Assume Karlsson walks after this year, do you still trade for him?

[BruinsFan37]

Do you still trade for him? For the purpose of this poll assume he does NOT sign an extension and he signs with a different team once he hits Free Agency.

So you get him for one year -- and that's it.

Click to read more...

 

[TheGoldenGod]

Doubt he signs long term with a team with an aging core and not much in the pipeline

 

[A91]

One year of (a healthy) Erik Karlsson is absolutely worth that package

 

[BruinsFan37]

One year of (a healthy) Erik Karlsson is absolutely worth that package

For how many teams though? Given that condition (Karlsson walks) there are only a handful of teams it makes sense for in my honest opinion. Yes he's a phenomenal player, but most GMs will look at their realistic chances of winning the cup this year and come to conclusion that it's not worth it (if he walks).

The only teams(s) it makes sense for in that scenario are teams that are already cup contenders. If you don't have a realistic shot of winning it all it's wasting assets if he walks for nothing at the end of the year.

 

[bobholly39]

Option B.

It's a trick question though. If you trade for him - even with no deal in place - you do so confident that things will work out (ie you both have success, as a team and individually) and with enough cap room to make him a lucrative offer he signs.

If you know ahead of time he walks (ie if SJ knows he wont sign for sure next year) it completely defeats the purpose.

 

[Juxtaposer]

If Karlsson walks, it'll still have been a good trade for the Sharks.

 

[Icebreakers]

Yes you do it. They gave up nothing.



If you made a trade proposal with the deal on hf boards the thread would be locked in 5 seconds.

 

[thadd]

If he doesn't resign with San Jose, Karlsson isn't going to pay for anything in the off-season. Teams are going to take turns flying him to their cities, wining and dining him and his wife while showing him how awesome their city is in attempt to get him to sign.

 

[Regal]

No different than a rental at the deadline that you know you won't re-sign. If you think it's worth going for it this year you roll the dice if you're not giving up legitimate assets. Nothing San Jose gave up is worth worrying about

 

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

Depends if you think your team has a shot this season with Karlsson.

I don't think San Jose takes it all with Karlsson, so it's a little confusing on their end. Especially if he walks as a UFA, which I think he will.

 

[34]

San Jose gave up nothing, so yes.

 

[M88K]

Yeah, I can't believe nobody upped that pitiful offer. That is a no brainer

 

[IPS]

It's still easily a winning deal for the Sharks.

Like I honestly wonder if Melnyk was in on some shady behind-the-scenes money laundering type shit with the deal that got done.

 

[CanadienShark]

Yes. I'd pay more.

 

[Critical13]

San Jose gave up nothing, so yes.

That's not true. They didn't give up fair value, but nothing?

I still make the deal.

 

[The Macho King]

Depends on your team. SJ? Absolutely. If I was say... Colorado or a more bubble team? No. Keep on building.

For a team that's already a top contender? (Say Washington, Tampa, Winnipeg) That's where it gets interesting. If I'm Washington (with most of my core pieces a little long in the tooth), I say yes. If I'm Winnipeg, with most of more core pieces on the younger side, I say no. If I'm Tampa, with them all right in their prime? ...

I honestly don't know. You're going to need to re-load your roster as the years go while you're in your window. I lean toward yes, but I think there's a solid argument against doing it.

...

Until you factor in Tampa's drafting in the first round, and then you realize those picks are worthless.

 

[LetsGoBLUES91]

Option B.

It's a trick question though. If you trade for him - even with no deal in place - you do so confident that things will work out (ie you both have success, as a team and individually) and with enough cap room to make him a lucrative offer he signs.

If you know ahead of time he walks (ie if SJ knows he wont sign for sure next year) it completely defeats the purpose.

Thats the reason I think EKs camp has basically put it out there that he is testing FA no matter what on July 1st. Only reason the Senators got such a weak package.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

As mentioned yesterday, the only thing worse for the Sharks is if they do not make the playoffs next season and they lose their non protected lottery pick in the 2019 draft and if Karlsson does not sign with them. It would be a pricey deal for a 1 year rental. This is why I said, I am willing to see how this deal looks next summer when we know how this turns out. Ottawa would even have a chance of resigning Karlsson however remote.

 

[NyQuil]

Like I honestly wonder if Melnyk was in on some shady behind-the-scenes money laundering type **** with the deal that got done.

What's clear is that Ottawa hardly took any salary back.

 

[Voight]

They paid a minuscule price so yea I'd do that.

 

[snipes]

The only correct answer is yes

 

[DL44]

No... only because the of the stage of the Canucks... One year of Karlsson with a subtraction of so many assets would be a completely useless endevour.

The answer for 16-20 other teams out there should be a resounding YES for one year of Karlsson.

 

[Kaapo Takko]

For a team that's contending it's worth it. Otherwise no.

 

[ijuka]

Uh, of course? Look at what rentals for far worse players net during the trade deadline. And this gives the team the player for the entire season, not just the end of it and the playoffs.

Everyone voting for any option other than "yes for more than what Sharks paid" isn't thinking clearly. Unless they plan on being in the dumpster for the season, in which case they shouldn't trade for him anyway.

 

[LaFan1967]

If Karlsson somehow doesn't click with San Jose , and they feel they
won't be able to sign him, they should get nearly what they gave up for
him at the trade deadline.