This week, we’ll answer fan questions about the team’s future on the ice, behind the bench and in the dressing room
Given all that’s taken place with the Kraken in recent weeks, including the hiring of coach Lane Lambert, I felt that now might be a great time to do our first team-centric mailbag and try to answer some of your questions. I put out a request on social media and received plenty of responses from fans genuinely interested in where things go from here.
Not all the questions made it in here. But I tried to choose those requiring a fair bit of nuance. If any of us had all the correct answers in pro sports, we’d make a killing on some Las Vegas bets and retire to a faraway island living under an umbrella on the beach. As for me, I’m apparently still answering online questions for a living. In doing so this time, I’ll consider replies from a variety of angles, including those that won’t necessarily be obvious.
What guarantee do we have that this new head coach will improve the on-ice performance of this underachieving team?
Zero. But that’s always the case with head coaches. The average coaching lifespan in the NHL is now something less than 2 ½ seasons, which tells you teams aren’t shy about shaking things up in a highly competitive league.
As you mention, the Kraken underachieved last season. The coach can’t go out there and score goals or stop them from going in. But it is the coach’s job to get the most out of his players and if you feel that isn’t happening, then a change is often warranted. Especially when a new general manager is coming in, as is the case with Jason Botterill. A new GM usually gets to pick his own coach, which is what Botterill did with Lane Lambert. The good news is, as you’ve stated, the Kraken underachieved this past season. That means there’s a lot of room for upward trajectory especially if Botterill feels that the new systems deployed by Lambert might get more out of the team than what was taking place previously.
There’s no guarantee they’ll improve. But I like their chances. They were already playing better down the stretch and I see no reason that can’t continue as a baseline and actually jump a level from there.
When it comes to consistent success, culture is a common locker room quality. We seemed to have it in season 2 but it feels like there is something off with our team chemistry and culture now. Is that an issue and if so will it be changed?
Like you, I am also a firm believer in locker room chemistry. What I’m not completely sold on is how to plan for it. The good news is all NHL teams are in the same boat, always tweaking in search of that elusive perfect chemistry formula. And it’s the same in every sport. We just saw the Kansas City Chiefs fall one win shy of a third consecutive Super Bowl title. But their blowout championship loss to the Eagles suddenly has folks questioning every aspect of their organization – including chemistry. I mean, the Chiefs were the epitome of what sports franchises strive for, so if they don’t have all the answers, who does? No island retirement for them just yet.
One thing I’ve found covering teams in multiple professional sports is that winning certainly helps chemistry. So, when the Kraken pulled off a prolonged winning streak in November of their second season and followed it up with an even better January streak, yeah, that did wonders for chemistry and they carried it through to the playoffs.
But then, months later, a group of largely the same players started the next season with a string of losses and spent the rest of the schedule playing catch-up. That piled on plenty of added pressure and the chemistry was a lot less enthusiastic. At least, that’s how it appeared to me from the outside. Even here, working for the team, I am not in the room with players. But based on conversations with them between games and being around them on road trips, things are certainly a lot happier and less tense in winning times than when you’re constantly digging out of a losing hole. Coaches will try to minimize that by getting players to focus on short-term blocks of schedule rather than constantly looking at the bigger picture, but hey, we’re all human and eventually the reality of any losing situation becomes apparent.
I think the best you can do as a team is establish a core of positive leaders and eliminate any negative aspects you might sense lingering within the room. You don’t want a lineup of all choir boys, but if you’re going to keep what I might call “excessive personalities” in a locker room, they’d better have the on-ice production to match. If your leadership group is strong enough, you can contain the negative aspects while benefitting from the production.
For the Kraken, you also might consider how the timing of injuries the past two seasons impacted things. Jordan Eberle had just been named captain last season and was off to one of the best starts of his career when he was lost for three months. Vince Dunn also was lost for a month in the early going. That will impact chemistry and had a lot to do with the Kraken’s sluggish start.
So, can it be avoided going forward? Well, the Kraken are very much aware that they need to start stronger this coming season. They will look to make even more on-ice upgrades in coming months and hope the continued development of younger players such as Matty Beniers, Shane Wright and Ryker Evans gives them an opportunity for that faster opening.
Otherwise, it’s mostly the same leadership group, minus Yanni Gourde, still around from the playoff season. And you’ve added Brandon Montour to the mix. That’s a pretty stable group guiding the ship. Turn some of those early losses into wins, I think you’ve got the foundation in-place for chemistry to take hold.
How much does Seattle have to overpay (vs original 6 team for instance) to get a real star to play here?
I don’t know that they necessarily need to “overpay” at all. Sure, I’ve heard the theory used in a variety of sports, but it’s much more difficult to objectively prove that teams in certain markets need to pay more than it is to just casually talk about it. I’m not trying to dismiss what you’ve said offhand, but I also know that salary ranges and contract terms are so closely monitored by NHL teams nowadays, given the salary cap, that massive overpays really aren’t as common as you’d think.
Let’s just start with the premise that “Original Six” teams have some kind of built-in advantage. The reality is, some players are skittish about playing in hockey hotbeds like Montreal and Toronto because of the pressure and constant off-ice scrutiny. So, I don’t know whether those places have an advantage over Seattle, which is known for great fan support – win or lose – top facilities and a committed ownership.
How about the Chicago and Detroit teams both going through prolonged playoff droughts? Are they more desirable landing spots than Seattle right now? I doubt that. That’s two-thirds of the Original Six we’ve just covered off. Sure, the previously mentioned Maple Leafs are a perennial playoff team and the Canadiens are likely an up-and-coming contender. That could give them some edge with free agents over a Kraken team that hasn’t been to the playoffs the past two campaigns. But some of that edge could also be offset by financial considerations of playing north of the border under higher tax rates.
Let’s not forget there’s a big public debate playing out right now about the supposed advantages teams such as Florida and Dallas from non-tax states have over the rest of the league when it comes to attracting players. Well, we don’t have state income tax here in Washington, so take that for what it’s worth.
Any “overpay” claim will always be subjective. You pay based on market conditions at the time, how many competitive bidders you’re up against and how badly your team really wants or needs a particular player.
Let’s look at the Kraken’s big free agent forward signing last summer, center Chandler Stephenson. The Kraken gave him seven years, $43.75 million for an annual salary cap hit of $6.25 million.
Meanwhile, the “Original Six” Boston Bruins gave another big-ticket centerman, Elias Lindholm, a seven-year, $54.25 million deal for an annual cap hit of $7.75 million.
Sure, Lindholm is about seven months younger, and you can probably quibble about some other stuff. But there’s really no sign of any overpay by the Kraken. Seven years of contract term was the market rate for an available top center and Stephenson even wound up having the better first contractual season of the two.
You asked about a “real star” player coming here. Brandon Montour was considered the top free agent defenseman out there a year ago and the Kraken got him for seven years, $50 million and a $7.142 million annual cap hit. Again, not really an overpay given lesser defenders were routinely getting six years in free agency. Brady Skjei, who was likely the closest comparable to Montour in age and production, signed with Nashville for seven years, $49 million with a cap hit of $7 million annually. So, again, no real overpay evidence and Montour was coming off a Stanley Cup winning team.
Would an elite player of the highest level choose the Kraken over a team perceived to be closer to a championship? We don’t really have public evidence one way or the other yet. Don’t forget: Winning a title is very difficult no matter how much planning goes into it. This year’s Dallas Stars built arguably the most Cup-ready team possible and yet managed only two more playoff victories than the Kraken did two years ago. So, the whole “closer to a Cup” thing isn’t always as clear-cut as it seems. A lot of factors go in to a player choosing one market over another, including whether a player’s family feels comfortable living in that city. Money will certainly be a big part of it, but there’s no evidence the Kraken need to throw more of it around than your average team.
Has your journalistic integrity been compromised given your move into “brand journalism”? Or have you been able to drive value for fans by being able to tell it like it is despite your corporate affiliation?
I get asked this question a lot. The major difference between my prior career and the current one is the investigative journalism I once did was something I knew coming in would be a non-starter. It’s just incompatible with my current position. Thing is, most of what I was doing on that previous investigative front was non-hockey related anyway. I was the go-to investigative person for all sports at the Seattle Times for years, even while covering hockey. We’re talking serious investigative work — not calling out coaches or debating player moves. I wrote extensively on topics such as sexual assault, fraud, other general criminal activity as well as financial government largesse regarding sports franchises and public facilities.
As far as personal integrity, I won’t write anything for the Kraken website that I don’t truly believe. I’m not here to snow fans. That’s not how you build trust. So, if I write in this column that I believe the Kraken have improved their team down the middle for years to come – with their centers, defensemen and goaltending – that’s not me making stuff up as part of some marketing plan. It’s because I believe it. And if I’m wrong too often, fans won’t keep reading. So, I don’t think it’s in the team’s or my best interest to compromise integrity.
Investigative reporting can be very different from business writing, legal affairs reporting, crime reporting, feature writing, covering political campaigns and, of course, sports writing. I did all those things for more than three decades at two major newspapers in Canada as well as the Times. But for all the differences in daily writing styles for those topics, I did pick up on a common narrative form of storytelling that can be applied to all. And that’s a big part of what I’ve tried to bring to my new position.
Since joining the Kraken, I’ve been able to do more in-depth features on players and other team personnel than I’d done previously for the newspaper. That was intentional. And we as an Editorial team here at the Kraken have tackled plenty of serious off-ice topics within those features. I said on a recent podcast that I think ours is already the best team website in the NHL because of the depth of our coverage from all writers both on NHL and prospect topics. My goal is for us to become the best team website in all of sports. We certainly have the personnel to make that happen. And my job is to make it happen by using my wide range of writing experiences to get the most out of myself and everyone here when it comes to telling the Kraken story.
