Value of: Erik Karlsson at the draft

[Pinkfloyd]

Im sure out of those contending teams one has to have something more desirable than Jack Campbell 4x5m

The idea that the trade deadline is where they can max the return on a contract like Karlsson's with term doesn't make much sense. The offseason is because of the flexibility teams need to get a deal of this size completed. The Sharks aren't opposed to taking back bad deals and retaining but you still have to pay to get that to happen.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Name them? I am not denying that Soup is a bad contract but which contending team out there can afford to sell the future and not send a bad contract back?

I dunno, things change as the offseason moves on. but just because Edmonton can acquire said player...... doesnt mean they have the assets to acquire said player.... which the Oilers do not. I question if the Oilers have a single future piece SJ would entertain in a EK trade. the 2024 1st isnt enough.

The idea that the trade deadline is where they can max the return on a contract like Karlsson's with term doesn't make much sense. The offseason is because of the flexibility teams need to get a deal of this size completed. The Sharks aren't opposed to taking back bad deals and retaining but you still have to pay to get that to happen.

yeah for sure but I dont think 4x5m on Jack Campbell as a dump is something SJ should be interested in. its understandable to take back a bad contract or 2 but not ones that are that long for that price while retaining on Karlsson. just makes no sense. imo EDM doesnt have the assets for a EK trade to make sense for both sides

 

[Fourier]

You could argue that but again what does Kulak or Ceci have in terms of trade value elsewhere? If neither of them would pull in a 2nd rounder or better, it's not going to move the needle on a Karlsson trade. You have to put forth assets that make it worth trading Karlsson to say Edmonton and Kulak or Ceci are not going to be part of that package. They will part of the entire package to make the cap work if necessary but you're not convincing the Sharks to move Karlsson in any way based off of them acquiring Ceci or Kulak. I sincerely doubt Ceci's ability to pull in a 2nd round pick right away. A 3rd rounder is probably more reflective of his actual trade value. Same for Kulak but 3rd round picks don't move the needle on a trade of this sort.

Ceci was excellent on the second pair last year. He has played first pairing this year and struggled until Ekholm came because that pair has been asked to play some of the toughest minutes in the NHL. He has also been dealing with a significant core issue it seems. Since Ekholm came and the minutes have been shared Ceci has played well. The best time to move him would be at the next trade deadline if you want full value. He is a better defensemen than a guy like Chariot for example. I think you could make a case he is a better two-way defender than Jake McCabe as well but is certainly on the same tier at least. I don't know if you would get a 1st, but you might. However, two seconds is pretty reasonable given recent history especially given that he is a RHD with term at a very good cap hit.

The Oilers traded a conditional 2nd and a 7th (as well as William Legesson) for Kulak. If anything his play in Edmonton should have increased his value slightly, though I think the original deal was a slight over pay. Kulak played a fairly important role in the Oilers playoff success last year and down the stretch. This year he struggled somewhat being asked to carry the defensive load with Bouchard who was struggling early. But he is an excellent #5 who can play as a #4 without really hurting you all that much so long as he is not required to carry the load.

I am not claiming that a single third round pick would be of any significant value but 2 seconds and a maybe something like a 3rd and a 5th does carry value. The Oilers paid a 2nd and a third for Arizona to eat $3.2M for two years on Kassian so these assets could at least be seen as the equivalent of $1.25M in retention for Karlsson.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

yeah for sure but I dont think 4x5m on Jack Campbell as a dump is something SJ should be interested in. its understandable to take back a bad contract or 2 but not ones that are that long for that price while retaining on Karlsson. just makes no sense. imo EDM doesnt have the assets for a EK trade to make sense for both sides

They wouldn't be but they can make it work if the other parts of the deal make sense for them. If Bouchard, Bourgault, and a pick/prospect or some other combination that includes two to four solid future pieces are involved, a lot of the other stuff can be worked out when it comes to moving cap around. Just depends on Edmonton's ask for what Karlsson's number needs to be for them and whether they're willing to pay the increased price that may come with that. Since the Sharks are a rebuilding club, you have to be willing to pay their future price before any of the other stuff can come together.

Ceci was excellent on the second pair last year. He has played first pairing this year and struggled until Ekholm came because that pair has been asked to play some of the toughest minutes in the NHL. He has also been dealing with a significant core issue it seems. Since Ekholm came and the minutes have been shared Ceci has played well. The best time to move him would be at the next trade deadline if you want full value. He is a better defensemen than a guy like Chariot for example. I think you could make a case he is a better two-way defender than Jake McCabe as well but is certainly on the same tier at least. I don't know if you would get a 1st, but you might. However, two seconds is pretty reasonable given recent history especially given that he is a RHD with term at a very good cap hit.

The Oilers traded a conditional 2nd and a 7th (as well as William Legesson) for Kulak. If anything his play in Edmonton should have increased his value slightly, though I think the original deal was a slight over pay. Kulak played a fairly important role in the Oilers playoff success last year and down the stretch. This year he struggled somewhat being asked to carry the defensive load with Bouchard who was struggling early. But he is an excellent #5 who can play as a #4 without really hurting you all that much so long as he is not required to carry the load.

I am not claiming that a single third round pick would be of any significant value but 2 seconds and a maybe something like a 3rd and a 5th does carry value. The Oilers paid a 2nd and a third for Arizona to eat $3.2M for two years on Kassian so these assets could at least be seen as the equivalent of $1.25M in retention for Karlsson.

It may but it's hard to know based on how contracts get flipped and for what. You don't see a lot of defensemen with term, even at smaller figures, get moved for 1sts and 2nds. A lot of that is reserved for rentals for whatever reason.

 

[Craft Beer Lover]

EK is NOT a good Dman, I'm so sick and tired of hearing that. What he is, is a very talented forward playing the wrong position. As a Dman he desperately requires sheltering otherwise he's a liability. Yes, he will score like a madman but you'll also get scored on as well.

The one thing that makes him a must-have is his ability to have another gear in his game for when things get really tough. The guy is an absolute warrior who will go to war wearing your logo, play damn near crippled and not lose a step. Used correctly he can be that missing piece if firepower is the issue. He'll work best on a team with a deep and strong blueline that can mitigate his risk at D.

IMO, at 32, he is definitely worth 2 1sts. He is absolutely worth a 1st at this draft plus next year's but again his contract is the issue. No one should be paying that kind of money for a Dman who really isn't one. 11.5M x 4 is atrocious and if the Sharks REALLY want draft picks and prospects, they're going to need to take back cap dumps because it's the only way you're going to get value here.

But since the front office seems to be deadset on retooling than rebuilding, I can't see them being willing to trade EK. That makes no sense whatsoever.

So if your blueline desperately needs a top 4 on a lacking D Corps, he ain't it. But if you need firepower and your blueline is strong, here's your guy.

But I don't see the Sharks letting him go.

Thank you! SOMEBODY besides me had to state the truth about Karlsson’s horrific defensive game. Ugh.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

The contract negates the points.

The lack of defense is another significant factor to a contender.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

They wouldn't be but they can make it work if the other parts of the deal make sense for them. If Bouchard, Bourgault, and a pick/prospect or some other combination that includes two to four solid future pieces are involved, a lot of the other stuff can be worked out when it comes to moving cap around. Just depends on Edmonton's ask for what Karlsson's number needs to be for them and whether they're willing to pay the increased price that may come with that. Since the Sharks are a rebuilding club, you have to be willing to pay their future price before any of the other stuff can come together.

I know what rebuilding teams should be going for I just dont see Edmonton willing to get go of the package worth it for SJ. gotta be others out there interested as well with more to offer

 

[DingDongCharlie]

EK on Edmonton would likely repeat these numbers the offer for EK is TERRIBLE. maybe a year ago when his numbers were less impressive but after a 100 point season do you really think SJ would entertain the idea of retaining 30% of 11m for another 4 years FOR THAT RETURN?

not going to lie, Id rather buy out Karlsson over giving him to Edmonton or any team for the offer that guy made


LMFAO give me a break, you want a 100 point Dman for pennies? and dont want to even give up a late 2023 1st? incredibly low balled offer. Id never pick up the phone if you were calling as Edmonton's GM again

We don’t have a 2023 1st. Good don’t pickup the phone. Don’t respond to me either

 

[Captain Mountain]

Karlsson's value relies on the answers to two questions:

1) How much salary is San Jose willing to retain/absorb?
2) How many teams would Karlsson be interested in joining?

We can use the Burns trade to start with calibrating expections. Karlsson is definitely the better player, but the challenges are generally the same. The truth is that teams that would want Karlsson (and that Karlsson would be ok going to) generally don't have the cap space to take on his salary and usually don't have the contracts they'd want to dump to make a trade work. If its heavy retention (or taking on really bad contracts), then he's worth a ton. Without that? He's worth nothing.

My gut is that a Karlsson trade is just too hard to pull off and he'll be a Shark until maybe the last season of his contract.

 

[McHelpus]

Hes stuck on the Sharks because they want to trade him with no retention but they are asking for a package that warrants retention.

Oilers got Ekholm and hopefully we acquire another defensive dman to replace one of Ceci or Kulak contracts.

 

[Fourier]

It may but it's hard to know based on how contracts get flipped and for what. You don't see a lot of defensemen with term, even at smaller figures, get moved for 1sts and 2nds. A lot of that is reserved for rentals for whatever reason.

The reason is that if a solid RH defenseman has term and a good contract teams don't want to trade them. Ceci's extra year at $3.25M is a plus not a negative. TVR just re-signed for $3M, Ceci is a much better defenseman.

I was very much on board with a possible Karlsson deal. I have already said I really have a high opinion of him. But the Ekholm deal has made this much less likley to happen from Edmonton's perspective this off season. I think the Oilers would like to upgrade Ceci, but I also doubt they are in a hurry to do so unless a . I definitely don't think they would see him as having minimal value.

Ekholm does not have the cache that Karlsson does. But at $6M on the cap with what he brings I doubt there is anyway they would trade him for Karlsson even at $8M. They paid a 2023 1st, Schaefer and Barrie for him and a lot of people thought this was too much. That is significantly less than a 2024 1st, Bourgault, Ceci and Kulak. Of course Edmonton is just one team. But as I think you will admit, without significant retention the list of contenders who might pay a similar price without significant retention may be very small or even empty.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

We don’t have a 2023 1st. Good don’t pickup the phone. Don’t respond to me either

I dont know why many would when you make offers like this below...... with offers like this wont be long before every GM in the league wont respond to you
2024 1st + Bourgault + Kulak + Ceci (cap reasons) for Karlsson (30% retention)

 

[North Cole]

I think you're both, lucky and paying a lot, if you can get SJS to eat 15%, anything over that is a pipe dream at his term. People looking for 25%+ lmao, unless you want to give up 3-1sts + some good prospects, no owner is going to retain 10M on top of the cap dumps coming back. All of the Oilers current dead cap and retention don't even equal half that amount...and there's some abysmal GM moves buried in that amount.

It's just such an unrealistic contract to move with 4 years left, I'm not even convinced we were that close to making this trade during the season.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I know what rebuilding teams should be going for I just dont see Edmonton willing to get go of the package worth it for SJ. gotta be others out there interested as well with more to offer

There may be others this offseason. Probably won't know until June so it's a guessing game until then.

Hes stuck on the Sharks because they want to trade him with no retention but they are asking for a package that warrants retention.

Oilers got Ekholm and hopefully we acquire another defensive dman to replace one of Ceci or Kulak contracts.

The Sharks have never said or been reported to want to trade him with no retention. Reports were that they were willing to do 18% and I doubt they're married to that number. It was probably based on what Edmonton was offering them at the time more than anything else.

The reason is that if a solid RH defenseman has term and a good contract teams don't want to trade them. Ceci's extra year at $3.25M is a plus not a negative. TVR just re-signed for $3M, Ceci is a much better defenseman.

In the cases of Ceci and Kulak, if they have value elsewhere, Edmonton should look to put something together there and address the items needed to get something done with the Sharks and keep the asset they'd get. I don't think the Sharks would have as much confidence in getting that return in a flip scenario and if they hold on to him for a season of being bad, his value will almost certainly decrease.

 

[Saltcreek]

The idea that the trade deadline is where they can max the return on a contract like Karlsson's with term doesn't make much sense. The offseason is because of the flexibility teams need to get a deal of this size completed. The Sharks aren't opposed to taking back bad deals and retaining but you still have to pay to get that to happen.

It makes perfect sense. The odds are that EK will not repeat his performance next year, in fact over the previous 4 seasons he has only averaged 50 games a season (stats from another poster). Due to EK age and how many years are remaining his value goes down until people know who they will get next year - that point will be the next TDL.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It makes perfect sense. The odds are that EK will not repeat his performance next year, in fact over the previous 4 seasons he has only averaged 50 games a season (stats from another poster). Due to EK age and how many years are remaining his value goes down until people know who they will get next year - that point will be the next TDL.

Missing 50 games over the past four seasons is not the detriment that you seem to think it is. Playing an average of 70 games per 82 game season is going to be fine for most managers looking to acquire players that improve their team. Right now, Karlsson is the healthiest that he's been in a long time too so he's on the right end of it and not recovering from anything that we're aware of like he was for a lot of his time here.

 

[Fourier]

In the cases of Ceci and Kulak, if they have value elsewhere, Edmonton should look to put something together there and address the items needed to get something done with the Sharks and keep the asset they'd get. I don't think the Sharks would have as much confidence in getting that return in a flip scenario and if they hold on to him for a season of being bad, his value will almost certainly decrease.

Asking for the Oilers to make trades in advance makes the deal significantly more complicated. Moreover, it really makes no sense for the Oilers to trade Cecis and Kulak in the hope of doing something to get Karlsson. If that deal fell through it would be a disaster. Moreover, the Sharks would have the luxury to wait until each defenseman's value could be maximized which the Oilers could not. But it does not matter since as I said, my guess is that the Oilers are out.

As far as risk of a player having a bad year, that risk is substantially greater with Karlsson than with Ceci. Ceci would not be getting traded after having a generational season. Karlsson is. He could regress to a 60 point defenseman next year and his value might be non-existent without massive retention. If Ceci regresses to his last three year low he might go from 2 seconds to 1 second and a late round pick. .

 

[Gecklund]

This post makes virtually no sense.

Tell me this, which defenseman do you think would be more valuable right now. Ekholm at a $6M cap or Karlsson at $11.5M?

The one that scored 100 points on a bottom 4 team by far.

 

[Fourier]

The one that scored 100 points on a bottom 4 team by far.

My guess is that you might well be surpised at how that would play out in real life.

 

[Gecklund]

My guess is that you might well be surpised at how that would play out in real life.

If Karlsson only returns a late first, a B- or C prospect, and a straight cap dump then we will keep him. You act like we HAVE to trade him. If we finished fourth worst with him having the best season by a defenseman in 30+ years and everyone says he won’t repeat it, then why worry about it? If we aren’t getting value back we will keep him. I know this concept is foreign to Oiler fans but he sells tickets.

 

[Fourier]

If Karlsson only returns a late first, a B- or C prospect, and a straight cap dump then we will keep him. You act like we HAVE to trade him. If we finished fourth worst with him having the best season by a defenseman in 30+ years and everyone says he won’t repeat it, then why worry about it? If we aren’t getting value back we will keep him. I know this concept is foreign to Oiler fans but he sells tickets.

I have no problem if they want to keep him. But you seem to think he will be fully onside with that as well. If he is so be it. Good for both parties. But history is not on the side of a player like Karlsson wanting to be the show piece in a multi-year re-build.

I suspect that as an Oiler fan since the 70's I have had some experience in what a great player can do in terms of the business side of the equation.

 

[Gecklund]

I have no problem if they want to keep him. But you seem to think he will be fully onside with that as well. If he is so be it. Good for both parties. But history is not on the side of a player like Karlsson wanting to be the show piece in a multi-year re-build.

I suspect that as an Oiler fan since the 70's I have had some experience in what a great player can do in terms of the business side of the equation.

He’s already said multiple times that he’s not going to ask for a trade. He’s said he wants to win but also that he likes what SJ is building and wants to be around it.

That’s the thing with this. Everyone is telling us what EK is going to do and how we would be lucky to get shit for him but none of that is close to true.

 

[Sidgeni Malkby]

He’s already said multiple times that he’s not going to ask for a trade. He’s said he wants to win but also that he likes what SJ is building and wants to be around it.

That’s the thing with this. Everyone is telling us what EK is going to do and how we would be lucky to get shit for him but none of that is close to true.

Well he needs to make a decision.

If he wants to stay for the rebuild, then no offer is going to be good enough to pry him away.

If he wants to win now and go to a contender, then his cap hit WILL be an issue, as most contenders don't have a lot of room, and absorbing $11.5M really hurts. If Sharks absorb 50%, then they would maximize his return.

Point is you need to look at how he's performed his whole tenure at SJ, not just the last year. If he was a 25 year old D, that changes things. But at 33, he's on the tail end of his career.

Ask it this way...if he was a UFA, what would he get? Then go from there.

 

[Gecklund]

Well he needs to make a decision.

If he wants to stay for the rebuild, then no offer is going to be good enough to pry him away.

If he wants to win now and go to a contender, then his cap hit WILL be an issue, as most contenders don't have a lot of room, and absorbing $11.5M really hurts. If Sharks absorb 50%, then they would maximize his return.

Point is you need to look at how he's performed his whole tenure at SJ, not just the last year. If he was a 25 year old D, that changes things. But at 33, he's on the tail end of his career.

Ask it this way...if he was a UFA, what would he get? Then go from there.

If he was a UFA he’d EASILY get the contract he has now and anyone saying otherwise is lying to themselves. If Sharks are retaining 50% they better be getting a top 5 leaguewide prospect or there’s no reason for them to do it.

 

[Big Muddy]

Just curious on whether the GM or team owners have made any comments on whether the Sharks are rebuilding or just retooling?