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.
Realised why Hodge is so eager to get rid of Karlsson for absolutely no return - it’s because it’d mean top pairing Benning and he can try to use that as an argument about how good he is.

I would trade Karlsson, but the Sharks need to get something out of it to be worthwhile. If they’re not going to get real cap space or high-end prospect/pick it’s probably not worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shark Finn, Sandisfan, Gecklund and 1 other person
Anomie2029 said:
I would trade Karlsson, but the Sharks need to get something out of it to be worthwhile. If they’re not going to get real cap space or high-end prospect/pick it’s probably not worth it.
Click to expand...
I'd agree. Trading Karlsson just to trade Karlsson is pointless - it's not like we would do anything with the cap space during the next four years except rent it out, and the returns on that would be decidedly mediocre (especially if the cap does increase quickly), so trading Karlsson has to return more than those mediocre cap space rental returns to be worthwhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jMoneyBrah
Barrie22 said:
He should retire, but he is a hockey player and is more likely to die on the ice then take care of his life after hockey.
Click to expand...
I mean he has a PFO right? It’s not exactly a clear cut case compared to someone like Ortmeyer. I don’t think there are studies correlating high physical activity and the prevalence of another stroke. It’s just a really unfortunate risk regardless. Poor guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Cas said:
I'd agree. Trading Karlsson just to trade Karlsson is pointless - it's not like we would do anything with the cap space during the next four years except rent it out, and the returns on that would be decidedly mediocre (especially if the cap does increase quickly), so trading Karlsson has to return more than those mediocre cap space rental returns to be worthwhile.
Click to expand...

I concur. The Sharks shouldn’t be doing anything meaningful with their cap over the next 2-3 years. They shouldn’t need it for big UFA signings, and the typical returns on renting cap space are mostly underwhelming. Trading Karlsson just to clear cap space so they can MAYBE add some mid round picks seems pointless.

There should be no urgency to move Karlsson, until there is a deal presented that nets the Sharks quality futures. Not that it’s exactly the same situation, but If I was Grier I’d be exploring some three team trades ala how Sakic handled Duchene. That takes time, but fortunately the Sharks have that. IMO Grier should be patient on any Karlsson talks and be more focused on finding a deal around Reimer when he gets healthy, and see what a Meier sign and trade with 50% retention for this season can return.

Karlsson isn’t ruining the tank, especially if Reimer and/or Meier get moved, the Sharks are in a pretty good spot in that regard. If they finish in the bottom 4 they get a decent shot at Bedard with some pretty excellent consolation prizes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan, Great Makohead Shork and mogambomoroo
Cas said:
I'd agree. Trading Karlsson just to trade Karlsson is pointless - it's not like we would do anything with the cap space during the next four years except rent it out, and the returns on that would be decidedly mediocre (especially if the cap does increase quickly), so trading Karlsson has to return more than those mediocre cap space rental returns to be worthwhile.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The way I look at it, we are going to be a bottom feeder for the next few years even if Karlsson continues to play as well as he is right now. So, any good play we get from him is for naught and it’s doubtful that he continue to play this well into his late 30s. Optimistically, if we get a top 10 pick in the next 3 drafts, and have some hits with our current prospect pool, we could be back in the playoffs as early as 25-26. I would much rather have the cap space in 25-26 and 26-27 rather than Karlsson on his last legs. So, for me, limiting retention is the key to any Karlsson trade. For example, I would easily trade Karlsson for Zaitsev straight up with no retention. Ottawa gets the much better player now and the Sharks get a ton of cap space later when it could matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hodge
CupfortheSharks said:
I disagree. The way I look at it, we are going to be a bottom feeder for the next few years even if Karlsson continues to play as well as he is right now. So, any good play we get from him is for naught and it’s doubtful that he continue to play this well into his late 30s. Optimistically, if we get a top 10 pick in the next 3 drafts, and have some hits with our current prospect pool, we could be back in the playoffs as early as 25-26. I would much rather have the cap space in 25-26 and 26-27 rather than Karlsson on his last legs. So, for me, limiting retention is the key to any Karlsson trade. For example, I would easily trade Karlsson for Zaitsev straight up with no retention. Ottawa gets the much better player now and the Sharks get a ton of cap space later when it could matter.
Click to expand...
You’re being too logical for this board. Most on here just want the instant gratification of “winning” a Karlsson trade and refuse to think even a year down the line let alone three or four.
 
Hodge said:
You’re being too logical for this board. Most on here just want the instant gratification of “winning” a Karlsson trade and refuse to think even a year down the line let alone three or four.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I hope that you will reconsider your position that trading Karlsson 50% retained for a nominal return would be a good move. That’s where you and I disagree. That retention costs us future cap space when it could matter and I wouldn’t give it up without futures to compensate for it.
 
CupfortheSharks said:
Thanks. I hope that you will reconsider your position that trading Karlsson 50% retained for a nominal return would be a good move. That’s where you and I disagree. That retention costs us future cap space when it could matter and I wouldn’t give it up without futures to compensate for it.
Click to expand...
Obviously I would prefer for the Sharks to retain a smaller percentage but if that’s the market for Karlsson then so be it.

My only red line on a Karlsson deal would be giving up positive value assets in order to dump him, which would have been necessary as recently as a few months ago.

Any trade where the Sharks dump 50-100% of Karlsson’s contract without surrendering draft picks or taking back a contract with the same term remaining is a win in my book.
 
I am all for trading anyone for 1st round picks. Now that DW and Summers is gone, hopefully they won't ruin the prospects.
 
Hodge said:
Obviously I would prefer for the Sharks to retain a smaller percentage but if that’s the market for Karlsson then so be it.

My only red line on a Karlsson deal would be giving up positive value assets in order to dump him, which would have been necessary as recently as a few months ago.

Any trade where the Sharks dump 50-100% of Karlsson’s contract without surrendering draft picks or taking back a contract with the same term remaining is a win in my book.
Click to expand...
I think that's way too low of a bar because what you're actually gaining out of your Karlsson trade win is cap space three or four years down the line. Cap space this team doesn't need to concern themselves with because they're simply not in a position where that will matter. If we're truly being honest here, this team has a next to nil chance of competing at any point in what's left of Karlsson's contract. So then what would the cap space be there for? In the environment they're in, not anything substantial. I think it's perfectly logical to look at a potential Karlsson trade with a little more purpose than that and if they don't get that there's no issue with keeping him until that changes. If the worst case scenario for Karlsson comes to pass, they're in a great spot as it relates to where they sit in the draft. Even the best of what they could get in the next three or four drafts is unlikely going to be ready to compete at a playoff level in the NHL. Unless there's push from Karlsson himself to get something done so that he can compete, they should wait it out until they get an asset out of a Karlsson deal that actually means something to the future of the team. That means a prospect, young player, or 1st round pick for me. What it might mean for others is up to them but it's not without logic like you portray.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cas
Pinkfloyd said:
Cap space this team doesn't need to concern themselves with because they're simply not in a position where that will matter. If we're truly being honest here, this team has a next to nil chance of competing at any point in what's left of Karlsson's contract.
Click to expand...
You don’t actually know this.

What if the Sharks win the Bedard lottery then add another high end prospect in the 2024 draft while converting as many veterans into draft picks as possible?

They could level up fairly quickly in that scenario, dealing from a surplus of picks or dipping into free agency in the 2024 offseason (when there will still be 3 years remaining on Karlsson’s contract) to add a starting goalie, top six F and/or top four D provided they have the cap space to make those kinds of moves.

Sure that scenario depends on things going in the Sharks’ favor but it’s not impossible. What is impossible is ever building a competitive team with Karlsson making $11.5M against the cap and playing top pair minutes in his mid 30s.

Hanging onto Karlsson past next summer in the hopes of someday getting a late 1st for him carries the enormous risk that his production regresses or yet another injury renders him untradeable.

I wouldn’t be willing to take that risk. Just accept the best offer you can find as long as it nets the team cap space in the long run and doesn’t require attaching picks. This applies to everyone else on the roster too.
 
Hodge said:
You don’t actually know this.

What if the Sharks win the Bedard lottery then add another high end prospect in the 2024 draft while converting as many veterans into draft picks as possible?

They could level up fairly quickly in that scenario, dealing from a surplus of picks or dipping into free agency in the 2024 offseason (when there will still be 3 years remaining on Karlsson’s contract) to add a starting goalie, top six F and/or top four D provided they have the cap space to make those kinds of moves.

Sure that scenario depends on things going in the Sharks’ favor but it’s not impossible. What is impossible is ever building a competitive team with Karlsson making $11.5M against the cap and playing top pair minutes in his mid 30s.

Hanging onto Karlsson past next summer in the hopes of someday getting a late 1st for him carries the enormous risk that his production regresses or yet another injury renders him untradeable.

I wouldn’t be willing to take that risk. Just accept the best offer you can find as long as it nets the team cap space in the long run and doesn’t require attaching picks. This applies to everyone else on the roster too.
Click to expand...
If the sharks win the Bedard sweepstakes then they’re immediately contenders again and will need Karlsson.
 
TheBeard said:
If the sharks win the Bedard sweepstakes then they’re immediately contenders again and will need Karlsson.
Click to expand...
We are on pace for 60 points this season. You’re basically saying a 18 year old Connor Bedard is worth 40-50 standings points on his own. That’s insane, to put it lightly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom