Last week, I took a trio of The Athletic writers to task for what I considered their overly harsh conclusions about the 2025-26 Seattle Kraken.
Played There, A DJLR reader, then took me to task for not grasping what The Athletic writers were trying to tell us. Since P.T. posed interesting points, I thought he deserved thoughtful responses – not because I think I’ll change any minds. But at least he – and you – will know where I’m coming from.
You are just taking snippets. If you read the whole article, it does make sense.
Well, if I took more than snippets, that would be called plagiarism. And I did choose 16 “snippets,” which I think was enough to (1) give a flavor for what the authors were saying, and (2) prove I read the entire article.
It does line up with how poor a job Ron Francis has done in his six years of mediocre management here. And they still pay that guy! The criticism seems fair given the woeful choices team ownership have made in their hockey executives and in turn the woeful choices those hockey executives has made in creating a roster.
I take a much more nuanced approach to the Kraken front office in general, and Ron Francis in particular. On the debit side, the free agent choices he’s made and the amount of money shelled out – Andre Burakovsky and Chandler Stephenson in particular are wince-inducing. Philipp Grubauer hasn’t worked out either, but it didn’t seem such a bad gamble at the time.
Ryan Lindgren, because of health concerns, is risky, but too soon to judge. Not retaining the standout 2022-23 Kraken 4th line might be 2/3rds of a mistake, as Ryan Donato and Morgan Geekie have both achieved post-Kraken success. Daniel Sprong, not so much.
On the FA credit side is Brandon Montour. Seeing value in Eeli Tolvanen off the waiver wire was a shrewd addition. The front office has traded players for picks when that made sense, and picks for players (Mason Marchment, Freddy Gaudreau) when that made sense. I think that’s wise asset management.
Did Francis bat 1.000 in the 2021 expansion draft? Of course not. But given that what he had to choose from were players 30 other NHL teams felt they could do without, I thought he did pretty well. We’ll look back on the expansion draft pickup of Joey Daccord as an absolute steal.
At the rate the Kraken are going in developing new NHL talent
(3 prospects became mostly regular NHLers in 4 seasons), it will take them
another 4 seasons to have the nucleus of a good team.
The Kraken have shined brightest on NHL Draft days. A lot of Kraken fans, probably like P.T., are running low on patience. That might go for ownership, too, which also affects how a front office operates. Rare top of 1st round exceptions aside, 4-5 years is what it takes for prospect seeds to bloom.
Even a “Generational Talent” like Connor Bedard has led the Blackhawks to zero playoff appearances in his first two NHL seasons. Francis, in particular, deserves credit for the patient way he shepherded Shane Wright’s slow path to Seattle. Clip and save that last sentence for viewing a decade from now, when we’re reviewing Wright’s outstanding career.
Read closely what is said in comparison to what Vegas did AFTER the expansion draft.
That tells you everything about what a dismal failure Francis has been.
Okay, here we go. Vegas undoubtedly is, pardon the expression, the gold standard. They reached the Stanley Cup Final in their expansion season, and won the Cup in their sixth season. So OF COURSE the Kraken pale in comparison, as does every expansion team in the history of the NHL.
You might then be surprised to learn how well the Kraken stack up against all other NHL expansion teams since 1991 over each franchise’s first four seasons. The key number for each team is points percentage, in parentheses at far right.
- San Jose Sharks (1991): 80-189-27 (.316)
- Ottawa Senators (1992): 51-224-23 (.210)
- Tampa Bay Lightning (1992): 108-157-33 (.418)
- Florida Panthers (1993): 129-115-52 (.520)
- Nashville Predators (1998): 118-164-46 (.430)
- Atlanta Thrashers (1999): 87-188-53 (.346)
- Columbus Blue Jackets (2000): 104-173-51 (.395)
- Minnesota Wild (2000): 123-132-73 (.486)
- Vegas Golden Knights (2017): 173-94-24 (.636)
- SEATTLE KRAKEN (2021): 142-153-33 (.483)
Looking at those records, you might correctly reply, “This isn’t apples to apples. The situation is different for each expansion team. For instance, the 1992 Ottawa Senators didn’t have as good a pool of players to pick from in their expansion draft as the Kraken did.”
True. But if we’re placing qualifiers on these numbers, it’s fair to recognize the once-in-a-league’s-history circumstances that Vegas was able to manipulate (while also acknowledging the brilliance of Golden Knights management to recognize and use those circumstances to their advantage). It’s impossible to separate what they accomplished leading up to the expansion draft, with what that allowed them to do in the months and years afterward.
As KnightsOnIce.com explains, “The Golden Knights benefited greatly from making deals with other clubs looking to influence Vegas’ (expansion draft) selections. A few teams were particularly generous, though the Knights collected plenty of assets by completing 10 trades as part of the expansion draft and five more in the days following.”
When the Kraken went through the draft process four years later, 30 other NHL front offices vowed – VOWED – they wouldn’t be taken advantage of again, the way Vegas had fleeced them. So comparing the two most recent expansion teams is hardly reasonable.
You have posted excerpts but you have not stated which ones are factually incorrect.
Would be interested to see you do just that so we can understand your nuclear comments.
It’s not the facts I take issue with, P.T. As astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” I even wrote in my original story, “Let’s be clear. Many of The Athletic’s conclusions are rooted in analytics and insider comments from league sources.”
It’s how their facts are interpreted I questioned, when I felt they lacked context. For instance, to say Shane Wright’s “Defensive struggles were immense” or Adam Larsson’s “Defensive game abandoned him” feels hot-take-y. The Kraken were a bad defensive team last season. Hockey is by far the hardest of the big-4 North American team sports to capture analytically. I’m pro-analytics – as a tool – but to draw such black-and-white conclusions about individuals in a team sport is a rickety perch.
My other disagreement with The Athletic story was its unnecessarily snarky tone. Whatever you feel about Chandler Stephenson, calling him “Seattle’s poster child of ineptitude” is beneath professional journalists. I personally don’t write anything I wouldn’t say to a player, or his mother. That doesn’t mean I won’t be critical (lots of examples on demand!), but I won’t be insulting for the sake of clicks.
To say “Kraken do not have a player worthy of being a first, second, or even third-best forward on an average team” is hyperbole. Picking forwards who were top three in goal-scoring last season on teams in the middle third of the league standings… Give me Matty Beniers over Tim Stützle of Ottawa, Jaden Schwartz over Dylan Holloway in St. Louis, Kaapo Kakko over Matt Coronato in Calgary, and Jared McCann over Kent Johnson in Columbus. You may disagree, but it’s not clear-cut.
I’m not arguing that the Kraken are even close to Cup contention. Just that they shouldn’t already be dismissed as “sub-mediocre” and relegated to a lower league like European football clubs. At least, not before the first puck is dropped on the season. If you can’t find reason for optimism when you’re undefeated and tied for first place, when can you?