GDT: Let the Free Agency Madness begin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 18, 2010
26,754
57,668
Atlanta, GA
Can I just say, I have mixed feelings about acquiring Karlsson if it requires assets.

Dude won the Norris last year... and was basically considered an unmovable asset 8 months before that. 4 years left even at 50% retained is still a risk to take on. A risk I'm willing to take, but if we're also talking about a king's ransom worthy of acquiring a Norris trophy winner... that changes the equation a bit. I'm surprised to see the type of return packages I'm seeing from a "mock trade" perspective. I don't think it should take a good roster player, a 1st, a prospect, a 2nd, etc. I would've hoped this was more of a net neutral cap dump situation. If we need to add in order to get the retention, I get it. But even then, it should probably cost less than or equal to whatever a return for Pesce would look like. Idk. Mixed feelings. All dependent on which Karlsson we get at the end of the day, of course.
 

Daeavorn

livin' that no caps life
Oct 8, 2019
2,005
6,361
Raleigh, NC
The front office probably determined that the easiest way for us to add scoring is with Karlsson.

It's a risky acquisition, but it fits with our Mo. He is a slightly distressed asset that we can get. It's probably going to end up being him over a forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tryamw

bleedgreen

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
25,209
43,653
colorado
Visit site
It should Pesce and really not much of anything else. They can move him on if they want futures, then they can get the specific futures they want. I wouldn’t wait for the deadline if I was them, Pesce is going to take a beating on that team so I’d move him now.

Personally I don’t think it should even cost Pesce but sometimes you gotta give. If this is becoming a circus or was one the whole time just get out. We don’t need Karlsson. I’d like us to have a little more Vegas in us but this is a pretty big change for this team.
 

spockBokk

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
7,493
18,986


Pagnotta saying they had the press release ready for Tarasenko lends some credence to the thought that the agent was perhaps doing a bit too much for the player and got fired for basically agreeing to a deal prior to getting the player’s buy in.

I bet the holdup with Nashville is that they want to include Fabbro or similar salary coming back and the Canes just want futures to flip for Karlsson or another player.
 
Jul 18, 2010
26,754
57,668
Atlanta, GA
Personally I don’t think it should even cost Pesce but sometimes you gotta give. If this is becoming a circus or was one the whole time just get out. We don’t need Karlsson. I’d like us to have a little more Vegas in us but this is a pretty big change for this team.

Big change for the team on the ice? Meh, maybe. (If we acquire him, I’d say hopefully, in a big way.)

Big change for the cap situation of the team moving forward leading into one of the most important offseasons this team is ever going to have (next offseason)? Yes. Big time.
 

MinJaBen

Canes Sharks Boy
Sponsor
Dec 14, 2015
21,401
83,042
Durm
Pagnotta saying they had the press release ready for Tarasenko lends some credence to the thought that the agent was perhaps doing a bit too much for the player and got fired for basically agreeing to a deal prior to getting the player’s buy in.

I bet the holdup with Nashville is that they want to include Fabbro or similar salary coming back and the Canes just want futures to flip for Karlsson or another player.
Fabbro would be a good piece to flip to the Sharks as part of the deal. But I think you would have to make this a three way instead of taking the risk of two separate deals in series and then have the second part fall through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG

AD Skinner

Registered User
Mar 18, 2009
13,298
40,972
bubble bath
Are the canes really going to be THAT much better adding karlsson and subtracting Pesce+ whatever else they give up? I guess if Pesce leaving is a foregone conclusion they want to maximize the opportunity but if karlsson plays like he did in the last few years instead of this most recent one I’m not sure we are in a better position
 

htdoc

Registered User
Oct 30, 2018
676
2,063
Are the canes really going to be THAT much better adding karlsson and subtracting Pesce+ whatever else they give up? I guess if Pesce leaving is a foregone conclusion they want to maximize the opportunity but if karlsson plays like he did in the last few years instead of this most recent one I’m not sure we are in a better position
They are two separate things but one is driving the other.

It's seemingly become a foregone conclusion that Pesce isn't extending here unless something changes between our offer and pesce ask... one can only assume that he wants too many years at too much money for the team. So since the team holds firm on these things it may go the way of Hamilton and we don't want to let him walk for nothing.

If we have to trade him before next year then we need a replacement. Thus looking at Karlsson. They are not the same player for sure. But if they get enough retention, the team seems to think 4 years of Karlsson is a preferred option to 8 years of Pesce.

We will have to get our shut down defense in a different way if Pesce goes. We certainly will change the type of dman playing in the #3/#4 slot second pairing.
 

spockBokk

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
7,493
18,986
Pesce is the “easiest” to trade. Easiest being in quotation marks as evidently it’s not that easy to trade him, seems like they’ve been it at for the past 2wks.

Outside of the contract impasse, I imagine he’s also on the block due to the number of righties they have currently - Burns, DeAngelo, Chatfield and Coghlan, potentially adding Karlsson to that mix as well. It makes more sense to hold onto Skjei in that context, even as an own-rental.
 

MinJaBen

Canes Sharks Boy
Sponsor
Dec 14, 2015
21,401
83,042
Durm
Pesce Skjei was an excellent pairing last year. Orlov Karlsson could be an excellent pairing this year, but in a different kind of way.

I think the Pesce/Karlsson/Orlov maneuvering is all about the contract armageddon we were facing next year in total vs any one contract in particular. The organization is trying to get out in front of that and using the available players. They tried negotiating with Pesce and that didn't work to their satisfaction, so they are looking at UFAs and trades. Everything is on the table.
 

WreckingCrew

Registered User
Feb 4, 2015
13,540
41,320
Can I just say, I have mixed feelings about acquiring Karlsson if it requires assets.

Dude won the Norris last year... and was basically considered an unmovable asset 8 months before. 4 years left even at 50% retained is still a risk to take on. A risk I'm willing to take, but if we're also talking about a king's ransom worthy of acquiring a Norris trophy winner... that changes the equation a bit. I'm surprised to see the type of return packages I'm seeing from a "mock trade" perspective. I don't think it should take a good roster player, a 1st, a prospect, a 2nd, etc. I would've hoped this was more of a net neutral cap dump situation. If we need to add in order to get the retention, I get it. But even then, it should probably cost less than or equal to whatever a return for Pesce would look like. Idk. Mixed feelings. All dependent on which Karlsson we get at the end of the day, of course.
Yea, if he comes really cheap or for minor assets, WITH 50% RETENTION? I'm all for it. If it's going to cost us real assets to acquire a player who would be a luxury we really don't need? Hard pass, use those assets on a scoring forward that we've been crying we needed for years. And again, with Orlov as 2LD and Nikishin 2 years away from potentially replacing him, Skjei should be the one to go first.
 

Daeavorn

livin' that no caps life
Oct 8, 2019
2,005
6,361
Raleigh, NC
The last I heard the sharks were willing to retain about 3 million dollars. That's about 27% retainment. I think the canes are looking for at least 4 million retained .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bridgeburner96
Jul 18, 2010
26,754
57,668
Atlanta, GA
So our subtractions:

A 6/7 defenseman who didn't play in the playoffs.
A defensemen on LTIR
A 6th defensemen who was a deadline pickup and didn't add much.
A forward who played 5 games (and left 2 early)
A deadline pickup with bum hips that played little and contributed even less
2 over the hill 4th liners.

Yeah but if you reverse the front office's draft floor strategy, you might be able to turn all of these into a 1st round pick.
 

spockBokk

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
7,493
18,986
IF they were expecting to add Tarasenko anywhere b/t $3-5M per year and Karlsson, they'd still have a heck of a lot of work to do.

W/ TDA added and a 22 man roster (Drury, Ponomarev and Coghlan up, Kochetkov buried), looks like they have them w/ $5.2M in space based on some crude CapFriendly-ing
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tryamw

Nikishin Go Boom

Russian Bulldozer Consultent
Jul 31, 2017
23,708
55,334
Im fairly anti acquiring Karlsson but if we do both our goalies and opposing goalies are going to say ‘efff, this could get rough’
 
  • Like
Reactions: WreckingCrew
Jul 18, 2010
26,754
57,668
Atlanta, GA
IF they were expecting to add Tarasenko anywhere b/t $3-5M per year and Karlsson, they'd still have a heck of a lot of work to do.

W/ TDA added and a 22 man roster (Drury, Ponomarev and Coghlan up, Kochetkov buried), looks like they have them w/ $5.2M in space based on some crude CapFriendly-ing

Add Svechnikov‘s $7m back in. He’s on LTIR on CapFriendly I think.
 

DaveG

Noted Jerk
Apr 7, 2003
52,260
52,307
Winston-Salem NC
I’m still curious to know will you guys want to acquire both TDA and Karlsson or just one
hoping just one (TDA) but would not be surprised if we get EK as well. Just seems redundant at this point and TDA comes at less than 1/4 EK's current hit since it's confirmed that the Flyers are retaining 50%. Not to mention the acquisition price is likely only a prospect we weren't signing anyway for TDA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad