Erik Karlsson (Part 6)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,227
13,595
Folsom
Good point. Maybe the rift in the locker room didn’t start until after he got that huge contract. I don’t know. Like I said earlier, I don’t like him so maybe that’s clouding my judgment.

I don't think DW trades for Karlsson with the expressed intent to re-sign him a year before he expires if he isn't already clearly indicating that re-signing Pavelski was at the very least not the top priority...if it ever was one at all. We all saw that even with Pavs producing, he was out of place at evens. And really, the only reason he was producing was because of the team's stubbornness with making Burns and then Karlsson the primary focus of the system offensively.

I can absolutely see there being friction in the locker room over Pavs' departure. Him and Burns were very close by most accounts. They don't even make it past Vegas if he was just another guy getting hurt in game 7 so he very likely meant a lot to a lot of guys in there. But winning cures all in a locker room and at the end of the day, our GM didn't do enough to assure that they adequately replaced the talent they lost up front.

And if some sources are to be trusted around here, this rift happened before the Karlsson contract. I think it lines up with it being when Kane's contract was signed but honestly, they didn't start handing these contracts out until Burns got his but that coincided with the shift in ownership being more Hasso's than a group thing. And if Pavs is upset at any of that regardless, he needed to go because that sort of jealousy is not good for the room anyway. And anyone in that locker room that sides with Pavs on how he feels needs to go as well but who the hell knows who that could be.
 

Fistfullofbeer

Moderator
May 9, 2011
30,202
8,912
Whidbey Island, WA
I don't think DW trades for Karlsson with the expressed intent to re-sign him a year before he expires if he isn't already clearly indicating that re-signing Pavelski was at the very least not the top priority...if it ever was one at all. We all saw that even with Pavs producing, he was out of place at evens. And really, the only reason he was producing was because of the team's stubbornness with making Burns and then Karlsson the primary focus of the system offensively.

I can absolutely see there being friction in the locker room over Pavs' departure. Him and Burns were very close by most accounts. They don't even make it past Vegas if he was just another guy getting hurt in game 7 so he very likely meant a lot to a lot of guys in there. But winning cures all in a locker room and at the end of the day, our GM didn't do enough to assure that they adequately replaced the talent they lost up front.

And if some sources are to be trusted around here, this rift happened before the Karlsson contract. I think it lines up with it being when Kane's contract was signed but honestly, they didn't start handing these contracts out until Burns got his but that coincided with the shift in ownership being more Hasso's than a group thing. And if Pavs is upset at any of that regardless, he needed to go because that sort of jealousy is not good for the room anyway. And anyone in that locker room that sides with Pavs on how he feels needs to go as well but who the hell knows who that could be.

Exactly. This is your team now. If you don't want to play, tell DW and get the heck out.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,227
13,595
Folsom
Exactly. This is your team now. If you don't want to play, tell DW and get the heck out.

The other thing about it is what was Pavs honestly expecting when he was turning 35 soon after July 1? You weren't going or expecting a long term deal anyway so why does it bother you allegedly?
 

Levie

Registered User
Mar 15, 2011
14,553
4,213
For real we should have traded Pavs 2 years ago and gotten a nice big haul. If any player wanted to keep the golfing team in tact with Pavs they can go to Dallas.
 

Fistfullofbeer

Moderator
May 9, 2011
30,202
8,912
Whidbey Island, WA
The other thing about it is what was Pavs honestly expecting when he was turning 35 soon after July 1? You weren't going or expecting a long term deal anyway so why does it bother you allegedly?
He was probably looking at the Sharks to give him a similar deal to what he got in Dallas. But he really was never going to get it here.

People look at blaming DW, Erik Karlsson, even Kane as reasons for why Pavs is not here. The reason he is not here is because he chose to leave.
 

Anomie2029

Registered User
Oct 10, 2013
3,860
4,023
Melbourne, Australia
The other thing about it is what was Pavs honestly expecting when he was turning 35 soon after July 1? You weren't going or expecting a long term deal anyway so why does it bother you allegedly?

The story goes that they were disgruntled as players like Pavs, had been signing shorter contracts of lower value to help the team, but now he was squeezed out by long-term and high value contracts from people who came from outside the club. How much of this is actually true is really up for debate as it could just be aimless speculation.
 

Doctor Soraluce

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
7,051
4,459
John Scott has made a comment on multiple occasion about seeing players come into the Sharks and get big contracts "without earning them". That was specifically at Kane and then Karlsson. The reason it relates to Pavs was because it was seen as "you give big contracts to players who have only just got here, but not one to the guy who has been with the club".

Scott doesn't know Karlsson or Kane, so he only speculates on what they are like. That being said, I don't doubt some of the information he gets from those few people he still knows are the Sharks. The level of it can be debated though.
"without earning them"... that's ridiculous. John Scott is a moron if he said that. So what their ability to earn from there new team isn't supposed to take into account everything they did prior? So pass should have go a league minimum contract from Dallas along with every other UFA that signs with a new team. That's just about the dumbest premise he could have put forward. You spend on the guys that you think (hope) are going to be worth it for the duration of their contract. That's how they work.
The story goes that they were disgruntled as players like Pavs, had been signing shorter contracts of lower value to help the team, but now he was squeezed out by long-term and high value contracts from people who came from outside the club. How much of this is actually true is really up for debate as it could just be aimless speculation.
Wasn't Pavs last contract 6 years for 6mil a year? Him and Juicy signed identical contracts I thought. I remember at the time thinking it seemed a little high but it worked out over the duration. I don't feel like that was really a discount for the team. That was what they were worth at the time.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,227
13,595
Folsom
The story goes that they were disgruntled as players like Pavs, had been signing shorter contracts of lower value to help the team, but now he was squeezed out by long-term and high value contracts from people who came from outside the club. How much of this is actually true is really up for debate as it could just be aimless speculation.

I think when you look at everything, it's pretty clear that they were choosing to move on from him well before the high value, long-term contracts came to be an actual cap space issue. Him missing out on a long term deal is just a matter of unfortunate, and I use that term loosely here, circumstances. He was just a couple years too early on being a free agent and signing a five year contract that he left SJ on. Plattner had just bought out his partners a few months prior to him signing his last deal here. If he wanted to stay here, he could've been more amenable to where the team was going but that wasn't the case. The same applied to Marleau when he left except we more or less have a good idea of what was on the table from the two competing teams. If all the Sharks were offering was the same sort of deal then it's understandable that he took the bigger contract but there's no reason to make it anything more than just a business decision on both sides.
 

Anomie2029

Registered User
Oct 10, 2013
3,860
4,023
Melbourne, Australia
I think when you look at everything, it's pretty clear that they were choosing to move on from him well before the high value, long-term contracts came to be an actual cap space issue. Him missing out on a long term deal is just a matter of unfortunate, and I use that term loosely here, circumstances. He was just a couple years too early on being a free agent and signing a five year contract that he left SJ on. Plattner had just bought out his partners a few months prior to him signing his last deal here. If he wanted to stay here, he could've been more amenable to where the team was going but that wasn't the case. The same applied to Marleau when he left except we more or less have a good idea of what was on the table from the two competing teams. If all the Sharks were offering was the same sort of deal then it's understandable that he took the bigger contract but there's no reason to make it anything more than just a business decision on both sides.

Oh absolutely. I think the Sharks were completely right in their decisions to let Marleau and Paveslki go. I also have no ill-feeling towards either of them for taking the better contracts offered.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
15,715
4,975
For real we should have traded Pavs 2 years ago and gotten a nice big haul. If any player wanted to keep the golfing team in tact with Pavs they can go to Dallas.

Obviously, this is easy to say in hindsight. But on top of that, culturally, if you want are a contending team, you just can't trade a player like Pavelski from your roster.

If DW was the type of GM who did that, then Karlsson would never have extended here (same for Burns, Kane, maybe even Thornton and Marleau).
 

Doctor Soraluce

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
7,051
4,459
If you listen to other episodes, JS was actually in favor of letting Pavelski walk. He thought Karlsson and Thornton was the right choice. Predicted Pavelski to Dallas even when thinking of landing spots. It genuinely seems like John Scott maintains a pretty good relationship with a number of those guys. Interviewed Pavelski, Couture, Marleau, Goodrow and Stalock. He speaks very highly of Karlsson in the off season as a player. I don’t think he’s hurt over Pavs leaving at all.
His comment still come off as bitter and even suggesting that EK won't last there is frankly ignorant. For better or worse, DW will tear this team down to the studs to get the right supporting cast for EK65. Anyone not on board with that on the team will get shit canned. Taking into account age, talent and contract the untouchables are EK65, EK9, Hertl, Meier Merkely and probably Juicy. I could see Juicy getting traded though if he and EK65 don't get along.
 

tiburon12

Registered User
Jul 18, 2009
4,598
4,374
I dont like to invest any thoughts and energy into drama, so JS's comments dont go so far with me. That would be a pretty big deal if what he said reflects reality in the room. Kurz would likely pick up on it, as would other media. Plus, i doubt the Sharks guys appreciated JS talking like that....


The story goes that they were disgruntled as players like Pavs, had been signing shorter contracts of lower value to help the team, but now he was squeezed out by long-term and high value contracts from people who came from outside the club. How much of this is actually true is really up for debate as it could just be aimless speculation.

if that's the story then the players are really out of touch with reality. To not understand how the salary cap works or how contracts have evolved and then blame ownership/another player when reality sets in and an aging, likeable veteran cant get paid an inflated deal for past merit is pretty weak. I hope this isnt the case.
 

Doctor Soraluce

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
7,051
4,459
I dont like to invest any thoughts and energy into drama, so JS's comments dont go so far with me. That would be a pretty big deal if what he said reflects reality in the room. Kurz would likely pick up on it, as would other media. Plus, i doubt the Sharks guys appreciated JS talking like that....

if that's the story then the players are really out of touch with reality. To not understand how the salary cap works or how contracts have evolved and then blame ownership/another player when reality sets in and an aging, likeable veteran cant get paid an inflated deal for past merit is pretty weak. I hope this isnt the case.
Any of them that forgot this was a business are idiots. It's not some Mickey Mouse club where everyone gets a trophy. I have trouble believing the players really believe as JS is promoting.
 

tealzamboni

Registered User
Mar 3, 2007
1,816
1,226
I dont like to invest any thoughts and energy into drama, so JS's comments dont go so far with me. That would be a pretty big deal if what he said reflects reality in the room. Kurz would likely pick up on it, as would other media. Plus, i doubt the Sharks guys appreciated JS talking like that....




if that's the story then the players are really out of touch with reality. To not understand how the salary cap works or how contracts have evolved and then blame ownership/another player when reality sets in and an aging, likeable veteran cant get paid an inflated deal for past merit is pretty weak. I hope this isnt the case.


I think that mentality is natural because the Sharks have been big on growing players. They've also put previous generations of Sharks into suits, so there's probably a big clique that acts as the Sharks' morality police.

IMO all that really matters is that Thornton is the heartbeat of the team and that Karlsson was brought on to assume that mantle. I think both understand that and are fine with it. At some point, I've got to think Wilson will start moving some of the old supporting cast and molding the roster towards EK65's strengths.
 

Fistfullofbeer

Moderator
May 9, 2011
30,202
8,912
Whidbey Island, WA
His comment still come off as bitter and even suggesting that EK won't last there is frankly ignorant. For better or worse, DW will tear this team down to the studs to get the right supporting cast for EK65. Anyone not on board with that on the team will get **** canned. Taking into account age, talent and contract the untouchables are EK65, EK9, Hertl, Meier Merkely and probably Juicy. I could see Juicy getting traded though if he and EK65 don't get along.

I am on board with this. It does not even matter what kind of return we are talking about. You build a team that gets along.
 

Fistfullofbeer

Moderator
May 9, 2011
30,202
8,912
Whidbey Island, WA
Imagine where this team would be with Pavs 11g and 11a.

Of the 3 forwards we lost in Pavs, Nyquist and Dosnkoi the one I would have preferred to have back is Nyquist. Pavs was just not a fit on this team anymore.

And honestly, if his 'leadership' is what we really need then there is something fundamentally wrong with this team. I was really hoping that this year they would not have a 'C' on the team. Just go with the 'A' for multiple people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phu and Herschel

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
70,227
13,595
Folsom
Of the 3 forwards we lost in Pavs, Nyquist and Dosnkoi the one I would have preferred to have back is Nyquist. Pavs was just not a fit on this team anymore.

And honestly, if his 'leadership' is what we really need then there is something fundamentally wrong with this team. I was really hoping that this year they would not have a 'C' on the team. Just go with the 'A' for multiple people.

You know the media wouldn't have let go the narrative of a captain-less team. They would get hounded if they went that route.
 

Fistfullofbeer

Moderator
May 9, 2011
30,202
8,912
Whidbey Island, WA
You know the media wouldn't have let go the narrative of a captain-less team. They would get hounded if they went that route.
Yeah. Probably, they would totally play up no Pavs, no captain theme.

But I think when they clear out the locker rooms they really need to sit down and figure out what is wrong? Is it the $$ or is it something else. I know with all the NMC/NTC contracts we won't get best value back on some players but I would rather just move players out if they are unhappy.
 

Doctor Soraluce

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
7,051
4,459
I am on board with this. It does not even matter what kind of return we are talking about. You build a team that gets along.
I can't even guarantee that group gets along but it's likely there needs to be a changing of the guard and these are the best players to keep IMO.
 

WSS11

Registered User
Oct 7, 2009
6,043
5,058
Of the 3 forwards we lost in Pavs, Nyquist and Dosnkoi the one I would have preferred to have back is Nyquist. Pavs was just not a fit on this team anymore.

And honestly, if his 'leadership' is what we really need then there is something fundamentally wrong with this team. I was really hoping that this year they would not have a 'C' on the team. Just go with the 'A' for multiple people.

im curious as to if we could have re-signed Nyquist for the contract he got from C-bus. He really seemed to like it here and i think he would fit much better in Boughner’s system than Pete’s. If we’re talking about adding Dadanov who will cost more being that he’s better, has no ties to the sharks, and will be one of the top forwards in the class then maybe we should have kept Gus for 4/5.5AAV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->