Toggle sidebar

Speculation: 2022-23 Sharks Roster Discussion Part II

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hodge said:
The chances Karlsson is worth even half his cap hit in the final 2-3 years of the contract is close to zero. If you have a chance to move him now, even at 50% retention, without having to attach picks or prospects you do it. The long term cap space this creates alone is worth it not to mention getting rid of Karlsson likely helps the Sharks secure higher first round picks over the next few seasons.
Click to expand...
Sadly I agree. If we were trying to compete it'd be a different story, but this team is currently built to tread water for the next couple of seasons. Keeping EK now doesn't help short term and keeping EK then certainly won't help long term.
 
Pinkfloyd said:
Why do you think the first sentence? Is it not possible that he and Grier talked about it but nothing was really out there that was agreeable for Karlsson? Things change when people see how he's playing and that Grier is willing to listen. I don't see it as unrealistic that nobody wanted to pay much of anything for him in the offseason and then have that tune change when he's playing how he is. When it comes to the rentals and retention, I just don't see any of them where that is worth worrying about. I don't see more than one of those guys as worth anything higher than a 2nd with retention. At that point, I don't care if they rent them or let them expire. Like if we couldn't have traded Cogliano for a 5th because he couldn't be retained on then I really don't care. If it happens, okay but I just don't see the maximization of a retention slot elsewhere being worth more than whatever the alternative is trading Karlsson without retaining.
Click to expand...
I guess it would really depend on the trade for EK. If we retain and only get crap or max 2nd round picks, then no I’d prefer to keep him. I think that’s my big thing if we aren’t getting a package close to what we gave up, then I’d rather keep him. Otherwise I think upgrading that 3rd to a 2nd or adding in a 5th and keeping EK is worth more than trading him and tying things up.
 
themelkman said:
If we dump half his contract it will just be replaced with three more 4th liners making 3 million each.
Gotta get most of it gone for any real change
Click to expand...
The difference is those 4th liners won’t be signed until 2027. Dumping Karlsson is about creating long term flexibility, not trying to immediately replace his cap hit with some other star player in a doomed attempt to make the playoffs.
 
SJSharks72 said:
I guess it would really depend on the trade for EK. If we retain and only get crap or max 2nd round picks, then no I’d prefer to keep him. I think that’s my big thing if we aren’t getting a package close to what we gave up, then I’d rather keep him. Otherwise I think upgrading that 3rd to a 2nd or adding in a 5th and keeping EK is worth more than trading him and tying things up.
Click to expand...
Honest question, but why? This team obviously isn't a contender and, as Hodge said, the chances of Karlsson being a positive player when we're competing again isn't high. If his performance has opened the door a crack to salvage some return value even if it means retaining then we have to take advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
just have everything come full circle trade him to Ottawa @ 50% retention

to Ottawa:
EK65 @ 50%

to San Jose:
Nikita Zaitsev, who will get the C and Social Media Community Manager titles immediately

you're welcome GMMG
 
Hodge said:
The chances Karlsson is worth even half his cap hit in the final 2-3 years of the contract is close to zero. If you have a chance to move him now, even at 50% retention, without having to attach picks or prospects you do it. The long term cap space this creates alone is worth it not to mention getting rid of Karlsson likely helps the Sharks secure higher first round picks over the next few seasons.
Click to expand...
Given the outlook of the team, I don't see much use for long term cap flexibility beyond what they're going to get by letting things expire. Even if you gain it, what does this team use it on during that time where they're very likely still rebuilding or more cynically when they're maintaining some level of competitive mediocrity?
 
Pinkfloyd said:
Given the outlook of the team, I don't see much use for long term cap flexibility beyond what they're going to get by letting things expire. Even if you gain it, what does this team use it on during that time where they're very likely still rebuilding or more cynically when they're maintaining some level of competitive mediocrity?
Click to expand...
Why not have it though?
 
TheBeard said:
Honest question, but why? This team obviously isn't a contender and, as Hodge said, the chances of Karlsson being a positive player when we're competing again isn't high. If his performance has opened the door a crack to salvage some return value even if it means retaining then we have to take advantage.
Click to expand...
I have hodge on ignore so no idea what he said and genuinely don’t want to know as that guy sucks.

Who cares if EK is a positive player or not? If we are paying to dump him (and I count retention as paying) then why? He’s the only reason to actually go see the Sharks right now and it’s not like he’s making some huge difference in our draft position. We are still bottom 5 with more games played than the teams around us. If he can give us something to watch while we suck, then that makes sense to keep him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
SJSharks72 said:
I have hodge on ignore so no idea what he said and genuinely don’t want to know as that guy sucks.

Who cares if EK is a positive player or not? If we are paying to dump him (and I count retention as paying) then why? He’s the only reason to actually go see the Sharks right now and it’s not like he’s making some huge difference in our draft position. We are still bottom 5 with more games played than the teams around us. If he can give us something to watch while we suck, then that makes sense to keep him.
Click to expand...
You're looking at it from the fan point of view versus the business side of it (even though putting fans in the stands is part of the business side). I get it. For fans he is one of the very few reasons to watch them, but what benefit does the team get from a vision perspective keeping him around? We all knew when the deal was signed that it was meant to be great at first and a complete disaster in the last few years. If the team has an out JUST IN CASE we do need the money and/or flexibility in 4 years then I don't see the problem in trying to get something back for the future.

I did see that Ottawa and SJ had talks of an EK trade even though it's probably doubtful. With the contract and his struggles, I wonder if there's a Chabot/Karlsson starting point?
 
TheBeard said:
You're looking at it from the fan point of view versus the business side of it (even though putting fans in the stands is part of the business side). I get it. For fans he is one of the very few reasons to watch them, but what benefit does the team get from a vision perspective keeping him around? We all knew when the deal was signed that it was meant to be great at first and a complete disaster in the last few years. If the team has an out JUST IN CASE we do need the money and/or flexibility in 4 years then I don't see the problem in trying to get something back for the future.

I did see that Ottawa and SJ had talks of an EK trade even though it's probably doubtful. With the contract and his struggles, I wonder if there's a Chabot/Karlsson starting point?
Click to expand...
Yes but also keeping EK there could show that they aren’t just tearing it down. That’s the biggest thing. If we tear this down to the studs, we end up with another Mirco Mueller situation. I genuinely think he would be an NHLer if we didn’t rush him into the NHL and force him next to Burns. With EK there we don’t need to rush these guys into positions they aren’t ready for.

The team gets to put fans in the seats. That’s the vision. With EK, they could win any game. They aren’t going to be good but it gives the team a chance. I don’t want to watch an 82 game losing streak event bough I’m all for a tank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
SJSharks72 said:
Yes but also keeping EK there could show that they aren’t just tearing it down. That’s the biggest thing. If we tear this down to the studs, we end up with another Mirco Mueller situation. I genuinely think he would be an NHLer if we didn’t rush him into the NHL and force him next to Burns. With EK there we don’t need to rush these guys into positions they aren’t ready for.

The team gets to put fans in the seats. That’s the vision. With EK, they could win any game. They aren’t going to be good but it gives the team a chance. I don’t want to watch an 82 game losing streak event bough I’m all for a tank.
Click to expand...
I’d rather watch us go 0-82 especially in a draft year like this than spend 3 or 4 seasons winning 25 games and finishing 10th worst
 
TheBeard said:
I’d rather watch us go 0-82 especially in a draft year like this than spend 3 or 4 seasons winning 25 games and finishing 10th worst
Click to expand...
Last season there were 2 teams with 25 or less wins. 2 seasons before were shortened so skipping those. 18-19 0 teams, 17-18 1, 16-17 1. If we finished with 25 wins, we would be still be bottom 5 even if you included teams from 4 seasons.

Sharks are currently on pace for 68 points. We’d be at 6th overall last season with that pace. That’s including Karlsson having the best start from a Shark to a season ever and Timo/Reimer playing really well. We trade Timo and Reimer (who I said we should retain on) that point pace is much lower.
 
SJSharks72 said:
I guess it would really depend on the trade for EK. If we retain and only get crap or max 2nd round picks, then no I’d prefer to keep him. I think that’s my big thing if we aren’t getting a package close to what we gave up, then I’d rather keep him. Otherwise I think upgrading that 3rd to a 2nd or adding in a 5th and keeping EK is worth more than trading him and tying things up.
Click to expand...
I would prefer to keep him as well but I think it's pretty likely he has already asked out or is wanting out but is okay with staying until something makes sense for the team. I think it's inevitable that it'll end up like how the Burns trade worked itself out and I'm just prepared for a similar looking trade for Karlsson in terms of what we're getting back.
TheBeard said:
Why not have it though?
Click to expand...
For me, you have to have a plan on how to use it more effectively than what you're losing. I get the argument that losing him cements their basement status and improving their odds in that manner but I just don't think that (which is probably the most compelling of arguments to make) is worth losing a #1 for 5.75 mil when you're probably just going to replace it with filler and not weaponize the space in any meaningful way. I don't expect a good return to happen when it comes to Karlsson but I also don't think retaining half for literally no return is worth it either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Hodge said:
The difference is those 4th liners won’t be signed until 2027. Dumping Karlsson is about creating long term flexibility, not trying to immediately replace his cap hit with some other star player in a doomed attempt to make the playoffs.
Click to expand...
I'd be inclined to agree... But then I remember Grier signed Benning for 4 years and I'm not so sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Pinkfloyd said:
For me, you have to have a plan on how to use it more effectively than what you're losing. I get the argument that losing him cements their basement status and improving their odds in that manner but I just don't think that (which is probably the most compelling of arguments to make) is worth losing a #1 for 5.75 mil when you're probably just going to replace it with filler and not weaponize the space in any meaningful way. I don't expect a good return to happen when it comes to Karlsson but I also don't think retaining half for literally no return is worth it either.
Click to expand...
Forget about the importance of the 5.75 million this year. What about in three years? Say some of the kids develop and we've suddenly become a contender with a bunch of rookie contracts (and Hertl, Meier, Cooch), and you need the money for a someone to put you over the top, would that money not be better used than on Karlsson who almost assuredly would be a liability by that point?

Also, for that matter, if his trading signals a tanking, would it not ease the pain a little if the team acknowledges it while playing more of the kids, which is what the plan probably is post trade deadline? I like the Sturms and the Lorentzes but they're not the future either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
TheBeard said:
Forget about the importance of the 5.75 million this year. What about in three years? Say some of the kids develop and we've suddenly become a contender with a bunch of rookie contracts (and Hertl, Meier, Cooch), and you need the money for a someone to put you over the top, would that money not be better used than on Karlsson who almost assuredly would be a liability by that point?

Also, for that matter, if his trading signals a tanking, would it not ease the pain a little if the team acknowledges it while playing more of the kids, which is what the plan probably is post trade deadline? I like the Sturms and the Lorentzes but they're not the future either.
Click to expand...
In three years, we're talking about 2025 offseason just for this purpose. If it's the next year, it's more but we have 41 mil in cap space approximately with Karlsson, Hertl, Meier, and Cooch. I think that's enough wiggle room to make choices that don't involve retaining half for the time while getting nothing of worth out of it. Playing the kids is a choice they can make now with Karlsson. I just don't see it being a necessary or valuable thing at this stage.
 
I'm really torn with this. I really enjoy watching Karlsson play, especially now the systems give him the freedom to be him with the puck - but we have to acknowledge that by the time this team is ready to be competitive it's likely his form won't be as good or his contract could be finished by then.

If Karlsson wants a trade, trade him. He deserves it. If Sharks aren't thinking they'll be competitive until year 4 or 5, then hold onto him because his contract will be at an end anyway.
 
tahoesharksfan said:
I’m still supportive of GMMG but this is certainly top of the list of things he’s done so far that I’ll never understand…
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong I'm not super fan of this signing but I understand that Grier wants a little safety player wise in that 3rd pair (RD) When he signed Benning, it was to have player with experience and term for cheap, rather than a kid. The same things like they are doing with the bottom 6, have them be experienced and hopefully solid. 3rd RD is not the most important position but I think he wants the kids to take the 2nd pair or even 1st pair spots when they are ready. Same with kids taking 1st and 2nd line minutes, even 3rd line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom