The Argument Against the Significant Contract Extension of Will Borgen

Will Borgen, a steady but unspectacular defenseman for the Seattle Kraken, has made a name for himself in recent seasons as a reliable depth piece on the blue line. A former 4th-round pick by the Buffalo Sabres, Borgen was traded to the Kraken ahead of their inaugural season and has since carved out a role as a solid, if unflashy, defenseman. However, as Seattle looks ahead to the future, the possibility of signing Borgen to a significant contract extension raises some questions. Is a long-term commitment to Borgen a wise decision for the Kraken, or does his value not align with what he might demand on the open market? This article will explore the argument against giving Will Borgen a significant contract extension, analyzing his play, the potential opportunity cost, and the broader team-building implications for Seattle.

Who Is Will Borgen?

Before diving into the arguments against a significant extension, it’s important to assess Borgen’s career trajectory and his role within the Seattle Kraken’s lineup. Borgen is a 25-year-old defenseman with a solid 6-foot-2, 201-pound frame, and he plays a relatively straightforward, stay-at-home style. He isn’t known for his offensive prowess or for racking up points, but rather for his ability to contribute to the defensive side of the game by blocking shots, winning battles along the boards, and maintaining solid positioning.

Borgen first entered the NHL in 2019 with the Buffalo Sabres after a productive stint at the University of Minnesota-Duluth and a couple of years in the AHL. After his trade to Seattle ahead of the Kraken’s expansion season, Borgen played a much more prominent role on the blue line. As of the 2024 season, Borgen has been a regular on the Kraken’s third defense pair, averaging 17 minutes per game and occasionally stepping up in a more expanded role when injuries or matchups necessitate it.

While Borgen’s defensive contributions should not be dismissed, it’s important to acknowledge that he is not a game-changing defenseman. His lack of offensive upside—his career-high in points is just 14 in 2022-23—and his relatively average underlying metrics suggest that his impact on the ice is more about providing depth and stability rather than elevating the overall play of the team.

The Case Against a Significant Extension

1. Limited Offensive Upside

One of the most glaring concerns regarding a significant contract extension for Will Borgen is his limited offensive potential. The modern NHL has seen an increasing premium placed on defensemen who can contribute offensively, quarterback the power play, and generate scoring chances. While Borgen is a competent defender and brings some stability to Seattle’s blue line, he has not demonstrated any capacity to drive offense at an NHL level.

Looking at advanced statistics, Borgen’s offensive metrics are fairly pedestrian. Over the course of his career, he has consistently been a bottom-pairing defenseman with few flashes of offensive brilliance. His points per game are low, and his expected goals-for (xGF) metrics are average at best. In today’s NHL, many teams are looking for defensemen who can not only defend well but also create offensive opportunities. Borgen’s lack of high-end offensive skills means he doesn’t provide the kind of two-way value that other more highly paid defensemen can bring to the table.

For the Kraken, this limitation becomes particularly concerning when considering the kind of long-term contract that Borgen could command. If the team is planning to make him a fixture on their blue line for the foreseeable future, they are potentially locking themselves into a contract that provides little return in terms of offensive contributions. A significant financial commitment to a player whose primary value lies in his defensive stability, without much offensive upside, may limit the team’s flexibility down the road and prevent them from acquiring more dynamic players who can help Seattle become a true contender.

2. Seattle’s Defensive Depth

Seattle’s roster, particularly on the blue line, has solid depth, and this works against the case for a large investment in Borgen. While Borgen has certainly been a valuable member of the Kraken’s defense corps, he is not the type of player who stands head and shoulders above others in terms of his overall value. The Kraken already possess a strong group of defensemen, including veterans like Adam Larsson, Vince Dunn, and newer additions like Justin Schultz. These players provide a blend of offensive upside, leadership, and reliable defensive play, which makes it harder to justify a large extension for Borgen.

The Kraken also have some promising young defensive prospects in their pipeline, including players like Ryker Evans and possibly even second-year NHL player, Kalen Klegg. Given that these younger players offer more offensive upside and long-term potential, Seattle might be better off allocating cap space to develop these players instead of investing in Borgen for the long haul. With a defensive group that already features several players with both offensive and defensive prowess, Seattle’s need for a player like Borgen—who excels in a more defensive, stay-at-home role—may be less urgent.

Moreover, with a team that boasts significant depth on the blue line, there’s a strong argument to be made that Seattle could explore cheaper, internal options or even trade for a player who can provide more overall value than Borgen. The opportunity cost of locking up Borgen for several years at a significant salary could limit the Kraken’s ability to address other needs or add more impact players in the coming seasons.

3. Risk of Overpaying for a Bottom-Pairing Defenseman

One of the fundamental concerns with offering Borgen a significant extension is the risk of overpaying for a player who, at best, projects as a third-pairing defenseman. In the NHL, third-pairing defensemen typically earn much less than top-four defensemen, with contracts in the $1-2 million range being more common for players in Borgen’s role. However, a significant extension—one that could pay him upwards of $3 million or more annually—would seem like a poor allocation of resources for a player who does not move the needle significantly on either end of the ice.

Borgen’s current level of play suggests that he is a competent defenseman, but not someone who dramatically impacts games or consistently contributes in all situations. He may be a good fit for a bottom pair in a well-balanced defensive lineup, but paying him as though he’s a top-four defenseman or giving him a long-term contract could handicap the Kraken’s cap flexibility. Teams that commit big contracts to players who don’t meet high-end expectations often regret those deals when cap constraints arise, or when the player fails to meet the performance levels necessary to justify their salary.

Seattle needs to be cautious about offering significant financial commitment to a player who doesn’t have the ceiling to become a major contributor on the top pair. The Kraken should ask themselves whether they are overestimating Borgen’s impact, or whether they could invest those funds into another, more impactful player. With a relatively small cap space compared to the NHL’s highest spenders, Seattle’s moves in this regard will need to be extremely calculated to ensure that they maximize their resources.

4. Cap Flexibility and Long-Term Goals

Seattle, while not in full rebuild mode, is still in the process of developing its core and finding its true identity as a playoff contender. The Kraken have plenty of promising young talent, including forward Matty Beniers and defenseman Vince Dunn, and their salary cap situation is relatively manageable at the moment. However, signing Borgen to a long-term, expensive extension could hinder their ability to make further moves in the near future.

In the NHL, maintaining flexibility is crucial to success, especially as teams strive to keep pace with rising salaries and new market trends. If the Kraken allocate significant cap space to Borgen, they might find themselves unable to make the necessary moves to continue building a contending roster. While Borgen is an effective depth defenseman, the Kraken should be focusing on building a competitive team with high-impact players who can help them challenge for a championship in the next few seasons. A major investment in Borgen, who has not shown top-tier potential, could ultimately prove detrimental to the Kraken’s long-term goals.

5. Better Options for the Future

The final argument against a significant contract extension for Will Borgen revolves around the opportunity cost of signing him to a long-term deal. While Borgen is a competent player, the Kraken may be able to find better value elsewhere. For instance, they could explore trading Borgen for draft picks or prospects and use the savings to target a higher-impact player in free agency or through trade.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, Seattle has strong defensive prospects in their system. These players are younger, less expensive, and could develop into more dynamic assets over time. Investing in these internal options could help the Kraken build a more cost-effective and competitive roster, without tying up significant cap space in a player who doesn’t provide a strong offensive or top-four defensive upside.