Proposal: Trade Rumours/Proposals PART XXXXX
- Thread starter AchtzehnBaby
- Start date
- Status
Love EK but feel like we need a complimentary top 4 RD. Karlsson is much more than that and his salary reflects this. And age is a concern.
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
We likely won't go down that road, but Karlsson is as good as he's ever been. Just incredible right now and I feel lucky to be on the west coast to be able to catch a lot of his games.
Someone is going to get a steal of a deal on a legit superstar and I'm glad he's earning that contract after some seemed to celebrate his "downfall" because he didn't give the worst owner in hockey a discount.
Someone is going to get a steal of a deal on a legit superstar and I'm glad he's earning that contract after some seemed to celebrate his "downfall" because he didn't give the worst owner in hockey a discount.
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
- Jun 26, 2007
- 51,454
- 10,270
Only way we can realistically add EK while keeping DeBrincat is by going full NHL 23 GM mode.
Would need SJ to take on Zaitsev and retain a decent amount of salary, then we could trade Chabot to get some assets and have about as much money going out the door.
If they take on Joseph in the deal too we could afford to put a decent defensive LD beside EK. His partner for a year in SJ Brendan Dillon may be available from WPG given their D depth. Probably wouldn't cost too much to acquire either.
Dillon - Karlsson
Sanderson - Zub
Brannstrom - JBD
Thomson
Not a bad looking D at all.
Could make sense if Chabot could return a lot more in assets than it would cost to acquire EK, but there's a lot of ifs involved.
Would need SJ to take on Zaitsev and retain a decent amount of salary, then we could trade Chabot to get some assets and have about as much money going out the door.
If they take on Joseph in the deal too we could afford to put a decent defensive LD beside EK. His partner for a year in SJ Brendan Dillon may be available from WPG given their D depth. Probably wouldn't cost too much to acquire either.
Dillon - Karlsson
Sanderson - Zub
Brannstrom - JBD
Thomson
Not a bad looking D at all.
Could make sense if Chabot could return a lot more in assets than it would cost to acquire EK, but there's a lot of ifs involved.
HoweHullOrr
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 11,887
- 2,381
Agent Zuuuub
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2015
- 15,356
- 12,798
why do we need a complimentary rd or player. why not get one of the best ever if we are able to? why not get someone who gives the team a chance to win every night and elevates the play of his teammates?
Obviously the salary will need some retention and we will have to pay in good assets for it. but we don't need assets we need wins.
Karlsson playing give and go's with Stutzle and Sanderson, sending shots in for Brady to tip and rebound on, and setting up Norris for one timers would lead to so many wins.
It probably means we trade DBC and I mean love him but he is not even in the same plane of existence as a hockey player as EK.
Sanderson-Karlsson
Chabot-Zub
would be one of the best defensive cores in NHL history imo.
trading Chabot instead of DBC could also be an option. Either way Karlsson >>> Chabot, DBC.
No chance. Sanderson would get next to no puck time or rushing time, or offensive touches, and would be relegated to being the defensive conscience of the pairing.
EK needs a Methot type because he plays Rover and 4th forward, which is great when your Methot because that’s the kind of D man you are.
Sanderson has the potential to be a star 2way defender all on his own and need to be with a partner who provides stability and freedom to develop and flex.
EK is a lot of wonderful things, but he isn’t that type of defender at all right now, nor would you want him to be since that isn’t a good use of his talents.
EK simply isn’t a good fit here as he isn’t really what we need, and yet we would need to give up a ton of assets and cap space to acquire him. All we need is another Zub-like defender, that’s a perfect fit for Sanderson.
SensontheRush
Never said it was Sunshine
Nothing stopping us from both keeping DbC and acquiring Karlsson... and keeping Chabot. 
What would the mumboest, jumboest deal ever look like to get Karlsson retained down to 75%? Trade literally all our futures to facilitate this.
What would the mumboest, jumboest deal ever look like to get Karlsson retained down to 75%? Trade literally all our futures to facilitate this.
T’would be a disaster.Nothing stopping us from both keeping DbC and acquiring Karlsson... and keeping Chabot.
What would the mumboest, jumboest deal ever look like to get Karlsson retained down to 75%? Trade literally all our futures to facilitate this.
Agent Zuuuub
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2015
- 15,356
- 12,798
You realize that hockey is a very fluid sport and that having two stud high hockey iq defenceman playing together opens up the play even more. You pressure Karlsson too much it leaves Sanderson open, you pressure Sanderson you have Karlsson free. You pressure the both of them and it will leave the forwards with even more room.
Players adapt to each other, especially the two who make their linemates consistently better.
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
Its all speculation. For all we know, it could work out great. 50/50 imo, but I have a hard time saying no to one of the best ever.
Wallet Inspector
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2013
- 6,290
- 5,823
We could only get Karlsson and keep Debrincat if
A. We completely dump both Zaitsev and Joseph's contracts (not necessarily to the Sharks)
B. The Sharks retain a huge amount.
Alternatively, we could do so if the cap does go up by 4 mil next year, but now it's looking like it will only go up 1 mil.
A. We completely dump both Zaitsev and Joseph's contracts (not necessarily to the Sharks)
B. The Sharks retain a huge amount.
Alternatively, we could do so if the cap does go up by 4 mil next year, but now it's looking like it will only go up 1 mil.
SensontheRush
Never said it was Sunshine
I don't think Karlsson is getting trade this year. Maybe at the draft.
In the top 4 we'd be replacing Chabot with Karlsson and Hamonic with Dillon. Sanderson and Zub remain as the other two top 4 D.
Not really, what you’re describing is more like slapping a video game line up together.
Having Sanderson playing with EK means that Sanderson would not get to develop his transition and offensive game as much, and he would be heavily relied on to be the defensive conscience on that pair.
It’s like you forgot how EK plays. It doesn’t make much sense for us to bring in EK and then tell him that he can’t do his thing, instead he has to share the puck evenly. That’s just not how you get the best out of EK. It would not be a good development situation for Sanderson at all.
As for pressure, anyone who has watch EK play for years, which is all of us, would know that teams would work his side defensively as much as possible, and play him physically as much as possible, they wouldn’t be switching back and forth. On the offensive end EK would do his thing while Sandy kept his eye on the fort. Freeing up Sanderson is not a thing at the moment, he’s a rookie who is still learning what he can do and how far he can go in the NHL. You don’t want to rely on him to ride shotgun to EK, or anyone really.
Sanderson also has a few more years of development at least, while the situation you describe sounds a lot like two finished product stars playing together when the team loads up. He absolutely needs the proper partner during this critical period of development time in the NHL, and EK isn’t it.
No need for anyone to get defensive either, EK is a wonderful talent, he also needs the right partner to maximize his immense talent.
Anyways, we can agree to disagree, but this would be a poor usage of both trade assets and limited cap space. It’s nostalgia over sense unfortunately.
I hear you, in a vacuum it would be great, though you’d want him on his own line with a defensive guy to hold the fort. You don’t use EK as a development partner for a budding star, that’s all I’m saying.
The reality vs vacuum is that it’s hard to justify the fit from a trade asset, a team fit, and a cap perspective. Add in that we would likely have to give up on a 24 year old top line winger to ensure the fit, and it’s all the more unrealistic.
I’m not sure karlsson playing Chabots minutes would be an improvement. Also we’ve seen how bad karlsson can be and I think he’s more likely to return to that than Chabot is to get worse.
Nac Mac Feegle
wee & free
- Jun 10, 2011
- 35,492
- 9,892
Right now? Yes.
In two seasons, that wouldn't be accurate at all.
We have to remember or window isn't even open yet. We need to focus on guys who will be at the top of thier game 2+ years from now.
- Status
