I agree with your assessment of the reality but I tend to disagree with your conclusion. I've been working with the assumption that we can only afford to re-sign two of EK/Stone/Duchene because of the salary limitations. In that situation you IMHO keep EK at all cost, not only because he's the captain and the face of the franchise but also because he's among the best players in the league in a position where the Sens are very weak and have few quality prospects. That would mean losing one of Stone or Duchene (because their salary space is taken up by Bobby Ryan) which will not go well with the fanbase but to me would be the lesser evil. That is not to say that I don't expect them to trade EK - I fully do - but only that I think it's a bad decision any way you slice it. Adding Ryan onto him does nothing for a rebuild because by the time a re-built team would be competitive and the young talent you've gained need new contracts after their ELC, his money is gonna be off the books anyway.
If we let EK go our D is horrendous and there's little reason to think that would change quickly unless we somehow end up drafting two dmen in the top 8 of this upcoming draft. It took teams like CBJ or CAR years to build the deep defences they currently have and they had very little success while doing so. Others like TOR or BUF or EDM or NYI have been bad for years and years and their D-cores are still significant weaknesses. Personally I look around the league and see lots of teams with decent enough fwds but very few with a deep high-quality defense. We already have EK and Chabot, the makings of a very decent core. I'd rather try to build a top-flight D-core around them and complement it with decent fwd depth.
Ultimately a team is never gonna be a contender on a strict budget like the Sens are on right now. That's not only because nearly every team has some bad contracts (not to the extent the Sens currently do mind you) but also because there won't be many bridge contracts for top young talent anymore. We've seen it with McDavid, Eichel, Ekblad, Draisaitl and we're gonna see more of that soon with players like Matthews, Werenski, Boeser, Barzal and so on. We can trade EK now and try to go for a full rebuild, but even if we luck into drafting the next superstar of a similar caliber (very unlikely) he's gonna cost 10+ million after his ELC - leaving us right back where we are now. Or we rebuild, don't luck into drafting a superstar, and end up back on the fringe of the playoffs until the new core creeps towards their UFA years.
I appreciate the reply, but I'll disagree with your conclusion that we can keep two (and I assume remain competitive).
"Adding Ryan onto him does nothing for a rebuild because by the time a re-built team would be competitive and the young talent you've gained need new contracts after their ELC, his money is gonna be off the books anyway."
I don't think this is the case. Even with ELC/cheaper talent, we're going to have to pay players like Stone and Duchene significant money to keep them as soon as 2019-20. If our budget remains at 68 million, having Ryan leaves us at 60.5M we can actually spend, that's not even counting Gaborik+Phaneuf+MacArthur dead money. So there's value even in a rebuild of dumping Ryan with Karlsson.
I also don't think a rebuild these days takes quite as long as people think. With the parity of the NHL, teams can bounce back to playoff bubble team status very quickly.
With that said, whether or not we should bundle Ryan with Karlsson doesn't change that I think our current level of dead salary will prevent us from being competitive with Karlsson re-signed, that a rebuild around Duchene+Stone with Ryan's salary dumped in a Karl trade would be more effective if the end goal is to build the most successful team possible long term under a 68M budget.
Let's say we get rid of one of Stone or Duchene as you suggested, while the negative impact in the short term won't be as bad as if we lost Karlsson, I don't think Karlsson alone can lead a team like that to success. We'd also still have Ryan's dead salary on the books which will continue to handicap us....
look at it this way, if by re-signing Karlsson we forgo the opportunity to dump Ryan, it's almost as if the opportunity cost of re-signing Karlsson would be 18-20 million per season under a (supposed) 68M budget. That is because by choosing to re-sign Karlsson, we've given up the opportunity to dump Ryan.....
So what I am proposing is a future where we have Duchene+Stone+Assets from Karlsson as a kick start to a rebuild/re-tool.
What you're proposing is a future where we have Karlsson+Only one of Stone or Duchene+Ryan's 7.5M salary+lesser assets from a Duchene or Stone trade.
"If we let EK go our D is horrendous and there's little reason to think that would change quickly unless we somehow end up drafting two dmen in the top 8 of this upcoming draft."
If we keep EK and do not dump Ryan, we'll have significantly more deficiencies than just a bad d-core. There just would not be money to address the sheer amount of holes that would need to be filled with Karl+Stone+Duchene+Ryan at roughly 38M combined. If we do not sign one of Duchene or Stone as your proposed in order to keep Karlsson, I don't think that's a solution. Losing Duchene for example would leave us with Pageau as our 1C until someone else develops into that role.
"Ultimately a team is never gonna be a contender on a strict budget like the Sens are on right now. "
I agree completely. I don't think we'll ever be a contender under our current budget, but I think we can build a more competitive team long term via bundling Ryan with Karlsson and going through a rebuild that way.
"That's not only because nearly every team has some bad contracts (not to the extent the Sens currently do mind you) but also because there won't be many bridge contracts for top young talent anymore. We've seen it with McDavid, Eichel, Ekblad, Draisaitl and we're gonna see more of that soon with players like Matthews, Werenski, Boeser, Barzal and so on. We can trade EK now and try to go for a full rebuild, but even if we luck into drafting the next superstar of a similar caliber (very unlikely) he's gonna cost 10+ million after his ELC - leaving us right back where we are now. Or we rebuild, don't luck into drafting a superstar, and end up back on the fringe of the playoffs until the new core creeps towards their UFA years."
The issue isn't that Karlsson might cost as much as 12.5M, the issue is that Karlsson might cost 12.5M, and we have double digits of bad money on the books for the next four seasons.
Let's say we win the lottery, and we draft Dahlin, who at minimum if he pans out will cost 7.5M (Ekblad) on an extension after his ELC and at most might cost 10M+. We should not have a problem locking him down at that money in 3 years time since we'd lose the Ryan money in a Karlsson trade, and Gaborik+Phaneuf will be off the books by then.
The thing is, there'll always be bad contracts to an extent. No GM hits it perfect, but the Sens situation isn't just bad contracts. It's a combination of both bad contracts, and the core players all reaching UFA or RFA arbitration age at the same time. All NHL teams are cyclical in how they are built. There needs to be superstars, and then underpaid ELC/RFA talent in order to keep the team competitive.
We've reached a stage where with not only there being a significant amount of bad money on the books, but also most of our core players have reached the end of their cheap contracts. These would be Stone, Karlsson, Duchene (Formerly Turris @ 3.5M), Ceci, Hoffman, and soon to be Pageau, Dzingel, (and would be Brassard if we didn't trade him)
It's not sustainable. We need to use Karlsson as a catalyst to start fresh. Dorion and co and absolved of getting us here, but they are right that we need to take one step (a big one) back in order to take two steps forward.