Wondercarrot
By The Power of Canadian Tire Centre
- Jul 2, 2002
- 8,371
- 4,356
Friedman: Sharks, Sens have talked about an Erik Karlsson reunion
- Thread starter GermanSpitfire
- Start date
Did anyone talk to karlson about it?
Cause I think there is a zero % chance he agrees to go back to Ottawa.
Gecklund
Registered User
Lol a 50% retained Karlsson is going to cost miles more than that. Go take a lap bud.
Akrapovince
Registered User
- May 19, 2017
- 3,861
- 4,352
1st + Thomson is closer to the price of dumping Zaitsev than it is to Karlsson at 50% retention.
Gecklund
Registered User
That is correct. The price of Karlsson retained is about 5 more firsts.
PoutineSp00nZ
Electricity is really just organized lightning.
Nac Mac Feegle
wee & free
- Jun 10, 2011
- 35,414
- 9,824
We made that mistake once trading Zibajanead for Brassard.
Erik is having a great year and I'm happy for him, but in two years, trading away Chabot for him will look terrible.
Gecklund
Registered User
MCR74
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2022
- 3,913
- 4,704
Exactly.
So Karlsson is finally living up to his contract. It doesn't mean much. Anyone who trades for him and retains a lot of salary might kick themselves.
Neiler
Registered Loser
- Jul 16, 2006
- 2,195
- 786
Thought exercise for anyone interested... If Karlsson's contract was nullified today and he became a free agent right now willing to sign a 4 year deal only, how much would you be ok with your team offering considering how many other teams would also be bidding for his services?
PoutineSp00nZ
Electricity is really just organized lightning.
This raises a couple of other interesting questions…
After his bonus is paid next this season Karlsson will make $38m, almost all guaranteed due to the contract structure. For the above scenario to exist, the new team would need to give Karlsson as good a deal or better.
So, would any team give Karlsson 4 years @ $9.5m+, full NMC, buyout proof?
and if so...
Would San Jose fans consider this a better situation than having to retain or take on cap dumps? i.e. mutual contract termination, walk away from Karlsson in the off-season. No retention, no cap hit, no cap dumps but no assets in return.
Last edited:
BillR10
Registered User
- Nov 16, 2008
- 830
- 249
I think you're missing the point of his post. He's not saying the sharks would nullify his contract as there is 0 chance that happens. Hes saying "if" they did what would your team give him per year for 4 more years to get him while outbidding other potential suitors. Why? So people see his contract is not that far above his current value if he was a UFA thus a trade for him would not need a massive retention to get a solid return.
Big Muddy
Registered User
- Dec 15, 2019
- 8,964
- 4,329
Same as the Giroux deal. As a free agent, maybe/probably there's some interest. In a trade, not interested. That will create cap issues and we still wouldn't be able to keep the puck out of our net.
No - I didn't misunderstand him. I just ran with his idea as an actual hypothetical, which also demonstrates that it isn't the number that is handcuffing San Jose. It's the contract structure.
Say $3m retention is the number. I'm sure lots of fans would be happy to say that Karlsson is worth $8.5 x 4, but bonuses in years 3 and 4 make all the difference. It's not just the AAv.
For comparison...
- Heiskanen has an AAv of $8.45m with no bonuses in the final 2 years. 4 year cap hit for buyout is $2.8m, $4.2m, $2.4s, $2.4m
- Karlsson retained to $8.45m on his current contract. 4 year cap hit for buyout would be ~$6m, ~8.2m, ~$600k, ~$600k. Even if you wait a year, the cap hit on that 26-27 season still doesn't change.
Even the biggest Karlsson fans (of which a lot of Sens fans count themselves) aren't confident enough to say that 3+ years from now he is going to be worth $8.5m.. but he's going to play out that contract... because why would anyone buy him out to save $300k on the cap? Plus - you just trade him at that time either... because full NMC.
Karlsson @ 4 x $8.5m AAv front-loaded, with no bonuses or NMC in years 3 and 4 would be a great deal. Karlsson retained to $8.5m on his current contract wouldn't. @Neiler's thought experiment is a nice idea, but it doesn't help gauge the retention required to make it work. E.g. Karlsson's contract retained @ 50% would still have a higher cap hit after buyout ($5.46m) than Heiskanen's bonus-free contract would. Using just the AAv to make a point is… well.. pointless.
Last edited:
Comparing Karlsson to Heiskanen with their buyout numbers is equally pointless. Karlsson will pretty easily be worth 8.5 mil three years from now when that number means less with a 92 mil cap rather than an 82 mil cap. Plus the fact that the acquiring team would be able to retain on him to move him if necessary. I think you’re overestimating the contract structure as it relates to his trade value.
Truenorthducky
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2020
- 1,832
- 2,516
Yeah because the senators need another player who doesn’t know how to play actual defence.
Poster was saying that it is all about the AAv. I'm demonstrating that contracts with the same AAv can be very different in how they effect the team down the road. For the Sharks, they have already gleaned the benefit of paying him more in the first 4 years, so if they are keeping him it is justified as the cost of doing business. Any acquiring team is taking a big risk, even at $8.5m. Rising cap mitigates some of that, but not all of it.
Scenario should be "Karlsson magically becomes UFA on 1 July 2023 and you can sign him, but he will only accept a 4 year deal, which has full NMC and is buyout-proof (cap hit is 85-95% of AAv)".
Honour Over Glory
#firesully
- Jan 30, 2012
- 81,439
- 45,835
For the Sens to do this now would mess up everything they've done to move in the right direction.
Can be doesn't mean it's anywhere close to likely to be or that much of a factor, if at all, in deciding whether to bring a player on board to help your team win. The odds anyone would put on Karlsson hitting buyout territory where that sort of contract structure actually becomes relevant is microscopic to the point that it will be dwarfed by the matter of whether you can negotiate a solid amount of retention with a reasonable amount of assets tossed the other way to make your team better.
Your scenario is ultimately also a pointless discussion because it's not a matter of what one would pay for him as a UFA. You're not getting Karlsson for free even at the full hit. For some contending teams, it's an opportunity to be more efficient against the cap because you can get the Sharks to retain Karlsson to a more reflective amount for what he'll be the next four seasons and potentially move some dead weight the other way. That changes the risk-reward calculation significantly.
