It happens every offseason—restricted free agents file for arbitration, and fanbases panic. In the case of the Seattle Kraken, forward Kaapo Kakko has filed for arbitration, becoming the fifth player in franchise history to do so. However, no Kraken player has ever made it to an actual arbitration hearing. Each has instead found common ground and signed a contract beforehand.
So, what does the arbitration process entail, and what does this mean for Kakko and the Kraken?
Requirements for arbitration
Arbitration is a mechanism that allows a neutral third party to determine a fair contract when the team and player can’t agree. Each side presents their case—each limited to 90 minutes—and within 48 hours, the arbitrator issues a binding ruling on the player’s salary.
The result is a one- or two-year deal at a salary determined by the arbitrator. The team, if it did not file, gets to choose the term. The exception is if the player is one year away from unrestricted free agency; in that case, only a one-year deal can be awarded. Kakko is one year away from being a UFA, so if his negotiation gets all the way to a hearing, the arbitrator will award a one-year deal.
The ruling is final, unless the award exceeds $4.85 million for the 2025 season. If it does, the team can walk away, making the player an unrestricted free agent. This threshold adjusts annually.
Who is eligible?
A player’s eligibility for arbitration depends on his age upon signing his entry-level deal and how many professional seasons he has accrued. For players who signed at age 18 or 19, a professional season is counted if he plays 10 or more NHL games. At age 20 and older, it’s 10 or more games in any pro league (NHL, AHL, ECHL, or top overseas leagues).
Here’s the breakdown:
| Age 18-20 signed contract | 4 professional years |
| Age 21 signed contract | 3 professional years |
| Age 22-23 signed contract | 2 professional years |
| Age 24+ signed contract | 1 professional year |
Who can file and when?
Both players and teams can file for arbitration, though it’s far more common for players to do so. Players must file by July 5 at 5 p.m. ET.
Teams have two windows to file:
- June 15 through 48 hours after the Stanley Cup Final.
- July 5 at 5 p.m. through July 6 at 5 p.m., if the player did not file.
For a team to file, the player’s previous base salary (not average annual value) must exceed $2.43 million (per PuckPedia, as of 2025). Teams may use this route if they wish to avoid issuing a qualifying offer at the player’s prior salary. Through arbitration, a salary reduction is possible, with the maximum decrease capped at 15 percent. It also blocks the player from signing an offer sheet. The Buffalo Sabres just used this strategy with Bowen Byram.
Once a filing is made, a hearing date is scheduled between July 20 and August 4. Contract negotiations can continue right up to the hearing, but once it begins, both sides must abide by the arbitrator’s ruling.
Most never reach a hearing
Despite the headlines, arbitration hearings are rare. Since Seattle entered the league in 2021-22, 60 players have filed for arbitration:
- 2022: 23 filed, 1 hearing
- 2023: 23 filed, 3 hearings
- 2024: 14 filed, 1 hearing
That’s just five hearings out of 60 filings. The rest were resolved with signed contracts ahead of time. This season, 11 players have filed for arbitration.
Kakko’s unique situation
Kaapo Kakko’s case is more complex than past Kraken arbitration filings. His negotiation comes at a unique intersection of three key factors:
NHL salary cap jump
The cap is set to rise from $88 million to $95.5 million next season, then to $104 million in 2026-27, and again to $113.5 million in 2027. This makes short-term deals more appealing to players who want to cash in later. But there’s risk—contracts are guaranteed, but a major injury on a one-year deal can derail a payday.
Production and potential
Kakko tallied 30 points (10 goals, 20 assists) in 49 games with Seattle after his midseason acquisition from the New York Rangers and has shown good chemistry with Matty Beniers. That projects to a 50-point season over a full schedule. At age 24, Kakko may prefer to bet on himself, aiming to boost his value heading into his prime years. Seattle, meanwhile, is likely to make an offer aligned with his current production rather than anticipated growth.
UFA status
If Kakko signs a one-year deal, he keeps his path open to unrestricted free agency. That doesn’t necessarily mean he wants to leave Seattle, but it gives him flexibility and leverage.
In March, I previewed RFA expectations for the Kraken. Kakko’s case stood out then—and even with his arbitration filing, my expectations and predictions remain unchanged.
Potential outcomes
Here are three realistic outcomes for Kakko’s contract:
- Longer-term deal – Five years at $6 million AAV
- Short bridge deal – One or two years at $5 million AAV
- Arbitration hearing – One-year deal awarded in the $4 million to $4.5 million range
Technically, Seattle could sign Kakko for up to eight years, but that would take him through age 32. A five-year deal would expire when he’s 29, allowing him to cash in once more when he’s still in his prime and likely able to land another significant contract.
Final thoughts
Arbitration filings sound dramatic, but they’re often just a step in the negotiation dance. Most cases settle before a hearing, and both sides move on.
Still, the process can be awkward. During hearings, teams must point out a player’s flaws to justify their stance—comments that can linger long after the deal is done.
For fans, it’s easy to worry, but there’s no need to panic. This is just part of doing business in the NHL offseason. Negotiations take time—and patience is key.
Blaiz Grubic
Blaiz Grubic is a contributor at Sound Of Hockey. A passionate hockey fan and player for over 30 years, Blaiz grew up in the Pacific Northwest and is an alumni of Washington State University (Go Cougs!). When he’s not playing, watching, or writing about hockey, he enjoys quality time with his wife and daughter or getting out on a golf course for a quick round. Follow @blaizg on BlueSky or X.
Good stuff, Blaize. Thanks for the write-up.
I hope we can get him to sign a 4-6 year deal in line with what we have done with Dunn and McCann. He seems like a perfect fit for at least that long based on his age, style, size, puck possession, etc. against our needs. Plus just look at what it costs to acquire free agents who can put up 50+ pts with Granlund at 3x$7MM and Ehlers at 6x$8.5M. That’s only going to get worse as the cap increases and everyone has money. Even if we have to give him $6.5-6.75M an overpayment of $1-2M extra wont hurt too much. We shed a lot of contracts next year (though I hope we re-sign Tolvanen before/during this season) and if all goes to plan our deep prospect pool means more kids on ELCs will be joining the team.
Yep, I really like a 4-6 year term.
Those guys have put up 50 pts. Overpaying for that is how teams stay mid for years. Let him prove he belongs in that ballpark before you end up with another Burakovsky
Burakovsky was worth the contract when signed. Injuries made him not worth it but that’s only with the benefit of hindsight. I do generally agree I’d like to see shorter term though.
Let Blair cook!
Let Blaiz cook! (damn autocorrect)
Blaiz thanks for this.
Not too many KK comps, but the most recent one would be JJ Peterka (JJP and KK are 23-24 yo). JJP signed for 5 years @ $7.7mm AAV. JJP’s only played three years, but his production has steadily increased each year (68 pts. last season). KK has played 7 seasons, last year was his best (per your comment his Kraken production pro-rated to 50 points. He’s already played 7 seasons, in arbitration the Kraken could argue KK’s ceiling is a 50 point/season guy. At $6mm AAV his contract would seem rich relative to JJPs (even $5.5mm might be too high) which leads to my questions below:
Questions regarding the arbitration process:
1. Teams/players cannot use other players’ salaries or their team’s salary cap situation during the arbitration process. Does this refer to Kraken player salaries only? Can teams or players use outside player salaries as part of the arbitration process?
2. Since KK has filed for arbitration, he can’t sign an offer sheet. But I believe the team could still trade him prior to the arbitration hearing – is that accurate?
I’m sure KK wants to stay with Kraken via a LT contract – otherwise he’d have forced a trade earlier (a la JJP). But the arbitration process (if it goes there) is a big lose-lose for both parties. KK doesn’t get any LT security. The process can get nasty. Regardless of the award, KK could resent the “not nice” things the team said about him. He’d be a UFA after the season and the Kraken would likely lose him – and get nothing back in return.
The more I think about it the dicier this looks. But GMJB has an MBA from Michigan. Let’s hope his negotiating skills are well-honed, and he can delicately thread the needle on this one.
1) Salary comparables are allowed as part of the arbitration process. Any NHL player can be used.
2) Yes, players can still be traded after they (or the team) has filed for arbitration. The player just cannot be traded while the arbitration is in progress.
I am not 100% sold KK wants a long term contract. I could see him wanting to wait until he has 1-2 more years under his belt to sign when his performance has increased and the CAP has gone up. Botterill will need to dance that line to pay him enough salary and term to negate the pull to wait for UFA. For me that number five years at $6m.
For some extra fun reading, here is the list from the CBA of what information is acceptable in the arbitration process. Items F and G are for comparable players.
(ii) The parties may offer evidence of the following:
(A) the overall performance, including National Hockey League
official statistics (both offensive and defensive), of the Player in
the previous season or seasons;
(B) the number of games played by the Player, his injuries or illnesses
during the preceding seasons;
(C) the length of service of the Player in the League and/or with the
Club;
(D) the overall contribution of the Player to the competitive success or
failure of his Club in the preceding season;
(E) any special qualities of leadership or public appeal not inconsistent
with the fulfillment of his responsibilities as a playing member of
his team;
(F) the overall performance in the previous season or seasons of any
Player(s) who is alleged to be comparable to the party Player
whose salary is in dispute; and
(G) The compensation of any Player(s) who is alleged to be
comparable to the party Player, provided, however, that in
applying this or any of the above subparagraphs, the Salary
Arbitrator shall not consider a Player(s) to be comparable to the
party Player unless a party to the salary arbitration has contended
that the Player(s) is comparable; nor shall the Salary Arbitrator
consider the compensation or performance of a Player(s) unless a
party to the salary arbitration has contended that the Player(s) is
comparable.
Blaiz – Thanks for the details above, just fantastic info!
Regarding KK – in the context of JJP’s contract, your 5 x $6 would seem fair (actually generous), particularly given his performance the past 7 years. But if KK really wants to bet on himself more power to him.
And per Bean below, what is going on with Jared McCann? Heard rumors of him to the Rangers. Please GMJB, don’t give him away, he’s a goal scorer and he’s the best (only) one we’ve got!
You need to stop reading crap rumor sites. There’s no credible insiders reporting McCann moving.
For those wondering the other 4 players who have filled for arbitration are Cale Fleury, Will Borgen, Morgan Geekie, and Vince Dunn(x2)
Blaiz, Great work as always!
The Kraken front office seems interested in more moves. What are you hearing about the Jared McCann trade rumor being floating around lately?
What are the possible teams and the return in value possibilities?
Thanks!!
I’ve been reading those same trade rumors. I swear, the hockey media is such a joke sometimes. All these “reports” from folks like “The Fourth Period” just sound like these guys are stirring the pot on behalf of their sources.
First of all, just about every so called “return” in these speculations is equivalent to Seattle taking a rusty tuna can and 2027 first… because the two they have already isn’t enough.
Second, look at the Kraken trade history, right up to this season. They don’t make big splashy moves, but they don’t lose the trade either. I’m sure Ranger fans would love to get McCann for nothing and I’m sure Dave Pagnotta isn’t going actually bother spending any time to actually understand what the Kraken are doing… so sure – whatever.
Why on earth would Seattle trade McCann for nothing right now when it’s beginning to look like there may be plenty of opportunity as next season develops. I’m not saying the Kraken aren’t moving him, I’m saying the rumors all sound like nonsense.
Seattle getting a first along with that rusty can of tuna is better than other “proposals” (my favorites are the ones that are thrown out by fans and somehow manage to get picked up by supposedly legit media outlets) where the other team gets McCann, Beniers and/or Wright PLUS one of our first rounders for that rusty can of tuna.
When I was a kid, there was a super common trope in TV and movies that if you wanted to write off a character, you’d move them to Seattle – like we were this strange and exotic neverneverland. Some things never change.
Stop reading content from fake insiders like Pagnotta/4th period. There’s no credible insiders reporting any Kraken movement atm. Krakenszn often peddles this crap in their socials too
I don’t have any information on if McCann is on the table or not. What I will say, is the front office wants to improve the team and if they get a deal that includes McCann that helps the team, I do think they would trade him. For example, if Jason Robertson deal was on the table, I would be ok with trading McCann as part of that deal. That is not a 1 for 1 deal though as the Kraken would have to sweeten the pot.
I don’t see them trading away McCann, the franchise leading scoring, without getting something meaningful in return.
This is a very difficult situation for the kraken. My guess is KK is wanting a one year deal, three years at the most. If your in KK’s situation you want a shot term deal to prove yourself, why would he want to sign long term when he’s just coming into his prime and will have more opportunity to advance his game playing more minutes with the kraken. He knows the salary cap is increasing and he’s probably pretty sure he’ll increase his offense output.
If I’m KK and don’t really have strong Kraken roots set I’d take this all the way through arbitration, get the one year contract for whatever they give you. Play hard all season and go to the free agency next season with a big payday awaiting. I don’t think it makes sense for him to sign a 4+ year contract unless it’s a big overpayment based on his current production.
He’s got absolutely nothing to gain by taking a long term deal right now unless it is an overpayment. I could easily see this going right to the hearing because a one year contract is the best option for KK hands down.
I feel like maybe the Kraken end up bending and giving him a two year contract at the last minute. I’m sure they are pushing for a 5 year deal at the moment. If I’m KK I take a two year contract as it only kicks the ball another year and gives you an another year to prove yourself.
And if KK insists on just a 1 or 2-year deal he wouldn’t have much trade value. The Kraken would just have to hope for the best. They call it RFA, but seems like players have the most leverage.
Maybe he doesn’t want a long term deal, but I don’t think the Kraken should either. He has a multiple year track record of mediocre (at best) performance on a GREAT team. Why would the Kraken commit 6 years to someone like that after a mere couple months of good performance? Let him go to arb and prove himself next season. I’m willing to bet he won’t break 40 points, and wouldn’t be all that expensive if they wanted to re-sign him in UFA.
You would bet he won’t break 40 pts? That’s interesting, since he had 44 pts in 79 games last season despite changing teams mid season and moving across the continent. But that’s probably why he’s going to want a shorter deal. He knows he can break 50 or maybe even 60 pts playing in Seattle. His next contract could be 7 x $8.5m or more.
How would he possibly know that? And again, why would we make that bet? He has a much longer track record of mediocrity (<40 points) on a much better team. The sample of last year after the trade deadline is much, much smaller. I certainly hope that he’s a 50-60 point player, but I’m willing to risk a more expensive extension to see if that’s the case, because in all likelihood, it’s not.
“…on a much better team”
Where he averaged barely a minute on the power play a game as opposed to almost two minutes with Seattle. I think it’s reasonable to assume he’ll have more opportunity to score with the Kraken than he did with the Rangers.
Good point, though I wouldn’t exactly count on the Kraken PP to provide a ton of points.
So many examples of players that needed a change of scenery to break out. He was a very highly regarded prospect and we are just starting to see his potential. He plays well using his size and body positioning, those players often are slower to develop. I would not bet on him faulting… you have to bet one way or the other.
I wouldn’t necessarily bet on him faulting. I would just bet on…meh, a 30-40 point player of which we have way too many.
Well that is betting against him, that’s a regression. He wasn’t being used properly and the Rangers were not a good fit for him. You speculate that he could be getting 30 points is just ridiculous and betting against him. As a GM you have to bet on your youth to some extent or you can never build a contender with how the salary cap works. If you were to to just be paying fair market value for production on every team you’d basically be where the kraken are forever….
In the four years from 2017 to 2020 the Rangers had eight first round picks including four top ten picks with a No.1 and a No.2 (Lafreniere and Kakko)… and where are they now? Of the the top tens, only No.1 overall Lafreniere is still with the team. Kakko – No.2 – is a Kraken, Kravtsov is in the KHL and Anderson now plays in the SHL.
I don’t think it would be a stretch at this point to say among No.1s over the last decade, Lafreniere has been the most disappointing… and what happened with all the rest of their top prospects? Of the remaing four first rounders the strongest cases are Chytil and Miller, two players they traded away.
I think the Rangers are an important case study. Here was a team that went all in on the tank and even got some lottery luck, but in the end it wasn’t the high picks that got them a President’s Trophy… it was Shesterkin, a big dollar UFA, and the guys they already had – Zibanejad, Kreider, Fox. Unfortunately, now all that drafting is seemingly for not. The cupboard is empty.
The tank is a dicey strategy.
But what happened? How is it of all those picks – ALL OF THEM – turned into dust? Sure, they’ve had some ‘fine’ players in there, but eight first rounders, four top tens?!?
Personally (and purely on speculation) I think the Rangers have been terrible at development. I think they’ve rushed their rebuild – especially once they got Panarin – and I think they’ve forced their prospects into counterproductive situations. I think it’s likely Kakko may be a much better player outside of that organization and I think both he and the Kraken believe the same thing.
I hope he likes it here and I hope they can work something out, because I think he’s a great fit for this organization.
“The tank is a dicey strategy.”
Insightful post but I am wondering what you suggest as an alternative?
Right in front of us we see the examples of the Sharks and the Hawks as tankers. The Sharks seems to be tanking correctly but the Hawks do not. No real evidence for that, just feels like Mike Grier is making the right moves and Kyle Davidson less so. Only the next few years will be tell the tale.
The reality is that you need some luck in tanking, by doing it at the right time so you get a McDavid or Celebrini or Crosby. You also need to not get out-lotteried when you get a top pick.
Perhaps the key is really the development process. As I said recently, the most important position in the organization for the Kraken will be the head of player development. Turning all these draft picks into viable NHLers is the key task for the organization. This was a reason I was hoping in the coaching re-shuffle that Jessica Campbell was moved back to head up skating development.
Needle moving UFAs rarely hit the market and if they do, Seattle will not be on their list, so prospect development seems to be the only game in town. Thoughts?
I think it’s hard to say at this point if San Jose or Chicago are doing the tank “correctly”. Folks probably would have thought the Ducks were on the right path with Zegras, but seven seasons of finishing sixth or worse in the Pacific and now all the optimism is that maybe next season they make the playoffs… maybe – with a new coach and a mix of very old and very young players what could stand in their way?
Folks are excited about San Jose because of Celebrini, but I tend to agree with Pronman’s assessment, “they are a long ways away and a lot can happen”.
As far as the alternative goes… I’ll start with something you said, “The reality is that you need some luck in tanking”. I think that’s absolutely correct and as such should immediately exclude it as an option. If you’re interviewing a prospective GM and his strategy involves “some luck”, you’re not hiring that guy… you want a plan that has quantifiable measures with identifiable risks. It’s not just that tanking involves some luck, it’s that it relies on “good” luck, and a fair amount of it – and even then, look at New York.
Exchanging assets (trades) and identifying and developing talent (drafting) seems like an alternative approach to me. If you’re a team like Pittsburgh with encumbered assets (Crosby) and a lack of picks and prospects, maybe that looks like a tear down, but I think for most teams it’s maybe something less. I think Seattle has done a decent job of trading out players for picks and I think they are doing an excellent job of developing those players. While there is some hand wringing over Beniers – that guy is just 22, has a Calder Trophy, is one of the best defensive centers in the NHL, and is going into his fourth season of playing No.1 minutes. Wright and Catton both look like they could become legit top line players and Nyman, Evans and Kartye have all developed beyond their pedigree already. I think this organization is actually establishing something to build on. Vegas and season two have done a lot to skew expectations, but my point of view is management has been doing a good job of staying on track.
I would also mention something I heard on the Patreon Mailbag. It’s my opinion that Montour and Stephenson were not some “all in” move. I think there was a definite recognition of a weakness on the right side of the defense and I think as has been mentioned numerous times, the Stephenson signing was to support Beniers and Wright in the wake of Wennberg’s departure. There seems to a misconception – I think – that the front office is “all over the place” and folks in the media “don’t understanding what the plan is”. It’s not complicated… draft and develop talent and rotate out the veterans as appropriate… development takes time.
Just my thoughts…
Totally agree re:the general media. They have no knowledge of Kraken hockey in general, so how could they possibly fathom that they’re in neither of the gawdawful tanker or contender buckets? They also think that Beniers is who he is, they probably forgot that Shane Wright exists, or that Nyman had almost 30 goals in the AHL as a 20 year old.
It’s very simple: they’re trying to be bubble playoff competitive, or at least interesting, while developing the young talent who will make them consistently more competitive. The question is will it work without a Celebrini/Bedard/McKenna at the top of the roster. We’ll see!
Daryl I can agree with a lot of what your saying but you don’t sign a player like Stephenson to a long term contract as a temp fill in, that was pure desperation at it’s finest. He was brought in to fill a few years and no thought was given to long term success.
I think you make some really good points in this post.
I don’t think a team should ever tank unless they look up and find themselves with a bad team and a generational talent is going to be in the drafts.
That being said, I think there are times a team should try to keep building but keep a lot of resources in reserve. Don’t sign that good free agent that will be old by time your team is ready to contend. Don’t spend every dollar in free agency so you have way more options to improve the team long term at the trade deadline. Trade current talent for what is likely to be even better future talent.
So maybe tanking is rarely good, but having a long term focus at the expense of small improvement today is frequently good.
I hope you’re right!
Nino,
I’ll go back to what I’ve said before on Stephenson…
A couple things. Elliott Friedman said it right after the signing and he’s repeated it since, ‘Stephenson was signed to give cover to the two young guys in Seattle’ (Beniers, Wright) I don’t think he’s doing hockey analysis, I think he’s reporting on what he’s hearing from inside the NHL. This gets back to the whole idea of development. And to the second part.
What was the alternative? John and Darren asked Curtis at the time and his answer was literally “do nothing”. He suggested someone like Pierre Edouard Bellmare who never played in the NHL again or
Blake Lizzote, which would have given Seattle two 5’9″ fourth line centers to help those guys… or do nothing. How much room does Shane get to work with if that’s the help he gets?
I would have much preferred a five year contract, but as Francis said at the time, if you want one of those guys, seven years is what it takes. Considering more than half the league is looking for a No.2 center right now, the alternative at the time was do nothing. We’re already seeing the AAV begin to shrink away with the “exploding” cap and contrary to Luszczyszyn’s “without Stone” take, his numbers last season were almost identical to his final season in Vegas even though he was playing in worse situations here.
Is this team in cap trouble right now? – No. Does the cap look rough after next season? – No. Are we worried about the cap in 2030?… or are we worried about developing the young centers that are going to be the core of this team for the next decade?
The Stephenson signing makes sense to me because I believe them when they talk about building a team and developing players and I recognize they’re a lot more sophisticated about these situations than any of the hobbyists – like myself – that weigh in on these things.
Well said Daryl!
Go Kraken!!!
Yes I know we don’t see eye to eye regarding Stephenson, I see him as a third line center at best. If he’s playing second line then you just are not a very good team. With the contract term it’s just too much to be paying for third line center and he locks up a roster spot for too long with all the center depth we have in the pipeline. The alternative…. Find a serviceable vet you could sign or trade for as a place holder, please don’t tell me that they don’t exist or we could not have found one if we didn’t go the Stephenson route. What would we not have made the playoffs last season if we didn’t sign him? He was overrated by RF and it wasn’t a good signing, as I said before we differ in our opinion let’s see how 20/20 looks in a few years.
The guy you’re talking about – the “serviceable vet” – more than half the league is looking for that guy. Nobody is giving away worthwhile centers and there’s a reason Curtis came up with PEB and Lizzote.
The name that crossed my mind at the time but there was no interest was Monahan. He’s ended up performing beyond expectations so far in Columbus for 5 x $5.5m… but he hasn’t played anything close to a full season in five years and only ended up in 54 games last year.
On thing we agree on… let’s see in a few years. 👍
Great article, and an interesting situation. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a 3-year deal on this one. 3 x 5.5m? Either way, I think things will work out, as Kakko and Seattle seem like a great fit.
Daryl,
If they had “done nothing” and not signed Stephenson, do you think they would have had a strong probability of using that cap space in some manner at the trade deadline? I do. To me “done nothing” was not a reasonable comparator.
If they hadn’t signed Stephenson, they would have most likely ended up with significantly better draft position too. That one was hard to predict, but it is related to expensive marginal improvements being questionable for a team unlikely to make the playoffs. The draft pick likely being slightly better was one more reason not to have made that move.
I get the aspect of helping players improve, I just don’t buy that the long-term commitment was worth the juice. Like you, I don’t have a good feel for that aspect.
I personally see a Kraken draft and develop strategy and like it. I also see that plan starting to pay off in 2 or 3 years. NHL players take several years to develop, and we don’t have many drafts in the books. Around the time our draft and develop strategy starts paying off, I believe Stephenson will be a net negative on the team and becoming more so every year.
I hope Stephenson helps the young guys a lot, if that was what the signing was about, we will never have any clue if it was a good signing or not.
I do not actually think there was a trade to be had at the deadline regardless of Stephenson. Two days ahead of the deadline the Kraken sent Gourde and Tanev to Tampa Bay for Eyssimont and picks. After that transaction the Kraken were armed with ~$10m in deadline cap space and two added firsts and a second. A lack of resources – including cap – is not why they didn’t make a deal at the deadline.
At the deadline, it seems to me, player moves are to contenders and future assets go to teams building. Seattle added two firsts and two seconds and were not really in a position to add a “player”. As far as adding players, Stephenson’s “anchor” contract did not prohibit Francis from landing Kakko, a player whose age and talent are well aligned – I think – with Seattle’s interests.
As far a draft picks… folks need to pick a side here. Is Stephenson so good he added nine points in the standings? That would make him among the very best players in the league and his contract a true bargin. Or is he terrible and the contract is a total waste of money?
You can’t say he’s terrible and we would have been much worse without him. Moving past Boston and Philadelphia?… sure we tied those guys, but that’s as much luck as anything AND its the difference between eight and six. I fully accept that Chandler bumped the Kraken two spots. Is that really worth giving Beniers and Wright a diminished Gourde and “nothing” to help down the middle? If you were expecting the Kraken to catch the Preds, that’s nine standings points to get all the way to fifth. The next team up – Chicago – finished a full 15 points back of Seattle. That would have taken an all out tank.
Personally, I think the role Stephenson played to shelter the minutes the Kraken were able to put Wright in is alone worth the difference between drafting eighth versus – at best – fifth. And now what? This season you’re gonna go in with Beniers trying to rebound still, a bruised Wright, and Catton to the rescue? Of course they could have just gone out a gotten a solid No.2 center to shore up the middle, right? If the cap rich and perennial contending Canes can’t land a decent No.2 pivot, what would make you think the Kraken could… unless they overpayed.
I think the Stephenson thing will likely never stop being a thing and folks on both sides have good points AND folks on both sides just don’t get it… myself included.
Go Kraken!!!
Gourde and Bjorkstrand… Tanev went to Winnipeg on deadline day… oops
Don’t buy for a second that those players are hard to find, we gave one away for two seconds who has now signed a two year 5 million cap hit. He signed that deal last year, if our plan truly was to add protection for our young developing centers we never should have moved him and instead signed him for another two years. SJ did the smart move of not getting themselves into a long term contract that they might regret but instead went out and found a serviceable vet that they could sign on a short term deal…. We gave that player up and then go and say it’s so hard to find those guys? Seriously that argument doesn’t hold water. We seem like a team that doesn’t really have a plan from season to season. We could go back to letting Geekie walk… another guy that was capable of moving up the lineup as we’ve seen. We didn’t evaluate him well enough thought we could do better and then it’s like oh we need players like that they are soooo hard to find …. 😂
Typical… Wennberg didn’t want to re-sign – period.
Geekie wanted more opportunity – period.
I don’t want to sound like an asshole here, but this whole “we had Wennberg” argument is just super-simplistic. That guy made it clear he wasn’t signing with Seattle, and then when UFA came around he found out he wasn’t “all that” and ended up in San Jose – at $5m x 2. Whatever.
I would have been fine with Wennberg filling that spot, but apparently he wasn’t, and him walking is his choice, not the Kraken’s.
It’s not 3-D chess… it’s not even chess… it’s checkers, and if you can’t keep up with checkers I don’t know what to tell you.
Who said that Wennberg didn’t want to sign here, that’s just an assumption. Right he would rather play is SJ?
Geekie just wanted to move up the ladder he would have been happy if the kraken gave him the opportunity.
We had players further up the lineup that we had no intention of keeping as history has shown, we should have given Geekie the opportunity if we had no intention of keeping the players we moved out.
I know is overly simplistic but that’s the entire point, it is that easy to fill roster spots. If we had planned better and looked at more then one season at a time we wouldn’t have needed to be desperate in the FA market.
I’m by no means saying that we should try to get back all the players we’ve moved on from, just pointing out that we haven’t planned well and it looks like they are trying to hit a moving target.
Ok
Nailed my gaming fix with this awesome post! Hyypackel
I guess I will post here after reading Scott Wheeler’s top 100 drafted prospects list. Catton no. 10 and O’Brien no. 20, so the center spot competition will be interesting in the coming years. Rehkopf at no. 82 and Firkus at no. 98. As several teams had no one, seems like 4 prospects in the top 100 is average (or 2 in the top 81 or 3 in the top 97 if you will).
Maybe it is early days but this does not seem like a positive development for a team that has drafted so many prospects. Several teams that have finished higher in the standings had more prospects. Perhaps next year after the prospect laden Firebirds have given everyone a decent chance, the list might change.
No Nyman, OFM, or any of the other 2R picks made the list and of course Sale has gone missing as well. Counting 2R picks from the last four drafts, that is 2 of 10 (but Kokko could be a separate goalie list). Assuming this list is a proxy for those likely to become an impactful NHLer, the hit ratio seems to be low to what the Kraken need, which should be 5 or 6 of their 10 2R picks becoming decent NHLers. Can’t build out a roster just with 1R picks.
CH – I agree wholeheartedly with what you’re saying. Last February Scott Wheeler had Sale and Nyman ranked 108th and 131st respectively. The fact that they haven’t cracked Wheeler’s to 100 suggests he believes they may have plateaued as NHL prospects. For those that don’t like the pessimistic takes on specific players (always subjective) top-level historical data for 2nd round draft picks paints the picture objectively.
SOH posted an article with historical player data (years 2000-2017) by round chosen 2-3 years ago (link below):
https://soundofhockey.com/2022/07/06/data-dump-nhl-entry-draft/
The most telling graph was title “Average Games Played by Season from Draft Year”. The average games played (per player) from the 2nd round peaked at 23 games (6 years after they were drafted). That’s less than 1/3 of a season. Which means A LOT of 2nd round draft picks never become NHL regulars. Other studies analyze the data differently but confirm the basic results. Dobber Prospects (2000-2009 data) indicates that only 34% of 2nd round draft picks play > 99 NHL games.
Following next season five forwards will be free agents: Eberle, Schwartz, Eli, MM and (probably) Kaako. Their combined production could be ~ 100 goals next season. Rebuilding strictly from within means RF/GMJB would have to believe that Sale AND Rehkopf AND Nyman AND Firkus AND OFM could replace that production AND replace it quickly – they won’t have the luxury of a 2-3 year ramp as they become “acclimated” to the NHL.
The current mantra from FO is something like “we’re building from within, we’ll judiciously acquire a player when we’re ready to compete” (as a playoff team) in a 2-3 years etc. I assume that RF/GMJB aren’t so foolish to ignore historical reality for NHL prospects. They’re deluding themselves if they place blind faith in their young prospects to turn around this franchise by themselves – they data argues against it. I hope they have a contingency plan, or this could get (even more) ugly.
I would assume when they say build through the draft they’re talking about core pieces and specifically the ones you can’t acquire otherwise such as center. Adding Kakko, while not a likely “top talent” is, I think, consistent with adding appropriate pieces as opportunities occur. While I cannot say with certainty, I would imagine as the center talent develops they will be much more able to add “top talent” on the wings. Those players actually are obtainable by means other than the draft. That’s just my assumption, I wouldn’t have the hubris to think I know better – sitting on my couch – than an organization full of professionals who are dedicated to the succes of the organization.
And without shooting either the messenger or the source, would be nice to hear a factual response to the following: https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/news/krakens-offseason-hasnt-made-a-ton-of-sense
I listened to this the other day and didn’t find it the least bit surprising. This has been the Daily Faceoff line for quite a while. It was Seravalli’s line before his departure and it continues to be the line. I think it’s typical of a broader problem with the “national” media.
This “I don’t understand what they’re doing” line is just ignorant. Their simplistic view is you’re either a contender or you’re tanking and if you don’t fit those narratives it’s beyond understanding.
IT’S NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND!!!
The problem with this DFO take is they don’t even bother to consider what the team is actually doing. I’ve already discussed at length what I think any reasonable person who actually takes a broad view of what the team has done and said should conclude WHAT THEY ARE DOING. If you disagree with the approach, I can understand that, but if you simply “can’t understand it”, you’re not even bothering to try.
I don’t think you can give a “factual response” to “I don’t understand what they’re doing” beyond the discussion that has already been had at length. Chuck, I get that you think the organization is incompetent. I think I understand much of your justifications and while I largely disagree, it’s at least clear that you actually take time to consider the team. “I don’t understand what they’re doing”… whatever.
Daryl,
It is useful to check one’s opinion against third parties. For the Kraken, those third parties are: national sports outlets who ignore the franchise (a majority), national sports outlets who have take the time to have an opinion (which you typically strongly reject), local very experienced writers like Rob Simpson and Glenn Dreyfuss who call out the team strongly from time to time, and local writers who are dependent on keeping people interested in the franchise and so are in a bind with calling them out too much, although a few of the SOH guys seem to be trending that way of late.
You can think you know more than those professional writers but that is hubris. If memory serves, over the years as I have been calling out on Francis, Grubauer, and similar, you were regularly an early defender. It was only later that you jumped on the bandwagon. From the early actions of Botterill, I am not liking what I have seen so far, as there is little risk being taken. So, the DFO assertion that Francis is still running things, in philosophy if not reality, seems plausible. They posited the same regarding what is going on in Vancouver and it has hard to argue with it, as they have made one puzzling mistake after another.
You can continue to be an apologist for the Kraken front office, which promised a competitive team long before this, but it is clear now that we are talking perhaps year seven or eight. And that assumes Scott Wheeler’s evaluation is wrong and there are a lot more hits than misses in the 2R picks. So why did Francis not tell the truth from the beginning, that the team would be mediocre for the first five years and then might start putting together regular playoff appearances if and when their many draft picks hit? Beyond the lack of risk taking and the perceived incompetence, the lack of basic honesty is the real issue. If Sam Holloway came in at the end of the forthcoming season and fired the whole front office and said her next hire had two years to field a winner or they were also out, that would be so refreshing. Less hugging and more accountability is required for this franchise to become sustainably successful, which we all wish for. Let’s leave it there, I hope I am wrong about Botterill and he is his own man but only time will tell.
Ok
Since the value of third party opinions is important, what do you make of this take from Neil Paine at ESPN?
He has the Kraken listed third among teams that netted the most goals above replacement this offseason. Their +13.1 would put them within striking distance of a break-even goal differential. The two teams ahead them – San Jose and Anaheim – added +22 and +17.7 respectively. Those numbers would bring them to -83 and -24… still worse than where Seattle finished this season.
While there is a lot of “noise” in an analysis like this, it’s certainly better than “I don’t understand what they’re doing”.
https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/45700988/which-32-nhl-teams-added-lost-most-value-offseason-three-year-gar-draft-free-agency
Wow this is really interesting. Beats the whole subjective “Winners and Losers” stuff you normal see to “analyze” offseason activity.
That’s very interesting especially since we hired a very defensive coach that isn’t known for producing offensive numbers and haven’t signed any big producers.
@Chuck
Prospects:
I’m not too worried about the number of Kraken prospects that will play. It’s seems pretty obvious to me that the Kraken have taken a TBL style approach – meaning, they will let their prospects cook properly. I don’t put much stock in the opinions of pundits. A quick glance at the Kraken prospect pool shows there are an easy 10-12 prospects, at minimum, that will get looks once they are 21-22 or so. I think we all agree that top end beyond Catton and O’Brien is not deep/”elite” enough, but the overall depth is good. The 2026 draft will improve things further. The ones that will make it are the ones that keep growing year on year, and who those guys are is extremely difficult to say when they are 18-20 years old.
Team strategy:
Again this is pretty easy. I like the off season so far. The Kraken haven’t made any boneheaded decisions which is a win. The plan is obviously the same it’s always been: Build through the draft, cycle out the original expansion players when their time is up. It would behove the Kraken to suck this season to boost their 2026 draft, but for some reason there is a lot of babble about (pointlessly) making the playoffs… The Kraken are a pretty old team, especially for being a bad team. They brought in Lindgren who is 27 which happens to be a serious gap in the demograhpy of the team. They will move out older players. They will bring in a lot of youth over the next few seasons, so their moves are made with that in mind. They need the stability good vets bring, but also space for the kids.
Bylsma was let go because he didn’t have a working NHL level game plan. Lambert was brought in to fix a host of issues in all three zones plus the special teams. The team should improve next season based on this alone. Still, the root issue for this expansion team remains the same. Too many aging players at the tail end of their career, young players in core positions that are years away from their peak, with too many middling players taking up space to buy time before the build through the draft approach starts taking hold.
This is why the Kraken kind of need Kakko and no doubt his agent is well aware. If Kakko signs longterm I expect the AAV to be on the higher side. He is the perfect age and he still has untapped upside.
Wittmont,
Good response but as I mentioned to Daryl, the real issue, beyond what people like myself, TotemforLife, DFO, the Athletic writers, and the local experienced writers see as a lack of risk taking and milquetoast roster moves, is a lack of honesty from the front office. No one is ever going to believe GMJB is his own man and not Francis’ puppet until he corrects the latter’s mistakes. He missed a prime opportunity to do that when he did not buy out Grubauer.
The honesty comes in when clearly signalling when you expect to be competitive. Right now, Catton, O’Brien, and whomever else they can drag with them need probably three more seasons before they can make a collective impact, so we are talking the 2028-29 season. Quantity of draft picks unfortunately means little if they are not top-6, top-4 players. That is why Wheeler’s evaluations are a bit troubling. On top of Tambellini departing. You have to ask yourself, who is coming into one of those top 10 player roles from the prospects beyond Catton and O’Brien? The Kraken are rated as having no one else in the top 80 prospects in the league. That is concerning, which means we could be waiting for something that never happens.
Right now, if O’Brien moves quickly through the paces, you have a top-6 in 2028-29 of Wright, Catton, and O’Brien (not sold on Beniers being long-term playoff team top-6). To me, I think this might be a good year to tank if things go south by Thanksgiving if not before. Sell Schwartz, Oleksiak, and Marchment for what you can get and see if the team can draft in the top 3 pick to change the future dynamic. They were essentially fourth from the bottom last season, except for the mistake of coming back against the Habs and some bad lottery luck, so it is only an improved Nashville away from being reality again. We’ll see how the first month of the season goes.
@ Chuck,
Francis made a lot of mistakes. The milquetoast, risk averse and uncreative expansion set a tone that harmed the franchise to an extent. However I feel management has realized the mistake, having lived through it first hand… The 2023 playoff experience was “nice”, but it also came at a cost and was not helpful in the big picture. At the end of this season Holloway lamented the failure and longed for the playoffs… which clearly is not a correct and realistic read on the situation the Kraken find themselves in. Is there a theoretical chance the Kraken again slip into a WC spot? Yes, even if remote. However, reaching the playoffs again with a limited team would be of limited benefit, maybe even counterproductive in the long run. I think GMJB realizes this and has set the team up to be more aggressive in turning the veteran players over for quality help with smarter trade activity.
Holloway wanted the playoffs, but JB’s actions speak of a more measured build up approach – which clearly is the better option. I think JB is on the same page as you describe in your last paragraph – move out the aging vets, pick up more talent. The Kraken absolutely need more high end talent and 2026 is a good draft to go pick up more. Hopefully that’s what we see as the season unfolds.
Wheeler is criticized for being notoriously high on hot stats and flashiness. The Kraken like well rounded players with high IQ and skill. Time will tell how well they have drafted and developed. Failure here will obviously be costly. I think there will be a lot of prospects that go on to have NHL careers, but as you say the number of top 6 and top 4 may be limited. Then again if only a few make top 6, top 4 that goes a long way. The surplus becomes trade ammo.
Beniers covers a lot of ice, but the IQ and playmaking is lacking. If say O’Brien makes it the Kraken can still trade a C, and a young C with pedigree do fetch a very high price on the market. Beniers is not outright poor by any means even if he isn’t what you are looking for in a dominant 1C. He’s also very young still.
Gruby I don’t feel matters much. Makes sense to save money and buy him out next year. If he stinks it helps with the tank and the org did give him a real chance to bounce back.
I do agree that management have given mixed messages, but hopefully GMJB stays on track, as described above, and doesn’t attempt to please everybody like GMRF did.
What Chuckles won’t mention is how JB managed to dupe Chicago into taking on Burky’s contract (effectively “correcting” his mistake), framing it as going after Veleno instead of acknowledging that it was a shrewd way to offload a contract that wasn’t working out for the team.
It’s easy to state that JB is a Francis puppet when you bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging all the ways that he isn’t.
Daryl, you wrote the following which is not reflective of what I have said about Stephenson here or in the past.
“As far a draft picks… folks need to pick a side here. Is Stephenson so good he added nine points in the standings? That would make him among the very best players in the league and his contract a true bargin. Or is he terrible and the contract is a total waste of money?
You can’t say he’s terrible and we would have been much worse without him. Moving past Boston and Philadelphia?… sure we tied those guys, but that’s as much luck as anything AND its the difference between eight and six. ”
I have never said Stephenson is terrible. I HAVE said the signing was terrible, very different things. Stephenson is an above average player. What we needed was a goal scorer more than a facilitator, i get that no comparable goal scorer was available in FA that wanted to come here. By most reasonable standards he signed a pretty big and long contract. By most reasonable standards his best years of that contract will have been last year and the next couple at most. I did not and do not believe we will have a great team in that window.
I felt we overpaid to get him to come here, that was my initial take. Most of the media at the time came down heavily on that side, doesn’t mean they or I am right. I hate the thought of overpaying for a guy that will be past his best years and into serious decline years by time i personally see our competitive window opening. I fully anticipated him improving the team by a couple points, maybe 2-5 for years the Kraken aren’t going to make the playoffs. Those 2-5 points over a few years can make a difference in where you draft, it sure did this year. How much that mattered in this years draft was unusual, but being marginally better when you aren’t going to make the playoffs isn’t really a good thing if it has any negative effect on the future. It’s kind of like going a bit slower on a road and just missing a green light, sometimes going slower will have a bigger effect than others.
I don’t personally buy that having Stephenson for the next couple years will make Beniers and Wright noticeably better down the road. But I also admit I could be very wrong here. I can only think of my experience with sports. I know when I played on teams and lost good players it made me take larger roles which I believe increased my development. I don’t know Hockey though. If the young guys needed good examples, they could have brought in cheaper ones. If the game is harder for the young guys without Stephenson, won’t that make them have to sink or swim? That gets into the aspect where I could be way off base and undervaluing his contribution.
Signing Stephenson doesn’t even need to mean the mgt. felt it was the best long-term move to bring a championship home. It could just mean someone feared for their job and felt pressure to get more butts in seats near term.
If the Kraken got just one less standing point last year they would have been picking sixth instead of eighth…and in a position to pick either Martone or Hagens.
Not that I really have much of an opinion on the Stephenson thing anymore, seems like water under the bridge. Just saying..
If they had just shipped McCann, they probably could have picked fifth…
You’re absolutely right, and I didn’t think you were saying Stephenson is terrible.
You did say:
“If they hadn’t signed Stephenson, they would have most likely ended up with significantly better draft position too.”
I’ve heard this before and so was trying to more broadly address this assertion which I believe is hard to justify for the reasons I explained. I said, “folks need to pick a side here”. I was speaking more broadly about what I think is the fallacy of that argument – he’s neither that good or that bad – but you are correct, I mischaracterized your statements.
I don’t know that having Stephenson will help with Beniers and Wright’s development either, but I think there are plenty of examples of players and teams floundering because they were placed in impossible situations. More importantly to me, however, is the “why” of signing Stephenson. If you think they signed Stephenson as some sort of misguided “go for it” acquisition… well that’s one thing. If you think – as I do for the reasons I explained – that it was part of a larger development plan… along with him being a valuable player regardless? Well, then you can doubt that as well, as you have, but it’s an entirely different thing. Like the difference between saying a player is terrible versus their contract is terrible, the subtly means a lot. If you’re like me, you can think it’s a plan, if you’re like Chuckles, you can think it’s deceitful desperation.
I honestly apologize for my mischaracterization.
Very well stated response!
Here is what I see in the signing. I think they felt he would improve the team marginally, like most of us. I think that anticipated improvement was the bulk of the reason for the signing.
I believe they felt they were closer to a contending team than they actually were. At least closer to a playoff contender, perhaps they knew the team wasn’t close to elite. I believe based on their opinion of the teams strength AND pressure to put butts in seats, they were willing to sign a too long contract to get marginally better today with a small negative that would kick in down the road.
Personally all I care about is being a true contender and winning the cup. Being marginally better last year and the next couple is worse than meaningless if it means a very small reduction in chance to win it all.
Maybe I’m wrong and he helps culture etc, but a year after the fact I don’t like the move any more. The guy seems like a good player, I just don’t believe his age and contract were a good match for this team.
Yes I completely agree, I honestly don’t even understand how he fits into our lineup in another two to three years. Maybe the 4th line center but that’s a ton of money for a 4th line center. We’d be asking better centers to move off their natural position. Very short sighted move.