Confirmed with Link: Report: Couture to sign 8-year, $8m AAV contract extension (begins for 2019/20 season)

[The Nemesis]

low key Benn Ferriero appearance in the background.

 

[slocal]

Every f***ing dollar earned.

 

[LadyStanley]

 

[hohosaregood]

I really did think Couture was a guy who cared more about winning the cup than he did about winning the cup in teal. I never thought of him as a guy who would bleed teal but he does and I was wrong about him.

 

[Led Zappa]

He's just a wuss who doesn't like change and loves the weather and amenities the Bay Area has to offer a multi-millionaire.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I really did think Couture was a guy who cared more about winning the cup than he did about winning the cup in teal. I never thought of him as a guy who would bleed teal but he does and I was wrong about him.

I completely agree. I was low-key worried he’d leave after next year.

 

[Maladroit]

I mean, it helps that no other serious contender was going to give Couture 8x7.

 

[Mafoofoo]

It's good to see players being loyal and wanting to stay to play. I don't know what I'd do if we got Islander'd.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I mean, it helps that no other serious contender was going to give Couture 8x7.

This is true as well, and might explain why we have had to overpay certain players like Kane, Vlasic, Jones, and Couture.

The rates we might think are acceptable are rates that they would likely get paid by contending teams. Meanwhile, the rates that we’ve paid these players are rates that would likely only be matched by pseudo contenders like the Blues, Wild, and Blue Jackets and rates that would only be beat by gong shows like the Canucks and Canadiens. If the Sharks start offering what we consider fair value to guys like Couture, Kane, Vlasic, and Jones, perhaps they lose those players in UFA to real contenders who are able to offer them similar dollar amounts and much higher chances at a Stanley Cup.

Of course, I would probably rather lose these players in UFA than pay them the rates we’re paying them. But that’s a whole different discussion.

 

[Alwalys]

phu-

 

[LadyStanley]

Logan Couture ready to pay it forward in San Jose

 

[Led Zappa]

I was geeking out and did this for myself, but after all the work I figured I'd go ahead and post it.

It shows Couture's CAP hits based on past and averaged increases. I added Jumbo just to compare, though I'm not comparing players salaries. Hopefully I didn't make too many math errros

Cap Increases Over the Last 5 Years

13-14 to 14-15 64.3 to 69.0 - +4.7M - 7.3% Increase
14-15 to 15-16 69.0 to 71.4 - +2.4M - 3.5% Increase
15-16 to 16-17 71.4 to 73.0 - +1.6M - 2.2% Increase
16-17 to 17-18 73.0 to 75.0 - +2.0M - 2.7% Increase
17-18 to 18-19 75.0 to 79.5 - +4.5M - 6.0% Increase

Total Increase - 15.2M
Average Increase Per Year - 3.04
Average Increased by Percentage - 4.34%

Cap Projection Increased by Dollar Value at 3.04M Per Year

19-20 - 82.5M
20-21 - 85.6M
21-22 - 88.6M
22-23 - 91.7M
23-24 - 94.7M
24-25 - 97.7M
25-26 - 100.8M
26-27 - 103.8M

CAP Projection Increased by Percentage of 4.34% Per Year

19-20 - 83.0M
20-21 - 86.6M
21-22 - 90.3M
22-23 - 94.2M
23-24 - 98.2M
24-25 - 102.5M
25-26 - 106.9M
26-27 - 111.5M

Couture Current Contract 6M - % of CAP

14-15 - 69.0M - 8.7% ( 25 YO)
15-16 - 71.4M - 8.4% (26 YO)
16 17 - 73.0M - 8.2% (27 YO)
17-18 - 75.0M - 8% (28 YO)
18-19 - 79.5M - 7.5% (29 YO)

Couture 8M Per Year % of CAP - Cap Increased by 3.04M Per Year

19-20 - 9.7% - +0.0% = 0.0M - Relative CAP Hit of 8.0M
20-21 - 9.3% - +0.4% = 257K - Relative CAP Hit of 7.7M
21-22 - 9.0% - +0.7% = 620K - Relative CAP Hit of 7.4M
22-23 - 8.7% - +1.0% = 920K - Relative CAP Hit of 7.1M
23-24 - 8.4% - +1.3% = 1.2M - Relatvie CAP Hit of 6.8M
24-25 - 8.2% - +1.5% = 1.5M - Relative CAP Hit of 6.5M
25-26 - 7.9% - +1.8% = 1.8M - Relavive CAP Hit of 6.2M
26-27 - 7.7% - +2.0% = 2.1M - Relative CAP Hit of 5.9M

Average CAP Hit By Dollars of 6.95M

Couture 8M Per Year % of CAP - Cap Increased by Percentage Per Year

19-20 - 9.6% - +0.0% = 0.0M - Relative CAP Hit of 8M
20-21 - 9.2% - +0.4% = 346K - Relative CAP Hit of 7.7M
21-22 - 8.9% - +0.7% = 632K - Relative CAP Hit of 7.4M
22-23 - 8.5% - +1.1% = 1.0M - Relative CAP Hit of 7.0M
23-24 - 8.1% - +1.4% = 1.4M - Relatvie CAP Hit of 6.6
24-25 - 8% - +1.8% = 1.8M - Relative CAP Hit of 6.2M
25-26 - 7.5% - +2.1% = 2.2M - Relavive CAP Hit of 5.6M
26-27 - 7.2% - +2.4% = 2.7M - Relative CAP Hit of 5.3M

Average CAP Hit By Percentage of 6.73M

Couture 8M Per Year % of CAP - Cap Increased by Percentage with Years Old

19-20 - 9.6% / 8M (30 YO) - (Jumbo @ 30 12.4%/ 10.3M)
20-21 - 9.2% (31 YO)
21-22 - 8.9% (32 YO)
22-23 - 8.5% (33 YO)
23-24 - 8.1% (34 YO)
24-25 - 8.0% (35 YO)
25-26 - 7.5% (36 YO)
26-27 - 7.2% 5.3M (37 YO) - (Jumbo @ 37 9.2% / 6.7M)

Jumbo by Percentage with Years Old

Jumbo 09-10 12.4% (30 YO)
Jumbo 10-11 11.8% (31 YO)
Jumbo 11-12 10.9% (32 YO)
Jumbo 12-13 11.7% (33 YO) CAP Reduced
Jumbo 13-14 10% (34 YO)
Jumbo 14-15 9.8% (35 YO)
Jumbo 15-16 9.5% (36 YO)
Jumbo 16-17 9.2% (37 YO)
Jumbo 17-18 10.5% (38 Y0)
Jumbo 18-19 6.3% (39 YO)

Average CAP Hit by Percentage of 10.21%

Average CAP Hit by Percentage Minus Last Year 10.64%

 

[GSJS2000]

I was geeking out and did this for myself, but after all the work I figured I'd go ahead and post it.

It shows Couture's CAP hits based on past and averaged increases. I added Jumbo just to compare, though I'm not comparing players salaries. Hopefully I didn't make too many math errros

Cap Increases Over the Last 5 Years

13-14 to 14-15 64.3 to 69.0 - +4.7M - 7.3% Increase
14-15 to 15-16 69.0 to 71.4 - +2.4M - 3.5% Increase
15-16 to 16-17 71.4 to 73.0 - +1.6M - 2.2% Increase
16-17 to 17-18 73.0 to 75.0 - +2.0M - 2.7% Increase
17-18 to 18-19 75.0 to 79.5 - +4.5M - 6.0% Increase

Total Increase - 15.2M
Average Increase Per Year - 3.04
Average Increased by Percentage - 4.34%

Cap Projection Increased by Dollar Value at 3.04M Per Year

19-20 - 82.5M
20-21 - 85.6M
21-22 - 88.6M
22-23 - 91.7M
23-24 - 94.7M
24-25 - 97.7M
25-26 - 100.8M
26-27 - 103.8M

CAP Projection Increased by Percentage of 4.34% Per Year

19-20 - 83.0M
20-21 - 86.6M
21-22 - 90.3M
22-23 - 94.2M
23-24 - 98.2M
24-25 - 102.5M
25-26 - 106.9M
26-27 - 111.5M

Couture Current Contract 6M - % of CAP

14-15 - 69.0M - 8.7% ( 25 YO)
15-16 - 71.4M - 8.4% (26 YO)
16 17 - 73.0M - 8.2% (27 YO)
17-18 - 75.0M - 8% (28 YO)
18-19 - 79.5M - 7.5% (29 YO)

Couture 8M Per Year % of CAP - Cap Increased by 3.04M Per Year

19-20 - 9.7% - +0.0% = 0.0M - Relative CAP Hit of 8.0M
20-21 - 9.3% - +0.4% = 257K - Relative CAP Hit of 7.7M
21-22 - 9.0% - +0.7% = 620K - Relative CAP Hit of 7.4M
22-23 - 8.7% - +1.0% = 920K - Relative CAP Hit of 7.1M
23-24 - 8.4% - +1.3% = 1.2M - Relatvie CAP Hit of 6.8M
24-25 - 8.2% - +1.5% = 1.5M - Relative CAP Hit of 6.5M
25-26 - 7.9% - +1.8% = 1.8M - Relavive CAP Hit of 6.2M
26-27 - 7.7% - +2.0% = 2.1M - Relative CAP Hit of 5.9M

Average CAP Hit By Dollars of 6.95M

Couture 8M Per Year % of CAP - Cap Increased by Percentage Per Year

19-20 - 9.6% - +0.0% = 0.0M - Relative CAP Hit of 8M
20-21 - 9.2% - +0.4% = 346K - Relative CAP Hit of 7.7M
21-22 - 8.9% - +0.7% = 632K - Relative CAP Hit of 7.4M
22-23 - 8.5% - +1.1% = 1.0M - Relative CAP Hit of 7.0M
23-24 - 8.1% - +1.4% = 1.4M - Relatvie CAP Hit of 6.6
24-25 - 8% - +1.8% = 1.8M - Relative CAP Hit of 6.2M
25-26 - 7.5% - +2.1% = 2.2M - Relavive CAP Hit of 5.6M
26-27 - 7.2% - +2.4% = 2.7M - Relative CAP Hit of 5.3M

Average CAP Hit By Percentage of 6.73M

Couture 8M Per Year % of CAP - Cap Increased by Percentage with Years Old

19-20 - 9.6% / 8M (30 YO) - (Jumbo @ 30 12.4%/ 10.3M)
20-21 - 9.2% (31 YO)
21-22 - 8.9% (32 YO)
22-23 - 8.5% (33 YO)
23-24 - 8.1% (34 YO)
24-25 - 8.0% (35 YO)
25-26 - 7.5% (36 YO)
26-27 - 7.2% 5.3M (37 YO) - (Jumbo @ 37 9.2% / 6.7M)

Jumbo by Percentage with Years Old

Jumbo 09-10 12.4% (30 YO)
Jumbo 10-11 11.8% (31 YO)
Jumbo 11-12 10.9% (32 YO)
Jumbo 12-13 11.7% (33 YO) CAP Reduced
Jumbo 13-14 10% (34 YO)
Jumbo 14-15 9.8% (35 YO)
Jumbo 15-16 9.5% (36 YO)
Jumbo 16-17 9.2% (37 YO)
Jumbo 17-18 10.5% (38 Y0)
Jumbo 18-19 6.3% (39 YO)

Average CAP Hit by Percentage of 10.21%

Average CAP Hit by Percentage Minus Last Year 10.64%

I think a fair comparison versus Marleau is more accurate for Couture given they both are not Thornton. In the end if the cap continues to rise like expected Couture contract will look very good and not like the Perry and Toews contracts are looking.

Even at the current moment couture is ~20th highest paid player in the whole NHL and surely by the time this contract kicks in will be around ~30th. IMO he is in the top 30 players in the game today and most importantly really contributes at the highest level in the playoffs, often near the top in the entire NHL in playoff scoring.

 

[tiburon12]

I think a fair comparison versus Marleau is more accurate for Couture given they both are not Thornton. In the end if the cap continues to rise like expected Couture contract will look very good and not like the Perry and Toews contracts are looking.

Even at the current moment couture is ~20th highest paid player in the whole NHL and surely by the time this contract kicks in will be around ~30th. IMO he is in the top 30 players in the game today and most importantly really contributes at the highest level in the playoffs, often near the top in the entire NHL in playoff scoring.

Wait, how are you judging "highest paid"? by cap hit cap friendly shows him at 71st. by salary his more than 100th. at his new contract he will be 20th, though, but that doesnt kick in until next year.

Regardless of the particulars, i agree with your assessment of his value

 

[OrrNumber4]

This is true as well, and might explain why we have had to overpay certain players like Kane, Vlasic, Jones, and Couture.

The rates we might think are acceptable are rates that they would likely get paid by contending teams. Meanwhile, the rates that we’ve paid these players are rates that would likely only be matched by pseudo contenders like the Blues, Wild, and Blue Jackets and rates that would only be beat by gong shows like the Canucks and Canadiens. If the Sharks start offering what we consider fair value to guys like Couture, Kane, Vlasic, and Jones, perhaps they lose those players in UFA to real contenders who are able to offer them similar dollar amounts and much higher chances at a Stanley Cup.

Of course, I would probably rather lose these players in UFA than pay them the rates we’re paying them. But that’s a whole different discussion.

I generally think the Sharks paid what they had to to keep those guys. Burns, Vlasic, and Jones would have easily gotten superior contracts on the open market. I only really question the Kane deal.

So that was the decision facing the Sharks...retain those players at that price, or not. And when you are trying to compete, not retaining those players will destroy your competitiveness.

A counterfactual to consider...if the Sharks had signed Tavares, how much worse would they be without Vlasic and Jones? And, that's considering Vlasic unforseen decline and Jones not quite rising to expectations.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I think a fair comparison versus Marleau is more accurate for Couture given they both are not Thornton. In the end if the cap continues to rise like expected Couture contract will look very good and not like the Perry and Toews contracts are looking.

Even at the current moment couture is ~20th highest paid player in the whole NHL and surely by the time this contract kicks in will be around ~30th. IMO he is in the top 30 players in the game today and most importantly really contributes at the highest level in the playoffs, often near the top in the entire NHL in playoff scoring.

There is absolutely no way in hell that Couture is a top-30 player in the NHL.

Crosby, Malkin, McDavid, Ovechkin, Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Barkov, Panarin, Draisaitl, Matthews, Tavares, Karlsson, Jones, Hedman, Kucherov, Stamkos, Seguin, Benn, McKinnon, Hall, Kopitar, Giroux, Marchand, Bergeron, Gaudeau, Kane, Doughty, Forsberg, Eichel, Stone, Getzlaf, Scheifele, Subban, Kessel, Wheeler, Voracek, just off the top of my head are players that are a clear-cut step above. I’m sure there are more I’m forgetting about.

 

[DG93]

There is absolutely no way in hell that Couture is a top-30 player in the NHL.

Crosby, Malkin, McDavid, Ovechkin, Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Barkov, Panarin, Draisaitl, Matthews, Tavares, Karlsson, Jones, Hedman, Kucherov, Stamkos, Seguin, Benn, McKinnon, Hall, Kopitar, Giroux, Marchand, Bergeron, Gaudeau, Kane, Doughty, Forsberg, Eichel, Stone, Getzlaf, Scheifele, Subban, Kessel, Wheeler, Voracek, just off the top of my head are players that are a clear-cut step above. I’m sure there are more I’m forgetting about.

What about Jeff Carter, Pastrnak, and Josi?

 

[Juxtaposer]

What about Jeff Carter, Pastrnak, and Josi?

Yes to Pastrnak, no to the others. Any particular reason?

 

[Maladroit]

I generally think the Sharks paid what they had to to keep those guys. Burns, Vlasic, and Jones would have easily gotten superior contracts on the open market. I only really question the Kane deal.

So that was the decision facing the Sharks...retain those players at that price, or not. And when you are trying to compete, not retaining those players will destroy your competitiveness.

A counterfactual to consider...if the Sharks had signed Tavares, how much worse would they be without Vlasic and Jones? And, that's considering Vlasic unforseen decline and Jones not quite rising to expectations.

Jones is an average starter (for now, there's really no guarantee he'll even hit that mark on an annual basis going forward). It's really not hard to find another goalie like that. Vlasic has already significantly declined and is not gonna be worth $7 million this coming season let alone three years down the line. We should have traded him last summer as soon as his contract demands became clear. Jones and Kane should have been allowed to walk.

Burns and Couture are much more difficult to replace in the short term so I don't mind those deals.

 

[DG93]

Yes to Pastrnak, no to the others. Any particular reason?

Was also wondering why you put guys like Stone in there. He's a good player, but is he really better than Couture?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Jones is an average starter (for now, there's really no guarantee he'll even hit that mark on an annual basis going forward). It's really not hard to find another goalie like that. Vlasic has already significantly declined and is not gonna be worth $7 million this coming season let alone three years down the line. We should have traded him last summer as soon as his contract demands became clear. Jones and Kane should have been allowed to walk.

Burns and Couture are much more difficult to replace in the short term so I don't mind those deals.

You are way too reactionary with these takes. Jones is an average level starter and that's why you keep him at the average level starter rate like the Sharks are doing. If you're not even willing to pay the price for Jones' contract then you're not going to get another goalie like that. You're going to get the Kari Lehtonens and Cam Wards of the world which is very much on the lower end of starters at best. If the Sharks returned to their ways of churning out goalies then the team can afford to let Jones walk but the entire reason why they traded for Jones in the first place is because they're no longer capable of producing goalies and have to go out and get them.

I agree Vlasic has already declined and isn't worth his contract but that doesn't mean you look to trade him. A lot of his problems can be directly attributed to Justin Braun and making a change there is a far more viable solution than trying to dump Vlasic on a low point, take back a bad contract or two, and get worse still because while Vlasic isn't playing at the elite level he has in previous years, he's still significantly better than pretty much all of the alternatives available to the team. I wouldn't have minded Kane walking but I don't think his contract is anywhere near as bad as people like to suggest.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

There is absolutely no way in hell that Couture is a top-30 player in the NHL.

Crosby, Malkin, McDavid, Ovechkin, Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Barkov, Panarin, Draisaitl, Matthews, Tavares, Karlsson, Jones, Hedman, Kucherov, Stamkos, Seguin, Benn, McKinnon, Hall, Kopitar, Giroux, Marchand, Bergeron, Gaudeau, Kane, Doughty, Forsberg, Eichel, Stone, Getzlaf, Scheifele, Subban, Kessel, Wheeler, Voracek, just off the top of my head are players that are a clear-cut step above. I’m sure there are more I’m forgetting about.

I am sad that you forgot Burns on this list.

 

[rangerssharks414]

Was also wondering why you put guys like Stone in there. He's a good player, but is he really better than Couture?

He gets similar point totals to Couture, and he's an elite defensive forward even though it's as a right wing.

 

[Maladroit]

You are way too reactionary with these takes. Jones is an average level starter and that's why you keep him at the average level starter rate like the Sharks are doing. If you're not even willing to pay the price for Jones' contract then you're not going to get another goalie like that. You're going to get the Kari Lehtonens and Cam Wards of the world which is very much on the lower end of starters at best. If the Sharks returned to their ways of churning out goalies then the team can afford to let Jones walk but the entire reason why they traded for Jones in the first place is because they're no longer capable of producing goalies and have to go out and get them.

I agree Vlasic has already declined and isn't worth his contract but that doesn't mean you look to trade him. A lot of his problems can be directly attributed to Justin Braun and making a change there is a far more viable solution than trying to dump Vlasic on a low point, take back a bad contract or two, and get worse still because while Vlasic isn't playing at the elite level he has in previous years, he's still significantly better than pretty much all of the alternatives available to the team. I wouldn't have minded Kane walking but I don't think his contract is anywhere near as bad as people like to suggest.

No, I'm saying they should have traded Vlasic last summer instead of signing him to an extension. They absolutely could have gotten a major haul for him at the time with one year left at a minimal cap hit, even from a team unwilling to extend him. I agree that at this point now that the contract has been signed they should find an upgrade on Braun to at least salvage some value out of it. But a far superior option would have been trading Vlasic for a 1st and a prospect at the 2017 draft rather than committing to a defenseman who contributes nothing offensively for $7 million a year until he's 39 years old.

 

[DG93]

He gets similar point totals to Couture, and he's an elite defensive forward even though it's as a right wing.

Interesting, I guess I just don't watch enough Sens games heh.