Would you trade Karlsson for Malkin?

[L'Aveuglette]

If I wanted to build a dynasty. The player I'm building around is the guarenteed PPG+ complete two way natural leader center. Not the (most of the time) defensively unreliable offensive defensman. Yeah karlsson played amazing for 17 games. That's not enough to convince me he's better than Crosby.

You really love your hyperbole eh? EK is far from being the least reliable dman offensive or not. You claim to be a Sens fan but you sure spend a lot of time crapping on our best player. And no, it's not Spezza.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

You really love your hyperbole eh? EK is far from being the least reliable dman offensive or not. You claim to be a Sens fan but you sure spend a lot of time crapping on our best player. And no, it's not Spezza.

Well. I never said he was the least reliable. Nor am I really crapping on him. I think he's a great player. And will be better than he is now. But I would rather have Crosby. That's all. Why is that so bad. Karlsson still has a lot to work on on the defensive side of the puck.

 

[supsens]

Say he is the best to ever play the game, say it! if you don't your not a fan of the sens,

The guy is good, he is the most offensively gifted Dman today, but he is below average in his own end, and no, he is not the best player in the NHL.

The only reason I would not trade him for Malkin is that him and Crosby would be a nightmare in the east, other then that, yes please

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Yeah I never got the "you're not a true fan if you say negative things about your teams player who many think is your teams best player" argument.

 

[EssendonBombers]

I think if you ask the fanbase of any team whether or not they'd trade their best player for Malkin, the resounding answer would be no, regardless of whether or not Malkin is the better player. Call it homerism, I call it loyalty.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I think if you ask the fanbase of any team whether or not they'd trade their best player for Malkin, the resounding answer would be no, regardless of whether or not Malkin is the better player. Call it homerism, I call it loyalty.

I put winning ahead of loyalty. Anyone is trade able if it gives your team a better chance to win. Malkin for karlsson is debatable. But this has become karlsson and Crosby.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Can't win anything significant without some loyalty. The two go hand in hand in a team sport.

 

[Spez]

Why would anyone even compare Crosby or Malkin to Karlsson to when both play different positions? Bottom line is all 3 players are franchise players. Karlsson would be on the top pairing on every team in the league despite what some haters out there say. Who said Crosby was a two way player? He barely kills penalties unless a penalty is about to expire. My definition of a two way player is one who is not only great offensively but is great defensively and part of playing great defensively is killing penalties. Just look at Alfie as a great example of that. If he didn't PK it'd be a part of the game where people would criticize him on when anyone tried to refer him as a great defensive player. I don't question Crosby's work ethic and he does work hard most of the time but he's not that great in his own end. That being said I'd take Crosby over Karlsson in a heartbeat if I had to pick between the two to build a franchise around.

 

[Stuzchuk]

there's only one player I would trade Erik Karlsson for. He wears jersey #6 for Nashville/Canada...

 

[DueDiligence]

I'd argue pre-Cooke Karlsson was the best player in the world and one of, if not the best defensemen in NHL history. The way he was controlling games was dominance beyond anything anyone else had done. That being said, I seriously doubt he ever gets back to that level.

sorry but are you over the age of 21? Did you ever hear of Bobby Orr??

Yes he is really good but arguably he is not the best Dman in the league right now.

 

[SuperDuper101]

Say he is the best to ever play the game, say it! if you don't your not a fan of the sens,

The guy is good, he is the most offensively gifted Dman today, but he is below average in his own end, and no, he is not the best player in the NHL.

The only reason I would not trade him for Malkin is that him and Crosby would be a nightmare in the east, other then that, yes please

Below average in his own end? Really? When will this nonsense stop. You know what Lidstrom answered when asked who the best D in the league was this past month? Karlsson. And he did so immediately.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Although Malkin is a great player, fans in Ottawa have been put off by a couple of Russian players in the past and it would be a hard sell in Ottawa.

 

[Rals]

Karlsson is the most valuable player in the league.

 

[Healfezza]

The Olympics basically set the stage for world wide Karlsson hype, we are now above pre-Achilles injury/Norris Trophy winning Karlsson exposure.

Now he just needs to come back to the NHL and keep going.

The best of the best come together to play, and Karlsson still dominates the field.

 

[BonkTastic]

Both are fantastic, awesome, unique players who are better than 99% of the league.


... that being said, "you build from the net out". Therefore, as a tie-breaker on a basis of need an positional value: Karlsson > Malkin, at least if you're trying to build a team the right way.

 

[Micklebot]

Both are fantastic, awesome, unique players who are better than 99% of the league.


... that being said, "you build from the net out". Therefore, as a tie-breaker on a basis of need an positional value: Karlsson > Malkin, at least if you're trying to build a team the right way.

If you're going to go the route of cliché ways to build winners, you can't win without elite centers, whereas teams have won without elite goaltending (Osgood), and without elite Defence (Carolina).

I don't really think there is a right way or a wrong way to build a winner, you just need talent, and lots of it, and you need to get hot at the right time.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Bottom line, pro sports is entertainment. Karlsson is worth the price of an NHL ticket. Last players to earn that distinction, imo, were (pre mid-life crisis, or whatever funk he's been in the last few years) Ovechkin, and the Mario & Jagr combo.

 

[BonkTastic]

If you're going to go the route of cliché ways to build winners, you can't win without elite centers, whereas teams have won without elite goaltending (Osgood), and without elite Defence (Carolina).

I don't really think there is a right way or a wrong way to build a winner, you just need talent, and lots of it, and you need to get hot at the right time.

You can always win with one deficient area if the rest of your team is good enough to overcome it, I guess. Osgood in Detroit being the main example here, of course. Those Red Wings teams were so good, it just seems unfair to the rest of the league.

Still, the '06 Hurricanes are like the only team without a great defence to win the cup since... maybe the 1990 Edmonton Oilers? So basically, since the run-and-gun post-Habs 70's dynasty era. They are DEFINITELY outliers. If we're using Carolina as a benchmark for ANYTHING, it's that anyone can catch lightning in a bottle for a playoff run, I suppose. They benefitted from being hot during the first season in the post-lockout world, when they changed the rules regarding how physical teams were allowed to play, how much clutch-and-grab was going to be allowed to stay in the game... they had the perfect team to capitalize on the rule changes that year, and benefitted HUGELY as the rest of the league were still trying to figure out what the post-clutch-and-grab era was going to look like. It was a unique set of circumstances, IMO.

In any case, I still think that defence wins championships. I think you CAN win with "just talent, and lots of it", but often those teams with a ton of talent happen to have a lot of that talent doing the lion's share of the defensive work. It's possible to win with a below-average blueline (Carolina), but I think it's a much, much harder thing to do than try to win with a shutdown core you can depend on.

My answer isn't changing, but that shouldn't be a slight on Malkin at all. He's a fantastic, unique player. I just prefer Karlsson, because he's harder to replace in aggregate than Malkin would be.

 

[Ishdul]

I would make this trade in a heartbeat, even as someone who has a very high view of Karlsson.

 

[FireMelnyk]

There's nothing Malkin could do to have me trade Karlsson for him. I'd trade Karlsson for Crosby and think about trading him for Stamkos (if I had another D to replace most of Karlsson's offense). Tavares would be even so I'd rather keep D over C, although like Stamkos I'd do it if we had a D to fill in. That's about it.

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

No...because our d would suck
But without talking team into account I would...Malkin is the superior player

 

[sens83]

Can this thread die...

 

[ryanharvey201]

Not Malkin, but players I would trade EK for is Crosby, Stamkos and maybe Shea Weber. Weber is a beast defenseman who could probably help the defense issues, Crosby and Stamkos are great offensively.

 

[Stuzchuk]

I'd argue pre-Cooke Karlsson was the best player in the world and one of, if not the best defensemen in NHL history. The way he was controlling games was dominance beyond anything anyone else had done. That being said, I seriously doubt he ever gets back to that level.

??? WOW! I can easily name 5 DEF "that I've seen play" that would qualify to be better than Karlsson. (Not necessarily offensively, but all-around)

N. Lidstrom, R. Bourque, C. Pronger, L. Robinson, C. Chelios

 

[Dysentery]

??? WOW! I can easily name 5 DEF "that I've seen play" that would qualify to be better than Karlsson. (Not necessarily offensively, but all-around)

N. Lidstrom, R. Bourque, C. Pronger, L. Robinson, C. Chelios

I think Karlsson is more talented than those Hall of Fame defenceman.

Hopefully he can be as successful