closest was maybe Burns but as you pointed out he was 32 when his contract kicked in while MacKinnon will be 28 when his contract expires - that makes a huge difference when determining the expected value of an eight year contract. The big issue with all these deals the Sharks signed, Karlsson included, is that they weren't actually a legitimate contender at the time of signing. They were just fooling themselves.

The last time the Sharks had a comparable core to what the Avs currently have was with Thornton, Marleau and Boyle during the McLellan era. Obviously they got lucky with Jumbo's stance against signing long term deals but it would have been a totally sensible move to lock Thornton up for 8+ years when he was a UFA in 2008. It doesn't make sense to sign support players like Couture, Vlasic and Kane to 7+ year deals when you don't actually have a Cup-worthy core playing ahead of them.

Burns wasn't top 10? He was for D-men. Wasn't he a finalist for the Norris in one of the first 2 seasons of his contract (17-18 & 18-19)? after his contract kicked in? Pretty sure he should have even won it. Lead all d-men in scoring by 9 points first year of his contract. Finished 1st or 2nd every season in D-man scoring from 13-14 to 18-19. 6 straight seasons.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Only loser teams rely on big UFA signings. You can't build a contender that way in a hard cap league. The real value of cap space is that it puts you in position to acquire the next Reinhart or Buchnevich or Eichel or Chychrun who becomes available on the trade market - young players under team control. This is essentially how Doug built the Sharks into a contender in the first place.

Those guys rarely get moved. That's like counting on another Jumbo trade. Sharks have had insane luck at acquiring guys like that. Sorry, I just disagree with your reasoning here. The return for Hertl is immensely important if they're trading him IMO. All this talk about what they should do isn't kinda pointless when they're clearly stated they aren't rebuilding. I doubt trading Hertl throws them into a rebuild. I think they go trade for a difference maker some how or sign one of the UFAs to try and make up the loss. Not sure who that would even be though. A trade is a much better path IMO.

 

[Hodge]

Those guys rarely get moved. That's like counting on another Jumbo trade. Sharks have had insane luck at acquiring guys like that. Sorry, I just disagree with your reasoning here. The return for Hertl is immensely important if they're trading him IMO. All this talk about what they should do isn't kinda pointless when they're clearly stated they aren't rebuilding. I doubt trading Hertl throws them into a rebuild. I think they go trade for a difference maker some how or sign one of the UFAs to try and make up the loss. Not sure who that would even be though. A trade is a much better path IMO.

All the players I mentioned were traded in the last nine months except Chychrun who probably gets moved by the draft at the latest. You're never seeing another Joe Thornton trade but teams are unable to re-sign good young players all the time for a variety of reasons especially under a stagnant cap. The only way to guarantee you WON'T be able to trade for these players is by boxing yourself in against the cap.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Clean out the FO but leave DWJR. That dude can draft.

We hope but there's not a lot of proof there yet. Hopefully 2 or 3 seasons from now we'll be calling him a flat out genius but none of his picks are major NHL contributors yet.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

All the players I mentioned were traded in the last nine months except Chychrun who probably gets moved by the draft at the latest. You're never seeing another Joe Thornton trade but teams are unable to re-sign good young players all the time for a variety of reasons especially under a stagnant cap. The only way to guarantee you WON'T be able to trade for these players is by boxing yourself in against the cap.

2 from one team that is run like shit. Of the 4 only Eichel is more valuable than Hertl and they both have injury history and are only a couple years apart. Eichel also makes more than what Hertl likely gets. I dunno, I just don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it sound.

 

[Hodge]

2 from one team that is run like shit. Of the 4 only Eichel is more valuable than Hertl and they both have injury history and are only a couple years apart. Eichel also makes more than what Hertl likely gets. I dunno, I just don't think it's as cut and dry as you're making it sound.

Nothing about improving this team from its current dismal state is going to be cut and dry. Two things are obvious to me though: 1) bringing back a more expensive version of the same team will not lead to better results and 2) significantly improving the team over a single offseason or even two is impossible. They need to play the long game and that starts with trading veterans on expiring contracts.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Nothing about improving this team from its current dismal state is going to be cut and dry. Two things are obvious to me though: 1) bringing back a more expensive version of the same team will not lead to better results and 2) significantly improving the team over a single offseason or even two is impossible. They need to play the long game and that starts with trading veterans on expiring contracts.

Well, they disagree with you. I'm not sure how we each define significant but I also don' think this team is as far off as many here seem to think. If the resign Hertl and Barbie they need to fill 2 major positions. 3C and top 6 scoring winger. I would find a change or scenery trade like Labanc for Debrusk with whatever sweetners need to be included. Move Simek with salary retained if necessary. If they can move Burns and bring in a vet RD that can play in all situations. There are guys coming available that could be useful if they want to try and make a move. I feel like there are finally some young guys in the system that might contribute sooner than later. Reedy looks like another Tierney type player, Gregor is getting closer to being a contributor, Meloche is an NHL D-man, Middleton, Knyzhov is (hopefully) coming back. I just don't think they're as bad off next season with the right moves.

 

[PattyLafontaine]

From my perspective the numbers as it relates to high end players with long careers are already nullified due to polluting the findings with irrelevant participants.

Yeah, but that’s pointless. You might as well just throw darts at a board. These analyses are to garner relative relationships in data sets.

You can’t just say well Thornton was PPG at 36 and therefore we need to see what Hertl will be at in his early thirties.

Thornton, Ovechkin, et al. who were great well into their 30s are Hall of Famers and re present as massive statistical outliers.

The point of the curve is to project what Hertl will be for each of the years. On an 8 year deal the Sharks get 2 years at 95% of Prime 1 year at 90 and then 85, 80, 72, 68, 60, 55. This also assumes no injuries which is also risky.

An algorithm can because to determine expected value, which is critical because you need to have a good idea what to expect over the lifetime of the contract.

Signing Hertl to an 8 year deal especially at 8.5-9.5 per is statistically an atrocious mathematical risk.


Part of what goes into calculate that risk is future value of that cap space measured against anticipated annual cap growth. Another factor be calculated is potential costs of waiving and eating dead space. And even another is the potential asset burden to rid one’s self of a bad contract.

I really should create the algorithm for this calculation and publish it.

Moneyball and analytics are just actuarial science recalibrated.