As a result, Klingberg now heads back to the market with much less attention, after his value was destroyed this season. He could still find a team looking to use him in a top-four role paired with a reliable defender, but any team signing him probably knows he’ll need a very sheltered role to succeed.

What We Know

• Before hitting free agency last year, Klingberg was reportedly looking for an eight-year deal at between $7.75M and $8.25M per year.
• After holding out and not singing an extension with the Stars, Klingberg couldn’t get the money he was looking for and ended up firing his agent.

Comparables

This is one of the more interesting times I’ve had finding comparables for a player. Klingberg’s production basically points to him being an elite defenseman, which he is not. He can put up massive point totals, but will have to be sheltered.

So the method for finding comparables on Klingberg’s projection revolves around defensemen who did put up strong offensive numbers, but didn’t necessarily have a ton of ice time. Given the specific restrictions around the comparables, this projection is going to see far fewer comparable contracts used in the article than most others.

4 YEARS

To start, I think four years is probably the maximum for Klingberg. He’s already 31 years old, purely an offensive defenseman, and comes with a lot of risk.

To clarify as well, using T.J. Brodie in the projection above isn’t to say Brodie is poor defensively or was in the same situation as Klingberg. He’s just an example of a recent signing around the same age who had very similar ice time, both in his signing year and over his career. You could maybe argue Klingberg was quite a bit more effective offensively but Brodie was far better defensively, to put them in a bit of a similar range, but it’s still not the perfect comparable.

To me, the far better one would be Jake Gardiner. The usage was similar and Gardiner put up the exact same 82-game points pace in his signing year, where he also played almost the same number of games.

While Gardiner was two years younger when he signed the deal and Klingberg had better production over his career, they both had a reputation as a offensively-talented but defensively-flawed blue liner.

With so few comparables like this it’s tough to determine a legitimate range, but Gardiner’s deal does provide a decent idea. It’s unlikely we see Klingberg get a four-year deal, but if so, it’s possible we could see it come in around a $4.25M cap hit, identical to the cap hit on his old long-term deal.

3 YEARS

Three years seems like a more realistic length for Klingberg’s deal, and there are a few comparables for it.

We can assume based on the comparables that Klingberg should come in below Green’s $7M adjusted cap hit, especially comparing their signing year production. At the same time, we also know the deal would come in above Reilly’s $3M cap hit, based on career production and ice time.

The best comparables would be the fairly recent deals for Tyson Barrie and Kevin Shattenkirk. Both players were able to provide high-end offense but it came at the expense of their defense. Barrie had a much higher signing year 82-game points pace, while Shattenkirk had the same signing year P/82. Meanwhile, Klingberg played more than Shattenkirk but less than Klingberg.

It’s difficult to find any reason that Klingberg would come in higher than Barrie’s $4.6M adjusted cap hit on a three-year deal, based on both lower production and ice time. That said, even while Shattenkirk was coming off a Stanley Cup win, there’s a good shot Klingberg could make more than Shattenkirk’s $4M projected cap hit, based on higher ice time and a higher career P/82.

So the range for a potential three-year deal would probably be between $4M and $4.6M, with Klingberg’s cap hit likely falling somewhere in between.

2 YEARS

Aside from a three-year deal, a two-year pact may be the next most likely deal for Klingberg.

It’s a bit tough to figure out where exactly Klingberg would land on a potential two-year contract, though. He should come in above the bottom two projections from Schultz (2022) and Miller, but well below Edler’s deal.

The best comparables of the bunch (based on the production and/or usage for each comprable) would be Green, Schultz (2020) and Franson, putting the range from $3.9M to $5.65M. It’s pretty unlikely that Klingberg’s deal would would come in around Green’s $5.65M adjusted cap hit, but it could be higher than both Schultz’s $4M deal and Franson’s deal, based on both production and usage.

A two-year deal may be where Klingberg could get the most money. It wouldn’t carry a ton of risk if things go south, but would lock him down for multiple years, providing good value in the event of a bounce-back year. I think the range begins around the adjusted $4M that Franson and Schutlz’s deals would project, but probably ends much lower than Green’s $5.65M cap hit, likely around $4.5M.

1 YEAR

Another one-year deal probably doesn’t make much sense for Klingberg. He tried to bet on himself, failed in a big way, now it’s probably time to take as much term as he can can get. That said, if he did take a one-year deal, it would surely come in much lower than his $7M deal this past season.

Looking at other high-producing, offensive defensemen who ended up taking a one-year deal, the range should generally fall between $1.8M on the low end, up to $3.8M on the high end. It seems low, but a player’s value can shift quickly. Barrie’s one-year deal came a year after being acquired in a trade that sent Nazem Kadri the other way. Vatanen ended up on a one-year, $2M deal (less half of his previous cap hit) the offseason after being acquired for a mid-round pick and decent prospect in Janne Kuokkanen. Shattenkirk was forced to take a one-year deal after a buyout only two years after being the top UFA defenseman on the market.

Chances are Klingberg would up on the higher end of the projected range, possibly around $3.5M. That said, it’s very unlikely the defenseman takes a one-year deal if more is offered, which it likely will be.

Projection

I think trying to project a term is really about determining just how much Klingberg’s value has tanked in one year. If teams still think the benefits really outweigh the negatives, a three or four-year deal is possible.

But there’s also the scenario which we’ve seen before, where a player is coming off a poor enough year that they’ll struggle to get more than a one or two-year deal. I don’t necessarily think this is the case for Klingberg, but perhaps he opts to take another one-year deal to rebuild his value. After seeing how that just went, I can’t imagine he goes that route, but it’s always a possibility.

So two or three years remain perhaps the most likely lengths for a deal, based on comparables.

Other possible deals would be for one year of four years, projected below: