BonkTastic
ಠ_ಠ
11 is a number I wouldn't go to. Over 10 gives me the shivers.
Well, get your winter coat ready, because Karlsson's next contract is going to be an arctic gale wind.
11 is a number I wouldn't go to. Over 10 gives me the shivers.
Playing Gabriel Dumont instead of Colin White or anyone else is a fireable offence on its own. This team was horrible, let guys like Chlapik and White get their feet wet instead of playing them here and there and shipping them back and forth to the AHL.
As for Matthew Barzal "popping", well, he didn't even get his first point until his 6th game, but he played close to 15 minutes a night, which helped build his confidence to the point where he began to produce.
There is still no tangible proof that playing a guy on a really bad or even really good AHL team "helps development".
I don't get this feeling at all. I think people are more weary about where we are as a team.
Is this a contending team in the next few years? I don't think so. At most probably a bubble team unless management can do something drastic to get good players in but that would mean shipping good players/picks/prospects out.
His injury also scares people. Do you blame them?
For the record, I want him resigned.
The problem is with paying $10.5M to $12M to 17-18 Karlsson for eight years. This team cannot be on the hook for that. The owner won't pay to bury that kind of problem.
Months ago, I speculated that the least risky move for this team is to wait until November 2018 to see what Karlsson is now. That clearly can't happen, and we'll have to hope his push at the end of this last season shows that he's returning to form.
I am willing to bet that EK will be more productive in 8 years than Mark Stone or Matt Duchene. The will be no need to bury EK's salary ever. Was anyone worried about burying Crosby's contract?
...I dont see what the harm is in discussing the risk. We've got a couple months until we have a resolution. We could all just agree to hand him whatever he wants and never bring it up until he's signed or traded i guess.
There's big risk for any player signed to that kind of money. Especially for a franchise with no ability to cover up financial mistakes. This is not a 21 year old Connor McDavid being signed until he's 30, or a Crosby that's already won you multiple cups.
Look how fast Heatley and Spezza fizzled out right around 30 years old after being one of the best duo's in the league for years.
Again, i think its worth it after assessing the risk/reward, but i dont understand what the harm is in acknowledging it and why a few posters seem genuinely offended when anything other than handing him whatever he wants gets discussed.
I would suggest you are taking a pretty extreme view of the people who think signing Karlsson is a good idea.
First I don't think anyone is saying give him whatever he wants. I will speak for myself and say I want a true negotiation - each side should walk away happy or each walks away feeling they gave up a little more than they want.
He isn't McDavid but he has won 2 Norris trophies and been jobbed AT LEAST 1 time for another (I still can't believe he finished tied for 4th in league scoring, PPG and led league in assists and they gave it to Drew Pouty) and led the Senators to within a goal of making the Stanley Cup Finals last year on 1 foot.
Spezza had a bad back for most of his career and Heatley's game was doomed to fall off quick - he couldn't get around the ice. No players age more gracefully than those with great wheels and high IQ.
Again, I don't think people are suggesting just give him what he wants.
If we get a ridiculous haul for him then I will shocked and pissed that he isn't a Senator but I will understand why it was done however the discussion about how risky it is baffles me. He is young, a stud and has proven to be as consistent as they come - those are the players we NEED to keep if we want to be perennially a contender.
Guys like Fisher and Neil are considered "greats" in the organization because of the countless hours they put into the community, and how over-and-above they were with the fanbase. If either of those guys just showed up to the rink to play and went home after the game to live a private life and didn't involve themselves with the fans or anything else, would they still be considered "greats"? I highly doubt it.
Yes, I was definitely not referring to everyone, there's just a few posters that are quick to talk down to those debating the potential risk of the biggest contract the Ottawa Senators have ever handed out and potentially second in the entire NHL to date. These are matters of opinion in most cases, but a few seem agitated at the notion of the discussion even taking place.I would suggest you are taking a pretty extreme view of the people who think signing Karlsson is a good idea.
First I don't think anyone is saying give him whatever he wants. I will speak for myself and say I want a true negotiation - each side should walk away happy or each walks away feeling they gave up a little more than they want.
He isn't McDavid but he has won 2 Norris trophies and been jobbed AT LEAST 1 time for another (I still can't believe he finished tied for 4th in league scoring, PPG and led league in assists and they gave it to Drew Pouty) and led the Senators to within a goal of making the Stanley Cup Finals last year on 1 foot.
Spezza had a bad back for most of his career and Heatley's game was doomed to fall off quick - he couldn't get around the ice. No players age more gracefully than those with great wheels and high IQ.
Again, I don't think people are suggesting just give him what he wants.
If we get a ridiculous haul for him then I will shocked and pissed that he isn't a Senator but I will understand why it was done however the discussion about how risky it is baffles me. He is young, a stud and has proven to be as consistent as they come - those are the players we NEED to keep if we want to be perennially a contender.
Boston seems to be doing fine with giving their young players second to third line minutes with other good players. The worst thing for a young player is having them play with garbage like Burrows.The problem is guys like White and Chlapik need consistent top six minutes, PP time, etc to develop their game further. They were not going to get that at the NHL level in the middle of December and January
Yes, I was definitely not referring to everyone, there's just a few posters that are quick to talk down to those debating the potential risk of the biggest contract the Ottawa Senators have ever handed out and potentially second in the entire NHL to date. These are matters of opinion in most cases, but a few seem agitated at the notion of the discussion even taking place.
Personally, I think McDavid is viewed in a manner that only Crosby would be considered. That's just my opinion, and while I agree that Karlsson has been robbed of the Norris twice now, I just think he's not quite considered in that group. I think some have been too quick to point at that contract as a comparable, myself in the past included, but I think it's in a league by itself for the most part. If Karlsson makes it to UFA, it won't matter, it will get out of hand like most do.
Spezza and Heatley were one of the most dynamic duo's in the league, and arguably injuries derailed both of them (pre-existing or not), but isn't that part of the risk debate we're having on Karlsson's injury? They were not the players Karlsson is obviously, but just examples of going from top of the league great to borderline liabilities in a short period of time around passing that 30 year old threshold. That's absolute worst case scenario though, and I don't see it happening here.
I've seen pretty much exactly that put forward numerous times on here. Essentially, doesn't matter what it takes, you sign him, almost as if negotiating with him for anything but what he's expected to get as a UFA is an insult. I still want him signed, just not if it gets out of hand, which 12.5x8 would be imo, at least for us. Melnyk being a *****e or not, we're a small market team with a hard budget and little room for error.
Any signing is a risk no matter who it is, just because it's being discussed, doesn't mean it has to be any more than just an acknowledgment of the risk and the different factors involved. He's not that young anymore either, he'll be 29 when the new deal kicks in, for many many players, that's the time to get off the pot if they want an 8 year deal. He had a major injury and surgery that he was very open about struggling to overcome. Some of his interviews on the Team1200 he talked about possible permanent adjustments he would have to make to accommodate it. He did not look good at all for the first half or so imo, of course that's likely just him getting back to 100%, but its also the first time pretty much that we've seen a bad Karlsson out there, it was like an "Oh right, he's human" realization for me. Crosby could have been concussed out of the league, McDavid could have more shoulder problems, you just never know.
I guess the whole notion of not knowing is a given to me about life in general so to use it as an example of why we should make decisions seems odd.
I may get struck by lightning so should I go outside? What if that lightning strikes my house and it catches fire? Guess I should go outside ...
Of course we can't see the future but we saw what 2nd half Karlsson looked like and at times it was amazing.
A full year after surgery and an extended off season to rehab and train and I believe we see our superstar back on a nightly basis.
Going by what we do know is that he is the most dynamic and electric D on the planet and will be one of the best skaters in the game until he retires.
Look at all the best skaters of their generation and they all aged gracefully.
Great post.
People that say that we should trade Karlsson (or even consider it) are talking with the premise that our prospects will live up to their potential, our pick this year will be a star, and the players we would acquire in a potential trade would put us over the top to become eventually perrenial contenders. Also probably consider that Chabot will be a #1 and that Wolanin will be a great top 4 D.
That, unfortunately, is not how it works and definitely not how it will unfold. There is a risk in signing Karlsson but that's true about any decision made in life. There's risk in signing him, there's significant risk in NOT re-signing him since we already know something... And that something that we do know is that he's the best D on the planet. The simple solution is to let him play and show us that he's still the player he's been for almost 10 years in this league. Once you see that, you sign him.
I personally don't doubt that, but for some people that do doubt he will be back to his top 3 player in the NHL status ... here's a scenario worth considering. Don't trade him in the offseason. Keep him and let him prove that he can play. Then you can sign him. Trading him because we don't know right now is idiocy, not only because we have time, but also because what we'll get back for him will be magic beans. Karlsson is still under contract for the next season. We still have time to see him after a full offseason of training.
We'll know what's the intention of the team this summer. If they decide to trade him in the offseason, we'll know 100% that the team had no intention of signing him at all and that they didn't want to give him the contract he deserves. If they are worried that there is a risk that he doesn't come back to the level he was last season but still want to sign him, they will let him prove himself. At this point anyways who the **** cares if he's traded at the deadline or this offseason? What we'll get back is not even close to the value he brings to the team and the franchise.
Players like Karlsson come once every 20 years. Once every 20 years in the entire NHL, not on a team. So you can imagine how long it could take to ever get a player of that caliber again.
If you're a poker player, Karlsson is a straight flush. When you have that hand, you go all in.
you have a lot going on in this post and some of it makes sense.
what I don't understand about guys that are saying sign him without question is they can't explain it and be honest at the same time. I've been pretty vocal that the team needs to assess the risk and the potential return. Several other guys are saying the same thing. Nowhere have I mentioned all these premises you'r talking about on other guys and picks working out. They need to assess it on EK's health and ask. Chabot's potential growth might be a small factor.
The other thing that's quite dishonest over the past few weeks is the return on Karlsson. If he's the best D in the game, and I agree he is, then why do guys downplay the potential return? He's not going to be traded for peanuts. Waiting til July when the opportunity for a trade and sign deal will maximize the return and in that scenario what comes back will reflect his status in the game and his status isn't worth peanuts.
I don't mind opinions either way. That's what a message board is....an exchange of opinion. But guys should at least be honest about it.
While I am sure some are sandbagging the return, I think the more important point on return is that you will never get the better player back. This can be okay in some situations (trading vet for futures during rebuilld) but it almost never happens with players of EKs caliber under the age of 30. That's because you need elite players to win the cup if you look at the past decade or so. And so the whole point of drafting and building is to find 1-2 and build around them. You don't trade them, ever, under 30 unless it's 1-1 because they are so hard to get in the first place. You can list 5-6 teams that have never had a player as good as EK and we are considering trading him in a quality for quantity deal when he still has 5-6 good years left in him. I don't think any other team would do this.
With the current toxicity around the situation I can't see how trading EK would impact team revenues, which would impact player budget. IE: Budget with EK is 68 and 65 without for example. This means you have to subtract 2-3 million from whatever number he gets for the next few years because we wouldn't have that money for another player anyways. We can only use it on him. Therefore an 11 million contract is actually an 8-9 million contract.
While I am sure some are sandbagging the return, I think the more important point on return is that you will never get the better player back. This can be okay in some situations (trading vet for futures during rebuilld) but it almost never happens with players of EKs caliber under the age of 30. That's because you need elite players to win the cup if you look at the past decade or so. And so the whole point of drafting and building is to find 1-2 and build around them. You don't trade them, ever, under 30 unless it's 1-1 because they are so hard to get in the first place. You can list 5-6 teams that have never had a player as good as EK and we are considering trading him in a quality for quantity deal when he still has 5-6 good years left in him. I don't think any other team would do this.
This is the bigger risk IMO. There have been very few instances in any sport where a superstar player has been traded and the return was even close to appropriate value. Heck even with regular very good players the team that acquires them usually wins out and that is because even very good players are hard to come by let alone GENERATIONAL talents.
Name another D in the league that has carried his team in the last 15 years (or further)? There are other great D but not one of them has had a similar team around them - they have All-Star players as supporting cast.
I guess at the core I don't think Karlsson was as bad as many here believe too - he wasn't himself but he gets a fair bit of grace considering his circumstances and his long history of being great should supersede a bad stretch after a freak and devastating injury. Heck Crosby wasn't himself for a half a season 2 years ago and then made a push in the 2nd half - can you imagine them deciding to trade him because of that? He also has head issues which I submit has a much higher % of occurring again to a degree that would put him out for good.
Lastly...GMPD doesn't have a great track record IMO when it comes to trades so that does also weigh in to my thoughts.
The 2nd half of the season as Karlsson got healthy he went back to being thd best Dman in the league, even though he still was not 100%.
He'll get healthy and dominate the NHL again starting next season. I just hope it is in a Sens Jersey.
The risk in trading him is far greater than signing him. If he wants anything McDavid or under you sign him without hesitation.
Well, get your winter coat ready, because Karlsson's next contract is going to be an arctic gale wind.
The Islanders won the Yashin trade under this logic. Well, at least they got Yashin locked up long term in their trade.And yet folks continually slam the Duchene trade as an overpayment when we got the far better player in the deal, and only gave up a good player and futures to get him.
We won't get a player as good as EK back, but we can get some assets that could be excellent players, along with some very good players. An EK trade will yield some fantastic returns I have no doubt, and sometimes when you're able to fill a few holes on a team, it is possible that as a team you come out better.
We shall see, exciting times!