Confirmed with Link: Sharks close to re-signing Dillon -- UPD signs 5 year extension AAV $3.27m

[LadyStanley]

Three years sounds about right. Six years too long.

Click to read more...

 

[Nighthock]

3 x 3 is fine with me

 

[DG93]

Three years sounds about right. Six years too long.

I'd be ok w/ 4 or 5 yrs and 3.5-4M/year or 3yrs and 3M/year

 

[OrrNumber4]

I would much rather give Dillon a short, bridge, low-money contract.

This organization has a culture issue...don't pay Dillon before he has proven himself. He had a weak season, and rewarding him with a big-money, long-term deal isn't the right way to do it. I'd rather let him prove himself...and then if the Sharks need to fork over even bigger money, so be it.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Dillon won't be making big money.

 

[sharski]

Why the hell would you sign anyone except an elite player to a six year deal

 

[weastern bias]

Dillon played well last year

He was set up to fail being played over his head, on the wrong side (purportedly the reason he was traded in the first place), and with terrible defensive partners outside of Braun

He's still young, especially for a D, and managed to show poise and promise playing in a scenario that was less than ideal

I'd like to see him locked in for a decent term (4-5 years), and hopefully his 'shaky year' helps to shave some off of the dollar amount

 

[sr228]

If a bridge (2yr) deal is off the table I'm guessing they go for 4 or 5 @ around $3.75 which would be good with me.

Assuming he gets to play on his strong side I think he might thrive under DeBoer.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

If a bridge (2yr) deal is off the table I'm guessing they go for 4 or 5 @ around $3.75 which would be good with me.

Assuming he gets to play on his strong side I think he might thrive under DeBoer.

I fine with 4, 5 or 6 years on that AAV. Dillon was actually our best D-man last year in suppressing shots and second best in overall possession. He may not put big numbers/points, especially when people compare him to Demers, but he is a very good utility top-4 D-man. I am thinking he gets a 5 year deal. Also, I am actually a little more relaxed about Dillon because DW is really good at these types of deals with RFA's.

 

[hockeyball]

Dillon played well last year

He was set up to fail being played over his head, on the wrong side (purportedly the reason he was traded in the first place), and with terrible defensive partners outside of Braun

He's still young, especially for a D, and managed to show poise and promise playing in a scenario that was less than ideal

I'd like to see him locked in for a decent term (4-5 years), and hopefully his 'shaky year' helps to shave some off of the dollar amount

He was pretty terrible, statistically, one of the worst on the team. He didn't show much of anything from my perspective. Yes the situation was less than ideal, and yes I expect him to be better next season along with everyone else that was placed in a less than ideal situation (Burns) but the fact his last two seasons have been pretty terrible and he doesn't deserve a big pay day. $3m-$3.5 is being generous based on his recent play. Frankly I'd be happy to trade him, he's another one way left side defense only defensemen and we need some offense on that left side.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

He was pretty terrible, statistically, one of the worst on the team. He didn't show much of anything from my perspective. Yes the situation was less than ideal, and yes I expect him to be better next season along with everyone else that was placed in a less than ideal situation (Burns) but the fact his last two seasons have been pretty terrible and he doesn't deserve a big pay day. $3m-$3.5 is being generous based on his recent play. Frankly I'd be happy to trade him, he's another one way left side defense only defensemen and we need some offense on that left side.

What was he exactly the worst at?

 

[sr228]

What was he exactly the worst at?

His counting stats weren't great but like you said his underlying numbers were quite good.

He's not going to be one that puts up a lot of points but given a bit more rope I think he'll be pretty good at pushing the play forward and facilitating offense.

 

[Rickety Cricket]

That's quite a range of years.

 

[Gilligans Island]

My guesses and bold indicates what I hope he signs for
3 x $3M
4 x $3.25M
5 x $3.67M
6 x $4M

 

[hockeyball]

His counting stats weren't great but like you said his underlying numbers were quite good.

He's not going to be one that puts up a lot of points but given a bit more rope I think he'll be pretty good at pushing the play forward and facilitating offense.

Point being, you don't pay him for what he might do, you pay him for what he has done. A 2 year contract seems appropriate here to give him a chance to clean up his game.

I'm not really concerned about his offensive stats (though that would go a long way to increasing his value). What i'm concerned about is stuff like this:

+- = -11 (worst on the team)
Shot attempts against per 60: 50.3 (3rd worst behind Hannan and Mueller)

Defensively he wasn't great. Some of his underlying stats do so show good potential towards improving his offensive numbers, but his defensive stats last year were pretty bad. Yes it was a bad team, and yes everyone sucked, but that's the point, I'm comparing him against his own team mates. Burns btw, for as much hate as he was getting, was led the defense in shots against per 60 at least. His +- was almost as bad as Dillons though.

My point is simply he doesn't deserve a pay out, and he was a lot worse than several other players who are getting a lot more hate around here. He should get paid based on his play, he's not a prospect anymore.

 

[T0uGh C0oki3]

Bridge deal : 3.5 X 2 with limited NTC.

 

[sr228]

Point being, you don't pay him for what he might do, you pay him for what he has done. A 2 year contract seems appropriate here to give him a chance to clean up his game.

I'm not really concerned about his offensive stats (though that would go a long way to increasing his value). What i'm concerned about is stuff like this:

+- = -11 (worst on the team)
Shot attempts against per 60: 50.3 (3rd worst behind Hannan and Mueller)

Defensively he wasn't great. Some of his underlying stats do so show good potential towards improving his offensive numbers, but his defensive stats last year were pretty bad. Yes it was a bad team, and yes everyone sucked, but that's the point, I'm comparing him against his own team mates. Burns btw, for as much hate as he was getting, was led the defense in shots against per 60 at least. His +- was almost as bad as Dillons though.

My point is simply he doesn't deserve a pay out, and he was a lot worse than several other players who are getting a lot more hate around here. He should get paid based on his play, he's not a prospect anymore.

He's not a prospect but he's 24. Of course he's going to get paid partially on potential.

Counting stats aren't all that matter anymore & smart agents know it.

 

[Led Zappa]

Bridge deal : 3.5 X 2 with limited NTC.

RFA's can't have NTC's. And why would you give him one?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Three years would be a mistake, imo. That leads right into UFA for him. Either two years and keep him RFA or go 4-6 and buy UFA years if they feel he's worth the investment.

 

[Led Zappa]

Giving him 4 to 6 years at a reasonable amount is fine as long as there's no clause.

 

[T0uGh C0oki3]

RFA's can't have NTC's. And why would you give him one?

Nevermind then.

 

[Sharksrule04]

Anything over 3.5M is overpayment for him. He is not projected to ever be more than a #4 d-man. He has good tools, but I wasn't terribly impressed by him last year, even with his less than ideal circumstances. Ideally we sign him to a 3 year deal paying him 3M per.

 

[glasgow26]

I like Dillon. I'd be good with 4 years at $3.5M, which seems fairly realistic.

 

[Gilligans Island]

We're clearly going to re-sign him but I hope DW still goes after a UFA LD that can move the puck.

 

[Barrie22]

If dillon is the teams #5 i will feel a little better about the sharks defense. But the 4 above him have to be clearly better not just placed into the role.