[Trade] Senators trade Erik Karlsson, Francis Perron to Sharks for Chris Tierney, Dylan DeMelo, Josh Norris, Rudolfs Balcers, conditional 2020 1st-round pick, conditional 2019 2nd-round pick

[VIC_CITY]

7 hours ago, rekker said:

Could very well be. Will be interesting to see how this all unfolds going forward. 

I wonder how drastically his value could potentially drop if he doesn't have a good year? Let's say he only plays 50 games and finishes with 8 goals 22 assists. What kind of contract would he be looking at? There will be teams willing to bet it was an off year coming to a new team/system etc. But he's getting older and I think it's a little unrealistic to expect him to be the world beater that he was 2 years ago moving forward. Do you think he'd even get 7 x 7? 

[rekker]

15 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

I wonder how drastically his value could potentially drop if he doesn't have a good year? Let's say he only plays 50 games and finishes with 8 goals 22 assists. What kind of contract would he be looking at? There will be teams willing to bet it was an off year coming to a new team/system etc. But he's getting older and I think it's a little unrealistic to expect him to be the world beater that he was 2 years ago moving forward. Do you think he'd even get 7 x 7? 

I would think 7 x 7 is a given even if he has an off year. Like you said some team will pay. But its a long ways from what he would get if he regained his form from two years ago. I guess an easy 10 x 7 if he was still putting up big numbers. 

[aGENT]

On 2018-11-02 at 10:48 AM, rekker said:

Not looking good for EK so far. 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/truth-numbers-erik-karlsson-really-struggling-san-jose/

 

Quote

Is Erik Karlsson proof the west-coast mute button is real because I’ve heard so little. All I’ve heard is he hasn’t been up to his standard. What do the early numbers actually say?

Karlsson has been killed by on-ice percentages this season, with the 15th-worst PDO in the league among players with 50 or more minutes played at 5-on-5. The Sharks are scoring on just 4.17 per cent of their shots while he’s on the ice, and getting scored on 15.1 per cent of the shots they give up, per Corsica. Does shot quality have something to do with it?

Unsurprisingly, no, it’s just bad luck to start the year. Karlsson is absolutely crushing it so far in San Jose in the underlying numbers, ranking fifth overall among defencemen in shot attempt differential, 16th in shots on goal differential, 41st in high danger chances differential, 23rd in slot pass differential, and 18th in the highest percentage of rebounds recovered in his own zone.

Karlsson is who he always has been. But there’s lots of radio silence in San Jose right now because everyone thought they’d be great, but while they’ve played great, their results have been mediocre with a 6-4-3 record because of a horrid PDO run.

Eventually that will correct itself and San Jose is going to be pretty scary, and then I’m assuming we’ll start to hear more Karlsson hype. If we don’t, then maybe the West really does get ignored.

 

[rekker]

39 minutes ago, aGENT said:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/truth-numbers-erik-karlsson-really-struggling-san-jose/

 

 

Interesting read. Stats for political, criminal, sports analytics can always be leaned to one side of an argument or the other. It is really to short of a time period to judge a player with a new team in a new conference. For me, just the eye test, he hasn't seem the same since his last injury. Small sample size though and really, I dont see him play a lot. 

[oldnews]

9 hours ago, aGENT said:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/truth-numbers-erik-karlsson-really-struggling-san-jose/

 

 

That's a nice story, but it's rose-coloured 'analytics',  a borderline predisposed fluffer read of those 'underlying numbers' unfortunately.

 

First of all, ranking Karlsson's corsi / shot differentials as if they over-ride his goal metrics would be great - if games were won on shot differentials as opposed to goals.  In the end, it's somewhat absurd to dismiss those goal metrics as 'luck'.  And taking those shot metrics without looking - as should always be the case - at deployment, is relatively meaningless,   There's not all that much weight/authority to fluffing a 59.8% corsi, when a player gets 57.5% offensive zone starts for example.   That in-context difference of 2.3% is certainly modest - not worth fluffing as if Karlsson is "crushing it" in 'underlying numbers.   There are countless players that outperform their relative deployment far more than Karlsson is.   There are countless players playing hard minutes, in shutdown roles that are managing better goals against results than Karlsson.....

 

Karlsson's principle partner thus far has been a very capable M.E. Vlasic, who's corsi is 54.9% while getting 48.5% ozone starts - with better on-ice sv% and pdo than Karlsson -  so Vlasic is arguably performing better than his partner, and performing better without him.  Karlsson's 4.1 on ice goals against is nearly a goal higher than Vlasic's 3.2 in harder minutes.

What's notably absent is a reference to the quality of chances that SJ is surrendering with Karlsson on the ice. 

 

Are these really poor on ice sv% and pdo - really poor goal metrics - simply the results of Karlsson playing poorly?  Not necessarily - we can't go that far either because on a certain level these small sample metrics tend to 'return to the mean' - and this is a small sample.   But there is also the factor that Karlsson is on a new team, new systems, new D partners, etc - so there may be a natural adjustment period - and it's often the case that when you parachute a 'star' into circumstances with various other stars, they don't always meet expectations or live up to their outcomes in previous, different contexts.

 

Bottom line though - going on as if he's 'killing it' is borderline absurd.  His team is getting outscored somewhat dramatically with him on the ice - and it's a fairly dramatic aberration from the rest of the team's overall results.   That shouldn't be dismissed as simply 'luck', blamed on goaltending, etc.   The more realistic assessment would be that he has not yet fit in very well in SJ - and that there's far more to it than an imaginary, underlying story of 'killing it' - that's just too fluffy.

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, oldnews said:

That's a nice story, but it's rose-coloured 'analytics',  a borderline predisposed fluffer read of those 'underlying numbers' unfortunately.

 

First of all, ranking Karlsson's corsi / shot differentials as if they over-ride his goal metrics would be great - if games were won on shot differentials as opposed to goals.  In the end, it's somewhat absurd to dismiss those goal metrics as 'luck'.  And taking those shot metrics without looking - as should always be the case - at deployment, is relatively meaningless,   There's not all that much weight/authority to fluffing a 59.8% corsi, when a player gets 57.5% offensive zone starts for example.   That in-context difference of 2.3% is certainly modest - not worth fluffing as if Karlsson is "crushing it" in 'underlying numbers.   There are countless players that outperform their relative deployment far more than Karlsson is.   There are countless players playing hard minutes, in shutdown roles that are managing better goals against results than Karlsson.....

 

Karlsson's principle partner thus far has been a very capable M.E. Vlasic, who's corsi is 54.9% while getting 48.5% ozone starts - with better on-ice sv% and pdo than Karlsson -  so Vlasic is arguably performing better than his partner, and performing better without him.  Karlsson's 4.1 on ice goals against is nearly a goal higher than Vlasic's 3.2 in harder minutes.

What's notably absent is a reference to the quality of chances that SJ is surrendering with Karlsson on the ice. 

 

Are these really poor on ice sv% and pdo - really poor goal metrics - simply the results of Karlsson playing poorly?  Not necessarily - we can't go that far either because on a certain level these small sample metrics tend to 'return to the mean' - and this is a small sample.   But there is also the factor that Karlsson is on a new team, new systems, new D partners, etc - so there may be a natural adjustment period - and it's often the case that when you parachute a 'star' into circumstances with various other stars, they don't always meet expectations or live up to their outcomes in previous, different contexts.

 

Bottom line though - going on as if he's 'killing it' is borderline absurd.  His team is getting outscored somewhat dramatically with him on the ice - and it's a fairly dramatic aberration from the rest of the team's overall results.   That shouldn't be dismissed as simply 'luck', blamed on goaltending, etc.   The more realistic assessment would be that he has not yet fit in very well in SJ - and that there's far more to it than an imaginary, underlying story of 'killing it' - that's just too fluffy.

That was my general takeaway as well. Basically while certainly not 'killing it', he's not exactly crapping the bed as some might have you believe. And as you point out, on a new team, new systems etc, is not particularly surprising. 

[JeremyCuddles]

On 11/2/2018 at 6:32 PM, VIC_CITY said:

I wonder how drastically his value could potentially drop if he doesn't have a good year? Let's say he only plays 50 games and finishes with 8 goals 22 assists. What kind of contract would he be looking at? There will be teams willing to bet it was an off year coming to a new team/system etc. But he's getting older and I think it's a little unrealistic to expect him to be the world beater that he was 2 years ago moving forward. Do you think he'd even get 7 x 7? 

He'll get 8-9mil minimum on name brand alone imo.

[aGENT]

45 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

He'll get 8-9mil minimum on name brand alone imo.

Honestly, a team could probably get him with a heavily front loaded deal at something close to that even without a 'discount'.

 

Something like:

$14 ($4m signing bonus), $10, $10, $8, $8, $6, $4 = $60 / 7 years = $8.57 AAV

[JeremyCuddles]

14 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Honestly, a team could probably get him with a heavily front loaded deal at something close to that even without a 'discount'.

 

Something like:

$14 ($4m signing bonus), $10, $10, $8, $8, $6, $4 = $60 / 7 years = $8.57 AAV

I'd be okay with a deal like this. 8.5 for Karlsson seems pretty fair.

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

I'd be okay with a deal like this. 8.5 for Karlsson seems pretty fair.

We certainly have the deep pockets and low cash/cap commitments the next few years to make a deal like that work for both player and ownership.

 

Add a clear roster need and the draw of playing with Pettersson (not to mention Hughes, Boeser et al) on an up trending team. And a city where he'd have countless options to add additional endorsement deals etc should he wish to supplement that deal.

 

I think we'd be foolish to not look at the possibility of signing him for that $8.5-$9m territory. Re-sign Edler for ~ 3 years and move Tanev (or Gudbranson...though I'd prefer to retain his skill set for now) for futures and our D next year could be something like:

 

Edler, Karlsson

Hughes, Stecher

Juolevi/Hutton, Gudbranson

 

That D would be revelatory.

 

As guys come off ELC's you move out/expire the likes of Hutton/Stecher/Gudbranson/Edler and bring in ELC/low hit bridge deals of guys like Brisebois, Rathbone, Woo etc to fill out the bottom of the D behind Hughes, Karlsson, Juolevi etc.

 

The premise we 'can't afford' Karlsson is short sighted IMO.

 

 

[JeremyCuddles]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

We certainly have the deep pockets and low cash/cap commitments the next few years to make a deal like that work for both player and ownership.

 

Add a clear roster need and the draw of playing with Pettersson (not to mention Hughes, Boeser et al) on an up trending team. And a city where he'd have countless options to add additional endorsement deals etc should he wish to supplement that deal.

 

I think we'd be foolish to not look at the possibility of signing him for that $8.5-$9m territory. Re-sign Edler for ~ 3 years and move Tanev (or Gudbranson...though I'd prefer to retain his skill set for now) for futures and our D next year could be something like:

 

Edler, Karlsson

Hughes, Stecher

Juolevi/Hutton, Gudbranson

 

That D would be revelatory.

 

As guys come off ELC's you move out/expire the likes of Hutton/Stecher/Gudbranson/Edler and bring in ELC/low hit bridge deals of guys like Brisebois, Rathbone, Woo etc to fill out the bottom of the D behind Hughes, Karlsson, Juolevi etc.

 

The premise we 'can't afford' Karlsson is short sighted IMO.

 

 

I think the idea we can't afford Karlsson comes from the Eriksson contract, which will be up when our superstar prospects come off their ELCs anyway. Bo's contract, imo, is very friendly for how much he is asked to do. We have money burning a hole in our pocket even with Eriksson on the books. I agree it'd be very shortsighted to not at least set up a meeting with Karlsson in the offseason to see where his head is at. Make our pitch.

[aGENT]

19 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

I think the idea we can't afford Karlsson comes from the Eriksson contract, which will be up when our superstar prospects come off their ELCs anyway. Bo's contract, imo, is very friendly for how much he is asked to do. We have money burning a hole in our pocket even with Eriksson on the books. I agree it'd be very shortsighted to not at least set up a meeting with Karlsson in the offseason to see where his head is at. Make our pitch.

People seem to have trouble grasping how the puzzle pieces fit over time with vets contracts expiring.

 

This summer alone, between MDZ, Nilsson and Dorsett coming off the books, we gain another $8m of cap (on top of the +/- $8m space we currently have). And that doesn't include Edler's $5m (assuming he's back/a wash) or some of the smaller (largely RFA) contracts we might move/let walk or in Hutton's case, likely will be close to a wash on a re-sign.

 

The year following, Schaller, Tanev, Markstrom and Gagner represent another $13m'ish (granted a few million will likely be needed for a goalie, Markstrom or otherwise).

 

Year after that...Sutter, Baer and Gudbranson = $12m

 

The year after that (if we don't trade some of these guys beforehand) Eriksson, Beagle and Roussel =  another $12m. (As well as likely Edler's potential extension).

 

Now try and tell me that's not enough money to cover raises to a few high earning guys (Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes are likely the big three we'll need to 'worry about' over that time period). And by that point we're now 1/2 way through Eriksson's theoretical 7 year deal and replacing more expensive depth guys with other prospects on ELC/bridge deals.

 

It's so not a problem it's actually funny when people bring it up as one.

[rekker]

8 minutes ago, aGENT said:

People seem to have trouble grasping how the puzzle pieces fit over time with vets contracts expiring.

 

This summer alone, between MDZ, Nilsson and Dorsett coming off the books, we gain another $8m of cap (on top of the +/- $8m space we currently have). And that doesn't include Edler's $5m (assuming he's back/a wash) or some of the smaller (largely RFA) contracts we might move/let walk or in Hutton's case, likely will be close to a wash on a re-sign.

 

The year following, Schaller, Tanev, Markstrom and Gagner represent another $13m'ish (granted a few million will likely be needed for a goalie, Markstrom or otherwise).

 

Year after that...Sutter, Baer and Gudbranson = $12m

 

The year after that (if we don't trade some of these guys beforehand) Eriksson, Beagle and Roussel =  another $12m. (As well as likely Edler's potential extension).

 

Now try and tell me that's not enough money to cover raises to a few high earning guys (Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes are likely the big three we'll need to 'worry about' over that time period). And by that point we're now 1/2 way through Eriksson's theoretical 7 year deal and replacing more expensive depth guys with other prospects on ELC/bridge deals.

 

It's so not a problem it's actually funny when people bring it up as one.

We are Canadian. We are conservative by nature. Lol. 

[Lancaster]

On 11/7/2018 at 12:26 PM, rekker said:

Interesting read. Stats for political, criminal, sports analytics can always be leaned to one side of an argument or the other. It is really to short of a time period to judge a player with a new team in a new conference. For me, just the eye test, he hasn't seem the same since his last injury. Small sample size though and really, I dont see him play a lot. 

Don't forget to include the emotional family aspect.  Losing a baby due to prematurity will always haunt you.  

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it continues to impact him until if/when until his next child is born.  Then it will be another thing on top for his mind to think about.

[86Viking]

I think regardless of the pts he puts up this year, if he hits the UFA market July 1 2019. There will be 1 or more teams that would still give him 10m a year on his career stats alone. I would love to have him on the Canucks, we truly lack that #1 PP QB, plus he is a right shot. If it gets to the stage where players can contact other teams I would hope JB reaches out the EK.

 

Would be wise if we could somehow get out of the Erkisson by season end. Just frees up more $ for future resigning of Brock and Pistol Pete

[rekker]

1 hour ago, Canuckster86 said:

I think regardless of the pts he puts up this year, if he hits the UFA market July 1 2019. There will be 1 or more teams that would still give him 10m a year on his career stats alone. I would love to have him on the Canucks, we truly lack that #1 PP QB, plus he is a right shot. If it gets to the stage where players can contact other teams I would hope JB reaches out the EK.

 

Would be wise if we could somehow get out of the Erkisson by season end. Just frees up more $ for future resigning of Brock and Pistol Pete

At where we are with our bright young stars, and our lack of a true number one dman, and the emergence of EP. I say he is worth the gamble for us at 10 million per. It could go sideways, it could also be another important step towards a Stanley Cup. 

[86Viking]

1 hour ago, rekker said:

At where we are with our bright young stars, and our lack of a true number one dman, and the emergence of EP. I say he is worth the gamble for us at 10 million per. It could go sideways, it could also be another important step towards a Stanley Cup. 

It would suck to pay 10m, hopefully it would be less, but I think another team would pay him that. Might be nice to lock up Boeser after the regular season and before the draft just to get an idea about what his new deal will look like.

[rekker]

2 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

It would suck to pay 10m, hopefully it would be less, but I think another team would pay him that. Might be nice to lock up Boeser after the regular season and before the draft just to get an idea about what his new deal will look like.

Ya I agree it's a lot but we are in perfect position to do it. We only have one crap contract beyond next year in LE and even his contract isn't gonna kill us. I have a feeling Aqualini will pay big to land EK. The extra we pay is almost worth it in the fact we didn't give up assets to get him. 

[86Viking]

1 hour ago, rekker said:

Ya I agree it's a lot but we are in perfect position to do it. We only have one crap contract beyond next year in LE and even his contract isn't gonna kill us. I have a feeling Aqualini will pay big to land EK. The extra we pay is almost worth it in the fact we didn't give up assets to get him. 

It would be a nice addition for sure and I hope we do inquire if he makes it to July 1. He cant sign an extension with sharks till January anyway. Do they want almost 20m tied up in 2 D? Or would they like to add another top end F somehow instead?

 

Jumbo Joe is almost done and smaller Joe was unhappy that he didnt get a new deal before the start of the year, so will he stay or go? Also he isnt that young either

[rekker]

2 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

It would be a nice addition for sure and I hope we do inquire if he makes it to July 1. He cant sign an extension with sharks till January anyway. Do they want almost 20m tied up in 2 D? Or would they like to add another top end F somehow instead?

 

Jumbo Joe is almost done and smaller Joe was unhappy that he didnt get a new deal before the start of the year, so will he stay or go? Also he isnt that young either

If you would of asked me at the time of the trade I would of bet on EK signing an extension in SJ. All bets are off now. The fit doesn't seem good. So far anyways. I think we would have as good a chance as anyone to sign EK.