Value of: Erik Karlsson to last minute contender?

[BillR10]

People keep talking about 50% rentention. Ask yourself what it would take to get a player like Karlsson putting up the points he is, on pace be a legit threat at the Norris Trophy that's locked down for 5 more years at only 5.75 mil per. Then after you realize how much that would cost your team then add on what it would take to persuade the Sharks to have a 5.75mil cap hit for the next 5 years while you enjoy a top pair offensive RHD.

I can't see it happening. Burns was a different story as the sharks needed cap space. That's not the case with moving Karlsson.

 

[Deleted member 339259]

People keep talking about 50% rentention. Ask yourself what it would take to get a player like Karlsson putting up the points he is, on pace be a legit threat at the Norris Trophy that's locked down for 5 more years at only 5.75 mil per. Then after you realize how much that would cost your team then add on what it would take to persuade the Sharks to have a 5.75mil cap hit for the next 5 years while you enjoy a top pair offensive RHD.

I can't see it happening. Burns was a different story as the sharks needed cap space. That's not the case with moving Karlsson.

I’m not trying to devalue Karlsson, but just looking at all the years he’s been in SJ, is he producing this year because he’s returned to his old Ottawa form? Or is he producing this year because he’s the best player on a bad team?

 

[Fogelhund]

Burns asked out

True. It’s just such a weird set of circumstances for EK that there isn’t much precedent for him.

 

[Fogelhund]

People keep talking about 50% rentention. Ask yourself what it would take to get a player like Karlsson putting up the points he is, on pace be a legit threat at the Norris Trophy that's locked down for 5 more years at only 5.75 mil per. Then after you realize how much that would cost your team then add on what it would take to persuade the Sharks to have a 5.75mil cap hit for the next 5 years while you enjoy a top pair offensive RHD.

I can't see it happening. Burns was a different story as the sharks needed cap space. That's not the case with moving Karlsson.

He’s having an amazing year, but you also can’t ignore that he’s had four years before, that weren’t nearly as good, and he’s never been very good in his own zone.

How do you value him, based on 24 games, or the 211 games before that?

 

[BillR10]

He’s having an amazing year, but you also can’t ignore that he’s had four years before, that weren’t nearly as good, and he’s never been very good in his own zone.

How do you value him, based on 24 games, or the 211 games before that?

Before he was also 2nd fiddle to Burnzie on defense and even played with him at times that didn't go well. He was also plagued with injuries. Everyone knows about that but when he's healthy he's elite. This is why I posed the question of what would it take with him at 5.75 for 5 years then add the cost for the sharks retaining that much as the cost should be higher than if he was just at 5.75. That's a realistic expectation on return. If not they might as well just keep him as they won't be able to replace him with a guy making 5.75 per. Just won't happen. Guys like that are rare and defintely not available from the teams that have them

 

[Juxtaposer]

I’m not trying to devalue Karlsson, but just looking at all the years he’s been in SJ, is he producing this year because he’s returned to his old Ottawa form? Or is he producing this year because he’s the best player on a bad team?

He’s producing because he doesn’t have Burns hogging all the minutes, plain and simple. No matter how poorly Burns played, he was always given #1PP time and 5v5 time with the top line in critical situations because of his tenure and history with the team. Put Karlsson on a team where he is clearly the first offensive option on defense and has the reigns and he’ll be just as good there as his is with the Sharks this season. Basically the only teams I don’t think Karlsson would succeed on would be Colorado, Nashville, Vancouver, and Buffalo.

 

[Gecklund]

He’s producing because he doesn’t have Burns hogging all the minutes, plain and simple. No matter how poorly Burns played, he was always given #1PP time and 5v5 time with the top line in critical situations because of his tenure and history with the team. Put Karlsson on a team where he is clearly the first offensive option on defense and has the reigns and he’ll be just as good there as his is with the Sharks this season. Basically the only teams I don’t think Karlsson would succeed on would be Colorado, Nashville, Vancouver, and Buffalo.

I would add NYR to that list and maybe WSH. Maybe EK not succeeding isn’t the right way to describe it but I think Fox/Carlson as not the 1 offensive option takes away a lot of their usefulness.

 

[Mr Positive]

People keep talking about 50% rentention. Ask yourself what it would take to get a player like Karlsson putting up the points he is, on pace be a legit threat at the Norris Trophy that's locked down for 5 more years at only 5.75 mil per. Then after you realize how much that would cost your team then add on what it would take to persuade the Sharks to have a 5.75mil cap hit for the next 5 years while you enjoy a top pair offensive RHD.

I can't see it happening. Burns was a different story as the sharks needed cap space. That's not the case with moving Karlsson.

The issue then is that if San Jose doesn't retain, very few teams have any hope of trading for him no matter how much they may want to. SJ has to retain something just to make the trade possible.

Some of the value they get would be the value added to their upcoming draft pick. I will say that the millions of dollars and term make it a little crazy. Definitely a team would need to lump extra value on. However full NTCs also take some value off

 

[Gecklund]

The issue then is that if San Jose doesn't retain, very few teams have any hope of trading for him no matter how much they may want to. SJ has to retain something just to make the trade possible.

Some of the value they get would be the value added to their upcoming draft pick. I will say that the millions of dollars and term make it a little crazy. Definitely a team would need to lump extra value on. However full NTCs also take some value off

That’s not the way trades work. You don’t get to claim that you’re adding value by making our draft pick worse.

 

[Habs Halifax]

If Sharks are paying 5.75M for a defenseman that is on pace for over 100 points to not pay for them, they better be getting something worth their while. A first and a prospect is not that. That’s not even counting the contract which is likely a cap dump for them to take back.

Depends when you trade him and who he is willing to open his NMC for. If you are looking for a gold mine return, you are likely still with Karlsson next season.

Very difficult contract to move and Karlsson controls his faith so that limits his value.

 

[Habs Halifax]

It's so unlikely that it might as well be impossible.

Karlsson has to approve any destination as he has a nmc, for starters. Then the Sharks aren't retaining half that contact for half a decade. If they somehow did theyd' want an inconveivable return, for which Karlsson who's a complimentary piece at this stage of his career, isn't worth.

There's really no way to make the trade happen at this time

Yeah, fun to talk about it and ponder what kind of move it would be but it's not probable for several reasons.

 

[Habs Halifax]

50% retention is very unlikely to occur no matter how much armchair GM's around here want it to happen. The flat cap will be less concerning as time goes on when the cap is projected to be in the 90 mil range before the end of his deal.

Cap is going to be $90M faster than that. People forget that just before Covid, the cap was expected to be $84M - $88M range depending on escrow. That was before the US TV deals and also Seattle coming in.

Don't be surprised if the cap is $90M or very close to it for the 24/25 season. NHLPA is likely to be paid off this season or very close to it. I expect a cap around $84M or $85M next season. Then another bump the season after.

The dilemma here is how Karlsson ages from age 32-36. Easier to move him later but how long does he hold his value? This is why the trade value talk is open now... Some fans want to get the futures now but it's a little on the premature side. Sharks retaining 50% is a big deal for them so if they do it, they will want a massive return.

 

[Hookslide]

If Sharks are paying 5.75M for a defenseman that is on pace for over 100 points to not pay for them, they better be getting something worth their while. A first and a prospect is not that. That’s not even counting the contract which is likely a cap dump for them to take back.

Did you say this before the season started , I have my doubts . You are right in what you are saying , I just not sure of the timing........

He’s having an amazing year, but you also can’t ignore that he’s had four years before, that weren’t nearly as good, and he’s never been very good in his own zone.

How do you value him, based on 24 games, or the 211 games before that?

good point...

 

[Gecklund]

Did you say this before the season started , I have my doubts . You are right in what you are saying , I just not sure of the timing........


good point...

Yes. I did. Karlsson has been good for 2 seasons now. Last season he was just injured but was still on a 60 PPG pace.

 

[Habs Halifax]

People keep talking about 50% rentention. Ask yourself what it would take to get a player like Karlsson putting up the points he is, on pace be a legit threat at the Norris Trophy that's locked down for 5 more years at only 5.75 mil per. Then after you realize how much that would cost your team then add on what it would take to persuade the Sharks to have a 5.75mil cap hit for the next 5 years while you enjoy a top pair offensive RHD.

I can't see it happening. Burns was a different story as the sharks needed cap space. That's not the case with moving Karlsson.

Sharks would have gotten more for Burns if other teams had more cap. List lining up would be more than the Canes.

Look at it from 32 teams perspective. Not just the Sharks. Even with retention, it's difficult to move and also get the return you want. Nice idea but it's not probable. How many teams do you think Karlsson opens his NMC for? 5 or less? If those teams don't want to trade futures and prefer to use their leverage, Sharks keep Karlsson cause there is no deal that make sense.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Sharks would have gotten more for Burns if other teams had more cap. List lining up would be more than the Canes.

Look at it from 32 teams perspective. Not just the Sharks. Even with retention, it's difficult to move and also get the return you want. Nice idea but it's not probable. How many teams do you think Karlsson opens his NMC for? 5 or less? If those teams don't want to trade futures and prefer to use their leverage, Sharks keep Karlsson cause there is no deal that make sense.

It's pretty ironic you say this but have been in a multiple page argument defending Josh Anderson in the "NJD might be interested in Anderson" thread.

 

[Habs Halifax]

It's pretty ironic you say this but have been in a multiple page argument defending Josh Anderson in the "NJD might be interested in Anderson" thread.

Different age ranges, different cap hits, and one has a NMC. Not ironic cause it has different context. Nice try though

 

[Gecklund]

Sharks would have gotten more for Burns if other teams had more cap. List lining up would be more than the Canes.

Look at it from 32 teams perspective. Not just the Sharks. Even with retention, it's difficult to move and also get the return you want. Nice idea but it's not probable. How many teams do you think Karlsson opens his NMC for? 5 or less? If those teams don't want to trade futures and prefer to use their leverage, Sharks keep Karlsson cause there is no deal that make sense.

The list was longer than just the Canes with rumors that the Canes package was not the best package. Burns wanted to go there.

I expect the Sharks keep Karlsson either way. Especially if the shit offers on these boards are any indication.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The list was longer than just the Canes with rumors that the Canes package was not the best package. Burns wanted to go there.

I expect the Sharks keep Karlsson either way. Especially if the shit offers on these boards are any indication.

Yeah, and Burns had a 3 team trade list right? These things limit value cause the other team has the leverage.

I also agree. Karlsson is going nowhere. It's fun to talk trade but it's not probable to happen.

 

[Gecklund]

Yeah, and Burns had a 3 team trade list right? These things limit value cause the other team has the leverage.

I also agree. Karlsson is going nowhere. It's fun to talk trade but it's not probable to happen.

It had nothing to do with his trade list. Canes weren’t even on his list. It had to do with doing right by a guy who gave so much to the org.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Sharks would have gotten more for Burns if other teams had more cap. List lining up would be more than the Canes.

Look at it from 32 teams perspective. Not just the Sharks. Even with retention, it's difficult to move and also get the return you want. Nice idea but it's not probable. How many teams do you think Karlsson opens his NMC for? 5 or less? If those teams don't want to trade futures and prefer to use their leverage, Sharks keep Karlsson cause there is no deal that make sense.

Personally, I expect a Burns-like trade for Karlsson in the offseason. Sharks will retain some but not 50%. It'll be in the 2-3 mil range to put Karlsson's cap hit in the 8.5-9.5 mil neighborhood and they'll take back players that will probably amount to around 4 or 5 mil creating about 4-5 mil of cap space for themselves while getting a future piece or two that is likely better in quality than what Burns got due to age and caliber differences. Both players play a premium position. Given that Grier already put out there that they'll listen on deals for Karlsson, I think it's a matter of Grier finding a deal and then talking to Karlsson about whether he wants to go there or not. It seems like Karlsson has given Grier the leeway to look wherever he needs to look and get back to him since there were only reportedly talks with two teams this past offseason about Karlsson. I suspect that number will expand this offseason with a more defined rising cap and an elite season under his belt.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Personally, I expect a Burns-like trade for Karlsson in the offseason. Sharks will retain some but not 50%. It'll be in the 2-3 mil range to put Karlsson's cap hit in the 8.5-9.5 mil neighborhood and they'll take back players that will probably amount to around 4 or 5 mil creating about 4-5 mil of cap space for themselves while getting a future piece or two that is likely better in quality than what Burns got due to age and caliber differences. Both players play a premium position. Given that Grier already put out there that they'll listen on deals for Karlsson, I think it's a matter of Grier finding a deal and then talking to Karlsson about whether he wants to go there or not. It seems like Karlsson has given Grier the leeway to look wherever he needs to look and get back to him since there were only reportedly talks with two teams this past offseason about Karlsson. I suspect that number will expand this offseason with a more defined rising cap and an elite season under his belt.

Good context. I'm curious to see how this plays out.