The Kraken missed the playoffs once again this spring, finishing with the sixth-worst point total in the NHL. They had the luxury of playing in the much weaker Western Conference, but still missed the postseason by 11 points, finishing with a 34-37-11 record and a -37 goal differential.
Seattle has made the playoffs just once in its short five-year history, and none of those appearances have come in the past three seasons. Now, with a team largely set to return next season, aside from a couple of veteran unrestricted free agents, it’s become a moment for general manager Jason Botterill to reflect and decide what direction he wants to take a club that looked lost this past season.
A perfect example of the Kraken’s lack of direction is Mason Marchment’s run with the team. Marchment was dealt to Seattle last June in exchange for a 2026 third-round pick and the Stars’ 2025 fourth-round pick.
It was a decent little move for the Kraken and showed they were looking to make additions. Fast-forward six months (plus a day), and the Kraken sent Marchment to the Blue Jackets for a 2027 second-round pick and the New York Rangers’ 2026 fourth-round pick.
It was a decent turn of events for the Kraken, as they upgraded one pick from a third to a second and got a look at Marchment for a few months. It would have been a tidy piece of work had it ended there.
A few months later, at the trade deadline, Seattle acquired Bobby McMann from the Toronto Maple Leafs in exchange for a second-round pick in 2027 and a 2026 fourth-round pick. The deal, in a vacuum, was good.
McMann has been a steady scorer over the past couple of years and added a lot to the Kraken lineup. However, he is a pending UFA and is set to cash in big time this summer. Seattle likely believed he could help with a playoff push, but with the Kraken’s underwhelming lineup on paper, it was a bit of a fool’s errand and could leave the team holding the bag if he jumped ship in July.
What could be a worse outcome for Seattle is if McMann re-signs long-term. The Kraken already have a number of undesirable long-term deals with veteran players, and McMann is sure to be overpaid when he hits free agency. Seattle has to resist the urge to extend McMann, but it’s hard to say whether they will, given the team’s lack of direction in recent years.
That being said, there is a glimmer of hope for Seattle and a fairly obvious direction the team should take. The Kraken have the seventh-ranked prospect system in the NHL (according to Scott Wheeler of The Athletic) and should be able to rebuild their roster sooner rather than later if they can avoid the urge to sign overpriced veterans, or, in the case of McMann, trade for them when they aren’t playoff-bound.
Ultimately, the Marchment/McMann fiasco cost the Kraken only mid-tier draft picks, which is forgivable given that the Kraken thought they had a playoff push, though it ultimately flopped. But the work in free agency needs to be scrutinized and scaled back if Seattle wants to have any hope of building and keeping a core.
In the past two summers, the team has signed UFAs to deals that were panned at the time and look even worse in hindsight. Ryan Lindgren was signed last summer to a four-year deal worth $4.5MM per season and has not been a good fit with the team.
The Kraken were outplayed whenever Lindgren was on the ice this year, and he was a turnover machine, coughing up the puck more than ever before in his NHL career. He also toned down his hitting dramatically, which didn’t really correct some of the other issues with his game.
If the Lindgren deal was bad, the Chandler Stephenson contract from 2024 is atrocious. On the surface, it looks fine, as he put up 49 points (16 goals and 33 assists) last season in 80 games.
But he has five years left on the deal at $6.25MM per season and gets absolutely crushed at even strength, posting a 40.8 CF%, meaning he is a drag on his teammates from a possession perspective. Sure, he takes a lot of the tough defensive assignments, but there is an argument that he could be among the worst 5-on-5 forwards in the entire NHL, and, in turn, one of the worst contracts in the league as well.
There is also the signing of defenseman Brandon Montour in July 2024. That deal hasn’t been a disaster, and Montour has been fairly productive offensively while continuing to struggle defensively.
Heading into year three of a seven-year, $50MM contract, the back half of his deal could be a huge problem for the Kraken as they enter the competitive window with the young group of players they have drafted and developed. At 32, Montour hasn’t shown an obvious decline, but if his skating begins to deteriorate, there will be major issues with his game both offensively and defensively.
With such a weak UFA market and so many teams with a pile of cap space, this could be the best opportunity for Seattle to commit to a short rebuild and start trimming some of the older, more expensive players, such as Lindgren, Stephenson, and Montour, from their roster, in the hopes of not boxing themselves in when they are ready to contend with the elite young players in their system.
Time will tell whether they have the stomach for the short-term pain, but if they do, they could create the kind of flexibility in two to three years that teams dream of when they try to tear down and recalibrate their rosters.
Thanks to the hiring of the clueless Ron Francis, Anybody could connected the dots to the current state of the Kraken.
Wilf, the Kraken’s 7th ranked prospect pool is all from Ron Francis. I would like you to provide a list of players the Kraken should have taken in the expansion draft that would have resulted in a Stanley Cup contending team
Francis did a great job with expansion, getting the arena built, setting up a franchise that fit the city. Great job with community outreach. The big error was going for it after the surprise playoff run. It was effectively the same error that other teams make of exiting a rebuild too soon. If the Kraken had have stayed disciplined, avoided those overpay contracts, and stayed mediocre a few more years, they would have drafted the stars they need and would be on the same trajectory as the Ducks or Sharks. The Kraken might have a well ranked prospect pool now but it’s all support and depth. They didn’t draft early enough to get top notch picks that will turn into star core players. They really needed to bundle those prospects together to get a star like Robert Thomas.
Francis wanted the Kraken to be like Vegas but instead it kind of looks like they’re gonna be like the Blue Jackets or Wild.
Given the overall equality, a high percentage of NHL games are decided by an extra effort one team makes while another doesn’t.
How many players are going to make that extra effort playing for a female coach and paying a 10% wealth tax for the privilege?
Wow, you must really be popular with the ladies
Kraken need to pivot away from the expansion core that they’re so attached to. Guys like McCann, Dunn, Larsson have been a part of the team from the jump, but it doesn’t work. It’s time to move on and get something for them and let them chase the cup elsewhere. McMann is going to get paid; stay out of it unless you’re signing and trading him. Let Tolvy and Schwartz move on.
I still think Shane Wright is going to be solid, give him top minutes this year and find out one way or another.
Lastly, If these guys aren’t going to play the way Lambert wants, they need to sit and Lambert was aggressive with that at the end of the year and it should continue. There are no superstars available via trade and they aren’t getting a ready made stud in the draft. The team that went to the playoffs played the same way lines 1-4 there was no break for the opponent and everyone benefited. That’s the only way.
That this organization is willing to fire everyone except a certain assistant coach reinforces the notion that the actual on ice product is a secondary concern to this ownership group. They’ll continue to be mired in mediocrity until that mindset changes.
Wow, two mysoginist comments about Jessica Campbell, as if she were the problem.
I keep waiting for someone to tell me what they don’t like about her as a coach, but so far no one has.
Can you tell us one positive thing that she has brought to the table? I have not followed her career but if you want to hear a negative, please provide a positive.
@Jamesz 2 – Maybe you could provide us with reasons for why she’s beyond criticism? People on boards like this constantly call for the firings of coaches, is she exempt from that?
I’ve watched a lot of hockey over the last twenty years. But just like everybody else on this blog, I can’t look at a team and tell you what impact their assistant coaches have. You can say, the team was bad, so she must be a bad coach. But you can only say that if you’re going to say that about every assistant coach on every team that performed badly. On the subject of I can’t ask for a negative if I can’t provide a positive, I didn’t start the conversation as to whether she is a good enough coach to keep her job. I will freely admit that I don’t know. What I’m saying is that in all of the posts from people who don’t think she should be an NHL coach, and there have been hundreds, I’ve yet to see anyone say why she shouldn’t be a coach other than the fact that’s she is a woman. If you know more, please enlighten me. I’m here to learn.
I’ll turn that around on you: explain what the previous two head coaches and other assistant coaches who were fired did to deserve that fate?
While not unprecedented, it is unusual to fire a head coach but keep an assistant. I don’t know why they chose to keep her and neither do you. But why they made their choice is irrelevant to our discussion. The question is why do you think she’s a problem?
Do a hard reset, the team needs it