Value of: Erik Karlsson @ 50% to Vancouver?

[Gecklund]

That's fine, Canucks can move the few good prospects they have, the few good young roster players they do have, and lottery protected draft picks to help the Sharks rebuild. In the bigger picture, you guys should be trading every veteran approaching or older than 30 for picks, prospects, and young players. The Sharks were so dominant during the Thornton-Marleau era that they should be focusing on trying to get back to that level and their current roster will never get there. It should be a full tear down style rebuild.

Not all of our markets can support a full tear down style rebuild bud. If we aren’t getting enough to trade a defenseman in pace for 108 points while also being fine defensively then we are going to keep him.

 

[Quinntessential]

Except Karlsson is better now than he was when he was traded.

Anyways you’re way off because my opinion is obviously correct.

Except he's not a better asset. He's a huge risk given how he played over the past 3 years, there's a huge variable. He can go on a heater and play out of his mind as he's demonstrating this year but he can also suck and he has injury concerns. Has he even played 60 games per year since he's been with the Sharks? No.

Not all of our markets can support a full tear down style rebuild bud. If we aren’t getting enough to trade a defenseman in pace for 108 points while also being fine defensively then we are going to keep him.

Karlsson isn't the only defenseman available by trade. Canucks would also improve drastically by going after someone like Ekholm, I'm just exploring the Karlsson idea because the Sedins are running the Canucks now and they've got the makings of Team Sweden going on and it would be fun to have Karlsson in the mix.

Keep him, sure, but how does that help the Sharks in the medium or long term? He's going to eventually break down and then where will you be? Probably wishing you got as much for him as you could while you could.

 

[Gecklund]

Except he's not a better asset. He's a huge risk given how he played over the past 3 years, there's a huge variable. He can go on a heater and play out of his mind as he's demonstrating this year but he can also suck and he has injury concerns. Has he even played 60 games per year since he's been with the Sharks? No.

If you aren’t paying enough for a defenseman on pace for 108 points and fine defensively then we will keep him. We aren’t taking shit for him to do you a favor.

Except he's not a better asset. He's a huge risk given how he played over the past 3 years, there's a huge variable. He can go on a heater and play out of his mind as he's demonstrating this year but he can also suck and he has injury concerns. Has he even played 60 games per year since he's been with the Sharks? No.


Karlsson isn't the only defenseman available by trade. Canucks would also improve drastically by going after someone like Ekholm, I'm just exploring the Karlsson idea because the Sedins are running the Canucks now and they've got the makings of Team Sweden going on and it would be fun to have Karlsson in the mix.

Wonderful go after Ekholm and lowball them then

 

[Pavelski2112]

Not all of our markets can support a full tear down style rebuild bud. If we aren’t getting enough to trade a defenseman in pace for 108 points while also being fine defensively then we are going to keep him.

Tbf it can barely stand what we're doing right now either way. They should just tear down the whole thing now so that they can rebuild trust in the fans sooner than later. That said, the Canucks are not the team to trade EK to; it does nothing productive for either side.

 

[deckercky]

Karlsson is awesome, but makes zero sense for Vancouver for various reasons.

Worth pointing out that this year Karlsson flourished when he stopped sharing offensive opportunities with Burns. Karlsson and Hughes have both always played best with a defensive defenceman beside them, so they aren't going to be a pairing, except maybe on the powerplay, so bringing in Karlsson probably neuters the effectiveness of both Karlsson and Hughes.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

That's fine, Canucks can move the few good prospects they have, the few good young roster players they do have, and lottery protected draft picks to help the Sharks rebuild. In the bigger picture, you guys should be trading every veteran approaching or older than 30 for picks, prospects, and young players. The Sharks were so dominant during the Thornton-Marleau era that they should be focusing on trying to get back to that level and their current roster will never get there. It should be a full tear down style rebuild. Don't ask for the moon for Karlsson thinking the trade alone will set you up for a rebuild. You can get huge hauls for Meier, Couture, and Hertl too which will, in addition to the couple years of tanking, ultimately help San Jose rebuild into a true perennial contender again.

In the bigger picture, moving these guys takes time and typically happens in the offseason because of the cap crunch during the season. Meier they can get a good return on and I think they should. The rest is going to have to be on the terms of the players and the teams they're willing to be dealt to. In Karlsson's case, they just may not have had the interest there. Reportedly, there were only two teams that even talked to Grier about his availability and clearly nothing got done so it didn't go very far. It was why he reportedly had to let everyone know that he was listening in on Karlsson but it will only go so far during the season with the cap crunch.

Karlsson isn't going to set up a rebuild but the moon isn't being asked for on Karlsson. The issue is tying up a 2nd retention slot for four years and taking back more cap than what's being sent out without a clear return for doing so. That's largely because this thread is vague on what the terms of the deal would be. Personally, if the Sharks are going for a rebuild which I believe they are, they need to trade Karlsson without retention if possible. They should be open to being paid to take cap dumps where possible and moving the vets that want to go with as little retention as possible. Put something together and a more fruitful discussion can be had.

Like I said before, I'd be fine with trading Karlsson to Vancouver with a couple mil retained for Myers, Pearson, and two 1st round picks. I get that might be much for some folks but it's easier to figure out when you put specific assets and terms on the table to assess the deal being discussed.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Except he's not a better asset. He's a huge risk given how he played over the past 3 years, there's a huge variable. He can go on a heater and play out of his mind as he's demonstrating this year but he can also suck and he has injury concerns. Has he even played 60 games per year since he's been with the Sharks? No.


Karlsson isn't the only defenseman available by trade. Canucks would also improve drastically by going after someone like Ekholm, I'm just exploring the Karlsson idea because the Sedins are running the Canucks now and they've got the makings of Team Sweden going on and it would be fun to have Karlsson in the mix.

Keep him, sure, but how does that help the Sharks in the medium or long term? He's going to eventually break down and then where will you be? Probably wishing you got as much for him as you could while you could.

The concern over his health is being exaggerated here. First of all, using a 60 game threshold when they had a 56 and 70 game season out of those five seasons is quite convenient. Secondly, they have on multiple occasions shut down Karlsson for an injury he could've played with if they were still in it. None of these injuries have anything to do with previous injuries and he's been healthy all year and was so going into the year precisely because they shut him down early last year to get a head start on rehab and getting healthy. I get the injury concern and I feel it is valid but not to this degree.

As for getting what we can, that's what this thread is all about isn't it? We won't know who Karlsson will accept a trade to. He may not want to uproot his family for a similar or slightly better team that isn't really close to the playoffs either. Competing teams may not have any interest for cap reasons or lineup reasons or both. It's not as easy as it sounds to just move big contracts with movement restrictions. It's my belief that Grier is trying based on him reportedly letting it be known that he's listening on Karlsson during the season after reportedly only having two teams talk to him about Karlsson in the offseason where they found a way to move Burns on who had a three team trade list and had to approve the deal.

I don't think you're going to have to worry about the Sharks not wanting to trade Karlsson nor worry about them taking what they can since the Burns deal only got them a 4th liner, an okay goalie prospect, and a 3rd round pick. This management is clearly okay with being flexible to accommodate a trade. It doesn't mean we will take a trade that makes us add cap without any sort of compensation for it.

 

[ralphamale14]

Dude we don't need more offensive Dmen when we don't have defensemen that can defend so why get more offense?? Even if he is sharks top scorer how does it help solve Canucks defensive issues? Shows how little you know about the Canucks.


That's funny, there is no way I would trade Hughes straight up for Karlsson but you can always dream I guess

I'm Leafs fan, totally impartial.

Karlsson is top 10 in league scoring, yeah for SJ to eat that money and term you have to pay.

 

[Grumpy1]

Why would they trade for a defenseman that has no interest in playing defense? They need someone that can actually play defense

 

[Gecklund]

Why would they trade for a defenseman that has no interest in playing defense? They need someone that can actually play defense

Fun when you haven’t seen a player but choose to speak about him anyway huh?

 

[tapi]

Karlson is as of now the undisputed best player in the league. So he price will be high for any future move, despite the fact that he is already 32 and likely to recede in the future. Most likely he will stay with the Sharks.

 

[jackjohnson]

I'm Leafs fan, totally impartial.

Karlsson is top 10 in league scoring, yeah for SJ to eat that money and term you have to pay.

Well the Canucks don't even want Karlsson so they won't pay

 

[ralphamale14]

Well the Canucks don't even want Karlsson so they won't pay

That's all well and pretty, but the THREAD IS ABOUT KARLSSON TO VAN....

....

Yeah, so it's the only thing in this thread that should be commented on.

 

[Tom Hardy]

As much as Karlsson intrigues me, at his age, unless the deal is really good for Vancouver. I do not see how it helps Vancouver beyond a few years. If they would take Miller straight up for Karlsson, that would be great.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Except he's not a better asset. He's a huge risk given how he played over the past 3 years, there's a huge variable. He can go on a heater and play out of his mind as he's demonstrating this year but he can also suck and he has injury concerns. Has he even played 60 games per year since he's been with the Sharks? No.


Karlsson isn't the only defenseman available by trade. Canucks would also improve drastically by going after someone like Ekholm, I'm just exploring the Karlsson idea because the Sedins are running the Canucks now and they've got the makings of Team Sweden going on and it would be fun to have Karlsson in the mix.

Keep him, sure, but how does that help the Sharks in the medium or long term? He's going to eventually break down and then where will you be? Probably wishing you got as much for him as you could while you could.

Yah because paying almost 20 million to two over age dmen (OEL and EK) makes so much sense, This would be such a bone headed move to give up assets for a player we don't need when we're already spending to the cap with players we don't need.

Not to mention that SJ wouldn't just give him away, and why the shit would EK want to come to this tire fire in the first place.

Karlson is as of now the undisputed best player in the league. So he price will be high for any future move, despite the fact that he is already 32 and likely to recede in the future. Most likely he will stay with the Sharks.

NO.

 

[Quinntessential]

As much as Karlsson intrigues me, at his age, unless the deal is really good for Vancouver. I do not see how it helps Vancouver beyond a few years. If they would take Miller straight up for Karlsson, that would be great.

I would rather see Pettersson and Hughes get to play with Karlsson for the next few years and dominate the ice. It’s painful that we can’t ice a dominant 5 man unit because of the gaping hole at #1 RSD. It would be more absurd to me to waste the cost controlled RFA years of our 2 best franchise players without making a serious run.

Yah because paying almost 20 million to two over age dmen (OEL and EK) makes so much sense, This would be such a bone headed move to give up assets for a player we don't need when we're already spending to the cap with players we don't need.

Not to mention that SJ wouldn't just give him away, and why the shit would EK want to come to this tire fire in the first place.



NO.

Ideally we would ship out OEL’s contract out somehow but it will be costly but still worth it IMHO

 

[Quinntessential]

The concern over his health is being exaggerated here. First of all, using a 60 game threshold when they had a 56 and 70 game season out of those five seasons is quite convenient. Secondly, they have on multiple occasions shut down Karlsson for an injury he could've played with if they were still in it. None of these injuries have anything to do with previous injuries and he's been healthy all year and was so going into the year precisely because they shut him down early last year to get a head start on rehab and getting healthy. I get the injury concern and I feel it is valid but not to this degree.

As for getting what we can, that's what this thread is all about isn't it? We won't know who Karlsson will accept a trade to. He may not want to uproot his family for a similar or slightly better team that isn't really close to the playoffs either. Competing teams may not have any interest for cap reasons or lineup reasons or both. It's not as easy as it sounds to just move big contracts with movement restrictions. It's my belief that Grier is trying based on him reportedly letting it be known that he's listening on Karlsson during the season after reportedly only having two teams talk to him about Karlsson in the offseason where they found a way to move Burns on who had a three team trade list and had to approve the deal.

I don't think you're going to have to worry about the Sharks not wanting to trade Karlsson nor worry about them taking what they can since the Burns deal only got them a 4th liner, an okay goalie prospect, and a 3rd round pick. This management is clearly okay with being flexible to accommodate a trade. It doesn't mean we will take a trade that makes us add cap without any sort of compensation for it.

25 year old top 6 winger (Boeser or Garland)
Top 4 D (OEL or Myers)
Recent top 10 pick with tons of potential (Podkolzin)
1st round pick (lottery protected)

I don’t understand why that’s such a bad offer. I wonder if I made a new thread asking every teams fans what they would give for Karlsson @ 50% what the offers would be.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

I would rather see Pettersson and Hughes get to play with Karlsson for the next few years and dominate the ice. It’s painful that we can’t ice a dominant 5 man unit because of the gaping hole at #1 RSD. It would be more absurd to me to waste the cost controlled RFA years of our 2 best franchise players without making a serious run.


Ideally we would ship out OEL’s contract out somehow but it will be costly but still worth it IMHO

We are not a team that should be going after over 30 dmen, unless said dman is cheap and stay at home. EK is a stud, but very last player we should be targeting.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

25 year old top 6 winger (Boeser or Garland)
Top 4 D (OEL or Myers)
Recent top 10 pick with tons of potential (Podkolzin)
1st round pick (lottery protected)

I don’t understand why that’s such a bad offer. I wonder if I made a new thread asking every teams fans what they would give for Karlsson @ 50% what the offers would be.

We are the last team that should be giving away 1st rounders or trading for expensive Dmen we don't need.

 

[elitepete]

Myers+Poolman+Pearson for Karlsson 3m retained?

 

[Big Muddy]

Except he's not a better asset. He's a huge risk given how he played over the past 3 years, there's a huge variable. He can go on a heater and play out of his mind as he's demonstrating this year but he can also suck and he has injury concerns. Has he even played 60 games per year since he's been with the Sharks? No.

So, why would you want to trade for him then?

I think the Canadian team that he has the closest ties to is Ottawa because that's where his wife is from. I believe there's still some Karlsson sightings in Ottawa in the summer from what I understand.

 

[Golden_Jet]

So, why would you want to trade for him then?

I think the Canadian team that he has the closest ties to is Ottawa because that's where his wife is from. I believe there's still some Karlsson sightings in Ottawa in the summer from what I understand.

Yes, EK still lives in Ottawa in the summer, and skates there in August.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

25 year old top 6 winger (Boeser or Garland)
Top 4 D (OEL or Myers)
Recent top 10 pick with tons of potential (Podkolzin)
1st round pick (lottery protected)

I don’t understand why that’s such a bad offer. I wonder if I made a new thread asking every teams fans what they would give for Karlsson @ 50% what the offers would be.

Your offer is something the Sharks simply couldn't do until the offseason. You're asking the Sharks to add 5 mil to their cap payroll with this deal and they're at 50 contracts which means they have to do player for player or be the ones moving out more players than they're taking in. In terms of value, Boeser or Garland might return us a 2nd round pick at this stage. Myers might return a 2nd round pick as well. OEL is not even worth discussing with a full no-move and likely no interest in going to San Jose. It's a red flag that after a pretty solid rookie campaign that Podkolzin's been kept in the minors and is only doing okay there. A lottery protected 1st round pick in most drafts is only so valuable but it's also not something I suspect would be terribly difficult to acquire elsewhere for Karlsson.

So a lotto protected 1st, a couple of 2nd round picks, and a Podkolzin type prospect just isn't that interesting to me. Sharks need blue line prospects and center prospects first and foremost. They have a lot of winger prospects and it's the easiest position to fill when needed. And all that just to eat 50% and add 5 mil or more to the cap simply isn't that enticing and I don't know why you think it is. That kind of offer is what you should expect to trade for Karlsson at his full rate. Not 50%.

Myers+Poolman+Pearson for Karlsson 3m retained?

This is a bad offer that the Sharks get almost nothing out of.

 

[elitepete]

Your offer is something the Sharks simply couldn't do until the offseason. You're asking the Sharks to add 5 mil to their cap payroll with this deal and they're at 50 contracts which means they have to do player for player or be the ones moving out more players than they're taking in. In terms of value, Boeser or Garland might return us a 2nd round pick at this stage. Myers might return a 2nd round pick as well. OEL is not even worth discussing with a full no-move and likely no interest in going to San Jose. It's a red flag that after a pretty solid rookie campaign that Podkolzin's been kept in the minors and is only doing okay there. A lottery protected 1st round pick in most drafts is only so valuable but it's also not something I suspect would be terribly difficult to acquire elsewhere for Karlsson.

So a lotto protected 1st, a couple of 2nd round picks, and a Podkolzin type prospect just isn't that interesting to me. Sharks need blue line prospects and center prospects first and foremost. They have a lot of winger prospects and it's the easiest position to fill when needed. And all that just to eat 50% and add 5 mil or more to the cap simply isn't that enticing and I don't know why you think it is. That kind of offer is what you should expect to trade for Karlsson at his full rate. Not 50%.


This is a bad offer that the Sharks get almost nothing out of.

Your offer is something the Sharks simply couldn't do until the offseason. You're asking the Sharks to add 5 mil to their cap payroll with this deal and they're at 50 contracts which means they have to do player for player or be the ones moving out more players than they're taking in. In terms of value, Boeser or Garland might return us a 2nd round pick at this stage. Myers might return a 2nd round pick as well. OEL is not even worth discussing with a full no-move and likely no interest in going to San Jose. It's a red flag that after a pretty solid rookie campaign that Podkolzin's been kept in the minors and is only doing okay there. A lottery protected 1st round pick in most drafts is only so valuable but it's also not something I suspect would be terribly difficult to acquire elsewhere for Karlsson.

So a lotto protected 1st, a couple of 2nd round picks, and a Podkolzin type prospect just isn't that interesting to me. Sharks need blue line prospects and center prospects first and foremost. They have a lot of winger prospects and it's the easiest position to fill when needed. And all that just to eat 50% and add 5 mil or more to the cap simply isn't that enticing and I don't know why you think it is. That kind of offer is what you should expect to trade for Karlsson at his full rate. Not 50%.


This is a bad offer that the Sharks get almost nothing out of.

How about Myers+Poolman+Pearson+3rd for Karlsson(2.5m retained)+6th?

 

[Gecklund]

How about Myers+Poolman+Pearson+3rd for Karlsson(2.5m retained)+6th?

Add like 3 firsts coming to SJ and it’s closer but none of the players you have coming to SJ have any value to us.