I think he and his agent will insist on a 8 year deal. It’s decision time with Hertl. Trade him or sign him to a long term deal.
Speculation: 2021 Expansion draft
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
- Status
Hope DW has a rule where he never signs players for more than 5 years haha cause this sucks now.
seroes
Registered User
I say trade him. But DW probably doesn't and probably doesn't move out a big salary either
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
I really miss guys like Thornton and Marleau who were content with 3 and 4 year deals.
Yeah they don't build players like those 2 any more. Thornton did those because they were exactly enough to give himself career protection and also team flexibility.
jarr92
Registered User
- May 7, 2013
- 810
- 957
Dude that is a wall of text, haha. Some paragraphs would help
Regarding the advanced stats, I'd be careful to discount any stat just because it doesn't match the expected results. FYI I used xGF% in part because Boughner has referenced that stat multiple times throughout his tenure with the Sharks, they clearly look at that number as important. When looking at analytics I typically do use 5 v 5, but for this basic spreadsheet I wanted to keep it simple and do all situations to get a gauge of the entirety of the play. If you want to look just at 5 v 5 play here is the chart:
I think looking at 5 v 5, all situational play, and counting stats proves a few things.
1. The Sharks were not a good possession team with Boughner's system last season.
2. Kane and Couture were relied upon to do the heavy lifting defensively. Kane was better than Couture and more opportunistic with point accumulation.
3. Hertl is the Sharks top forward.
4. Despite their lackluster play, Meier and Labanc probably shouldn't be traded anytime soon.
The biggest issue IMO is that Gambrell is the Sharks 6th leading forward in terms of TOI. The Sharks lack that one franchise player to propel them, so having a player like Gambrell in that #6 forward slot is terrible.
Gregor was even worse than Gambrell last season. He ranked last in basically every advanced stat category, and was one of the worst in terms of counting stats. Thankfully Barabanov seems like he actually might be a decent #6 forward next season.
I get that but no way he signs for less than max unless he wants to try and cash in as a UFA when the cap is expected to go up again? We could see some of that from the players. Go shorter term, more salary mixed with some trade protection? I dunno. Have to see what some of these guys sign for this offseason to see which way the wind blows on all this.
Dude that is a wall of text, haha. Some paragraphs would help
Regarding the advanced stats, I'd be careful to discount any stat just because it doesn't match the expected results. FYI I used xGF% in part because Boughner has referenced that stat multiple times throughout his tenure with the Sharks, they clearly look at that number as important. When looking at analytics I typically do use 5 v 5, but for this basic spreadsheet I wanted to keep it simple and do all situations to get a gauge of the entirety of the play. If you want to look just at 5 v 5 play here is the chart:
View attachment 440812
I think looking at 5 v 5, all situational play, and counting stats proves a few things.
1. The Sharks were not a good possession team with Boughner's system last season.
2. Kane and Couture were relied upon to do the heavy lifting defensively. Kane was better than Couture and more opportunistic with point accumulation.
3. Hertl is the Sharks top forward.
4. Despite their lackluster play, Meier and Labanc probably shouldn't be traded anytime soon.
The biggest issue IMO is that Gambrell is the Sharks 6th leading forward in terms of TOI. The Sharks lack that one franchise player to propel them, so having a player like Gambrell in that #6 forward slot is terrible.
Gregor was even worse than Gambrell last season. He ranked last in basically every advanced stat category, and was one of the worst in terms of counting stats. Thankfully Barabanov seems like he actually might be a decent #6 forward next season.
Yeah, that's my bad. Kinda of a middle of the night stream of conscious typing spasm brought on by euphoria after I finished a big project I'd been working on. Sorry. I went back and fixed it... Kinda...These stats tell me that all efforts should be made to try and move Couture in any trade to acquire a franchise center like Eichel. Moving Labanc for me isn't about anything he's not doing well enough. It's simply about saving money where it can be saved. I'm fine with the trade off for a player like Balcers or Barabanov taking his roster spot in the top 6 as they are likely both better defensively. If there is a way to keep Labanc and do everything they need to turn the team into a contender then great. I'm all for that. Last off season I had very little optimism that Labanc would be able to play an intelligent 200 foot game but he seems to have done the work to at least get as close as I think he ever will. The points will come when he plays with a center who isn't injured for such a long stretch.
I'm one of the people who is very against trading Meier unless it's for Eichel or similar.
Boughners system probably requires more NHL level players to really be effective.
Gambrell should never play above the 4th line again and be primarily a PK specialist which is fine if he ends up staying on the roster. Nice that he figured out how to be an NHLer after how much we all hated on him last off season.
I wouldn't worry about Gregor yet. He's still bouncing up and down between minors and NHL and has yet to play a consistent NHL game from start to finish. Once he figures that out I think he'll be a very effective 3rd or 4th liner. He's had enough shifts where you see what he might be that make me optimistic for where he's headed.
I know the stats say Hertl is the top forward but I find it interesting that Couture and Hertl were at their this season was when Kane was on their wing.
Last edited:
Then he will never sign a good player again and everyone they draft who is great will leave as soon as they are UFA.
Many good teams in the playoffs have 1 or less player signed to over 5 years currently. I'd say the team favored to win it all is Colorado and they have 1 player at + term currently. So I disagree with this
Were they signed as RFAs or UFAs? And if they were RFAs, did they give up UFA years? Pretty sure all the sharks contracts that people hate were signed by guys going into UFA or gave up a lot of UFA years. the Avs have mostly younger players who probably didn't give up a lot of UFA years (or none) in there contracts. the shorter contracts are designed that way by the agents to get their clients to UFA as young as possible where they can really cash in. It's why Hertl, Meier and Labanc contracts aren't 8 years.
Boston and Pittsburgh are in the same position with like 1 player with + term. But those are bigger markets where they dont really have to worry about attracting players. Maybe the reality of a non traditional market is over offering to retain players but there must be better asset management in SJ its awful currently
I think they would have been fine if there wasn't a pandemic. The increasing cap would have allowed them much more roster flexibility this season and moving forward. Now they are readjusting. We'll see what they do this offseason to course correct.
Didn't Boston have 3 first round picks not long ago? That definitely helps. San Jose being a tough sell for UFAs and having been in the playoffs for as long as they were definitely hurts their prospect pool. The prospect management has been light years better IMO over the last few years.
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 37,847
- 11,215
Yeah, in arguably the best draft of all time. And they whiffed basically on all 3. Not sure those 3 picks really helped. Crazy to think picks just after them were Barzal, Connor, and Chabot.
Colorado has Landeskog, Johnson, MacKinnon are all currently on 7-year contracts. Perhaps more as I didn't look beyond them.
And within the next 2 or 3 years will have 2 more in rantanen and makar.
And last years cup winner, had stamkos, kucherov, hedman, mcdonaugh, and this year they added vali to that list of 7 or 8 year term players.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Vlasic isn't going anywhere. He has a NMC and has definitively stated he does not want to leave San Jose.
Just because the Sharks have to expose four guys does not mean that's the only players Seattle could choose. There's a bunch of guys (pending UFAs, young-ish kids in the AHL) who do not have the contract and/or NHL experience to be "exposed," but CAN BE SELECTED by Seattle (after they pick the 24/30 that do have to meet the contract/experience criteria).
(Heck, Vegas picked one UFA after a side deal and let the guy walk.)
My notes on expansion draft, including the guys that could be picked (e.g., guys who aren't exempt but don't meet contract/experience criteria to be exposed). 2021 Expansion Draft
There are two ways you can go with the exposed guys. First, choose the "least worst" (to Sharks long term plans if lost) players who meet the criteria. Second, chose guys with contracts they are not playing up to for cap space relief.
Jones vs Korenar - Korenar played a heck of a lot better in his limited NHL experience and had good numbers in AHL (after sophomore slump). Jones is a bit of a albatross with his contract compared to his (usually) less than stellar 2021 play. For cap and "least worst", it's Jones who will be exposed. (And I don't expect Seattle to touch him, unless they need to help make the cap floor, as a backup.) (For the person who suggested Jones be assigned to AHL, it'll still be $4.75m cap his with him down there; but his cap hit will be under $3m if bought out.
Burns vs Simek - these are the only two guys with the experience who don't have NMCs. Simek, 28, has injury history (with unknown long term performance future - knees), but good performance (when healthy). Burns, 36, has been productive, but is he really worth his $8m contract; he's also a player with a humongous "personality", and a workout fiend. You expose Burns for potential cap relief with risk that another team will pick him up via trade. (I'm still putting Simek out there with his knee issues and keeping Burns.)
Forwards: Gambrell (with new contract) and Lebanc are my two exposed. If the latter picked, would provide some cap relief. (Protect Couture, Kane, Hertl, Meier, Balcers, Donato, Dahlen; also available: Halbgewachs, Letunov, Marleau, Nieto, Sorenson, True, Viel)
sharks_dynasty
Registered User
On forwards, I would expose Donato. Labanc has trade value even with his cap hit. On D, definitely Simek. Burns again has trade value even if we have to eat some salary.
Unless you're his wife or his agent you don't know what will happen. I watched every interview with the players this season. Vlasic is very prideful and frankly dishonest. I don't believe him for a second when he says he didn't know he had a NMC. There were enough reports about him going to Montreal last season that I believe there was fire under all that smoke. He's also delusionally arrogant... says he expects to be a shut down D next season.
What a nut. So I'm tired of people who don't know anymore than I do saying he definitively won't move when all I'm saying is, it's possible despite it being unlikely. Of course he's going to say he's not going anywhere. Dude is tired of reading how awful he is.Thanks, but Yeah, I'm well aware of all this other stuff.
If you go back and read what I wrote about putting Jones in the minors, it isn't about cap relief. It's about keeping him from affecting the morale and win loss record of the NHL club with his shit play. Personally I think they buy him out this off season and just eat the hit. Despite his stretch of excellent play in the middle of the season, I wouldn't trust him going forward and it sure doesn't sound like BB does either. But none of us really know what DW has planned at this point.
I also think you're more than likely wrong about Labanc being exposed. From the season ending interviews its more likely Donato is exposed. Labanc being exposed is to me, a last resort move to free some cap space. I think he has value in a trade. Agree about Simek as they already have guys who play on the 3rd pair cheaper.
If the cap situation is as dire as they say though I would expect the owners to either demand a salary % reduction like they did a number of years ago or add compliance buyouts again. I know you don't think this will happen but they already tried even before the cap prognostication was as bad as it is now. No idea if they succeed but I anticipate it being broached again.
Last edited:
LadyStanley
Registered User
@Doctor Soraluce the owners could not get a reduction (as they did in 2005 when cap was implemented and rollback on all carryover agreements) when they did the 2020 CBA extension.
They got a 20% one time cut for the 2020-21 season.
The owners did get the flat-cap-until-excess-escrow-paid-off.
The thing about Donato AND Gambrell is that neither has the required contract for the 2021-22 season to expose them.
Might start to see some player movement after Wednesday's draft lottery. Or might not happen until early July. But I fully expect DW to be on the horn trying to gather draft picks or prospects to "help" teams with expansion draft "issues". (Sharks might "acquire" a player or few that might end up being the guys exposed.
They got a 20% one time cut for the 2020-21 season.
The owners did get the flat-cap-until-excess-escrow-paid-off.
The thing about Donato AND Gambrell is that neither has the required contract for the 2021-22 season to expose them.
Might start to see some player movement after Wednesday's draft lottery. Or might not happen until early July. But I fully expect DW to be on the horn trying to gather draft picks or prospects to "help" teams with expansion draft "issues". (Sharks might "acquire" a player or few that might end up being the guys exposed.
Right, but that's different. The 2005 reduction just made all the contracts worth less permanently. It wouldn't shock me in the least for the owners to force a renegotiation this off season if the finances are truly as dire as they are being reported. Seeing how many times they've locked the players out nothing would surprise me.
Is that going to be enough though to weather this storm? You would think so but an entire season with no paying fans is pretty devastating.
But they can be very easily once they resign. Both are RFA's without arbitration rights? Or would the sharks wait to resign them until after the expansion so they can either keep or trade them at that point? So many options. I'm dying to know how DW is approaching this. I guess we'll have a pretty good idea when we see the protected list.
Now this is truly intriguing! If one of the players they acquire aren't taken during expansion they are stuck with them. I assume they would only be trying to acquire players that help them compete next season and not strictly dumps correct?
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
Thanks. I didn't even realize that to be eligible for the expansion draft you have to be signed. I thought, RFA's (unsigned) were exposed automatically if they were NOT protected and met the 40 GP (or 70 GP) requirement(s).
That makes the Sharks position rather interesting. They currently only have 5 signed forwards that could qualify for the expansion draft.
Couture
Meier
Labanc
Kane
Hertl
They protect all of the above and assuming they are going 7-3-1, they don't even have enough forwards to protect. I expect they re-sign Balcers, Gambrell and Donato and expose one of Gambrell and Donato. Unless they are looking to trade for a signed forward for 21-22 who can be exposed.
I know Gambrell has the local boy story for the Kraken but I would rather have Donato or Simek there since they are more useful players.
- Jun 23, 2020
- 5,453
- 7,741
RFAs are exposed if they aren't protected (regardless of how many games they've played - its simply a matter of whether they have played more than two NHL/AHL seasons, so Letunov is eligible to be selected, but Barabanov or Chmelevski are not), and can be selected by the Kraken, but the Sharks must expose two signed forwards who meet the GP requirements.
Assuming they resign Balcers, Donato, and Gambrell, the Sharks can protect one (plus another forward, say Dahlen), expose two, and Seattle can still take Letunov (an RFA unlikely to get a new contract) if they really want (for some reason).
Last edited:
STL Shark
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2013
- 4,005
- 4,681
Donato won't get signed pre-expansion draft to satisfy that requirement. He would have to take a deal at 50% of his QO to make it not a total risk to expose him and be stuck with him again next year. 1) He's not signing for 50% of his QO without testing the market and 2) the Sharks are not signing him at his QO price of $2 million+. He is likely exposed, but it will be for his RFA rights rather than a signed player. Nieto and Gambrell likely get re-signed or DW signs someone to use that final expansion spot on if he chooses to protect Gambrell over Dahlen.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - FINGER LAKES RACE 1 - Farmington, NYWagers: 2Staked: $540.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-