Should The Sharks Re-Sign Marleau?

by Mike Chen on Nov 11, 2009 11:58 AM PST

For my whole take on the Patrick Marleau contract thing, check out my Kukla's post. Yes, that's cross-promotion at its finest!

I will make this addendum (a BoC exclusive!): in sports, we've seen plenty of instances where fan outrage over "break-ups" heal pretty quickly if the team does well. On the flipside, look at the grumblings among some Tampa fans regarding Vincent Lecavalier's contract now. You'll find more than a few of them grousing about how Lecavalier should have been moved this off-season and how the team belongs to Steven Stamkos and Victor Hedman now.

So it's not an easy thing to balance out. You do it right and it's good for the player and for the team. Make the wrong move -- cut the guy off when the team still needs him or horribly overpay with term and cap hit to hinder any future moves -- and you'll be suffering for years.

Debate away!

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If I were Patrick Marleau I’d sit down and patiently listen to the Sharks’ offer, then laugh and laugh and sign with Nashville.

The West Coast is the Best Coast.

by RudyKelly on Nov 11, 2009 12:04 PM PST reply actions

If I were Patrick Marleau I’d sit down and patiently listen to the Sharks’ offer, then laugh and laugh and sign with Nashville.

Or sign with LA or Anaheim for way less then what the Sharks offer him. =P

by JohnQPhats on Nov 11, 2009 1:01 PM PST reply actions

sorry gents

Marleau is here to stay…of course you could have Heatley for say Kopitar…or perhaps Bobby Ryan?!

Here's to the second round!

by Aero72 on Nov 11, 2009 1:46 PM PST reply actions

Heater wants out of town already, eh?

If everyone’s so pro-Marleau, then a deal should be announced momentarily, I suppose. Until that next contract is signed, though, I wouldn’t put too many “here to stay” promises out there. Especially before postseason starts.

http://www.battleofcali.com/

by Earl Sleek on Nov 11, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions

Maybe Wilson doesn’t make ANY moves until after the playoffs end. Then, depending on how that goes, he either rewards all the veterans or jumps out a building.

by Mike Chen on Nov 11, 2009 2:22 PM PST up reply actions

At least this isn’t a “Should we trade Marleau?” post finally.

by Wooster11 on Nov 11, 2009 1:53 PM PST reply actions

Should The Sharks Re-Sign Marleau?

YES!!! (as loudly as I can say that)

Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality? (boycott Hollywood!)

by ang6666 on Nov 11, 2009 3:13 PM PST reply actions

Franzen or Zetterberg deal

They should try and get him for something in between the Franzen and Zetterberg deal. Marleau has been very durable throughout his career so far (who knows, things can change I guess). Aside from 1 year under Ron Wilson he’s been steadily productive.

Even through all of our failings in the playoffs he’s still been one of the better players.

by Evilducks on Nov 11, 2009 3:34 PM PST reply actions

I’m not a fan of deals with that sort of term. It always, always seems like too much of a risk. Freak injuries occur, and someone like Marleau may never be able to recover his speed if he had major knee or groin surgery. If that happens early on in the contract, you’re hosed. Just like at Cheech and compare his pre-double sports hernia play to the post-surgery play. The dude was never the same even though we hoped and hoped he’d get that core strength back.

by Mike Chen on Nov 11, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions

Looking at the numbers you posted on your article, Mike, you figured about a 5.3M cap hit for 5 years, based on how you anticipate him to perform over those years. I don’t think that’s too far off the mark, because I was guessing he was worth about 5-6/yr myself, especially if the team keeps the same forward group going forward. Having a growing Panelski/Setoguchi plus Thornton/Heatley and possibly Clowe is a really good group to work with, and could definitely allow Marleau to exceed the expecations you lined up.

Given that, plus the fact that he will continue to be a valuable piece on special teams and faceoffs, even if his point production slides, I don’t think its unreasonable to add another year or two to the 5 years you’re talking about. Add another year or two at lower salaries, you’ll have him tied up until he’s 37 or 38, and can drag the salary hit down below 5M. Barring a major injury, the only time I see him really being a boat anchor for the team is in the last 2-3 years of the deal, and that’s no certainty either. A year or two of an overpay in exchange for helping to keep the current championship window open is a fair deal, especially when a chunk of that money probably also goes towards smoothing over all the shit he’s taken the last couple years.

I’d feel comfortable giving him a 7 year deal, something like 4.75M/yr. It certainly won’t be an overpayment for the first 4 years or so, and after that, you’re looking at it being close enough to being over with that any issues become less of a problem. Besides, you have to remember, those deals will become considerably more attractive near their end to certain teams. If Marleau is getting paid 1M in his final year, and his cap hit is 4.75M, a bottom feeder that just needs to meet the cap floor and save money while tanking would certainly like to take that contract, and save 3.75M. I think deals like this will become much more movable than people think, for that reason.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Nov 12, 2009 1:35 AM PST reply actions