Value of: Erik Karlsson

[Dicdonya]

Were his high goal total days a product of ice time/team quality or has his shooting gotten worse?

Both, and also his shot attempts have dramatically decreased.

In his prime years for SJ, his average shots per/60 was around 9-10. The last two years it is about 6. Considering he plays over 2000 minutes a season, that is difference between around 330 shots and 200 shots.

His CF/60 in his prime was around 70-75, the last few years, it is down to about 55. Again the difference between roughly 2300 CF and 1800 CF.

Burns in his prime created an absolute butt ton of offensive chances when he was on the ice, that was without question the driving factor to his offensive production, volume. Burns was never a pinpoint offensive player, his talent was being able to out chance just about anyone, and be really unpredictable in the process, and thus score more than most.

Teammates, system changes, age, motivation etc, have, or possibly have, all played a role in Burns looking worse these days. Not sure which is having the most effect on him though. Physically he still looks fine, maybe a step slower, but he also should not be playing 26 minutes a night, PK'ing and taking the lion's share of defensive zone starts, so not sure if he is a step slower, or his workload is making him a step slower. However something has changed with the way he plays, and it is most notable in the volume of his offensive chances being significantly diminished compared to his prime.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Both, and also his shot attempts have dramatically decreased.

In his prime years for SJ, his average shots per/60 was around 9-10. The last two years it is about 6. Considering he plays over 2000 minutes a season, that is difference between around 330 shots and 200 shots.

His CF/60 in his prime was around 70-75, the last few years, it is down to about 55. Again the difference between roughly 2300 CF and 1800 CF.

Burns in his prime created an absolute butt ton of offensive chances when he was on the ice, that was without question the driving factor to his offensive production, volume. Burns was never a pinpoint offensive player, his talent was being able to out chance just about anyone, and be really unpredictable in the process, and thus score more than most.

Teammates, system changes, age, motivation etc, have, or possibly have, all played a role in Burns looking worse these days. Not sure which is having the most effect on him though. Physically he still looks fine, maybe a step slower, but he also should not be playing 26 minutes a night, PK'ing and taking the lion's share of defensive zone starts, so not sure if he is a step slower, or his workload is making him a step slower. However something has changed with the way he plays, and it is most notable in the volume of his offensive chances being significantly diminished compared to his prime.

He seems like a prime candidate to rebound on a contender in soft offensive minutes and on a good PP.

 

[Gecklund]

He seems like a prime candidate to rebound on a contender in soft offensive minutes and on a good PP.

If they could figure out a way to afford him I think he fits best with WSH or DAL.

 

[Dicdonya]

He seems like a prime candidate to rebound on a contender in soft offensive minutes and on a good PP.

I do not think the minutes need to be soft per se, but yeah, give him like 20-22 mins a game instead of 26, put him on a team that prioritizes offensive chance generation over methodical cycling or set plays in the offensive zone, and has more talent than the Sharks forwards do (not a hard task) and I think there is a very solid chance he rebounds.

Not going to promise he would, because as I said, there are other potential factors to his decline, but if a team could get him at a discounted price, I think the chances are higher that he rebounds than falls off a cliff.

 

[TFHockey]

Watching EK stand by that Ref while his team is trying for a zone entry and then lose the puck to Vancouver in a turnover was, uh, eye opening. WTH was he doing?

He tried not one iota to help out that shift and it was an empty net last rush to tie up the game.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Petry for Karlsson @ 25% retention.

 

[Gecklund]

Petry for Karlsson @ 25% retention.

What’s MTL adding? Cause that’s garbage for EK.

 

[sens13]

You got the firsts on the wrong side.

Take the homer glasses off, you’re embarrassing yourself. Norris is worth much more then EK.

 

[sens13]

3 1sts and a blue chipper should suffice. Zero retention.

 

[Gecklund]

Take the homer glasses off, you’re embarrassing yourself. Norris is worth much more then EK.

Great we aren’t moving him with retention or at all. Why would they move him?

 

[Gecklund]

Am I saying they should? I’m just laughing at your blatant homerism.

yes of course that’s exactly what it is. It’s not ya know having a 1D signed long term for only 5.75M and telling the Sharks to eat a 5.75M cap hit for nothing for the entirety of that contract makes absolutely zero sense.

 

[redandyellowcametobe]

The Sharks aren’t getting massive hauls even at 50% for guys with a full NMC or three team trade lists so why have dead cap for so long? There’s not a chance in hell they get more than three 1st round picks for the three of them.

Okay. Three is better then none and not making the playoffs every year anyway. What is it with Sharks management and fans not realizing they need to bottom out here and get futures. It’s going to happen anyway.. why not start it now? Makes legitimately zero sense to me

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Okay. Three is better then none and not making the playoffs every year anyway. What is it with Sharks management and fans not realizing they need to bottom out here and get futures. It’s going to happen anyway.. why not start it now? Makes legitimately zero sense to me

Plenty of Sharks fans recognize that but management won’t operate like that which is all that is relevant. However, even within that framework there are limits to what they’d do and what it would be valued at in a trade. People here vastly underestimate the value of limiting retention. Retaining 50% on someone like Karlsson to max the other teams value out of the player requires a lot more than what is being offered here realistically. We’re talking more than two first round picks but nobody is actually going to do something like that. No they will have to take significantly less which means retaining to that point is likely not the optimum move. The whole thing about players like Karlsson with a full NMC is that you’re going to get lowballed regardless. At that point, you keep him unless you have to move him. They don’t as long as he doesn’t want to.

 

[redandyellowcametobe]

Plenty of Sharks fans recognize that but management won’t operate like that which is all that is relevant. However, even within that framework there are limits to what they’d do and what it would be valued at in a trade. People here vastly underestimate the value of limiting retention. Retaining 50% on someone like Karlsson to max the other teams value out of the player requires a lot more than what is being offered here realistically. We’re talking more than two first round picks but nobody is actually going to do something like that. No they will have to take significantly less which means retaining to that point is likely not the optimum move. The whole thing about players like Karlsson with a full NMC is that you’re going to get lowballed regardless. At that point, you keep him unless you have to move him. They don’t as long as he doesn’t want to.

Didn’t you say the say thing about Hertl? Shouldn’t have traded him because he had a NMC and the picks futures wouldn’t have been great? Maybe I’m confusing you with someone else but these kind of things add up. Stack up while you can and bottom out and try to get some good draft picks and position. Those are required to either retool or rebuild. The sharks are only going to go downhill from here with an aging core. Then those already high contracts will look even worse and be less movable.

I’m not trying to be rude but teams like Arizona, Anaheim, New Jersey, La and even Seattle are considerably farther along than the sharks. Those teams will all be better prior to San Jose. All bc management refuses to rebuild and keeps signing these deals. Aren’t fans upset? I like San Jose but I’m totally miffed at what they are trying to do

 

[Captain Controversy]

Erik Karlsson retained 50% for Zack Kassian, Mike Smith and 2022 first round pick.

 

[sens13]

yes of course that’s exactly what it is. It’s not ya know having a 1D signed long term for only 5.75M and telling the Sharks to eat a 5.75M cap hit for nothing for the entirety of that contract makes absolutely zero sense.

Huh? All I’m saying is Norris is worth considerably more then Karlsson, which is something any hockey fan with common sense would agree lol.

 

[Neiler]

No one is going to retain on a multi-year contract that large. If they were moving him they would likely end up taking some offsetting dollars back, not retaining.

If a GM was crazy enough to retain on something that large you probably wouldn't be looking at the numbers in this thread... it'd be enough to take the edge off the contract and that's it (10%). Not 40% or 50%. 6 years of retention is insanity at a level higher than a 3rd liner gets paid.

 

[Gecklund]

Huh? All I’m saying is Norris is worth considerably more then Karlsson, which is something any hockey fan with common sense would agree lol.

Well it’s a good thing that’s not what the proposal was huh?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Didn’t you say the say thing about Hertl? Shouldn’t have traded him because he had a NMC and the picks futures wouldn’t have been great? Maybe I’m confusing you with someone else but these kind of things add up. Stack up while you can and bottom out and try to get some good draft picks and position. Those are required to either retool or rebuild. The sharks are only going to go downhill from here with an aging core. Then those already high contracts will look even worse and be less movable.

I’m not trying to be rude but teams like Arizona, Anaheim, New Jersey, La and even Seattle are considerably farther along than the sharks. Those teams will all be better prior to San Jose. All bc management refuses to rebuild and keeps signing these deals. Aren’t fans upset? I like San Jose but I’m totally miffed at what they are trying to do

Those teams had much more flexibility in what they could move out and get a return on than the Sharks. The Sharks depth has been trash since 2019.

Of course fans aren’t happy that they’re losing and still refuse to even consider a rebuild but what else besides not showing up and watching do you expect to be done? Hell I’ve seen fans argue showing up to help facilitate a rebuild which is backwards thinking imo.

It’s not hard to figure out what they’re trying to do when you understand ownership and management’s mentality. They won’t rebuild and will continue the failing strategy of retooling to make the playoffs until such a time that they give it up or they gain flexibility to acquire the pieces needed to do that. Won’t happen for a while when they’re spending this and next season just retaining younger talent like Ferraro and Meier.

They can do some things like buy out Labanc for some savings and Vlasic next season but they’re missing a top six forward, a cohesive bottom six, and a top pairing caliber LHD to start with not enough cap to address it all and now they lack management.

If their vision from ownership wins out and it’s another manager doing what they want, it’ll be more of the same. If they somehow become convinced by an interviewing candidate to implement their vision with more elements of a rebuild, they’ll have at least a chance. Odds are though that more status quo retooling refusing to rebuild is going to win out and fail long term.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

I don't think he has any value really with his contract. Maybe for another big contract.

 

[North Cole]

Erik Karlsson retained 50% for Zack Kassian, Mike Smith and 2022 first round pick.

This thread needs to go to sleep. Oiler fan to Oiler fan, this is real bad

 

[ManofSteel55]

Would the Sharks move Karlsson this summer?

If they could, yes.

 

[Buresflyingelbow]

Something around OEL.

 

[Gecklund]

If they could, yes.

You’re wrong.

Something around OEL.

That’s f***ing garbage. We don’t need Vlasic 2.0 when we already have 1.0.

 

[Buresflyingelbow]

You’re wrong.

That’s f***ing garbage. We don’t need Vlasic 2.0 when we already have 1.0.

Who’s going to take on Karlsson at $11 million? Nobody, that’s who. If you honestly think you’re getting value for this player, you know very little about Hockey and the salery cap.