The Anaheim Ducks have taken Jakob Silfverberg off of the trade market with an unofficial five-year extension.
Reported details about the deal
Salary cap “tagging” issues could explain why the deal is unofficial - and could be unofficial until March - but various reporters (from The OC Register’s Elliott Teaford to Eric Stephens/Jon Cooper of The Athletic) confirm that the deal with Silfverberg, a 28-year-old who would have become an unrestricted free agent.
Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman reports that the cap hit will be $5.25 million beginning in 2019-20, backing up Cooper and Stephens’ report (sub required) that it would-be in the low-$5M range. Cooper/Stephens indicate that Silfverberg’s deal will include a modified 10-team no-trade clause, too.
Again, this can’t yet be made official because of how tight the Ducks are to their spending limits for 2019-20.
Was it wise to extend Silfverberg?
Cooper and Stephens went deep on the pros and cons of keeping Silfverberg versus trading him, and it’s indeed a conundrum.
On the bright side, Silfverberg is an effective player right now, to the point that a potential $5.25M cap hit could be a nice value for Anaheim. Silfverberg even compares respectably well to Matt Duchene if you zoom out to their work since 2016-17. This SKATR comparison chart (by Bill Comeau with Corsica data) captures some of that spirit:
This isn’t to say that Silfverberg = Duchene, mind you, just that Silfverberg is likely better than people may realize.
But what about the future?
Silfverberg is already 28, so if the Ducks go through a protracted rebuild, he could very well be suffering from a steep decline by the time Anaheim figures things out.
Would the Ducks have been better off moving on from a quality player, thus landing more assets for a trade? What if the Ducks had managed to trade Silfverberg, then later sign him as a free agent, a scenario “The Mayor” John Hoven discussed hypothetically earlier on Wednesday?
Ultimately, the Ducks decided to just keep Silfverberg. It’s a decision that’s complicated - but not outrageous - in a vacuum, but what about the team’s larger trade deadline outlook, and general future?
Rebuild challenges
Some teams, like the New York Rangers, see the writing on the wall and end up in a great position for a quick/medium-sized rebuild.
If you ask me, the Ducks’ situation is more complicated and challenging.
There are some nice players in Anaheim’s system, with Maxime Comtois, Troy Terry, and Sam Steel already getting some cups of coffee at the NHL level. Perhaps prospects-oriented Ducks fans will disagree with me here, but broadly speaking, it doesn’t seem like the Ducks have a ton of stars-in-waiting, though.
As a team that’s intended to contend, the Ducks aren’t brimming with picks. They don’t have any extra choices as of this writing, according to Cap Friendly’s handy charts, and lack a third-rounder in 2019, plus seventh-rounders in 2019 and 2020. That’s not disastrous, but rebuilding teams (short and long-term) would obviously prefer to have more than the default number of a pick in all seven rounds, not less.
The Ducks seem primed to possibly trade Ryan Miller, according to Hoven, and perhaps some other smaller names could be sent out to add some assets. Still, this isn’t a team that seems primed to charge high prices for blockbuster rentals.
Good and mostly bad about veterans
The Ducks are currently paying a lot of money for aging players on problem contracts, but the bright side is that those contracts aren’t too long-lasting.
Ryan Getzlaf is getting up there at 33, but his $8.25M cap hit expires after 2020-21. Not ideal, but his situation really only gets scary in conjunction with bigger problems: Corey Perry (33, $8.625M through 2020-21) and Ryan Kesler (34, $6.875M through 2021-22) make for an expensive, fading Big Three.
GM Bob Murray must ponder what to do with those deals. Buyouts could be considered for Perry and Kesler, although that would spread out the pain. Trading Kesler or Perry might require a bribe, while moving Getzlaf would be an enormous, difficult decision.
If the Ducks just have to swallow those costs, at least they aren’t seemingly unending contracts.
The good stuff
While there are signals for the Ducks to at least do a short-term rebuild - as much as they even can - you can talk yourself into this team being competitive.
John Gibson’s extension begins in 2019-20 at a very affordable $6.4M, so if he remains an elite goalie, the Ducks can steal wins some nights. Gibson’s been incredible, to the point of altering Anaheim’s potential ceiling ... but then again, we’ve seen goalies go from bargains to problems. Cory Schneider sticks out as one of the most uncomfortable examples.
The Ducks’ other strengths mostly come from a young, mostly modern-style fleet of defensemen. Plenty of other franchises would be giddy to have a core group of Hampus Lindholm, Josh Manson, Cam Fowler, and Brandon Montour.
That defense plus Gibson plus - ideally - a great new coach could really brighten the Ducks’ outlook, and quickly.
Most likely, optimists in Anaheim picture this as the winning play for the Ducks:
- Gibson continues to be superhuman most nights (a dangerous gamble - because goalies - yet Gibson’s been the real deal so far).
- That defense makes Gibson’s life easier and boosts a so-so group of forwards.
- Silfverberg and especially Rickard Rakell combine with the likes of Terry and Steel to take on more of the scoring burden, while Getzlaf remains a beast.
- The worst-case scenarios don’t play out for Kesler/Perry.
Such a scenario isn’t ... impossible, right? Especially if this team had been underachieving under an overmatched coach in recently fired Randy Carlyle?
***
The thing is, the Ducks likely boxed themselves into something of a corner. That’s not fun, yet it’s also the price of doing business when you want to win it all.
And, to reiterate, there are teams in bigger binds. Where other teams are conjoined to parasitic contracts for frightening terms, the worst stuff can dissolve for the Ducks in a few years. The Silfverberg extension seems to signal that the franchise hopes that they can stick more or less to the current blueprint, but simply execute better in the future.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that this will be an easy juggling act, though.
—
James O’Brien is a writer for Pro Hockey Talk on NBC Sports. Drop him a line at phtblog@nbcsports.com or follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.