Value of: Erik Karlsson to last minute contender?

[Pinkfloyd]

Montreal doesn't need to find a reason to move Hoffman, he'll be moved if/as soon as Montreal can find the right deal.

Pretty sure the Sharks would take Hoffman as part of a Karlsson deal to Montreal among others I'm sure. I just don't think Montreal will have much interest in trading for Karlsson and the other thing is that it should surprise no one if San Jose is on anyone's no-trade list.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Pretty sure the Sharks would take Hoffman as part of a Karlsson deal to Montreal among others I'm sure. I just don't think Montreal will have much interest in trading for Karlsson and the other thing is that it should surprise no one if San Jose is on anyone's no-trade list.

Habs would consider Karlsson if we were able to send contracts like Hoffman and Gallagher the other way.

* Would Karlsson waive his NMC for Montreal?
* Does Gallagher have the Sharks on his 6 team no trade list?
* What futures do the Habs have to add to make the deal happen?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Habs would consider Karlsson if we were able to send contracts like Hoffman and Gallagher the other way.

* Would Karlsson waive his NMC for Montreal?
* Does Gallagher have the Sharks on his 6 team no trade list?
* What futures do the Habs have to add to make the deal happen?

The first two I don't have much concrete information on. I tend to believe that if a player has even just three teams on their no-trade list that the Sharks would be one of those teams at this stage. As it relates to futures, I can't imagine it would be much based on the situation. Karlsson controls his destiny and players with such control tend to not get moved for much future value. If for whatever reason Gallagher is willing to go to San Jose as part of this deal, I would suspect it would probably be a 2nd round pick going with him and Hoffman for Karlsson or something like that. I'm not expecting much here. I would prefer to keep Karlsson but I would want the team to work to move him if he wants out and not hold out much hope on a return.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

SJ can afford to eat 50% of his cap for the remainder of his contract, since they won't be competing for any cups or even playoffs for at least 3-4 seasons.

Trade him to Edmonton at 50%.

It would be a travesty if Karl and McD won't ever get to pkay together in the NHL.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

SJ can afford to eat 50% of his cap for the remainder of his contract, since they won't be competing for any cups or even playoffs for at least 3-4 seasons.

Trade him to Edmonton at 50%.

It would be a travesty if Karl and McD won't ever get to pkay together in the NHL.

Any team asking the Sharks to retain 50% will pay a heavy price for that. Until Karlsson puts some sort of pressure on the Sharks to move him, they won't do so unless it's a deal that makes sense for both Karlsson and the team.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

Any team asking the Sharks to retain 50% will pay a heavy price for that. Until Karlsson puts some sort of pressure on the Sharks to move him, they won't do so unless it's a deal that makes sense for both Karlsson and the team.

Karlsson brings nothing positive to Ssn Jose. By dominating like this, he's only ruining the tank.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Karlsson brings nothing positive to Ssn Jose. By dominating like this, he's only ruining the tank.

They’re pretty damn close to it even with him in God mode but they have more options than just trading Karlsson at 50%. Trading Reimer or Meier will improve their already good tank odds. You still have to make it worth it.

 

[Chose]

Montreal is early/mid rebuild, they are not going to pay that much for Karlsson. Karlsson has value because he's playing at an elite level now, but we already know that he hasn't been consistently elite for a while. Teams that pay may more for him are teams that want what he's doing now more than what he may do in 3-4 years.

There is a certain amount of sense to them looking to acquire him with Gallagher going the other way (see Mike Johnson's musing below), but a 1st is not something that makes any sense for them at all. Especially since Karlsson has the leverage to choose where he wants to go.



I doubt either team ends up doing that though. And I doubt Karlsson is interested in a reunion with Hoffman.

Yeah, I was coming to post about that Mike Johnson's musings, since it totally validates my proposal:

NHL Analyst Suggests Major Trade Between Canadiens & Sharks

The Montreal Canadiens remain on the lookout for a top right-shot defenceman, and NHL analyst Mike Johnson suggests they can fill that need via a blockbuster move with the San Jose Sharks. In a recent segment on TSN.ca, Johnson goes into detail on how Erik Karlsson’s deal might be too much for a...

montrealhockeynow.com

Maybe they wouldn't send a 1st, but I am thinking SJ would ask that.
2024's wouldn't hurt the habs too much, as they have 2 in 2023 and have plenty of good prospects.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

I'd love to see Montreal deal for Karlsson lol

 

[Captain Mountain]

Yeah, I was coming to post about that Mike Johnson's musings, since it totally validates my proposal:

NHL Analyst Suggests Major Trade Between Canadiens & Sharks

The Montreal Canadiens remain on the lookout for a top right-shot defenceman, and NHL analyst Mike Johnson suggests they can fill that need via a blockbuster move with the San Jose Sharks. In a recent segment on TSN.ca, Johnson goes into detail on how Erik Karlsson’s deal might be too much for a...

montrealhockeynow.com

Maybe they wouldn't send a 1st, but I am thinking SJ would ask that.
2024's wouldn't hurt the habs too much, as they have 2 in 2023 and have plenty of good prospects.

Montreal is not even close to contending, they should not be trading future firsts, nor should they be looking at Karlsson unless its a vet for vet trade.

 

[one2gamble]

Karlsson brings nothing positive to Ssn Jose

From a business point of view, this isnt true

 

[HuGort]

Montreal one of few teams who have the caproom long term.

 

[Gecklund]

SJ can afford to eat 50% of his cap for the remainder of his contract, since they won't be competing for any cups or even playoffs for at least 3-4 seasons.

Trade him to Edmonton at 50%.

It would be a travesty if Karl and McD won't ever get to pkay together in the NHL.

Unless Edmonton gives us every single one of their good young players AND their next 3-5 1st, they can f*** off with us retaining 50%

 

[Chose]

Montreal is not even close to contending, they should not be trading future firsts, nor should they be looking at Karlsson unless its a vet for vet trade.

There is a glaring hole at the right side of D. Specially at 1RD. Savard is not a 1D, and we all know that. Ghule will probably be more of a 2D. Even if Mailloux is seen to be the one getting there, it is not before 2-3 years until he makes it to 1D. I would see Karlsson as plugging a hole, sheltering Mailloux & Barron, & helping the team keep winning some for the morale/culture. Would also help Savard with less TOI. If it helps move Gallagher's money to a more valuable 1D spot, thus giving a more sound $ structure, and getting rid of a surplus winger, I would do that in a heartbeat. We have 2 2023 1st, and so many good prospects, that I would spare the 2024 1st...

Can you imagine his impact on Caufiled/Suzuki/Dach ? Ghule ? On the PP ? Wow !
This would actually help the rebuild.
The rebuild started last year, so we are already almost 1.5y in. HuGo never said they would tear everything down to rebuild à la Sabres, Hawks or Oilers... Their actions (getting 20yo instead of picks) speak for a fast rebuild. Y3 with Karlsson would be a big step forward.

We are already struggling to give our prospects time on ice in the pros (ie: Mesar to the CHL), and struggling with the max 50 contracts, with all the picks we recently drafted and those to come, so consolidating with a much needed 1D vet would be a good thing. Specially one that fits the style of play so well.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

Am I the only one who's had the thought of a deal with Florida around Karlsson & Bobrovsky? Bobrovsky has a near equally onerous contract so that solves the money without retention or paying premium assets to a third team.

SJ could probably get something back for taking it on & he should provide them legit goaltending for the forseeable future. (plus 1 yr less on the deal)

For Florida they'd be moving the very inefficient money tied up in goaltending to a more useful area of their roster, and Karlsson is still very good.

Otherwise, I just don't know how SJ would make a Karlsson deal work without serious retention, and unless your bringing it close to 50% I don't think your getting great assets. Even at say 8M its probably a soft deal like the Burns trade.

 

[Gecklund]

Am I the only one who's had the thought of a deal with Florida around Karlsson & Bobrovsky? Bobrovsky has a near equally onerous contract so that solves the money without retention or paying premium assets to a third team.

SJ could probably get something back for taking it on & he should provide them legit goaltending for the forseeable future. (plus 1 yr less on the deal)

For Florida they'd be moving the very inefficient money tied up in goaltending to a more useful area of their roster, and Karlsson is still very good.

Otherwise, I just don't know how SJ would make a Karlsson deal work without serious retention, and unless you’re bringing it close to 50% I don't think you’re getting great assets. Even at say 8M it’s probably a soft deal like the Burns trade.

San Jose says no.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

San Jose says no.

For which reasons?

 

[Groo]

Am I the only one who's had the thought of a deal with Florida around Karlsson & Bobrovsky? Bobrovsky has a near equally onerous contract so that solves the money without retention or paying premium assets to a third team.

SJ could probably get something back for taking it on & he should provide them legit goaltending for the forseeable future. (plus 1 yr less on the deal)

For Florida they'd be moving the very inefficient money tied up in goaltending to a more useful area of their roster, and Karlsson is still very good.

Otherwise, I just don't know how SJ would make a Karlsson deal work without serious retention, and unless your bringing it close to 50% I don't think your getting great assets. Even at say 8M its probably a soft deal like the Burns trade.

No you are not the only one

 

[CupfortheSharks]

For which reasons?

San Jose has 0 need for Bob. If we are trading Karlsson, it’s to get out of the latter part of his contract. It makes no sense to take on an arguably worse contract. Add that there is no reason for Bob to approve a trade to rebuilding team with higher taxes and this idea is DOA no matter how many times Florida fans bring it up.

 

[Gecklund]

For which reasons?

Bob is worse than the 2 goalies we have and is signed for the same length of time and EK is the best dman in the season this year so if we are moving him we aren’t taking back Bob without more assets than FLA has.

I think the better question is why the hell would they do it?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Am I the only one who's had the thought of a deal with Florida around Karlsson & Bobrovsky? Bobrovsky has a near equally onerous contract so that solves the money without retention or paying premium assets to a third team.

SJ could probably get something back for taking it on & he should provide them legit goaltending for the forseeable future. (plus 1 yr less on the deal)

For Florida they'd be moving the very inefficient money tied up in goaltending to a more useful area of their roster, and Karlsson is still very good.

Otherwise, I just don't know how SJ would make a Karlsson deal work without serious retention, and unless your bringing it close to 50% I don't think your getting great assets. Even at say 8M its probably a soft deal like the Burns trade.

It's been discussed plenty. Bob has absolutely no reason to waive his NMC for San Jose and the Sharks have no reason to downgrade in overall effectiveness to save 1.5 mil. The Sharks don't have goaltending issues to address.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

e has 0 need for Bob. If we are trading Karlsson, it’s to get out of the latter part of his contract. It makes no sense to take on an arguably worse contract. Add that there is no reason for Bob to approve a trade to rebuilding team with higher taxes and this idea is DOA no matter how many times Florida fans bring it up.

It's been discussed plenty. Bob has absolutely no reason to waive his NMC for San Jose and the Sharks have no reason to downgrade in overall effectiveness to save 1.5 mil. The Sharks don't have goaltending issues to address.

Its not a worse contract, its less term & $$$. If SJ is trying to get out of the end of Karlsson's deal this shortens it by a year & doesn't require SJ to retain money or sweeten things to bring a third team in, you'd actually get a return.

Being a starter is probably a preferable situation for Bob than being a backup, and he stays in a warm state. SJ could then peddle the other goalie(s) for assets too.

If it's already been talked about fair enough, I just thought its a way for SJ to move out the contract & get something worthwhile back without retention.

Bob is worse than the 2 goalies we have and is signed for the same length of time and EK is the best dman in the season this year so if we are moving him we aren’t taking back Bob without more assets than FLA has.

I think the better question is why the hell would they do it?

They need a RHD & if they have inefficient money its better spent addressing an area of need than riding the pine on the bench. And Karlsson isn't just your average player either, he'd help them contend.

 

[bandwagonesque]

They’re pretty damn close to it even with him in God mode but they have more options than just trading Karlsson at 50%. Trading Reimer or Meier will improve their already good tank odds. You still have to make it worth it.

Let's start out with a baseline, then -- what degree of retention do you think would give Karlsson and the terms of his contract neutral value?

 

[Gecklund]

Its not a worse contract, its less term & $$$. If SJ is trying to get out of the end of Karlsson's deal this shortens it by a year & doesn't require SJ to retain money or sweeten things to bring a third team in, you'd actually get a return.

Being a starter is probably a preferable situation for Bob than being a backup, and he stays in a warm state. SJ could then peddle the other goalie(s) for assets too.

If it's already been talked about fair enough, I just thought its a way for SJ to move out the contract & get something worthwhile back without retention.



They need a RHD & if they have inefficient money its better spent addressing an area of need than riding the pine on the bench. And Karlsson isn't just your average player either, he'd help them contend.

Bob is a worse player than Karlsson. Bob is a worse player than Reimer and Kahkonen. Bob is garbage.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

Bob is a worse player than Karlsson. Bob is a worse player than Reimer and Kahkonen. Bob is garbage.

I disagree, 39 wins 7 losses 3 SO .913 last season. His #'s are still better than Kahkonen's this season.

Not a better player than Karlsson but you aren't making the move to be good right now your making it to accumulate assets & take a bit of term off the commitment.