KingsHockey24
Registered User
- Aug 1, 2013
- 14,553
- 13,379
200 point season -70 Norris.Karlsson to Pittsburgh.
200 point season -70 Norris.Karlsson to Pittsburgh.
Depends on if he plays D or as a 4th forward.200 point season -70 Norris.
87, 71The pens pushed all their chips in with a spectacularly mediocre roster.
I don’t get it, at all.
I get it man, they almost have to as long as they both are on the roster.87, 71
Yeah, saw some people complaining on SJ’s return but 1-2 seasons ago Karlsson was on verge to be one of the worst contracts in the league, thinking ahead I would definitely do the samePeople will criticize SJ for the return they got, but Karlsson has a full NMC and there's almost no team that could take on his contract. He had very little value despite coming off such a prolific season.
He has plenty in the tank, just not enough to play the stupid number of minutes he keeps getting played. He’s what #2 or #3 in the league last season for minutes per game. Dropping to 25 minutes would take years off him.I’d personally trade Doughty for a First round pick alone if an offer like that was available. There doesn’t seem like that he has anything left in the tank. Ship him off to some playoff team and get s first would be a win win
It's hard to call it a joke when you were the underdog and got outplayed almost every game.
And also, with Todd, it's just kind of expected.
He has plenty in the tank, just not enough to play the stupid number of minutes he keeps getting played. He’s what #2 or #3 in the league last season for minutes per game. Dropping to 25 minutes would take years off him.
At that point I’d just trade him though. What’s the point of holding onto him? Also, I don’t think he has years left at all. He’s noticeably worse to me and I think his head isn’t in the game as much as it used to be. Think he’d find passion again if he was on a team with a real chance to win plus a chance of scenery.He has plenty in the tank, just not enough to play the stupid number of minutes he keeps getting played. He’s what #2 or #3 in the league last season for minutes per game. Dropping to 25 minutes would take years off him.
By ‘take years off him’ I mean it would make him play like a younger guy, less fatigued, fewer late game/season lapses which seems a pattern. In other words, fewer minutes = more energy and jump. Maybe it’s a UK only term.At that point I’d just trade him though. What’s the point of holding onto him? Also, I don’t think he has years left at all. He’s noticeably worse to me and I think his head isn’t in the game as much as it used to be. Think he’d find passion again if he was on a team with a real chance to win plus a chance of scenery.
No I get what you mean but I think the amount of wear + age + noticeably less engaged is something that can’t be undone.By ‘take years off him’ I mean it would make him play like a younger guy, less fatigued, fewer late game/season lapses which seems a pattern. In other words, fewer minutes = more energy and jump. Maybe it’s a UK only term.
Probably true but we’d get better value from what he has in the tank if his minutes were properly managed. It’s ludicrous that he’s still amongst the league leaders. Whilst I’m sure he likes the minutes it shouldn’t be his call.No I get what you mean but I think the amount of wear + age + noticeably less engaged is something that can’t be undone.
People will criticize SJ for the return they got, but Karlsson has a full NMC and there's almost no team that could take on his contract. He had very little value despite coming off such a prolific season.
I think that’s indicative of a big problem with how the NHL implements its salary cap. There should be no such thing as a bad contract for a player who had a season like Karlsson just did.
I know this is a controversial opinion, but I think at the very least the NHL should go back to annual CBOs for every team, or renegotiating contract lengths, or something that facilitates more player movement and freedom. Big trades and roster shake ups always drive a ton of interest in a sport.
The pens pushed all their chips in with a spectacularly mediocre roster.
I don’t get it, at all.
I don't know if it's as much of a problem as hockey fans think. It seems to me there's lots of significant trades in the NHL every year.I think that’s indicative of a big problem with how the NHL implements its salary cap. There should be no such thing as a bad contract for a player who had a season like Karlsson just did.
I know this is a controversial opinion, but I think at the very least the NHL should go back to annual CBOs for every team, or renegotiating contract lengths, or something that facilitates more player movement and freedom. Big trades and roster shake ups always drive a ton of interest in a sport.
I just don’t think this is particularly true. I think Karlsson in his prime had the ability to make a bad team good like he did once before with Ottawa. However I do buy into the notion that he excels on teams that aren’t good because he has free rein to do whatever he wants while being a mediocre defense at best. I admit I dislike Karlsson because Sens fans are irritating to say the least. But I don’t think Karlsson had a lot of value either. He’s a risk. He’s older and he came off a few abysmal seasons with injuries. One recent high scoring season doesn’t change the fact he’s older, had bad seasons, and paid a lot with an NMC. I think there are many gms who saw through the risk vs reward with him. That contract and age is not going to overlooked with one recent good season. And add to the fact he seems to excel on only bad teams, not really as good of an asset in principle .I think that’s indicative of a big problem with how the NHL implements its salary cap. There should be no such thing as a bad contract for a player who had a season like Karlsson just did.
I know this is a controversial opinion, but I think at the very least the NHL should go back to annual CBOs for every team, or renegotiating contract lengths, or something that facilitates more player movement and freedom. Big trades and roster shake ups always drive a ton of interest in a sport.
Riverbed player as we used to call them … runs his own course. Which is fine in a poor team, as you say. If they fit perfectly then great, if not it’s a disaster.I just don’t think this is particularly true. I think Karlsson in his prime had the ability to make a bad team good like he did once before with Ottawa. However I do buy into the notion that he excels on teams that aren’t good because he has free rein to do whatever he wants while being a mediocre defense at best. I admit I dislike Karlsson because Sens fans are irritating to say the least. But I don’t think Karlsson had a lot of value either. He’s a risk. He’s older and he came off a few abysmal seasons with injuries. One recent high scoring season doesn’t change the fact he’s older, had bad seasons, and paid a lot with an NMC. I think there are many gms who saw through the risk vs reward with him. That contract and age is not going to overlooked with one recent good season. And add to the fact he seems to excel on only bad teams, not really as good of an asset in principle .