Friedman: Florida could have interest in Erik Karlsson

[Gecklund]

Bob for Erik. Make it work. Just wiggle that 1.5 mill to Sharks and that's it. Sharks have two retention spots and could trade Bob at 50%. Sure there are takers at that price. Think Toronto is looking for a goalie. They also need to get rid of some contracts and sure Sharks would bite. Leafs could finally try for it.

What else is Florida adding because Bob is straight negative value.

 

[Regal]

If Bob isn’t included I suppose they could do something around Hornqvist (if the Sharks aren’t on his 8 team list), and Reinhart. Reinhart had a really good 1st year with the Panthers but has struggled this year, and while a good player I think is the only big contract/value player they could afford to move. I’m not sure if they’d want to take another player away from their forwards though, or pay that price for a big contract like Karlsson’s. Reinhart isn’t really what Sam Jose needs, but he could be moved easier than Karlsson.

 

[KaosKommando]

What else is Florida adding because Bob is straight negative value.

Bob is not as negative value to Shark as to many other teams. Luostarinen would cover that 1.5 mill. So if we ignore that Bob is two years older and Karlsson only has one more year on his contract. Do we have a deal? Or do we have to bring up mother ducking Mahura.

 

[yada]

Why wouldn't they just buy out Karlsson instead then.

This is eliotte Friedman going... let's see how many clicks I can get from sunrise and San Jose.

This is as realistic as Shooter Mcgavin winning a yellow jacket. Just not gonna happen

Grissly adams did have a beard

 

[MCR74]

Even if FLA could rid themselves of Bobrovsky, why take on another albatross? Karlsson's contract is no better. Sure he's finally living up to it, but you better hope he keeps it up.

 

[KaosKommando]

If Bob isn’t included I suppose they could do something around Hornqvist (if the Sharks aren’t on his 8 team list), and Reinhart. Reinhart had a really good 1st year with the Panthers but has struggled this year, and while a good player I think is the only big contract/value player they could afford to move. I’m not sure if they’d want to take another player away from their forwards though, or pay that price for a big contract like Karlsson’s. Reinhart isn’t really what Sam Jose needs, but he could be moved easier than Karlsson.

I could bet my left leg that nothing will be done around Gösta. For this year, he is the de facto worst contract to take. Florida can't pay anything to get rid of him and you won't get anything by trading for him.

 

[Regal]

I could bet my left leg that nothing will be done around Gösta. For this year, he is the de facto worst contract to take. Florida can't pay anything to get rid of him and you won't get anything by trading for him.

Hornqvist would be only for cap purposes obviously.

 

[KaosKommando]

Even if FLA could rid themselves of Bobrovsky, why take on another albatross? Karlsson's contract is no better. Sure he's finally living up to it, but you better hope he keeps it up.

You ask why and then say that he's finally living up to it. That would be the reason why. Also the reason why Sharks would never do it.

 

[MCR74]

You ask why and then say that he's finally living up to it. That would be the reason why. Also the reason why Sharks would never do it.

And if he regresses next year, then what?

 

[KaosKommando]

Hornqvist would be only for cap purposes obviously.

Accidentally said around when I should have said with. Florida does not have anything to pay with for any other team to take him. Reinhart won't be the price for moving him, since he won't be moved.

And if he regresses next year, then what?

Then they have him and Sharks have Bob.

 

[MCR74]

Then they have him and Sharks have Bob.

So nobody wins.

 

[Regal]

Accidentally said around when I should have said with. Florida does not have anything to pay with for any other team to take him. Reinhart won't be the price for moving him, since he won't be moved.


Then they have him and Sharks have Bob.

I think you’re confused by what I meant. I wasn’t suggesting moving Hornqvist for cap space separately, he was part of a trade for Karlsson. Reinhart is the piece for Karlsson in that trade. Hornqvist is merely to balance the cap. Hornqvist and Reinhart combined have a similar cap to Karlsson alone. Hornqvist’s terrible value is largely irrelevant, because Sam Jose isn’t competing this year and the deal expires after this one.

Not saying that’s necessarily something Florida wants to do, just that if they want Karlsson, I’m not sure there’s another move that would work if Bob isn’t included or the Sharks don’t retain. Their other big contracts are core players who wouldn’t be moved, and they can’t make the cap work on picks/prospects alone, and their pool is already thin there.

 

[KaosKommando]

I think you’re confused by what I meant. I wasn’t suggesting moving Hornqvist for cap space, he was part of a trade for Karlsson. Reinhart is the price for Karlsson in that trade. Hornqvist is merely to balance the cap. Hornqvist and Reinhart combined have a similar cap to Karlsson alone. Hornqvist’s value is irrelevant.

Not saying that’s necessarily something Florida wants to do, just that if they want Karlsson, I’m not sure there’s another move that would work if Bob isn’t included or the Sharks don’t retain.

I wasn't confused. Florida has to pay to get rid of Göstä. And they won't pay that price. Idea that he would be someone to balance the cap in Karlsson trade is hilarious. This is his last year. Sharks have no need for him. So there is no value in it for them. On top of that Sharks have no need for Reinhart and Florida does. Still I'm sure I'm again confused by your "Hornqvist would be only for cap purposes obviously" and "I wasn't suggesting moving Hornqvist for cap space".

So nobody wins.

That's pretty much it, but it's fun to talk. Also Florida could win a bit.

 

[Gecklund]

Bob is not as negative value to Shark as to many other teams. Luostarinen would cover that 1.5 mill. So if we ignore that Bob is two years older and Karlsson only has one more year on his contract. Do we have a deal? Or do we have to bring up mother ducking Mahura.

No. Bob is awful and Sharks want no part of that contract. If Bob is included so is Lundell or no deal.

 

[Dr Amazing204]

So it is opposite day casue one surely must understand hockey better right ....

Lol then that means you add.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Bob for Erik. Make it work. Just wiggle that 1.5 mill to Sharks and that's it. Sharks have two retention spots and could trade Bob at 50%. Sure there are takers at that price. Think Toronto is looking for a goalie. They also need to get rid of some contracts and sure Sharks would bite. Leafs could finally try for it.

Why wouldn't the Sharks just trade Karlsson at 50% then? The return would be significantly better than Bob at 50%.

With that said there's a very slim chance the Sharks use up another retention slot long-term considering they are already doing it with Burns.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Why wouldn't the Sharks just trade Karlsson at 50% then? The return would be significantly better than Bob at 50%.

With that said there's a very slim chance the Sharks use up another retention slot long-term considering they are already doing it with Burns.

Nobody is going to pay the price for Karlsson at 50% because for Florida that still requires someone like Lundell coming back.

 

[Gecklund]

Nobody is going to pay the price for Karlsson at 50% because for Florida that still requires someone like Lundell coming back.

and at that point I’d rather take Bob than retain. Thing is I’d MUCH rather take back bad contracts than retain. To me retaining is completely not an option. My thinking on this is that the difference between what we can get from retaining on our rentals is more than what we can get from retaining on EK. If that means we don’t move EK so be it.

 

[Hodge]

and at that point I’d rather take Bob than retain. Thing is I’d MUCH rather take back bad contracts than retain. To me retaining is completely not an option. My thinking on this is that the difference between what we can get from retaining on our rentals is more than what we can get from retaining on EK. If that means we don’t move EK so be it.

“Let’s hang on to Karlsson’s albatross contract indefinitely so we can still retain salary on Nick Bonino at the deadline and get a 6th round pick for him instead of a 7th.”

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

"I do think Florida would have interest".

This reads as purely made up speculation with no basis by Friedman.

 

[pantherbot]

and at that point I’d rather take Bob than retain. Thing is I’d MUCH rather take back bad contracts than retain. To me retaining is completely not an option. My thinking on this is that the difference between what we can get from retaining on our rentals is more than what we can get from retaining on EK. If that means we don’t move EK so be it.

So you'd rather get nothing for Karlsson than retain salary? Not only get nothing for Karlsson, but he decreases your chances at a better lotter position. This makes no sense. Grier should be working the phone lines like a mad man trying to offload a peaking Karlsson that could fall off any minute now, and I'm not just saying that because I'd like the Panthers to take that risk...

Btw, we have Hornqvist on LTIR now, so there's a LOT more cap space for us to use now. We could now potentially do Karlsson retained at 50% without offloading Bob.

 

[Gecklund]

So you'd rather get nothing for Karlsson than retain salary? Not only get nothing for Karlsson, but he decreases your chances at a better lotter position. This makes no sense. Grier should be working the phone lines like a mad man trying to offload a peaking Karlsson that could fall off any minute now, and I'm not just saying that because I'd like the Panthers to take that risk...

Btw, we have Hornqvist on LTIR now, so there's a LOT more cap space for us to use now. We could now potentially do Karlsson retained at 50% without offloading Bob.

Yes. Because despite Karlsson being a monster (and the only reason to watch the Sharks this year) they have the second worst PPG in the league.

Again we aren’t retaining 50% on Karlsson. It makes 0 sense for us without an absolute premium package coming back, the likes of which this league hasn’t seen.

 

[pantherbot]

Yes. Because despite Karlsson being a monster (and the only reason to watch the Sharks this year) they have the second worst PPG in the league.

Again we aren’t retaining 50% on Karlsson. It makes 0 sense for us without an absolute premium package coming back, the likes of which this league hasn’t seen.

Ok...that makes no sense to me unless the Sharks plan on using that cap space...which I don't think is the case. You're wasting a free asset. If SJ wants to do what Arizona did by taking on a bunch of bad contracts for picks/prospects, then getting paid to retain on Karlsson would be the same thing.

 

[Hodge]

Who cares about setting the Sharks up to potentially win a Cup at some point in the first 50 years of their existence. What really matters is making the 2022-23 team slightly more enjoyable for @SJSharks72 to watch.

 

[Gecklund]

Ok...that makes no sense to me unless the Sharks plan on using that cap space...which I don't think is the case. You're wasting a free asset. If SJ wants to do what Arizona did by taking on a bunch of bad contracts for picks/prospects, then getting paid to retain on Karlsson would be the same thing.

But it’s not. That leaves the Sharks with ONE retention spot for 3 years. That means the returns on Timo, Reimer, Barabanov, Bonino, and all of our other rentals are going to be worse.