Value of: Availability Of Erik Karlsson

[nbwingsfan]

Are you sure? I’d love to see a list of the guys who create offensive on their own and are just stuck on a bad team.

You cant find a 35pt D making $11.5M because they're all making $6M or less

When even your own fans disagree with you, you're wrong

 

[Gecklund]

You cant find a 35pt D making $11.5M because they're all making $6M or less

When even your own fans disagree with you, you're wrong

Holy hell. You are dense and refuse to see my point. WE ARENT PAYING TO MOVE EK. How hard is that to understand? You want to talk about Vlasic, Jones fine. Them I would pay to move. EK is not on that level. I don’t know how I could make this any clearer.

 

[CupfortheSharks]

Because if you keep him for the next 7 years youve essentially given up on building a contender for 7 years and wont be properly rebuilding either. Youll be in that 5-10 spot that eveey team hates.

This is why good and productive players are traded for nothing or are paid to leave all the time.

San Jose will rid of him as soon as they realistically can.

6 more years after this and we are going to be bad for several years if we move Karlsson or not. If we pay to move him, we still have a weak top 6, no 3c, goaltending problems, and we added a hole at top 4 rd by trading Karlsson....and we gave futures that we need to rebuild. Paying futures to move Karlsson doesn’t make sense. A deal get out of his contract like Gio, Looch, and a 2nd does if it’s available. In all likelihood, we are stuck with him. Just like we are stuck with Vlasic and Jones.

 

[fasterthanlight]

Honestly, I think EK65 can still be a ~8M-valued defenseman. He's shown flashes since being in SJ of being great. I think at least three factors are contributing to his decreased productivity

1) The sharks actually are just bad
2) the coaching isn't focused on building a system that plays to his strengths
3) ek65 has declined due to injuries

I'm not sure of the relative importance of each of these 3 factors. But 1/2 are, in theory, addressable.

 

[SML2]

I would be shocked if you find a taker.
Top 10 contracts in NHL:
McDavid 12.5
Panarin 11.6
Matthews11.6
EK 11.5
Tavares 11
Doughty 11
Marner 10.9
Kane 10.5
Toews 10.5
Price 10.5
I feel like this group splits right in half. If McD, Panarin,Matthews, Marner or Kane went on the market someone makes it happen.
EK, Tavares (not sure, mainly age is the minus) Doughty, Toews or Price is gonna be a tough sell.
If you're going to be a top 10 contract, you need to put up top 10 numbers. If not you put your team in a terrible bind. Nobody wants to do that to themselves if they don't have to and these contracts all have crazy term.

 

[Sota Popinski]

Doug Wilson shit that bed and now he's the one who has the lay in it. He couldn't help himself mortgaging the Sharks future for Karlsson... when he already had Burns and Vlasic making big $$$$ Nobody is going to want to touch any of those contracts now, EK's included.

It's hilarious to watch all the revisionist history now, when two years ago this entire board was talking about how badly Wilson bent over Dorion and how they gave up almost nothing to get him. DW wasn't mortgaging the future then, but now that the 1st round pick turned into Stutzle and Norris looks legit he is a total moron.

 

[cwede]

hard sell, at that Cap Hit and term, given projected reduced production;
... maybe for Skinner ...
retention until '27 would hurt Sharks

 

[bandwagonesque]

Holy hell. You are dense and refuse to see my point. WE ARENT PAYING TO MOVE EK. How hard is that to understand? You want to talk about Vlasic, Jones fine. Them I would pay to move. EK is not on that level. I don’t know how I could make this any clearer.

As a sentence in the English language, it’s easy to understand. But it’s a supposition you are supplying without an argument.

 

[Fatass]

hard sell, at that Cap Hit and term, given projected reduced production;
... maybe for Skinner ...
retention until '27 would hurt Sharks

That’s how I see EK’s value now too. If he’s traded it would be for another player, who isn’t living up to his contract. Extra bodies would be added, and the Sharks would have to retain a bit on EK to balance things out.
I’m wondering what the cost would be for the Sharks to get another team to take EK without taking back a bad contract and retaining salary?

 

[Fatass]

I would be shocked if you find a taker.
Top 10 contracts in NHL:
McDavid 12.5
Panarin 11.6
Matthews11.6
EK 11.5
Tavares 11
Doughty 11
Marner 10.9
Kane 10.5
Toews 10.5
Price 10.5
I feel like this group splits right in half. If McD, Panarin,Matthews, Marner or Kane went on the market someone makes it happen.
EK, Tavares (not sure, mainly age is the minus) Doughty, Toews or Price is gonna be a tough sell.
If you're going to be a top 10 contract, you need to put up top 10 numbers. If not you put your team in a terrible bind. Nobody wants to do that to themselves if they don't have to and these contracts all have crazy term.

What about to FLA for goalie Bob? Would that be fair value?

 

[nbwingsfan]

Holy hell. You are dense and refuse to see my point. WE ARENT PAYING TO MOVE EK. How hard is that to understand? You want to talk about Vlasic, Jones fine. Them I would pay to move. EK is not on that level. I don’t know how I could make this any clearer.

His contract is that level of bad. Essentially everyone agrees hes a top 5 worst contract

 

[nbwingsfan]

6 more years after this and we are going to be bad for several years if we move Karlsson or not. If we pay to move him, we still have a weak top 6, no 3c, goaltending problems, and we added a hole at top 4 rd by trading Karlsson....and we gave futures that we need to rebuild. Paying futures to move Karlsson doesn’t make sense. A deal get out of his contract like Gio, Looch, and a 2nd does if it’s available. In all likelihood, we are stuck with him. Just like we are stuck with Vlasic and Jones.

Thats the point. That one Sharks fan is saying they would never do Gio/lucic/2nd. They 100% would

 

[Mick Jagr]

It's hilarious to watch all the revisionist history now, when two years ago this entire board was talking about how badly Wilson bent over Dorion and how they gave up almost nothing to get him. DW wasn't mortgaging the future then, but now that the 1st round pick turned into Stutzle and Norris looks legit he is a total moron.

Injuries, underwhelming play and eating up the a large portion of floundering team's salary cap will do that. You call it revisionist history, but in reality it's just people taking off the EK rose colored glasses and realizing he hasn't been himself since leaving Ottawa. Furthermore, now that fans have had a taste of Josh Norris and Stutzle in the NHL, of course they've change their mind. Don't be a idiot. It was a bad trade at the time and it's a bad trade now. Just because some people didn't realize it until now has no baring whether or not Wilson screwed the Sharks' future because he had a boner for Karlsson.

 

[Gecklund]

His contract is that level of bad. Essentially everyone agrees hes a top 5 worst contract

AGAIN we are not paying to move him. Wonderful I don’t care where people think he ranks on the bad contract list. Whether we move him now or not, WE ARENT COMPETING. It doesn’t matter if we just lost his contract completely. We wouldn’t have enough space to fill all of our needs. Our top line is subpar, our third line C is subpar, our goaltending is subpar, and we would have 5 lefties in our D and that would also be subpar. You think 11.5M is going to get you a top line forward and a third line C? That’s not even talking about our goaltending and our D. Our top prospects in Bordeleau, Merkley, and Wiesblatt probably won’t be NHL ready for a few more years and by that time Couture, Burns, EK will all be declining or declined. Hertl will probably be past his prime if not gone. Same with Kane. Vlasic/Jones will both still be here. Who knows what Timo/Labanc become? We are f***ed whether we move EK or not. Us taking on a bunch of way overpaid players to move EK or paying to move EK is worthless and pointless for multiple reasons. If we take on Gio/Lucic like that proposal, it is just taking minutes from our young guys and both play the same position as our most crowded prospect positions (wing and LD). EK plays RD. We literally only have EK, Burns, Merkley, and a bunch of max 6D on the right. The idea is that EK/Burns will hold down the fort until Merkley is ready. Then Merkley can take their minutes slowly as they ease out. Now let me talk about us paying to move EK. We are sacrificing futures to get rid of a player WE HAVE NO REPLACEMENT FOR. Yeah we could go out and sign a RD with that money. No they probably won’t be EK’s level. No they will not magically turn us around. That’s the issue. Us getting rid of EK is pointless and stupid if we aren’t getting a solid return back. No I don’t believe any team would give us a solid return back. Hence my comment that is continuing to be right, no team will pay what it would take to move him.

Does that make it clear enough for you or do I need to dumb it down even more?

 

[Fatass]

AGAIN we are not paying to move him. Wonderful I don’t care where people think he ranks on the bad contract list. Whether we move him now or not, WE ARENT COMPETING. It doesn’t matter if we just lost his contract completely. We wouldn’t have enough space to fill all of our needs. Our top line is subpar, our third line C is subpar, our goaltending is subpar, and we would have 5 lefties in our D and that would also be subpar. You think 11.5M is going to get you a top line forward and a third line C? That’s not even talking about our goaltending and our D. Our top prospects in Bordeleau, Merkley, and Wiesblatt probably won’t be NHL ready for a few more years and by that time Couture, Burns, EK will all be declining or declined. Hertl will probably be past his prime if not gone. Same with Kane. Vlasic/Jones will both still be here. Who knows what Timo/Labanc become? We are f***ed whether we move EK or not. Us taking on a bunch of way overpaid players to move EK or paying to move EK is worthless and pointless for multiple reasons. If we take on Gio/Lucic like that proposal, it is just taking minutes from our young guys and both play the same position as our most crowded prospect positions (wing and LD). EK plays RD. We literally only have EK, Burns, Merkley, and a bunch of max 6D on the right. The idea is that EK/Burns will hold down the fort until Merkley is ready. Then Merkley can take their minutes slowly as they ease out. Now let me talk about us paying to move EK. We are sacrificing futures to get rid of a player WE HAVE NO REPLACEMENT FOR. Yeah we could go out and sign a RD with that money. No they probably won’t be EK’s level. No they will not magically turn us around. That’s the issue. Us getting rid of EK is pointless and stupid if we aren’t getting a solid return back. No I don’t believe any team would give us a solid return back. Hence my comment that is continuing to be right, no team will pay what it would take to move him.

Does that make it clear enough for you or do I need to dumb it down even more?

I understand your opinion, but imo the Sharks (like every time) have a price their would pay to move a bad contract. It’s just that the cost to move EK is too high right now.

 

[Gecklund]

I understand your opinion, but imo the Sharks (like every time) have a price their would pay to move a bad contract. It’s just that the cost to move EK is too high right now.

See and that goes back to my previous comment. No team will pay what it takes to move him. Including the Sharks.

 

[Fatass]

See and that goes back to my previous comment. No team will pay what it takes to move him. Including the Sharks.

In other words, EK isn’t available because the cost (the Sharks) is too high? With that I agree.

 

[Gecklund]

In other words, EK isn’t available because the cost (the Sharks) is too high? With that I agree.

Yeah and the cost to other teams is too high too. Sharks would need something back too.

 

[Fatass]

Yeah and the cost to other teams is too high too. Sharks would need something back too.

I don’t think we are seeing the EK value the same. I’m saying EK has negative trade value. You’re saying EK has positive trade value?

 

[Gecklund]

I don’t think we are seeing the EK value the same. I’m saying EK has negative trade value. You’re saying EK has positive trade value?

I’m saying the Sharks would need to get value back for it to make sense to move him. Not that that is his trade value but that that’s what it would take to move him. He’s one of those guys who has way more value to his team than any other team for a variety of reasons. If they plan on competing, he’s their best player. If they plan on rebuilding, he insulates their top prospect.

 

[McVespa99]

I’m saying the Sharks would need to get value back for it to make sense to move him. Not that that is his trade value but that that’s what it would take to move him. He’s one of those guys who has way more value to his team than any other team for a variety of reasons. If they plan on competing, he’s their best player. If they plan on rebuilding, he insulates their top prospect.

The value you get back is not having EK and his contract on your team. That is substantial value.

 

[Gecklund]

AGAIN we are not paying to move him. Wonderful I don’t care where people think he ranks on the bad contract list. Whether we move him now or not, WE ARENT COMPETING. It doesn’t matter if we just lost his contract completely. We wouldn’t have enough space to fill all of our needs. Our top line is subpar, our third line C is subpar, our goaltending is subpar, and we would have 5 lefties in our D and that would also be subpar. You think 11.5M is going to get you a top line forward and a third line C? That’s not even talking about our goaltending and our D. Our top prospects in Bordeleau, Merkley, and Wiesblatt probably won’t be NHL ready for a few more years and by that time Couture, Burns, EK will all be declining or declined. Hertl will probably be past his prime if not gone. Same with Kane. Vlasic/Jones will both still be here. Who knows what Timo/Labanc become? We are f***ed whether we move EK or not. Us taking on a bunch of way overpaid players to move EK or paying to move EK is worthless and pointless for multiple reasons. If we take on Gio/Lucic like that proposal, it is just taking minutes from our young guys and both play the same position as our most crowded prospect positions (wing and LD). EK plays RD. We literally only have EK, Burns, Merkley, and a bunch of max 6D on the right. The idea is that EK/Burns will hold down the fort until Merkley is ready. Then Merkley can take their minutes slowly as they ease out. Now let me talk about us paying to move EK. We are sacrificing futures to get rid of a player WE HAVE NO REPLACEMENT FOR. Yeah we could go out and sign a RD with that money. No they probably won’t be EK’s level. No they will not magically turn us around. That’s the issue. Us getting rid of EK is pointless and stupid if we aren’t getting a solid return back. No I don’t believe any team would give us a solid return back. Hence my comment that is continuing to be right, no team will pay what it would take to move him.

Does that make it clear enough for you or do I need to dumb it down even more?

The value you get back is not having EK and his contract on your team. That is substantial value.

There’s my response.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The value you get back is not having EK and his contract on your team. That is substantial value.

It's not. Not really.

 

[hmc1987]

I'm sure something around Tyler Johnson + from Tampa would get it done.

This is the only offer I think could actually make sense.

TB - EK, SJ 2nd 2022

SJ - Retain $2m AAV, Tyler Johnson, Yanni Gourde

This deal could actually happen imo

 

[seroes]

Sharks are not trading Eric Karlsson. They would need to trade substantial futures to do it. Likely multiple 1st round picks and/ or top prospects. Nor to mention retention and or bad contracts coming back. That contract is that bad. But because the Sharks are rebuilding whatever DW has to say. So those picks and prospects are off the table.

Our top line scares no one. It's not even necessary to force other teams matchup against it. Our second line has an uninspiring Meier and a waiver wire pick up in Balcers on it. Hertl is a great 2C. But either him or Meier will be traded in the next two years to clear up cap space. Not a great position to be in but that's where the Sharks are. Our 3rd line has Donato and 2 guys. Our 4th line is nothing but borderline NHLers. The Sharks do not have anything besides depth coming up for at least 1 more season.

Our defense has Karlsson, Burns and Vlassic. Our great trio of declining production and skill. Vlassic is acceptable on the bottom pairing for now. Burns and Karlsson are good top 4 but overpaid. In Karlsson's case by about 6 million. Ferraro is our best player on defense who MAY become a top pairing defenseman. But is only top 4 now. Simek is serviceable. Knyzhov is a pleasant surprise but still needs work. Overall there is too much money here for not enough results. Our goaltending is....terrible. moving on.

The Sharks will start trading pieces soon, but it won't be Karlsson. Burns, Kane, Hertl, Meier, are all prime candidates to go.