Friedman: Sharks, Sens have talked about an Erik Karlsson reunion

[Wondercarrot]

If you take Zaitsev AND retain 50% then the Sens are in the conversation.
Anything else is pretty much not possible from the Sens end.

For that I’d do 2024 1st and Thomson

* for the record I’m not suggesting SJ would consider doing this!

 

[axlrose87]

Did anyone talk to karlson about it?
Cause I think there is a zero % chance he agrees to go back to Ottawa.

 

[Gecklund]

If you take Zaitsev AND retain 50% then the Sens are in the conversation.
Anything else is pretty much not possible from the Sens end.

For that I’d do 2024 1st and Thomson

Lol a 50% retained Karlsson is going to cost miles more than that. Go take a lap bud.

 

[Akrapovince]

Lol a 50% retained Karlsson is going to cost miles more than that. Go take a lap bud.

1st + Thomson is closer to the price of dumping Zaitsev than it is to Karlsson at 50% retention.

 

[Gecklund]

1st + Thomson is closer to the price of dumping Zaitsev than it is to Karlsson at 50% retention.

That is correct. The price of Karlsson retained is about 5 more firsts.

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

I would too but I don’t see a deal with the Sens. For me, it would be Greig+1st+another solid piece+Zaitsev and no way are we getting their fans to agree to that. I think discussing an EK trade on the main boards is a huge waste of time because maybe 10% of fans on this board that aren’t Sharks fans watch Sharks games.

Is that for 50 percent retention? Cause if not thst is absolutely ludicrous

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I don't agree. Karlsson is better than Chabot. That's the point. He also plays the same kind of minutes that you'd want to give to Chabot and neither are the defensive stalwarts that the Sens need more of. The best composition would be EK, Sanderson, Zub, shutdown LD.

We made that mistake once trading Zibajanead for Brassard.

Erik is having a great year and I'm happy for him, but in two years, trading away Chabot for him will look terrible.

 

[Gecklund]

Is that for 50 percent retention? Cause if not thst is absolutely ludicrous

Nope. It’s not. Erik Karlsson is the best D in the league this season.

 

[MCR74]

We made that mistake once trading Zibajanead for Brassard.

Erik is having a great year and I'm happy for him, but in two years, trading away Chabot for him will look terrible.

Exactly.

So Karlsson is finally living up to his contract. It doesn't mean much. Anyone who trades for him and retains a lot of salary might kick themselves.

 

[Neiler]

Thought exercise for anyone interested... If Karlsson's contract was nullified today and he became a free agent right now willing to sign a 4 year deal only, how much would you be ok with your team offering considering how many other teams would also be bidding for his services?

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

Nope. It’s not. Erik Karlsson is the best D in the league this season.

Good luck with that

 

[Chabot84]

Thought exercise for anyone interested... If Karlsson's contract was nullified today and he became a free agent right now willing to sign a 4 year deal only, how much would you be ok with your team offering considering how many other teams would also be bidding for his services?

8 - 9 million

 

[BurgoShark]

Thought exercise for anyone interested... If Karlsson's contract was nullified today and he became a free agent right now willing to sign a 4 year deal only, how much would you be ok with your team offering considering how many other teams would also be bidding for his services?

This raises a couple of other interesting questions…

After his bonus is paid next this season Karlsson will make $38m, almost all guaranteed due to the contract structure. For the above scenario to exist, the new team would need to give Karlsson as good a deal or better.

So, would any team give Karlsson 4 years @ $9.5m+, full NMC, buyout proof?

and if so...

Would San Jose fans consider this a better situation than having to retain or take on cap dumps? i.e. mutual contract termination, walk away from Karlsson in the off-season. No retention, no cap hit, no cap dumps but no assets in return.

 

[BillR10]

After his bonus is paid next this season Karlsson will make $38m, almost all guaranteed due to the contract structure. For the above scenario to exist, the new team would need to give Karlsson as good a deal or better.

So the question is, would any team give Karlsson 4 years @ $9.5m+, full NMC, buyout proof?

and if so...

Would San Jose fans consider this a better situation than having to retain or take on cap dumps? i.e. mutual contract termination, walk away from Karlsson in the off-season. No retention, no cap hit, no cap dumps but no assets in return.

I think you're missing the point of his post. He's not saying the sharks would nullify his contract as there is 0 chance that happens. Hes saying "if" they did what would your team give him per year for 4 more years to get him while outbidding other potential suitors. Why? So people see his contract is not that far above his current value if he was a UFA thus a trade for him would not need a massive retention to get a solid return.

 

[Big Muddy]

Thought exercise for anyone interested... If Karlsson's contract was nullified today and he became a free agent right now willing to sign a 4 year deal only, how much would you be ok with your team offering considering how many other teams would also be bidding for his services?

Same as the Giroux deal. As a free agent, maybe/probably there's some interest. In a trade, not interested. That will create cap issues and we still wouldn't be able to keep the puck out of our net.

 

[BurgoShark]

I think you're missing the point of his post. He's not saying the sharks would nullify his contract as there is 0 chance that happens. Hes saying "if" they did what would your team give him per year for 4 more years to get him while outbidding other potential suitors. Why? So people see his contract is not that far above his current value if he was a UFA thus a trade for him would not need a massive retention to get a solid return.

No - I didn't misunderstand him. I just ran with his idea as an actual hypothetical, which also demonstrates that it isn't the number that is handcuffing San Jose. It's the contract structure.

Say $3m retention is the number. I'm sure lots of fans would be happy to say that Karlsson is worth $8.5 x 4, but bonuses in years 3 and 4 make all the difference. It's not just the AAv.

For comparison...

- Heiskanen has an AAv of $8.45m with no bonuses in the final 2 years. 4 year cap hit for buyout is $2.8m, $4.2m, $2.4s, $2.4m

- Karlsson retained to $8.45m on his current contract. 4 year cap hit for buyout would be ~$6m, ~8.2m, ~$600k, ~$600k. Even if you wait a year, the cap hit on that 26-27 season still doesn't change.

Even the biggest Karlsson fans (of which a lot of Sens fans count themselves) aren't confident enough to say that 3+ years from now he is going to be worth $8.5m.. but he's going to play out that contract... because why would anyone buy him out to save $300k on the cap? Plus - you just trade him at that time either... because full NMC.

Karlsson @ 4 x $8.5m AAv front-loaded, with no bonuses or NMC in years 3 and 4 would be a great deal. Karlsson retained to $8.5m on his current contract wouldn't. @Neiler's thought experiment is a nice idea, but it doesn't help gauge the retention required to make it work. E.g. Karlsson's contract retained @ 50% would still have a higher cap hit after buyout ($5.46m) than Heiskanen's bonus-free contract would. Using just the AAv to make a point is… well.. pointless.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No - I didn't misunderstand him. I just ran with his idea as an actual hypothetical, which also demonstrates that it isn't the number that is handcuffing San Jose. It's the contract structure.

Say $3m retention is the number. I'm sure lots of fans would be happy to say that Karlsson is worth $8.5 x 4, but bonuses in years 3 and 4 make all the difference. It's not just the AAv.

For comparison...

- Heiskanen has an AAv of $8.45m with no bonuses in the final 2 years. 4 year cap hit for buyout is $2.8m, $4.2m, $2.4s, $2.4m

- Karlsson retained to $8.45m on his current contract. 4 year cap hit for buyout would be ~$6m, ~8.2m, ~$600k, ~$600k. Even if you wait a year, the cap hit on that 26-27 season still doesn't change.

Even the biggest Karlsson fans (of which a lot of Sens fans count themselves) aren't confident enough to say that 3+ years from now he is going to be worth $8.5m.. but he's going to play out that contract... because why would anyone buy him out to save $300k on the cap? Plus - you just trade him at that time either... because full NMC.

Karlsson @ 4 x $8.5m AAv front-loaded, with no bonuses or NMC in years 3 and 4 would be a great deal. Karlsson retained to $8.5m on his current contract wouldn't. @Neiler's thought experiment is a nice idea, but it doesn't help gauge the retention required to make it work. E.g. Karlsson's contract retained @ 50% would still have a higher cap hit after buyout ($5.46m) than Heiskanen's bonus-free contract would. Using just the AAv to make a point is… well.. pointless.

Comparing Karlsson to Heiskanen with their buyout numbers is equally pointless. Karlsson will pretty easily be worth 8.5 mil three years from now when that number means less with a 92 mil cap rather than an 82 mil cap. Plus the fact that the acquiring team would be able to retain on him to move him if necessary. I think you’re overestimating the contract structure as it relates to his trade value.

 

[Truenorthducky]

Yeah because the senators need another player who doesn’t know how to play actual defence.

 

[BurgoShark]

Comparing Karlsson to Heiskanen with their buyout numbers is equally pointless. Karlsson will pretty easily be worth 8.5 mil three years from now when that number means less with a 92 mil cap rather than an 82 mil cap. Plus the fact that the acquiring team would be able to retain on him to move him if necessary. I think you’re overestimating the contract structure as it relates to his trade value.

Poster was saying that it is all about the AAv. I'm demonstrating that contracts with the same AAv can be very different in how they effect the team down the road. For the Sharks, they have already gleaned the benefit of paying him more in the first 4 years, so if they are keeping him it is justified as the cost of doing business. Any acquiring team is taking a big risk, even at $8.5m. Rising cap mitigates some of that, but not all of it.

Scenario should be "Karlsson magically becomes UFA on 1 July 2023 and you can sign him, but he will only accept a 4 year deal, which has full NMC and is buyout-proof (cap hit is 85-95% of AAv)".

 

[Honour Over Glory]

For the Sens to do this now would mess up everything they've done to move in the right direction.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Poster was saying that it is all about the AAv. I'm demonstrating that contracts with the same AAv can be very different in how they effect the team down the road. For the Sharks, they have already gleaned the benefit of paying him more in the first 4 years, so if they are keeping him it is justified as the cost of doing business. Any acquiring team is taking a big risk, even at $8.5m. Rising cap mitigates some of that, but not all of it.

Scenario should be "Karlsson magically becomes UFA on 1 July 2023 and you can sign him, but he will only accept a 4 year deal, which has full NMC and is buyout-proof (cap hit is 85-95% of AAv)".

Can be doesn't mean it's anywhere close to likely to be or that much of a factor, if at all, in deciding whether to bring a player on board to help your team win. The odds anyone would put on Karlsson hitting buyout territory where that sort of contract structure actually becomes relevant is microscopic to the point that it will be dwarfed by the matter of whether you can negotiate a solid amount of retention with a reasonable amount of assets tossed the other way to make your team better.

Your scenario is ultimately also a pointless discussion because it's not a matter of what one would pay for him as a UFA. You're not getting Karlsson for free even at the full hit. For some contending teams, it's an opportunity to be more efficient against the cap because you can get the Sharks to retain Karlsson to a more reflective amount for what he'll be the next four seasons and potentially move some dead weight the other way. That changes the risk-reward calculation significantly.