That's still not a warranted response. Just because they don't understand your concerns doesn't make them a homer or living in the past. There is a good argument to make to not have those concerns because even at 70% of his abilities, Karlsson dramatically alters the game in a positive way for the team and is nearly a point-per-game player that is making a lot of other people produce more.
Erik Karlsson (Part 4)
- Thread starter WTFetus
- Start date
- Status
That's still not a warranted response. Just because they don't understand your concerns doesn't make them a homer or living in the past. There is a good argument to make to not have those concerns because even at 70% of his abilities, Karlsson dramatically alters the game in a positive way for the team and is nearly a point-per-game player that is making a lot of other people produce more.
Sharksrule04
Registered User
Agree to disagree. I think for outside of December and January, Karlsson has not been a huge positive influence on the team. Is he good, of course. When he's playing well, of course he makes the team better. So does a player making 5-7M. Has he been 11M per year good, not a chance. At 11M you have to be able to put the team on your back and carry them. If you can't, that's a bad contract. EK65 has been that player throughout much of his career which is why I'd still probably give it to him, but I simply do not understand how a person doesn't have any concerns with throwing 11M at 1 player who isn't even playing like even a top pairing d-man right now. Seems awfully hypocritical considering the whining I've seen here about much smaller contracts for guys like Vlasic and Kane.
The idea that he's not playing like a top pairing d-man right now is absurd. Is he perfect? Of course not but unless you can find 60 d-men playing better than him right now even while injured then that statement is nonsense. As for other contracts, the difference is that EK65 has proven many times over to be a game-breaking player pretty consistently. Kane and Vlasic have not and really the bulk of the complaints for those contracts is the movement or trade clauses associated with them. Giving it to secondary level players tends to be an issue. Giving it to a premier player is not because there's going to be suitors for Karlsson even if things go sideways which it likely wouldn't.
Pavelski2112
Bold as Boognish
I have my hesitations with EK recently, but he's more than proven himself to warrant taking the chance on him.
I'd still rather have him than most of the other guys out on the market.
I'd still rather have him than most of the other guys out on the market.
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
Funny, I wasn’t going to bring up the Kane contract but I actually think you’re the one being hypocritical here.
For me, the biggest concern regarding Kane’s contract was injuries. I felt like we had pretty much seen everything of Kane in a nutshell. He was very, very effective over a ~20 game stretch, then he got injured, came back and was clearly not the same in the playoffs. That is almost exactly what has happened with Karlsson.
Now, for me, that is where the similarities end. Above all else, Karlsson is simply a world class superstar and most people are more willing to accept taking risks when it comes to those kinds of players.
I also don’t think that Karlsson is a risk to the same degree that Kane was because Karlsson has actually been more healthy throughout his career than Kane had been prior to coming here. I also think that in these playoffs, Karlsson has shown the ability to be a positive impact player despite injuries while Kane was a negative impact player in last year’s playoffs.
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 15,909
- 5,174
Can we all agree that if Karlsson gets 11 million a season, he needs to play better than he is now?
The part that scares me about Karlsson is his biggest strength has been his skating, which we've rarely seen still be there.
It looks like he consistently gets beat because he is trying to play like he's still one of the best skaters in the league and he isn't and hasn't adjusted.
That's the gamble. Do you think it's just his current groin injury holding him back or is it just how he is now post ankle surgery?
It looks like he consistently gets beat because he is trying to play like he's still one of the best skaters in the league and he isn't and hasn't adjusted.
That's the gamble. Do you think it's just his current groin injury holding him back or is it just how he is now post ankle surgery?
Sharksrule04
Registered User
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
You’ve got to think it has something to do with whatever he’s currently nursing since he didn’t appear to have anything holding him back for about 20 games with us.
Yes, I can certainly agree with that.
Sharksrule04
Registered User
I don't think his straight away speed is what separates him from the pack. It's his edge-work and shiftyness. I'll give him a pass here because prior to his injury he was gaining the offensive zone with ease and getting back when he pinched. Since the injury though he hasn't adjusted his game and has been beaten far too often.
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 15,909
- 5,174
I haven’t watched as much of Karlsson as others, but it doesn’t look like his edgework and shiftiness are impeded.
However, his speed is not what it was...he is getting beat to pucks, as he was last night. He is not generating the power in his stride that I know he is capable of. At this point, I don’t think it is conditioning from so many games off, and it cannot be fatigue for the same reason. Seems like a hamstring injury to me, with the way he just isn’t pushing off as well.
BCShark
Registered User
- Feb 21, 2007
- 3,531
- 184
Mr Fahrenheit
Valar Morghulis
- Oct 9, 2009
- 7,797
- 3,296
Doesnt anyone remember 2016? Took the whole team like 60 games to get used to DeBoer
2 weeks? Wasn't the stretch more like 20 something games?That was the two week stretch I was talking about?
I said I'm not sure I want him for the Max term at 11+ mil he is going to get, not that I don't want him.
The point is that concerns or not, the Sharks need to and will offer him a blank check. They are not a franchise that rebuilds and they get most star players thru trade and resign.
tiburon12
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 4,689
- 4,531
Ok, here's a question that i dont have an answer to: Has his speed decreased in absolute terms, or have other, faster players entered the league and made him seem not as fast relatively? For all the evolving the NHL has done over the past few years, team speed has certainly been prioritized and a lot of fast players who may not have the best skills otherwise are playing NHL minutes. Someone like Auston Wagner, for example, is a player who has elite speed but not much else, and there was a lot of noise after he burned Karlsson twice in one game this year.
Jargon
Registered User
As I told my friend who has similar misgivings: as a business decision, Karlsson is important to this franchise. With him and Burns, we have at least a 2-3 year window that’s suddenly open. If we can get to second/third playoff rounds (which with them is at least fairly likely), it pays off financially for the Sharks.
I have issues with him and I still haven’t seen the 11 Million Dollar Karlsson (not even in the 20 game stretch, imo) but I’m an optimist and I do think we’re far better with him.
Burns, Karlsson, Vlasic, Meier, Hertl, Labanc, Kane, Couture with some hopefuls in the Chi-Twins and a few others makes for a watchable, exciting team for the next while and considering we have like no draft picks left... we need him.
I have issues with him and I still haven’t seen the 11 Million Dollar Karlsson (not even in the 20 game stretch, imo) but I’m an optimist and I do think we’re far better with him.
Burns, Karlsson, Vlasic, Meier, Hertl, Labanc, Kane, Couture with some hopefuls in the Chi-Twins and a few others makes for a watchable, exciting team for the next while and considering we have like no draft picks left... we need him.
Alwalys
Phu m.
- May 19, 2010
- 25,894
- 6,140
The truth is, for better or worse there is no better player we can plausibly get anytime soon. Signing Karlsson turns the entire mid-range outlook of the franchise from decent to high-end. There is a hell of a lot riding on this potential get.
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 15,909
- 5,174
I do think keeping him is the right move, but I cannot deny that loss aversion is tinting my views.
Star Ocean
Registered User
- Dec 30, 2018
- 3,583
- 2,003
You say that as if that isn't a reasonable thing to consider when making such a decision.
Cappuccino
Registered User
I can even see a 3-4 year window. The last couple of years of the Burns, Vlasic and (if he signs) EK65 contracts will be ugly though, but so be it. It will all be worth it if a cup is won. And even if there is no cup, you should at least have tried this.
Without EK65 the Sharks might even miss the playoffs and without a first next year, that is not good. He should stay.
He looks to be still injured somewhat based on his skating stride. Doesn't take full extensions like he use to.
I'm thinking a top dollar, 7 or 8 year contract is too big of a risk to take. Particularly for the Sharks who already have long term contracts with Burns and Vlasic.
There would be more allowance in the risk if DW didn't sign those "almost NMC" M-NTCs.
If DW does sign EK65, I hope he has the foresight to restrict the M-NTC be a 10 team no-trade list.
I'm thinking a top dollar, 7 or 8 year contract is too big of a risk to take. Particularly for the Sharks who already have long term contracts with Burns and Vlasic.
There would be more allowance in the risk if DW didn't sign those "almost NMC" M-NTCs.
If DW does sign EK65, I hope he has the foresight to restrict the M-NTC be a 10 team no-trade list.
Fistfullofbeer
Moderator
Was this where you stood when this season began as well? Or was it the injuries this year that has mainly changed your mind?
Either way, I think its a moot point because that is exactly what EK65 will want and get. Top dollar and a 7/8 contract. Whether its with us or elsewhere is the only question.
I was never part of the bandwagon that says sign EK65 for top dollar and max term. I thought DW got a good deal in the trade, but that was when EK65 did not miss this many games due to injuries.
Keep in mind that with this "highly prized" defense by many here, the Sharks GA/G for the season is below the 50 percentile. Additionally, the Sharks have the worse GA/G among the teams left standing in the playoffs. They also have the worst total GAs of any team in the playoffs.
This will have to change if they meet Boston in the SCF who is the most stingiest GA/G in the playoffs. I would prefer a match up with the jerks.
But that aside, signing EK65 to the numbers being floated around this board will put the Sharks over the $41m/yr for defense. That's too much for a defense that gets scored upon.
- Status
