Value of: Erik Karlsson at the draft

[Irie]

A long winded way of saying they have the flexibility needed if they so choose. You didn’t think Burns would get dealt either. I don’t care to engage in depth with someone pretending the numbers aren’t what they are.

I never said Burns would not get dealt.

First of all, I said Burns would not fit in Dallas' cap. Which given the extensions to their RFAs turned out to be exactly true.

Then you came back and changed your proposal after I showed you the cap numbers did not add up (same old gameplan, when proven your ideas are not realistic, double down and come back with a even zanier idea). This time it was claiming "Burns would fit if San Jose would retain 2M and take Faska and Khudobin as cap dumps." That was 20M+ in real dollars San Jose would be paying over 3 years for a single 2nd round pick, and I said it was unrealistic. Which it absolutely was. (Burns went with1.83M real dollars retained(5.5 total) for a 3rd round pick, a good goalie prospect and a 1M bottom 6 player.)

How was I wrong?

Go ahead and reimagine that conversation. Here is the link to that thread. Reread it in all it's glory

Your response to my initial post mentioned nothing of the retention idea plus taking back the two bad contracts for a 2nd.

I later address your "hypothetical" with my question. But there is no reality in your hypothetical proposal to even warrant a response. It is not realistic.

While I agree that some trades are made for cap flexibility over value, your trade proposal does not really accomplish either for San Jose. They could easily retain a bit more and avoid those cap dumps and come out net positive.

 

[Gecklund]

you aren't wrong by any means. But the sharks are 100% selling high in this instance. He will probably never hit these point totals again. He's a year older. He makes a ton of money. This is like the worst case scenario for the Sharks....trying to trade him now that is. Sharks arent winning with or without him so you might as well sell at his high point. But then again everyone and every GM knows that so you aren't gonna get record setting Dman value for him...

I never said they’d get record value. In fact I only said they need to get some value which still hasn’t been offered.

 

[wetcoast]

I never said they’d get record value. In fact I only said they need to get some value which still hasn’t been offered.

It won't be offered as his contract/term and future value just don't add up in the current salary cap league.

 

[Sidgeni Malkby]

His prior cap hit started 5 years before his lights out playoffs, and ran 2 years after that, so sounds like your misremembering.

Sorry...I wrote it incorrectly....

I meant his current cap hit is based on that prior playoff run in 2016-17. I remember it well as I'm a Pens fan and we went to 2nd OT in game 7 to win that one. Karlsson was a beast!

This is why SJ went after him and paid him a ton to get him on board. A game breaking D in his prime at age 27. It just didn't work out as expected.

This is why his cap hit is an issue in any trade. He isn't worth 11.5M IMO.

I don't have any personal stake or agenda here .

 

[Gecklund]

It won't be offered as his contract/term and future value just don't add up in the current salary cap league.

Then we will keep him. That’s stupid as shit that you think he won’t get value.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I never said Burns would not get dealt.

First of all, I said Burns would not fit in Dallas' cap. Which given the extensions to their RFAs turned out to be exactly true.

Then you came back and changed your proposal after I showed you the cap numbers did not add up (same old gameplan, when proven your ideas are not realistic, double down and come back with a even zanier idea). This time it was claiming "Burns would fit if San Jose would retain 2M and take Faska and Khudobin as cap dumps." That was 20M+ in real dollars San Jose would be paying over 3 years for a single 2nd round pick, and I said it was unrealistic. Which it absolutely was. (Burns went with1.83M real dollars retained(5.5 total) for a 3rd round pick, a good goalie prospect and a 1M bottom 6 player.)

How was I wrong?

Go ahead and reimagine that conversation. Here is the link to that thread. Reread it in all it's glory

You were wrong in that it wouldn’t have fit when it pretty clearly would have. You didn’t prove anything. Just because a team chooses a path doesn’t mean an alternative plan couldn’t fit. You do this all the time and it’s tiresome to deal with your long-winded responses.

 

[PelagicJoe]

EK is a good player, but his contract and his age are going to be major roadblocks in a trade. SJ will have to either take back someone else's anchor contract or more likely retain some of EK's cap hit to trade him. Pre-cap era, he would have already been traded two years ago.

 

[Irie]

You were wrong in that it wouldn’t have fit when it pretty clearly would have. You didn’t prove anything. Just because a team chooses a path doesn’t mean an alternative plan couldn’t fit. You do this all the time and it’s tiresome to deal with your long-winded responses.

1.) Basing an entire hypothetical on the premise that a GM is going to be willing to burn a retention slot for 3 years while taking on over 20 million in actual cash commitment all for a single 2nd round pick and calling it an "alternate path" is just not realistic.

2.) you claimed I said something I did not say and then being confronted with the actual thread and the truth, you just changed your statement.

3.) Making statements about teams cap situation that ignores that teams RFAs, (a 64p #1 D, a top 4 defensive D, a 3.663 points-per-60 forward, a 3.5M burried goalie under contract, and a 2.329 points-per-60 depth center) is disingenuous and is not a real reflection of that teams cap situation.

All your claims here are really just out of context misleading generalizations that have no support. My responses are long winded because they actually have all the quotes and facts to support their truth. Saying "I already proved you wrong" to other posters without ever providing any proof or substance on anything is not a valid argument, it is just arguing from a position of bad faith.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

1.) Basing an entire hypothetical on the premise that a GM is going to be willing to burn a retention slot for 3 years while taking on over 20 million in actual cash commitment all for a single 2nd round pick and calling it an "alternate path" is just not realistic.

2.) you claimed I said something I did not say and then being confronted with the actual thread and the truth, you just changed your statement.

3.) Making statements about teams cap situation that ignores that teams RFAs, (a 64p #1 D, a top 4 defensive D, a 3.663 points-per-60 forward, a 3.5M burried goalie under contract, and a 2.329 points-per-60 depth center) is disingenuous and is not a real reflection of that teams cap situation.

All your claims here are really just out of context misleading generalizations that have no support. My responses are long winded because they actually have all the quotes and facts to support their truth. Saying "I already proved you wrong" to other posters without ever providing any proof or substance on anything is not a valid argument, it is just arguing from a position of bad faith.

I have no idea what you're talking about with 1. You didn't actually confront with me anything resembling the truth. This is par for the course conversing with you which is why I'm only engaging so much because I know it's talking to a brick wall with you. All I said was that they have the flexibility if they so choose even with pending free agents of theirs. That is still true no matter how much you gish-gallop to the contrary. You're hardly the sort of person to cry context when you lack the ability to comprehend context of any sort beyond whatever single path you see for any particular team. I know you were very much against even the possibility of Burns getting dealt because of his age and contract yet a team found the flexibility to work with the Sharks to make it happen. It will happen with Karlsson regardless of the talk about Karlsson's contract and injury history. The whole bad faith stuff you talk about is projection. Just let it die that we have different opinions on what flexibility actually is in today's NHL.

 

[wetcoast]

Then we will keep him. That’s stupid as shit that you think he won’t get value.

What would be value to you BTW?

Or do you not understand how the salary cap works?

 

[Gecklund]

What would be value to you BTW?

Or do you not understand how the salary cap works?

Good prospect, first, another conditional first and cap to about 7.5 and then Sharks retain 2M.

Love that little shot in there too bud. Considering I’ve posted that 3 times in here and multiple times in other threads maybe you should learn to read before spouting shit.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

That contract though.

 

[wetcoast]

Good prospect, first, another conditional first and cap to about 7.5 and then Sharks retain 2M.

ya not very likely is my guess here.

Love that little shot in there too bud. Considering I’ve posted that 3 times in here and multiple times in other threads maybe you should learn to read before spouting shit.

Yes that was a bit lazy but then again your expectation of a good prospect (whatever that is) and a first and then said team taking a 7.5 million cap hit for 4 years simply isn't happening outside of peoples imaginations so even though I was premature in taking that shot you went ahead and kind of supported it.

 

[Gecklund]

ya not very likely is my guess here.


Yes that was a bit lazy but then again your expectation of a good prospect (whatever that is) and a first and then said team taking a 7.5 million cap hit for 4 years simply isn't happening outside of peoples imaginations so even though I was premature in taking that shot you went ahead and kind of supported it.

Yeah that’s not what I said but keep at it! I said 7.5M to the Sharks. I know reading comprehension is hard!

If sharks don’t get it they keep him. It’s as simple as that and I don’t understand why you come into every SJ thread with your shit takes and your absolute cluelessness.

 

[wetcoast]

Yeah that’s not what I said but keep at it! I said 7.5M to the Sharks. I know reading comprehension is hard!

If sharks don’t get it they keep him. It’s as simple as that and I don’t understand why you come into every SJ thread with your shit takes and your absolute cluelessness.

So the Sharks will keep him then as that 7..5 million wasn't clear but it is now that you expanded upon it and they are very few scenarios where a contending team has 7.5 million over 4 years to even it up.

So to sum it up Team A would give the Sharks a first and a good prospect and some jumble of players who earn 7.5 million over the next 4 years and in return Team A would get EK65 at 9.5 million for his last 4 years.

You are right on your last point though you clearly don't understand....I mean this isn't like a message board to discuss hockey or anything like that right?

 

[Irie]

I have no idea what you're talking about with 1. You didn't actually confront with me anything resembling the truth. This is par for the course conversing with you which is why I'm only engaging so much because I know it's talking to a brick wall with you. All I said was that they have the flexibility if they so choose even with pending free agents of theirs. That is still true no matter how much you gish-gallop to the contrary. You're hardly the sort of person to cry context when you lack the ability to comprehend context of any sort beyond whatever single path you see for any particular team. I know you were very much against even the possibility of Burns getting dealt because of his age and contract yet a team found the flexibility to work with the Sharks to make it happen. It will happen with Karlsson regardless of the talk about Karlsson's contract and injury history. The whole bad faith stuff you talk about is projection. Just let it die that we have different opinions on what flexibility actually is in today's NHL.

You claimed I said things I never said and when shown the thread where you claimed I said it, you "don't know what I am talking about".... seriously?

It's a simple thing. Once Seattle signs their #1 D and team MVP Dunn, they will no longer have enough cap room for Karlsson and and a full roster. Once they sign their other top 4 D, they are just going to have enough cap to fill out their roster with quality depth. Somehow you think replacing a 21 goal 3.662 Points-per-60 forward would be "not difficult to replace with cheaper options." Curious who you think might be available to fill that void. Do you have zero memory of great Sharks teams with weak bottom sixes that cost them playoff series? Names like Rissmiller-Plihal-Shelly-Goc-Smith-Brown etc. ring a bell? Geekie had a huge goal tonight in the Kraken's win. Their team depth is their biggest strength and what makes them a good team.

If you have followed Francis through his time in Carolina and now Seattle, you would know that he does not make big trades or large gamble moves. Keep posting that Seattle might give up youth for a player that can't even fit in their cap structure and I will keep sitting here laughing and shaking my head at your ignorance.

 

[Gecklund]

So the Sharks will keep him then as that 7..5 million wasn't clear but it is now that you expanded upon it and they are very few scenarios where a contending team has 7.5 million over 4 years to even it up.

So to sum it up Team A would give the Sharks a first and a good prospect and some jumble of players who earn 7.5 million over the next 4 years and in return Team A would get EK65 at 9.5 million for his last 4 years.

You are right on your last point though you clearly don't understand....I mean this isn't like a message board to discuss hockey or anything like that right?

Perfect then we keep him. It’s as simple as that. As all of you so love to point out, he’s probably not going to repeat last year and even with him having a historic season, sharks suck. No reason to take shit from the bottom of the can for him.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

You claimed I said things I never said and when shown the thread where you claimed I said it, you "don't know what I am talking about".... seriously?

It's a simple thing. Once Seattle signs their #1 D and team MVP Dunn, they will no longer have enough cap room for Karlsson and and a full roster. Once they sign their other top 4 D, they are just going to have enough cap to fill out their roster with quality depth. Somehow you think replacing a 21 goal 3.662 Points-per-60 forward would be "not difficult to replace with cheaper options." Curious who you think might be available to fill that void. Do you have zero memory of great Sharks teams with weak bottom sixes that cost them playoff series? Names like Rissmiller-Plihal-Shelly-Goc-Smith-Brown etc. ring a bell? Geekie had a huge goal tonight in the Kraken's win. Their team depth is their biggest strength and what makes them a good team.

If you have followed Francis through his time in Carolina and now Seattle, you would know that he does not make big trades or large gamble moves. Keep posting that Seattle might give up youth for a player that can't even fit in their cap structure and I will keep sitting here laughing and shaking my head at your ignorance.

You haven't shown anything. Your simple thing is but one path they can go down if they so choose. You not being able to imagine how they can change their team for next season (which all teams do to some extent) is a you problem. Carolina was in a similar position last offseason before they acquired Burns who has been a great addition to their lineup. They had players to re-sign that were important to them too.

 

[Jargon]

Are there any actual proposals here or just people arguing?

 

[Petes2424]

It will come down to teams on the rise, who can take on that AAV. Most contenders can’t even take half of it.

So Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle (maybe) and a couple others.

Think however, Buffalo and Detroit both go after more of a supporting type RHD to play with Power or Edvinsson over the next 2-3 years. A Schenn, Mayfield type. Or a higher end supporting/role player like Tanev or even Andersson from Calgary. I wouldn’t however, count Detroit out if they can’t find a partner to trade for a high end forward. Especially with all their Swedes.

That said, it’s still very limited when it comes to suitors. Maybe Holland goes all-in if the Oilers give away this series like they gave away Game 1. Maybe that forces a big change. Maybe they can get a 3-way going where RNH and his AAV end up leaving town. His value likely never gets any higher than it is right now.

Could they move RNH to Detroit for example, where they end up with EK, and San Jose gets the prospects and futures? I can see that happening, but ONLY if they take a crap early in these playoffs.

Could they move enough cash around to add him? Sure, but at what price when it comes to their current team? People love to add Ceci to every deal (as if he’s a cap dump) but seem to not understand, other than Ekholm, he’s Edmonton’s best puck retriever. He’s not the bust or struggling dman he used to be. He’s found his game.

It will be hard for them to get something done. As for other contenders? Just don’t see the fit. Any deal has so many parameters, it’s just hard to make it happen.

That’s why you almost have to think, if he’s moved, it’ll be more than likely to an “up and coming” team who can absorb that AAV.

 

[Ovi895]

Last offseason was the year to get him. The right team could have gotten him for a somewhat more than Burns if they'd eat the contract with very slight or no retention and reaped the reward of this season.

As it stands theres too much fluctuation with the rewards from getting him going forward vs how much he should cost coming off a 100 point season. He's also worth a ton to San Jose just from a financial standpoint of putting butts in seats vs whatever cap dumps they'd spend that cap on otherwise

 

[Fourier]

It will come down to teams on the rise, who can take on that AAV. Most contenders can’t even take half of it.

So Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle (maybe) and a couple others.

Think however, Buffalo and Detroit both go after more of a supporting type RHD to play with Power or Edvinsson over the next 2-3 years. A Schenn, Mayfield type. Or a higher end supporting/role player like Tanev or even Andersson from Calgary. I wouldn’t however, count Detroit out if they can’t find a partner to trade for a high end forward. Especially with all their Swedes.

That said, it’s still very limited when it comes to suitors. Maybe Holland goes all-in if the Oilers give away this series like they gave away Game 1. Maybe that forces a big change. Maybe they can get a 3-way going where RNH and his AAV end up leaving town. His value likely never gets any higher than it is right now.

Could they move RNH to Detroit for example, where they end up with EK, and San Jose gets the prospects and futures? I can see that happening, but ONLY if they take a crap early in these playoffs.

Could they move enough cash around to add him? Sure, but at what price when it comes to their current team? People love to add Ceci to every deal (as if he’s a cap dump) but seem to not understand, other than Ekholm, he’s Edmonton’s best puck retriever. He’s not the bust or struggling dman he used to be. He’s found his game.

It will be hard for them to get something done. As for other contenders? Just don’t see the fit. Any deal has so many parameters, it’s just hard to make it happen.

That’s why you almost have to think, if he’s moved, it’ll be more than likely to an “up and coming” team who can absorb that AAV.

You can forget any scenario where Nuge is involved. He is not going to be traded. He has a full NMC and signed a deal at below market value because he wanted to be in Edmonton. Beyond that the Oilers would not even consider asking him to waive.

 

[Cancuks]

I think the Sharks are stuck with him for one more year. When the cap goes up $4 or $5 million after next year and if he has a season like he just had then they'll be able to move him. But they'll still have to retain.

 

[GhostfaceWu]

I would consider Karlsson more valuable than either Chychrun or Ekholm.

Take a look at their caphits in comparison to karlsson.

 

[Gecklund]

Take a look at their caphits in comparison to karlsson.

Take a look at the level of play.