rangerssharks414
Registered User
I don't like it that Karlsson got a third year, but it isn't that terrible. Donskoi's contract could be a steal.
Confirmed with Link: Karlsson and Donskoi re-signed (posts 14 and 16)
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,425
- 12,645
Sideshow Raheem
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2015
- 3,063
- 7
It's a $73 million cap (soon to be around $75 million) and we were butting up right against the ceiling all year long. If we want to upgrade the team in any respect, we'll be butting right up against the ceiling once again. Every cent matters. Karlsson's old cap hit was already an overpayment for what he brings relative to other, cheaper players who are already in the organization. Karlsson is fine but when you can pay Carpenter, Goodrow, Sorensen, etc. less than half his salary to do the same job if not a better one it's time to say goodbye. 4th liners should be viewed as interchangeable parts.
Looking at the under lying numbers, I think Karlsson is really a poorman's Andrew Shaw. Same 5v5 scoring, except Shaw sees more ice and has a lower P/60 as a result. Biggest difference it points comes from Shaw's PP time. Karlsson on the other hand is one of our main PKers.
One, Karlsson is not overpaid. His rate is the going rate for what he brings. Two, the only guy you listed who can actually do what Karlsson does in his role is Sorensen but the team needs more than just those two playing that role. Goodrow is not even an NHL'er at this stage and Carpenter is not a fore-checker. The 4th liners and even most of the 3rd liners are interchangeable parts and Karlsson's deal is not to the point where it can't be moved when it makes sense for them to do so. His production is certainly replaceable. His fore-checking ability is also replaceable. The issue is that they don't have a legitimate internal candidate to replace him in that aspect just yet. But when that does happen, he is perfectly movable.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
A package of Dell, Donskoi and Heed screams Chicago to me. Especially since we didn't buy any of his UFA years.
bigwillie
Registered User
That's certainly a possibility, but if you are so risk adverse that you aren't willing to take a bet that Donskoi bounces back to form after his injuries (which is a pretty damn good possibility) for a meager sub-two million dollar contract, then you have no business managing a hockey team. That's so low risk, high reward it's a no brainer.
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,425
- 12,645
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,425
- 12,645
To hell with that. If DW acquired Seabrook, I'd be right outside his office yanking him out of his tanning bed and wringing his neck. lol
Sideshow Raheem
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2015
- 3,063
- 7
It doesn't matter if it's the going rate for what he brings (which it's not, but whatever) when there are cheaper internal options. We don't need to pay the going rate for this kind of player because we have Sorensen, Carpenter, Goodrow, Meier and others making sub-$1mil.
Here's the real question:
Who doesn't believe that Karlsson will be traded in a Wingels style manner within the next two years?
Who doesn't believe that Karlsson will be traded in a Wingels style manner within the next two years?
bigwillie
Registered User
I have to agree. I don't think it's awful, but it's certainly not the wisest move when, as you stated, there are cheaper options that are as effective.
I posted in the main trade forum that I think DW values Karlsson's proven versatility, as he's been up and down the lineup repeatedly for a couple seasons now and has shown he can handle it. I think DW was willing to pay for that trust as opposed to hoping the young guys can consistently handle what Karlsson does.
I just think that's DW mindset and it makes some sense, but I would be more inclined to gamble on the young guys than play it safer with Melkman here.
Also agree with this. Seabrook is basically a wet dog rolling in hot garbage at this point.
rangerssharks414
Registered User
It actually is given his age and the term they signed him for combined with his production. And yeah it does kind of matter when judging the merits of the deal. As for internal options, you obviously are choosing not to acknowledge my point so I will state it again. Just because there are players in the system doesn't mean that they replace what Karlsson brings. Looking at production is just surface-level analysis. Other than Sorensen, nobody you list plays the role of fore-checker like Karlsson does. Just because they can do comparable levels of production doesn't mean they do it the same way and yes that does matter in trying to make effective line combinations.
pappaf2
Registered User
tahoesharksfan
Old-Timer
The negativity on this forum never ceases to amaze me.
I'm glad to see these deals go down. Both are contributors and neither contracts weighs on the bottom line too heavily.
My biggest concern now is getting Donskoi healthy again!!
I'm glad to see these deals go down. Both are contributors and neither contracts weighs on the bottom line too heavily.
My biggest concern now is getting Donskoi healthy again!!
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today
Yep, players are pieces of meat and should be treated as such at all times. Promise them the moon and then cut off their legs as soon as it works for you. Especially if he's overpaid (which he's not, but whatever).
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Donskoi's contract is awesome, and I know that he is exempt from the expansion draft.
Karlsson's contract is a bit long (and the cap hit is high for a replaceable player imo...hello Carpenter), but it's fine I guess. Are the Sharks required to protect him now as the 4th forward?
Karlsson's contract is a bit long (and the cap hit is high for a replaceable player imo...hello Carpenter), but it's fine I guess. Are the Sharks required to protect him now as the 4th forward?
rangerssharks414
Registered User
Nope. They don't have to protect him unless he has a no-move clause, which I don't know why he'd get one.
