Walker Shesterkin Aiming for Historic Contract; Rejects 8-Year/$88M Deal ($11M AAV)

[Phil]

27 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

RW with Kreider & Zibanejad has been a hole forever so Berard there isn't that big a deal.

 

Yeah, we can't say this with any certainty at all. Yes, it's been a problem, but you're plugging in a rookie here into a prime role before we have a clue if he's even NHL-ready. He's literally not in the NHL right now. Maybe he makes the jump, and maybe he does fit. On paper, I can see how. It was literally my ballsy prediction, but realistically, I don't think you can count on this.

 

Quote

Schneider already is playing in top 4 with Trouba as of last night.

 

Temporarily. He's never done it full-time. Neither has Mancini. It's a lot to expect of two very young players who may not actually be ready for this.

 

Quote

There's still 6.5M left to get another wing or d-man.

And like I said earlier there's a lot of if's that have to go right for it to work.

Mainly getting rid of Trouba's contract for nothing.

 

Right — we agree here completely. That's my larger point. It could work, but it's incredibly risky and puts an outsized amount of pressure on the organization to fill key roles with rookies/ELCs and/or low-cost veterans, specifically because they're making the choice to sign their goalie to a $12 million contract.

[RJWantsTheCup]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

It is, because this roster isn't better. It's just different, and it fits, but if it doesn't win something in the first 2-3 seasons then you're into Shesterkin's down curve.

We don't know if it's better, worse or just different.   We do know  Kakko hasn't done anything.  RW with the bromance has done nothing.  Everyone complains about Trouba.  Lindgren is always hurt playoff time.  

[Phil]

25 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Is it really that gutted? We've removed Trouba (as everyone wants) and Lindgren (who I think most agree has regressed a bit and is a danger to extend long term). Other than that we've not lost anyone. If Schneider is not ready for 2nd pair duties from next year we're kinda screwed anyway.

 

But that's part of the point, we can't know yet who's ready in a year or two. Maybe Mancini and Jones has no problem playing 4-5th D, maybe neither can and we need to replace both of them.

 

He also left 5-6m to improve on the spots you want to. Then the year later you can change Panarin with an 7-9m 1st line winger and have 3-5m extra + increased cap.

 

Yes, it's really that gutted. There's a rookie in the top-six, a rookie in the top-four, a rookie on the third line, and a journeyman seventh defenseman playing a full-time 6D role.

 

I also don't agree with the values prescribed to Cuylle or Shesterkin. They're both like a million off the mark, so I don't think they'd have the room you think they would to add.

 

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

It is, because this roster isn't better. It's just different, and it fits, but if it doesn't win something in the first 2-3 seasons then you're into Shesterkin's down curve.

 

Yup, and all the pressure is on the players being asked to play key roles here to make this work. If they can't, you're fucked, and you're basically punting the first one to three years of Shesterkin's deal for no logical reason. All so you can hopefully, maybe, possibly load up for a run two or three years from now right before Shesterkin's down curve begins? Risk. Risk. Risk.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

We don't know if it's better, worse or just different.   We do know  Kakko hasn't done anything.  RW with the bromance has done nothing.  Everyone complains about Trouba.  Lindgren is always hurt playoff time.  

I think we've all watched this sport long enough to realize that putting a rookie like Berard in the top 6 and having half the defense being rookies or 2nd year players is a massive longshot to be better than this team is today.

[Albatrosss]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

I think we've all watched this sport long enough to realize that putting a rookie like Berard in the top 6 and having half the defense being rookies or 2nd year players is a massive longshot to be better than this team is today.

yeah, that's not going to happen.  you need experienced players on the roster who were either UFAs or gotten via a trade.  Cant just fill every hole with rookies and expect them to perform.  And if these rookies to perform, they'd need to pay them accordingly the following year which brings you to square one.  

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

Yes, it's really that gutted. There's a rookie in the top-six, a rookie in the top-four, a rookie on the third line, and a journeyman seventh defenseman playing a full-time 6D role.

 

I also don't agree with the values prescribed to Cuylle or Shesterkin. They're both like a million off the mark, so I don't think they'd have the room you think they would to add.

We're talking next year, in which neither Jones or Mancini are rookies. Schneider is starting his 5th season, Miller and Fox are in or starting their prime years. Not much different from how we've played 1-3 rookies on D every year the last 3-4 seasons. If you want you can sign a veteran to take a spot on the 3rd pair to close to league minimum, as we've done every year last 3-4 seasons.

 

Shesterkin at 11.5m seems reasonable, max 500k more. Cuylle could get a little more, but we should also be able to get Lafreniere under 9m.

[RJWantsTheCup]

I'll try a different approach since people are so quick to tear something apart, come up with a roster that works without re-signing Shesterkin.  

Strange how it can be said that a team is so close, but not want to try something different in the areas that are problems.  

I actually see both points of views on signing and not signing Shesterkin.  My biggest concern with signing him is the length of contract.  11.5M can be done.

[Albatrosss]

4 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

I'll try a different approach since people are so quick to tear something apart, come up with a roster that works without re-signing Shesterkin.  

Strange how it can be said that a team is so close, but not want to try something different in the areas that are problems.  

I actually see both points of views on signing and not signing Shesterkin.  My biggest concern with signing him is the length of contract.  11.5M can be done.

i think we're talking in generalities and not trying to pick on you.  Well, maybe Phil is.  

Laf, Kakk, Miller would need to get raises.  i just dont see how all of this can happen and we're paying Shesty $12M

[Phil]

10 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

We're talking next year, in which neither Jones or Mancini are rookies. Schneider is starting his 5th season, Miller and Fox are in or starting their prime years. Not much different from how we've played 1-3 rookies on D every year the last 3-4 seasons. If you want you can sign a veteran to take a spot on the 3rd pair to close to league minimum, as we've done every year last 3-4 seasons.

 

Shesterkin at 11.5m seems reasonable, max 500k more. Cuylle could get a little more, but we should also be able to get Lafreniere under 9m.

 

Mancini is probably going back to the AHL when Lindgren returns, so yes, he will still be a rookie. His first real chance at a full-time roster position is next season when Lindgren is gone, IMO.

 

Cuylle is probably signing 2.5 x N (Logan O'Connor-type deal).

 

Lafreniere is baseline $8 million IMO. He's not getting a penny less than Slafkovsky and arguably deserves more.

 

Schneider doesn't need his deal until the following year, so we can ignore him for now, but that's probably $4 million per.

[RJWantsTheCup]

1 minute ago, Albatrosss said:

i think we're talking in generalities and not trying to pick on you.  Well, maybe Phil is.  

Laf, Kakk, Miller would need to get raises.  i just dont see how all of this can happen and we're paying Shesty $12M

Not taking it as being picked on at all.  Trying to point out it can be done and not make the team worse more than likely.  Haven't seen a scenario by anyone where not signing Shesterkin doesn't hurt the team.  

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

I'll try a different approach since people are so quick to tear something apart, come up with a roster that works without re-signing Shesterkin.  

Strange how it can be said that a team is so close, but not want to try something different in the areas that are problems.  

I actually see both points of views on signing and not signing Shesterkin.  My biggest concern with signing him is the length of contract.  11.5M can be done.

We're not tearing it apart, just pointing out that when we discussed a roster, it was in the sense of still being competitive. That roster could be competitive, sure, but it's a downgrade in every position. You have to hope they are greater than the sum of their parts, with everyone being 2 years older...I don't know how that happens.

 

But you're touching on something I've said already...Being able to afford  quality players is just one concern with giving him this contract. The severe dropoff of goalies after age 33 is a huge issue.

[RJWantsTheCup]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

We're not tearing it apart, just pointing out that when we discussed a roster, it was in the sense of still being competitive. That roster could be competitive, sure, but it's a downgrade in every position. You have to hope they are greater than the sum of their parts, with everyone being 2 years older...I don't know how that happens.

 

But you're touching on something I've said already...Being able to afford  quality players is just one concern with giving him this contract. The severe dropoff of goalies after age 33 is a huge issue.

I don't think it can be  said without a doubt that it is a downgrade.  It's replacing players that don't really perform.  At worst in my opinion it's the same.  Doubt they can get rid of Trouba for no return though and I still don't like the length of contract for Shesterkin.

[Phil]

11 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

I'll try a different approach since people are so quick to tear something apart, come up with a roster that works without re-signing Shesterkin.  

Strange how it can be said that a team is so close, but not want to try something different in the areas that are problems.  

I actually see both points of views on signing and not signing Shesterkin.  My biggest concern with signing him is the length of contract.  11.5M can be done.

 

I'm not trying to tear you apart over it. It's not personal. It's math. I could show you a roster without him, but it's really difficult to project out that far without knowing who will or won't be available.

That said, for shits and giggles:

 

Panarin 11.6 - Trocheck 5.6 - Lafreniere 8.0

Kreider 6.5 - Zibanejad 8.5 - Tuch 5.5

Cuylle 2.5 - Chytil 4.4 - Othmann .86

Edstrom 1.5 - Carrick 1.0 - Rempe 1.0

Brodzinski - .787

 

Miller 6.0 - Fox 9.5

Fabbro 4.25 - Schneider 2.2

Jones 1.5 - Mancini .870

7th .775

 

Adin Hill - 7.5

Garand 1.2

 

Approximately 90.75 million under a 92.5 million salary cap.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

We're not tearing it apart, just pointing out that when we discussed a roster, it was in the sense of still being competitive. That roster could be competitive, sure, but it's a downgrade in every position. You have to hope they are greater than the sum of their parts, with everyone being 2 years older...I don't know how that happens.

 

How is it a downgrade in every position? The lineup he posted is the same as today without Smith, Kakko, Trouba and Lindgren. Are we really gonna miss those guys more then we'll miss Shesterkin? It's a small downgrade on RW and D instead of a huge downgrade in goal.

 

If we don't re-sign Shesterkin we're definitely looking at some sort of re-tooling causing Shesterkin has been the main reason why this team has been as competitive as they've been the last few years.

 

Also - have we any idea of who can replace Shesterkin? Like anything? Or are we just going to do it the Toronto way?

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Also - have we any idea of who can replace Shesterkin? Like anything? Or are we just going to do it the Toronto way?

 

We don't know yet. Right now, Adin Hill and Logan Thompson are both set to be UFA. Both would be acceptable in my estimation. We have no idea who will or won't be available. Worst case scenario, if Quick's still rock solid, the idea of a platoon while you figure out longer-term isn't out of the question either. Especially if Garand is ready for NHL duties. So, yes, you can do the Toronto approach and basically just platoon cheaper, relatively affordable players while you figure out who your long-term starter will be.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I'm not trying to tear you apart over it. It's not personal. It's math. I could show you a roster without him, but it's really difficult to project out that far without knowing who will or won't be available.

That said, for shits and giggles:

 

Panarin 11.6 - Trocheck 5.6 - Lafreniere 8.0

Kreider 6.5 - Zibanejad 8.5 - Tuch 5.5

Cuylle 2.5 - Chytil 4.4 - Othmann .86

Edstrom 1.5 - Carrick 1.0 - Rempe 1.0

Brodzinski - .787

 

Miller 6.0 - Fox 9.5

Fabbro 4.25 - Schneider 2.2

Jones 1.5 - Mancini .870

7th .775

 

Adin Hill - 7.5

Garand 1.2

 

Approximately 90.75 million under a 92.5 million salary cap.

So it's same roster just Hill and Fabbro instead of Shesterkin and Ruhwedel (random vet). We're also in this scenario signing a 29y old goalie, who's had one NHL season with more then 30 games and never over .915 save %, long into his thirties. His playoffs numbers are great, but he's played on a great defensive team in Vegas, not the mess Shesterkin has had to bail out.

 

Give me Shesterkin for 4m more every day of the week.

[Phil]

Just now, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

So it's same roster just Hill and Fabbro instead of Shesterkin and Ruhwedel (random vet). We're also in this scenario signing a 29y old goalie, who's had one NHL season with more then 30 games and never over .915 save %, long into his thirties. His playoffs numbers are great, but he's played on a great defensive team in Vegas, not the mess Shesterkin has had to bail out.

 

Give me Shesterkin for 4m more every day of the week.

 

Nope. I've subtracted Kakko and added Tuch as a long-term solution for Kreider-Zib. Added a veteran defenseman (Fabbro) to not put unnecessary pressure on rookies, and I was able to do this because I appropriately paid a reliable goalie instead of unnecessarily paying an elite one.

[Pete]

7 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

The lineup he posted is the same as today without Smith, Kakko, Trouba and Lindgren.

When you replace those players with rookies, yes it's a downgrade for the first few years. If they aren't successful in the first few seasons of the deal, then you're into the massive dropoff most goalies go through after 33.

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

I don't think it can be  said without a doubt that it is a downgrade.  It's replacing players that don't really perform.  At worst in my opinion it's the same.  Doubt they can get rid of Trouba for no return though and I still don't like the length of contract for Shesterkin.

Yea, whether or not we agree it's an immediate downgrade, it's the term on that contract and the hit itself that's brutal...even if you can cobble together a cap-compliant roster.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

8 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Nope. I've subtracted Kakko and added Tuch as a long-term solution for Kreider-Zib. Added a veteran defenseman (Fabbro) to not put unnecessary pressure on rookies, and I was able to do this because I appropriately paid a reliable goalie instead of unnecessarily paying an elite one.

Oh right, I missed Tuch. 5.5m if signed as UFA in 2026 (increased cap) seems very optimistic, but I guess it's good enough estimate.

 

And can we actually conclude that Hill is a reliable goalie? He's been a backup his entire career until he suddenly had a great 15 games stretch in the playoffs playing behind a great team that knows how to play defense in 2023. Last year he played 35 games and had 2.71 GAA and .909 save%. Not sure how that justifies 7.5m, especially when you consider the fact that he'll be 29 when signing and he'll demand 7 years on the FA (if he ever gets there).

Edited October 10 by Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

When you replace those players with rookies, yes it's a downgrade for the first few years. If they aren't successful in the first few seasons of the deal, then you're into the massive dropoff most goalies go through after 33.

Alright, but my argument is still that a downgrade in goal would be much worse then what these slight downgrades would result in. Smith, Kakko, Trouba - it's not hard to find somewhat serviceable replacements for these guys, even at ELC/league min contracts.

[Pete]

Just now, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Alright, but my argument is still that a downgrade in goal would be much worse then what these slight downgrades would result in. Smith, Kakko, Trouba - it's not hard to find somewhat serviceable replacements for these guys, even at ELC/league min contracts.

Sure, that's fair. But I can show you more teams that won with less than elite goalies than you can show me teams that have won by paying goalies double digits. There is not that big a statistical difference between elite and very good, especially not to justify spending ~$4M+ more.

 

Past winners/percent of cap:
Fleury 8.82%
Niemi 1.46%
Thomas 8.42%
Quick 2.80%
Crawford 4.45%
Quick 9.02%
Crawford 8.70%
Murray 0.88%
Murray 0.86%
Holtby 8.13%
Binnington 0.82%
Vasilevskiy 4.29%
Vasilevskiy 11.66%
Kuemper 5.52%
Hill 2.64%
Bobrovsky 11.98%

 

Do not pay this man ~14% of your cap.

[RJWantsTheCup]

20 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

I'm not trying to tear you apart over it. It's not personal. It's math. I could show you a roster without him, but it's really difficult to project out that far without knowing who will or won't be available.

That said, for shits and giggles:

 

Panarin 11.6 - Trocheck 5.6 - Lafreniere 8.0

Kreider 6.5 - Zibanejad 8.5 - Tuch 5.5

Cuylle 2.5 - Chytil 4.4 - Othmann .86

Edstrom 1.5 - Carrick 1.0 - Rempe 1.0

Brodzinski - .787

 

Miller 6.0 - Fox 9.5

Fabbro 4.25 - Schneider 2.2

Jones 1.5 - Mancini .870

7th .775

 

Adin Hill - 7.5

Garand 1.2

 

Approximately 90.75 million under a 92.5 million salary cap.

Never took it personal.  I like getting Tuch, don’t think it will happen though.  
And Hill and Garand scares me as a goalie tandem.  I appreciate an attempt at a roster without Shesterkin.  None of us are actual GM material and none of us know who will be available.  

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

Sure, that's fair. But I can show you more teams that won with less than elite goalies than you can show me teams that have won by paying goalies double digits. There is not that big a statistical difference between elite and very good, especially not to justify spending ~$4M+ more.

 

Past winners/percent of cap:
Fleury 8.82%
Niemi 1.46%
Thomas 8.42%
Quick 2.80%
Crawford 4.45%
Quick 9.02%
Crawford 8.70%
Murray 0.88%
Murray 0.86%
Holtby 8.13%
Binnington 0.82%
Vasilevskiy 4.29%
Vasilevskiy 11.66%
Kuemper 5.52%
Hill 2.64%
Bobrovsky 11.98%

 

Do not pay this man ~14% of your cap.

11.5m of 92.5m is 12.43% just a tad above Vasilevsky and Bobrovsky. This is in year 1 of the contract. At the end of the contract it'll be closer to 10%.

 

And of course you'll find more examples on teams doing it that way, cause there's not often there's a generational goalie talent like Shesterkin around. Vasilevsky is the only comparable tbh and if Tampa decided to go for a 5-6m goalie instead of re-signing Vasi because they wanted to keep a few roster players I'm pretty sure they never win that 2nd cup.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Since nobody else will make an attempt

Panarin 11.6 - Trocheck 5.6 - Lafraniere 9.0

Kreider 6.5 - Zibanejad 8.5 - Berard .86

Cuylle 1.5 - Chytil 4.4 - Othmann .86

Edstrom 1.0 - Carrick 1.0 - Rempe .85

Brodzinski - .78

 

Miller 6.0 - Fox 9.5

Schneider 2.2 - Mancini .87

Jones 1.5 - Ruhwedel 1.0

Mackey .77

 

Shesterkin 11.5

Garand 1.0

 

86M 

 

Leaves 6.5M if I did my math right.

 

 

Oh man, you were supposed to make them go first showing a lineup without Shesterkin  Now you've got folks saying this isn't as good as this year. No shit.

 

Your math is right. We are right on the money on most of the projections. I'm a half mill less than you on Lafreniere and Miller, but I also have 2.5m put aside for Trouba retainment.

 

Panarin 11.6 - Trocheck 5.6 - Lafreniere 8.5 (8.5 x 5)

Kreider 6.5 - Zibanejad 8.5 - X

Cuylle 1.5 (1.5 x 2) - Chytil 4.4 - Y

Edstrom 1.0 - Carrick 1.0 - Rempe 1.0

Brodz .78

 

Miller 5.5 (5.5 x 4) - Fox 9.5

Z - Schneider 2.2

Jones 1.5 (1.5 x 2) - Mancini .87

Faceless Name .9

 

Shesterkin - 11.5

Garand - 1.0

 

Trouba retained - 2.5

 

~86 million. 6.5 million to figure out X, Y, and Z.

 

There are different ways to approach filling those spots, but the most sensible one to me is to lean into the strength of the prospect pool of young 20s wingers they have, and allocate a decent chunk of that 6.5 to fill Z.

 

This also isn't accounting for what to do with Kakko. I'll make an assumption he's still just ho hum for now. Perhaps he can be sent to a 3rd team in a Trouba deal in exchange for retainment. Now that 6.5 number increases up to 9. Again, different ways to utilize that space. You can make a bigger splash (e.g., Chychrun at D?), or you can play it loose. I wouldn't go nuts, personally. I'd leave free agent commitments pretty loose knowing that Summer 2026 is actually the biggest crossroads of an offseason that this org will have in the next 6-7 years. That's when Drury will have the ability to mold the team. He'll need to know what a couple of his prospect wingers are looking like, and there's only one way to do that. Give them reps.

Edited October 10 by BrooksBurner