I would be more than happy to see EK stay in SJ if that is what he wants. I'd also love to see where he has expressed a commitment to stay. This is basically what has been reported.
Cale Makar has a cap hit of $9M. A 33 year old UFA Karlsson won't get more than Makar, but that's me.
The deal is going to be complicated and that aspect is likely part of it. It wouldn't be the first time that a team put together a side deal contingent on another deal getting done. The Oilers getting some value back on guys they're replacing seems normal to me as part of offseason turnover. I don't think the risk on Karlsson really makes much of a difference. If you haven't noticed, talk has centered around them trading Karlsson with heavy retention even with him having a career season. There are still people out there saying he'll go nowhere because of the contract. Even if Karlsson regressed to a 60 point defenseman, there will still be people who would view him as an upgrade to what they have and would need to figure out what cap hit makes it work for them like they're going to do this offseason. I think Ceci in San Jose can regress much harder than what you're suggesting because the Sharks were already the team with the fewest or close to it with Karlsson being the offense. What happens when he's gone on top of Timo Meier being gone? They have Hertl, Couture, and then a bunch of plugs and kids having to step into roles likely above their current capabilities. Ceci isn't stemming that tide. Either he or Benning would be playing top pairing minutes with Vlasic or Ferraro or a kid like Thrun or Muk and it's not going to be pretty. I can't imagine any team wanting Ceci at 3.25 mil after being left to fend for himself a year in San Jose. Karlsson's trade value from this offseason to next is probably a 1st round pick's worth. Karlsson is still a well-proven commodity on a winning club.
The thing is, like Gretzky scoring 90, I'm not expecting Karlsson to score 100 ever again.
Can’t see SJ doing that without significant value added from the Oilers which I doubt they’d be willing to do at this point.
It certainly complicates the trade from the Oilers perspective. It's a timing issue. They would need trades for Ceci and Kulak in place at the same time they made the deal for Karlsson. Holland has not shown he is up to this sort of thing. Even if it is this off season, it would be a much easier deal if the Sharks handled the Ceci trade on their end since it would give them additional flexibility in timing.
His prior cap hit started 5 years before his lights out playoffs, and ran 2 years after that, so sounds like your misremembering.
Not sure if you realize that Karlsson is owed essentially $40M over the next 4 years? He's obviously had an EPIC season, but with his injury history it's an ENORMOUS risk for the acquiring team. I doubt that any team would be willing to set his value based on his amazing season, which is why I think he'll be in SJ for the forseeable future.
I get that from the Oilers perspective but it's already asking a lot from the Sharks to retain what Edmonton is probably going to want to make this work (likely in the 3-4 mil per year area) and then ask us to handle Ceci's trade value after the fact. If the other particulars in the deal are enough then I wouldn't worry but you're talking about Karlsson's value as a player plus the retention ask that is in the neighborhood of two to three 1st round picks. Some of this is also dependent on whether Campbell either has San Jose on his 10 team no-trade list or if he's willing to waive. I think a lot of the issues around Karlsson going to Edmonton can be alleviated by Campbell's availability to come here because then the Oilers don't have to have such a heavy retention ask which would lower the cost significantly.
I think this is the only way a deal is made, which makes it quite unlikely.
39 mil for four years of Karlsson is the full price. It is very unlikely any team acquiring him is going to be paying that price. The 18% retention number would put that number to about 32 mil over four years that the acquiring team will pay. I don't know how anyone would say that isn't worth what EK65 brings to the ice. His injury risk at this point is being exaggerated. He was healthy coming into this year, through the season, and at the end of it. He wasn't healthy for the previous three seasons but he played in 83% of the team's games the past four seasons. That's about 68 games in an 82 game season where some of those injuries he suffered he sat because the team was already done and nothing could be accomplished by him sticking it out. At least one of them, he would have stuck it out if they were competitive. You don't have to set his value on this season alone but you do have to account for it. He's probably a 60-70 point defenseman minimum on a playoff team. When they tilt the game like Karlsson does, they're worth a premium.
IF SJ was willing to take on Campbell, Yamamoto, Ceci and Kulak (keep Foegele) for the equivalent of three first with 18% retention I think that is a definitely something the Oilers would have to think carefully about . But you have a poster here who thinks a 1st plus Bourgault for Campbell at full cap is bad for the Sharks. These two positions are not compatible. Depending on what Bouchard gets and what happens with the cap the Oilers could do very well with this trade. (The only concern would be that if the cap only goes up by $1M and Bouchard gets $4M or more this would be very tight to fit in.0 But I'd be really surprised if this happened and that the suggestion would come from a Sharks fan.
His exit interview was a little different. Sounded more like a neutral stance and he’s not worrying about things out of his control. Doesn’t sound like he’s going to ask to be traded, but wouldn’t be against getting traded either.
Well, two people having two different opinions on player value doesn't really mean much, does it? Having the opinion that Bourgault, Campbell, and a 1st for Karlsson is bad for the Sharks is a defensible take. There isn't much being added to their rebuild with the deal and the biggest asset acquired there being cap space isn't something the Sharks have a dire need for when they're rebuilding. I'm pretty flexible with the return on here because I feel like the goal is to get something done this offseason. So everyone is going to have an assorted amount of potential parameters to a deal like this. The Sharks are capable of being flexible. They don't have specific needs financially that I'm aware of and they need everything they can get their hands on when it comes to young NHL level talent. I think the Sharks will look to strike a balance of saving cap dollars and young talent coming their way here but that balance likely will be leaning towards younger talent.
I have no issue with concern over Bourgault, Campbell and a 1st given Campbell's $5M cap. My issue was thinking that Bourgault and a 1st was not even enough as a starting price for an unretained Karlsson.
It depends on how many teams have interest. I tend to believe that other teams expressing even mild interest would probably put forward a package that includes more for their rebuild than Bourgault and a late 1st next year. I get that the unretained portion of things is a point of contention for you here but the Sharks don't need to trade Karlsson without retention. If they could and got the sort of return they'd want then yeah but I think they're going to choose to increase the return by retaining here to make it seem worth it for them.
Bourgault and a 1st is pretty much as good as the package that the Oilers traded for Ekholm and it would be close to the package Arizona got for Chychrun unless that conditional 2nd round pick becomes a first which is very unlikely (maybe shy by a late 2nd or a 3rd). In the Oliers case it is not obvious they would trade Ekholm for Karlsson straight up at equal cap hits given team needs. But the extra $5.5M in cap space makes it obvious.
