Value of: Could Erik Karlsson be traded @50% retention?
- Thread starter LeProspector
- Start date
KingsFan7824
Registered User
They might be able to find a team to take him at $5.75m for 5 years, but they wouldn't get anything for him. Burns is even older, yes, but they didn't get anything of significance back for him. It would just be to get rid of $5.75m for SJ, or to give Karlsson a chance to win, if that was that important to them. Guys at that age and with that contract, you might get a cap dump that's 27 years old in return. Maybe a pick of some kind. Random prospect. There's no value to recoup from Karlsson though. That bridge burned the day he signed, and we're more than 3 years after that now.
Samsquanch
Raging Bull Squatch
He is absolutely not worth $8-9m at his age, with his injury history, or with any kind of term beyond 1-2 seasons.
At least he is humble enough to admit that he's not the player he was, and never will be again. Karlsson on a long term contract is worth $5-6m at most - and it's still a massive risk considering how many games he could miss, and that he's no longer a top pairing dman on any contending team.
Its becoming more and more clear as time moves along that paying mega dollars for UFA players on long term deals is a huge gamble. Health and showing that their game is adaptable are by the two hugest factors that need to be considered for any UFA player that wants to get paid like a 25yr old superstar. And Karlsson at $11m is about the biggest anchor of a contract in the entire NHL. It's an absurd amount of money and cap hit for what he does for a team as of today.
If you think Karlsson on the open market would only get 5-6 mil then you’re undervaluing him even with his injury history. He plays a position that has a premium placed on it league wide. It’s just silly to think at that cap hit, you’d get him for cap dumps or nothing.
yogibear
Registered User
32 years old, a history of serious injuries, ONLY around 60M left on his contract over 5 years, until he is 37 years old and decreasing in output for the past 6 years.
Move him for assets say the Sharks faithful.
No problem.
This is a task for GMJB to make the Sharks whole.
Oh wait, he just left the building.
If he was a free agent this past offseason, he would’ve gotten at least seven mil. How many years is up for debate but five years would’ve been reasonable.
I’m not worried about dumping Karlsson even for assets. Retaining for five years is not worth it unless Karlsson makes it an issue.
The opportunity cost of having 25M -30M extra in cap regardless of whether he gets the Sharks any other assets is what is at stake.
Cap space is an asset, a mighty asset.
Not for the Sharks because they’ll just waste it on other mediocre players while getting nothing out of it so it’d either just sit there unused and/or we’d be wasting a retention slot for cap dumps and mediocre prospects. Not worth it when Karlsson is still a very good player.
Ok please attend NHL 101 on Monday.
First Lesson: You've got to be bad to be good.
Second Lesson: Trade and back fill, trade and back fill
Third Lesson: Cap space is a weapon
First Lesson: You've got to be bad to be good.
Second Lesson: Trade and back fill, trade and back fill
Third Lesson: Cap space is a weapon
GermanSpitfire
EU Video Scout for McKeen’s | Rest Easy #13
Ah yes, the old I want your player for nothing and now that I got called out your player is absolute trash.
It never gets old!
No, Shark fans over-inflate the value of a falling asset (and convince no one) and then show their ignorance of how teams are rebuilt.
DeNile (sic) is not just a river in in Northern Africa.
I have always liked the Sharks and cannot fathom the level of mismanagement that has gotten them into disarray.
NHL 101 is the roadmap back to respectability.
Last edited:
GermanSpitfire
EU Video Scout for McKeen’s | Rest Easy #13
Then why did you want Vancouver to acquire Karlsson If he is so bad?
I think you didn’t watch Karlsson at all the past few years and are just reiterating the narritive you have heard around Karlsson recently.
In reality Karlsson has been an above average player since he got to San Jose. Karlsson misses a lot of time from injury’s. When he is healthy he Is still a very good player.
At 50% retention which has Karlsson paid $5.75M - Karlsson is a valuable asset that would return a significant amount of assets.
Groo
Registered User
With burns now gone wouldn't it be beneficial for the sharks to wait and see if he can stay healthy for the year and gain back his trade value
I’m assuming the realistic option is 2 or 3 contracts to SJ with similar combined AAVs to Karlsson if they wanted to trade him right now.
If they’re looking for futures it’d be crazy to retain the amount that’s be needed to move him before seeing if he can bounce back a bit when they’re not going to be contending for most of the time left on the deal anyways.
If they’re looking for futures it’d be crazy to retain the amount that’s be needed to move him before seeing if he can bounce back a bit when they’re not going to be contending for most of the time left on the deal anyways.
Is it not time to admit finally EK has a bad contract. WOW only plays 50 games per year and he is getting older by the minute. ALL that for 11.5 mil per and for 5 more years. WOW just WOW. Oh yea also a NMC, ouch ouch. Why on earth would he agree to leave all that sunny weather, Palm trees, Beaches, Tons of girls in bikini. The only chance to get rid of all this is the buy him out. NOBODY WANTS HIM AND THAT CONTRACT.
His output has slipped for the past 6 years but they try to tell us he will be worth more when he is 34 or 35 years old and making 11.5M.
Hush now all we can do now is watch the righteous train that's approaching round the bend.
Last edited:
unicornpig
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2017
- 3,756
- 5,493
no longer the PPG defenseman and still is average defensively, even at 50 percent retention dont see many teams lining up unless the cost is dirt cheap ala burns.
Let's see, 5.75mil for 5 years. Leafs gave up a 1st round pick to get rid of one year of 6.25mil. So that's like 5 first round picks. Then the value of Karlsson at 5.75mil which is probably alright, maybe a 2nd and a 3rd.
So I'd say that Sharks could trade him for 5 firsts, a 2nd and a 3rd.
So I'd say that Sharks could trade him for 5 firsts, a 2nd and a 3rd.
robsenz
Registered User
- Apr 15, 2007
- 3,592
- 2,469
EK was 15th in PPG last year on a bad team, with an ailing body and with the entire hockey world turned against him. Like it or not he's still a top player in the league, even though he is a shell of his former self. His contract sucks, but it's not like he's fallen off the charts like PK and others have. Mind you, will he ever play a full season again?
JesusNPucks
Registered User
I might be in the minority, but I think he would fetch a haul at 50% retained. And I think SJ should do it—but next year. First, retain on Meier this year and get a haul. The EK65 next year. Rebuild; get assets.
