Aside from the conditional 2nd round pick, San Jose re-signing or not re-signing Karlsson has no bearing on the trade being good or bad for us once that 2019 or 2020 1st round pick transfers because it doesn't change what we got in return. I don't really think that's a good counter for the argument that an extremely long shot occurrence would be required for people to perceive this trade a certain way.
Getting something for EK being better than losing him for nothing is not a defense of a sub par return that was potentially sabotaged by Dorion insisting that Ryan's inclusion would not change the price for Vegas at the draft, and by Dorion's promise that he'd offer Karlsson a contract on July 1st. This was despite the fact that they could talk contracts prior to July 1st. Dorion essentially handicapped the team's ability to get the best return possible in a deal because of a promise he made not to trade Karlsson between the time he made that comment and July 1st.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your post here. Context I think is the difference.
Evaluating the trade between the two teams is one way to look at it. The most obvious and often seen meathod is the ‘who won the trade’ question. From that perspective you have to look at what both teams got in the deal and compare.
I though that was what you were doing in the last post, but if we’re now looking to evaluate the trade based solely on our return compared to what we ‘could’ have gotten from other teams at other points in time, we’ll that is an entirely different thing.
In my opinion it’s a dangerous game to assume a team could have gotten a better return when we have zero inside information pertaining to what teams were offering. I will say that I was expecting a marquee player in return based on all of the rumors swirling, and was initially dismayed when that didn’t happen.
Since the trade my position has changed a little for a number of reasons: 1) each of the returned assets have been better than I initially thought, aside from the picks 2) it looks like there is a good chance that EK is going to be a rental, and as a rental his value in a trade is significantly lower.
I am a firm believe that you don’t go into the season with a player you want to trade, especially your captain, and especially on an expiring contract. You have to trade him while he is healthy, and you still have a full season to offer. I also believe that EK made it known that he was not signing a deal, so starting the season with the captain one foot out the door (his good foot) would be detrimental to the developing squad on the ice.
I don’t think any team was willing to give up their top prospect for a one-year rental player, and since EK wasn’t going to do a sign and trade, or was able to work out an extension in principle with any of the teams he was able to negotiate with prior to a trade, he was going to be treated as a rental in terms of trade value.
Maybe he could have garnered more at last years deadline, maybe not. PD promised that an offer would be made and maybe he felt that he had to follow through with that, who knows, but the trade didn’t happen for whatever reason, and we’re not likely to ever know if the offers were better.
I don’t think there were better offers on the table over the summer though, and that PD simply chose a poor one to keep EK in the West, or obviously to move EK to a preferred destination as is often the case in other trades. I think in the end SJ made the best offer of the off season.
I just don’t see the value in guessing if we could have returned better, given that we have next to no information about what was offered, and we’ll likely never know. It would be something if fans were shown all of the offers after a deal was made, could you imagine?!