Value of: Erik Karlsson @6M

[Barsky]

Fair and most likely true. Just discussing it with other members though. That's part of the fun here though.

Absolutely, fair enough! You gotta realize though that given his NMC and the knowledge he is widely available, whatever he's actually "worth" and what Pens fans think they should get for him is gonna be a far cry from what he will actually go for in all likelihood. Like with Miller for a recent example

 

[TooManyHumans]

Negative value, Pittsburgh would have to include a first.

@6m it is not taking a first to get rid of Karlsson, especially with the cap going up.

 

[SEALBound]

Absolutely, fair enough! You gotta realize though that given his NMC and the knowledge he is widely available, whatever he's actually "worth" and what Pens fans think they should get for him is gonna be a far cry from what he will actually go for in all likelihood. Like with Miller for a recent example

Yes but I imagine the argument will be what is actually fair. Dubas doesn't have to deal him. Penguins could easily keep him for the next two years. So the mere fact that he's "available" doesn't hurt his value like you may think. He's not a cap dump either so any idea that a team can get him for 3rd or get valuable assets back can be dismissed immediately.

This year with a weak draft, it would be a good time for a team like Dallas or even Florida to bolster their backend for "cheap". I think a roster player, 1st, and prospect is very realistic return.

To add to that, the Miller situation and the Karlsson "situation" (if you can even call it that) are even remotely relatable or comparable. That's a gross mischaracterization or misunderstanding of the Pens situation with Karlsson. He's merely a valuable asset that could be traded if the right price comes along.

 

[Oleksiak]

@6m it is not taking a first to get rid of Karlsson, especially with the cap going up.

It is unless you think you can suddenly get to him to start playing like an NHLer in his own zone.

 

[Djp]

he might have more value at full price after bonus paid ( assume july 1) because he then has only about $11M in actual $ over 2 yrs vs cap hit.

 

[Fatass]

Have to disagree, at 5 mil, a healthy guy 2 years removed from a Norris def does not have negative value

At double retention, perhaps? But I was responding to a poster who suggested EK had value without retention.

 

[AvroArrow]

35 year old defensive liability, still not going to return much. Probably gets you a 1st + B prospect at 6M

 

[molon labe]

First best first + should just take it and move on.

No cap dumps back unless you're talking +++ or if it happens soon, someone who is expiring this year. 6M for him today is great, next year a steal and the year after it's going to be the price of a middling D pair.

The conversation surrounding him still assumes he's making 11M+ against a lower cap. Some absurd takes.

 

[OversKy]

Ok, sure, the reigning Norris trophy winner was a garbage player, not worth a bag of pucks and you know better than all the pro hockey writers in North America

Dunno about all of them but I would stop reading what they write if they're trying to tell you that wasn't an awful trade from day one. Basically bailed San Jose out from the investment they made in the first place.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

man has played on a contender for 1 year of his career.

hopefully he finally gets there.

 

[OtherThingsILike]

Let me get this straight, the guy your team was dumb enough to trade a 1st for with a collection of cap dumps, has positive value?

Correct, the guy who returned a 1st a $10M cap hit has positive value.

The guy SJ had to completely run their offence through,

Wrong.

to the detriment of the team, for him to even be tradable at all,

Wrong.

to the dumbest GM in the league?

Extremely wrong.

The guy who's now twice been traded where his new team immediately got worse?

TIL making it to the Western Conference Final after not making it that far is getting worse.
You should probably also learn about aging curves and how they work in professional sports.

Who's only gotten worse himself since then?

Wrong.

LOL. LMAO even.

Wrong.

The only positive value is in Pittsburgh taking on dead cap.

Wrong.

No contender is bringing in Karlsson to fix their defence.

Correct. They would be bringing in Karlsson to upgrade their defense.

 

[Fatass]

Kinda doesn’t matter. There wouldn’t be any suitors in this scenario. No contender can add $10M without dumping cap and EK chooses his destination.

@ 50% retained… and he agrees to go to 2-4 teams… I think he can drum up enough competing offers to net the Pens a decent asset - especially if they take cap back.

Any EK return comes down to how many teams he’ll waive for.

So, in other words, EK without significant retention and Pittsburgh accepting back contracts doesn’t have any value. He still has an extra season on his contract too. I just don’t see him as a guy a club, that is contending, would want. And why would a rebuilding team want him unless they benefit with futures added?
He’s tradable because every player is. But the cost to Pittsburgh imo would likely outweigh any potential return.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Let me get this straight, the guy your team was dumb enough to trade a 1st for with a collection of cap dumps, has positive value? The guy SJ had to completely run their offence through, to the detriment of the team, for him to even be tradable at all, to the dumbest GM in the league? The guy who's now twice been traded where his new team immediately got worse? Who's only gotten worse himself since then? LOL. LMAO even.

The only positive value is in Pittsburgh taking on dead cap. No contender is bringing in Karlsson to fix their defence.

Did you see how bad SJ got without Karlsson? like went from being mediocre with him to one of the worst teams in league history.

there is this bizarre notion that Karlsson was hurting the sharks for his points, crazy because the Megna(AHL fodder D)- Karlsson paring was actually + 5 on 5. They were the only thing keeping that team somewhat competitive.

how was that detrimental to San Jose? detrimental in the sense that he played them out of Bedard? sure.

And how did the two teams he got traded to get worse because of him? they were contenders whose best players were all in their late 30's with no youngsters to replace them. Pittsburgh and San Jose were gonna get worse with or without Karlsson.

Use logic instead of emotions.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

So, in other words, EK without significant retention and Pittsburgh accepting back contracts doesn’t have any value. He still has an extra season on his contract too. I just don’t see him as a guy a club, that is contending, would want. And why would a rebuilding team want him unless they benefit with futures added?
He’s tradable because every player is. But the cost to Pittsburgh imo would likely outweigh any potential return.

who is arguing the opposite? He has a full NMC.

 

[JKG33]

Correct, the guy who returned a 1st a $10M cap hit has positive value.

You missed all the cap dumps Pittsburgh included that more than offset the first

Correct. They would be bringing in Karlsson to upgrade their defense.

Yikes

Did you see how bad SJ got without Karlsson? like went from being mediocre with him to one of the worst teams in league history.

there is this bizarre notion that Karlsson was hurting the sharks for his points, crazy because the Megna(AHL fodder D)- Karlsson paring was actually + 5 on 5. They were the only thing keeping that team somewhat competitive.

how was that detrimental to San Jose? detrimental in the sense that he played them out of Bedard? sure.

And how did the two teams he got traded to get worse because of him? they were contenders whose best players were all in their late 30's with no youngsters to replace them. Pittsburgh and San Jose were gonna get worse with or without Karlsson.

Use logic instead of emotions.

They looked about as bad as they did with Karlsson. Lottery team either way.

They had their one good season and went straight to the basement.

It's funny how two very unserious teams were the ones who traded for him. Almost like real contenders know he's detrimental to winning a cup.

 

[Fatass]

who is arguing the opposite? He has a full NMC.

Read post #6.

 

[Bizz]

You can after a calendar year.

I think we'd also get the retention slot back too. Not that we'd need it anymore since we already traded Granlund.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

You missed all the cap dumps Pittsburgh included that more than offset the first

Yikes


They looked about as bad as they did with Karlsson. Lottery team either way.

They had their one good season and went straight to the basement.

It's funny how two very unserious teams were the ones who traded for him. Almost like real contenders know he's detrimental to winning a cup.

Dude you stupid?

Sharks were amazing that first year before they lost their depth. They almost won the cup that year.

And it's because no contender can afford an injured 11m dollar player.

Like I said use some logic. Think these things out.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think we'd also get the retention slot back too. Not that we'd need it anymore since we already traded Granlund.

The retention slot is not something I'm certain about. If someone had a cited answer for that, I'd appreciate it because I'm probably not going to look it up. My gut says that we wouldn't get the retention slot back but I don't actually know.

 

[BlueSeal]

He's in decline and not the Dman folks think he is anymore.

 

[JKG33]

Dude you stupid?

Sharks were amazing that first year before they lost their depth. They almost won the cup that year.

And it's because no contender can afford an injured 11m dollar player.

Like I said use some logic. Think these things out.

The Sharks had been to the finals recently before they acquired him too, so he didn't exactly move the needle the way a player of his cap hit should