Oilers will look to sign Klefbom long term this summer

[McSuper]

4 Yrs @ 3 M should be the contract. I'm a huge Klefbom fan, I think he is the real deal. He's currently a 2nd Pairing defenseman with a little bit of 1st pairing potential. But he hasn't proven enough to warrant a bigger contract. Lock him down for 4 Yrs, after the contract is over he is still RFA and at that point you pay him what he's show for the past 4 Yrs. This is the only sensible contract.

1st if Mac T don't sign him longterm there will be mad fans if they do sign him longterm others will be mad . If he becomes a number one D fans will scream he should have locked him up longterm . Get the picture , haters are going to hate .

Sign him long term is a low risk move . He is already playing better then some players making over 4,000,000 so it could be argue he worth it already . He may take a step back many young D do but if he is signed at 4 X 8 . Where the risk ? We have him at a low cap hit for 8 years and i can guarantee they cap will go up . in 5 years that 4,000,000 may be like 2,000,000 . Klefbom potential in a rising cap world signed at 4,000,000 = good value . If he reaches his potential it one of the best contract in the NHL .

Where is the down side ?

 

[Philly85*]

I can't believe I'm reading people in here saying they believe Klefbom can be a top 2 D. Maybe with an elite partner... the guy has hardly proven anything in the NHL yet. I like the player too but he's a 3-4 guy with limited offensive potential at his peak IMO. Plus, given this completely backwards management group, they probably continue to throw this kid directly into the fire next season... that damages his upside and hampers his overall developmental curve (a la Schultz) and probably makes him regress at points... 1 step forward 2 steps back sort of deal. He hasn't shown enough, plain and simple.

 

[OiledUp]

I'd rather be in cap trouble because our players played well and deserve big raises, rather than be in cap trouble because of "paying for potential" contracts.

I don't see a lot of "paying for potential" contracts killing teams around the league. Paying Klefbom 4M will not get us in Cap trouble, I stand by that, if you don't think he looks like he'll at least be a #4 within 2-3 seasons I understand if you're sceptical. I think his floor is #4, his upside is top pairing, so to me a longer contract at that number is excellent.
Everyone complained about Nik Hjalmarssons contract a few years back. Now it looks like that contract alongside Keith at below 6M might what can keep the Hawks in the mix despite Toews/Kane getting a massive payday.

 

[Shanahanigans]

This is so frustrating because this is literally the WORST direction this team could take with Klefbom. He hasn't even played a full 82 game season so a long term contract could backfire pretty bad. On the other hand, giving a 3 or 4 year bridge right now would be horrible as well because that means we would have to buy UFA years on the contract after that.

The obvious thing to do is to wait a season and watch his progression. I absolutely love how Klefbom is projecting. But if they want to extend him long term, thats a dumb and unnecessary risk to take 77 games into his NHL career.

This management is so mind numbingly incompetent, man.

 

[Hemsky4PM]

I would be ok with a 6 year deal at a AAV of less than 4M. Something like 3.6M would be ok in my books.

I'd present a 3 year deal at 2.6M or a 6 year deal at the 3.6M area.

 

[McQuixote]

Jeez, the only reason to sign this player long-term right now is if he's going to sign for, like, 2.5 million per.

Otherwise, while I do like him and am bullish on his future, there's just no angle in making such an investment in a player with his injury history and lack of on-ice amazing performance. This isn't a guy who's going to score 50 points or win a Norris in the next couple and demand $8 million per. Worst case scenario for a bridge contract is that he has a great couple years, scoring 35 points, playing top pairing minutes, and staying healthy, and demands... something similar to Justin Faulk's contract? $5 mil a season long-term? That's a pretty acceptable Worst Case Scenario to a bridge-contract.

Whereas the WCS for a long-term Josi-like investment right now sees him stagnating, injured, or regressing while still cashing $4 million checks every year for almost the next decade. Yikes.

 

[Fourier]

I don't see a lot of "paying for potential" contracts killing teams around the league. Paying Klefbom 4M will not get us in Cap trouble, I stand by that, if you don't think he looks like he'll at least be a #4 within 2-3 seasons I understand if you're sceptical. I think his floor is #4, his upside is top pairing, so to me a longer contract at that number is excellent.
Everyone complained about Nik Hjalmarssons contract a few years back. Now it looks like that contract alongside Keith at below 6M might what can keep the Hawks in the mix despite Toews/Kane getting a massive payday.

I agree with this completely. The contracts that kill teams are when a player has a big year just before becoming a UFA. Then the demand is substantially more than might be wise.

There are more than 90 defensemen in the NHL with cap hits of $3.8M+ (83 over $4M). There are about 110 making $3.5M+ and over 120 making $3.25M+. That means that roughly speaking the current median salary for a #4 defenseman is about $3.5M per year.

Unless the $CDN goes to $.6US it is perfectly reasonable to assume that by year 2 of a new deal the cap would be at $75M which would bump that number up to an equivalent of about $3.8M.

That's why to cover the bet Klefbom only has to become a legit top 4 defenseman.

 

[Fourier]

Jeez, the only reason to sign this player long-term right now is if he's going to sign for, like, 2.5 million per.

Otherwise, while I do like him and am bullish on his future, there's just no angle in making such an investment in a player with his injury history and lack of on-ice amazing performance. This isn't a guy who's going to score 50 points or win a Norris in the next couple and demand $8 million per. Worst case scenario for a bridge contract is that he has a great couple years, scoring 35 points, playing top pairing minutes, and staying healthy, and demands... something similar to Justin Faulk's contract? $5 mil a season long-term? That's a pretty acceptable Worst Case Scenario to a bridge-contract.

Whereas the WCS for a long-term Josi-like investment right now sees him stagnating, injured, or regressing while still cashing $4 million checks every year for almost the next decade. Yikes.

The Faulk deal and the Josi deal are huge wins for their teams. They are not the standard for a typical fair value contract. If Josi was going to be a UFA this year he would be looking at about $7.5-8M.

What would Faulk be looking at if he signed his deal this year after putting up 49 points? $6M would probably be more like it. He is better than a guy like Yandle defensively and is as good offensively.

I have no problem with a short bridge for Klefbom. But I also have no problem with something like a 7 year deal at $4M.

 

[McQuixote]

The Faulk deal and the Josi deal are huge wins for their teams. They are not the standard for a typical fair value contract. If Josi was going to be a UFA this year he would be looking at about $7.5-8M.

What would Faulk be looking at if he signed his deal this year after putting up 49 points? $6M would probably be more like it. He is better than a guy like Yandle defensively and is as good offensively.

I have no problem with a short bridge for Klefbom. But I also have no problem with something like a 7 year deal at $4M.

I have no problem with Faulk getting the Faulk deal - Faulk was averaging like 9 goals a year (pro-rated) on his rookie deal. I don't see Klefbom putting up 49 points during a bridge contract. He's not Faulk, he's not Subban. That was my point. Klefbom was never projected as a high-offence guy and I don't see him doing anything in the next couple years that will get him that big whamma-jamma contract and we all go "****, why'd we go bridge?" It just doesn't seem like a smart bet to make, locking in a player with his injury history and (likely) lower offensive ceiling to a big contract right now, unless it's really, really, really cheap.

What do we think Oscar is likely to do over the next couple seasons and is it the sort of thing that's going to get him PK Subban money or anything resembling that? I doubt it. If he has a really good next two seasons, he's likely to get a contract similar to that Faulk deal then. Not one that makes us wish we signed him to it now.

 

[Fourier]

I have no problem with Faulk getting the Faulk deal - Faulk was averaging like 9 goals a year (pro-rated) on his rookie deal. I don't see Klefbom putting up 49 points during a bridge contract. He's not Faulk, he's not Subban. That was my point. Klefbom was never projected as a high-offence guy and I don't see him doing anything in the next couple years that will get him that big whamma-jamma contract and we all go "****, why'd we go bridge?" It just doesn't seem like a smart bet to make, locking in a player with his injury history and (likely) lower offensive ceiling to a big contract right now, unless it's really, really, really cheap.

What do we think Oscar is likely to do over the next couple seasons and is it the sort of thing that's going to get him PK Subban money or anything resembling that? I doubt it. If he has a really good next two seasons, he's likely to get a contract similar to that Faulk deal then. Not one that makes us wish we signed him to it now.

He may not put up Faulk numbers but he was actually considered an offensive defenseman in his draft year. He sort of became a shutdown guy at the WJHC and then was pretty much told to concentrate on defense when he made the jump to the SEL. He did have 20 points in 60 games with only 2 in the first 27. Nelson really asked the defense to be more involved in the play and Klefbom rose to the challenge.

Faulk's deal is also an absolute steal for a player of his calibre. He also signed it coming off of a season where he had 32 points in 76 games after having 15 in 38 the year before. The deal was also signed with a the cap at $64M making it worth the equivalent of $5.25 in todays money. If he signed that deal today he would, given his stats, be looking at $6M almost for sure. In two more years that $6M becomes $6.5 even with very modest salary inflation. So it seems this is actualy an example of the strategy paying off.

I advocated for giving serious consideration to a $5M over 8 year deal for Schultz last year. In retrospect it would be easy to say that this would have been a mistake. And perhaps even a big one. But the strategy is still very sound. By locking up the players you identify as your key guys early you actually win a lot more than you lose, so in the end you come out ahead even if you know you will likely make a mistake here or there.

Here is a direct question for you. What do you think the chances are that it two years that Klefbom will have established himself as a legitimate top 4 defeneseman in this league? Better than 50-50 or less?

 

[McQuixote]

Here is a direct question for you. What do you think the chances are that it two years that Klefbom will have established himself as a legitimate top 4 defeneseman in this league? Better than 50-50 or less?

I dunno. 50-50 sounds about right. Flip a coin. He looked like he was on track this year, but so did Marincin last year, plus the long injury history, plus Oilers so... I'm hopeful but I don't think it's something I'd bank on. I really don't think he's going to be in a position to command more than $5 million a year (give or take, under a 70-75 million cap) as an RFA on a 4-5 year deal in 2 seasons time, so presuming we're talking about $4 million now, I don't see the angle. It seems like an unnecessary bet.

 

[Mr Sakich]

another to consider is that klef definitely has first pairing potential. You do whatever you can to lock these guys up forever. The oilers, more than anyone, should know how hard it is to get a first pairing dman.

you take chances but err on the locking them up long term when dealing with first pairing dmen.

 

[McQuixote]

another to consider is that klef definitely has first pairing potential. You do whatever you can to lock these guys up forever. The oilers, more than anyone, should know how hard it is to get a first pairing dman.

you take chances but err on the locking them up long term when dealing with first pairing dmen.

Well, if you want to lock him up forever, it might not be best to sign him to a long-term (ie. 5-8 year) deal right now. If you sign him for 7-8 seasons right now, you're only buying 3-4 UFA years and have to renegotiate with him as a UFA in his prime? If you wait 2 years, you can buy up to 6 UFA years and lock him up until he's crossed 30.

If that's your end goal, to sign him for as long as possible, then you should probably maximize those RFA years when you've got all the leverage with a contract that expires during that RFA period, and then hit him with a max-term deal.