Sign in to follow this  
Generational.EP40

[Discussion] Erik Karlsson - the all encompassing Free Agency Thread

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, The Lock said:

For the record, as much as I'd want EK, it's going to cost us 10mil, maybe 11mil a season. I hope you guys realise that. There will be multiple teams in on Karlsson and we'd have to beat out all of them to get him.

 

Not only that, if he continues to be injury prone, we may end up in a bad contract. Be cautious about this.

I'd be fine with a large cap hit. Just shorter term, say five maybe six years. Doubt EK wants that though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rekker said:

I'd be fine with a large cap hit. Just shorter term, say five maybe six years. Doubt EK wants that though. 

5 to 6 years is not a short contract. This would either make us took good later on (if EK returns to form) or look really really bad (if EK ends up as one of our most injury prone).

 

This is why I'd reserve any excitement if we did sign him until a year or 2 down the road. I'd be pretty nervous if that ended up being the contract we signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

5 to 6 years is not a short contract. This would either make us took good later on (if EK returns to form) or look really really bad (if EK ends up as one of our most injury prone).

 

This is why I'd reserve any excitement if we did sign him until a year or 2 down the road. I'd be pretty nervous if that ended up being the contract we signed.

That’s what the guys on the Sportsnet panel were saying this morning. 

 

It’s gonna take a GM with big nuts to sign him. Basically, the opposite of Dave “no nuts” Nonis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, grandmaster said:

That’s what the guys on the Sportsnet panel were saying this morning. 

 

It’s gonna take a GM with big nuts to sign him. Basically, the opposite of Dave “no nuts” Nonis

Pretty much. lol

 

What I really hope is we don't go for the biggest names. Instead, sign a couple of lesser, but still good, players. We're not in the playoffs yet so there's no real reason to go all out. Playoffs next year would be nice, and I'm sure our prospects will be eager to get into the playoffs, but rushing it could just hurt our chances later on. Do we want a solid team short term or long term?

 

I think a good example of this is our previous team. The Sedins were drafted in 1999. 10 years later, we're winning Presidents trophies, but we have a good team long term. Horvat was drafted 5 years ago, so if in another 5 years we are near or at the top of the league again, we're right on schedule if you think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Lock said:

5 to 6 years is not a short contract. This would either make us took good later on (if EK returns to form) or look really really bad (if EK ends up as one of our most injury prone).

 

This is why I'd reserve any excitement if we did sign him until a year or 2 down the road. I'd be pretty nervous if that ended up being the contract we signed.

I'd be pumped to get EK for 5 or 6 years. A gamble? For sure. But could launch this team forward big time. He's that kind of talent. If it fails it may be an anchor but most teams have one bad contract and with LE hopefully gone I think it's worth the gamble. I assume LE would have to be somehow dumped to fit in EK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rekker said:

I'd be pumped to get EK for 5 or 6 years. A gamble? For sure. But could launch this team forward big time. He's that kind of talent. If it fails it may be an anchor but most teams have one bad contract and with LE hopefully gone I think it's worth the gamble. I assume LE would have to be somehow dumped to fit in EK. 

I appreciate your optimism, but we wouldn't have just one bad contract at that point. We'd be starting a collection of -sson contacts eating into the pocket book for our younger stars. lol (and then I'll be haunted by anyone with a last name ending in sson for the rest of my life)

 

Eriksson's contract's not going to be easy to get rid of unless if some miracle happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I appreciate your optimism, but we wouldn't have just one bad contract at that point. We'd be starting a collection of -sson contacts eating into the pocket book for our younger stars. lol (and then I'll be haunted by anyone with a last name ending in sson for the rest of my life)

 

Eriksson's contract's not going to be easy to get rid of unless if some miracle happens.

Lol, sson's. I get it and I have been back and forth on EK myself. The chance to add a legit, right side, Norris dman is just to alluring to me. I cant disagree on it being a risk. It is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rekker said:

Lol, sson's. I get it and I have been back and forth on EK myself. The chance to add a legit, right side, Norris dman is just to alluring to me. I cant disagree on it being a risk. It is. 

As a general observation for life, indecisiveness (AKA not saying "No" to things) is often the natural consequence of not having a plan. If a legitimate, well researched and well thought out plan is in place, the decision would often be much easier and readily made.

 

J.B. mentioned repeatedly that there is a plan that his team follows. I hope this is the case. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Maddogy said:

As a general observation for life, indecisiveness (AKA not saying "No" to things) is often the natural consequence of not having a plan. If a legitimate, well researched and well thought out plan is in place, the decision would often be much easier and readily made.

 

J.B. mentioned repeatedly that there is a plan that his team follows. I hope this is the case. 

There certainly is a plan, although you also have to take into account of everything you don't have control over. For example, the UFA's available are going to vary from year to year. You also don't quite know which prospects are going to make it or even what impact they are going to have even if they do. Therefore, the team makeup isn't always controllable. My guess is that there's a plan in place but it would have to be a lenient plan; otherwise, it just makes the job unnecessarily harder if things that are out of your control go a different route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Generational.EP40 said:

 

 

giphy.gif

Ya just saw this . Not suprising he is looking into his opportunities.  Would LOVE to have him here.  

Edited by cuporbust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Generational.EP40 said:

 

 

giphy.gif

Actually he was only at YVR because he had to go thru here (connecting flight).

 

Yes, I'm the....

 

(NSFW - language)

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Actually he was only at YVR because he had to go thru here (connecting flight).

 

Yes, I'm the....

 

(NSFW - language)

 

Connecting flight through vancouver ? Lol. U dont fly much hey

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cuporbust said:

Connecting flight through vancouver ? Lol. U dont fly much hey

Haha so true.  Vancouver is a connector for Victoria or Kelowna.  I’m guessing he’s in YVR to be in Vancouver.

 

To be honest I’m not surprised If Van is in consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 1:38 PM, rekker said:

I'd be pumped to get EK for 5 or 6 years. A gamble? For sure. But could launch this team forward big time. He's that kind of talent. If it fails it may be an anchor but most teams have one bad contract and with LE hopefully gone I think it's worth the gamble. I assume LE would have to be somehow dumped to fit in EK. 

You know, you might take some heat for that but honestly, I'd be surprised if EK didn't get max term. Any GM signing that contract won't be around when it expires anyways. Erik Karlsson will be in a wheelchair before he stops getting an NHL paycheque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

You know, you might take some heat for that but honestly, I'd be surprised if EK didn't get max term. Any GM signing that contract won't be around when it expires anyways. Erik Karlsson will be in a wheelchair before he stops getting an NHL paycheque.

Rumour is San Jose just offered EK 11 million per for 8 years. Yikes. If that's true I hope we dont try to match. Even at the max 7 years for us. Too much, too long. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.