Sign in to follow this  
Generational.EP40

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

Recommended Posts

I don’t think it’s likely to happen but I’m still all in on signing Karlsson.  

 

Especially if, say, Boldy drops to us on draft day we’re looking at as strong a team as we’ve ever had if Karlsson signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 9:16 PM, Alflives said:

What’s a hard pass?  How is that different from an easy pass?  Are you saying you really like EK and it’s hard not to want him, but you will pass on him anyway? 

Yeah, I guess, why you ask me all these questions....but yeah, he's a good player, but the injuries are catching up...just like the other two D that we have...but he is better, however now, just as injury prone as them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d be all over a Sundin type offer. 2 years at the league maximum.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

I don’t think it’s likely to happen but I’m still all in on signing Karlsson.  

 

Especially if, say, Boldy drops to us on draft day we’re looking at as strong a team as we’ve ever had if Karlsson signs.

EK has to play a lot of TOI and that hurts the development of the younger Canuck d-core. Canucks are still 3 years away from serious contention and EK is not likely part of that development. Hoping that Benning drafts another 1st and 2nd rdr who can be NHL players that fit into the timeline. UFA's will want to sign with a up and coming contender unlike the past few years. 

 

New Approach on the D-Core: Many fans wait with abaited breath on the possible return of Nick Tryamkin. What interests me is his KHL's approach to their d-core. They rotate 8 d-men thru their season. This interests me for a similiar Canuck approach. Injuries on the d-core have sunk the club's standings for many seasons. The depth on the d-core is improving. Would the added CAP investment in the group be worth having 8 NHL quality d-men? It provides better coverage for what appears to be inevitable injuries. DO the younger d-men need the TOI to develop properly?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

EK has to play a lot of TOI and that hurts the development of the younger Canuck d-core.

Except he doesn’t “have to” play 30 minutes a night and we don’t actually have any young D that are being held back because of a lack of development time.  

Hutton and Stecher, our only two young D were actually way overloaded with minutes last season due to injuries.

Hughes will have more opportunity than he is probably ready for... certainly if we can’t sign Edler.  Even with Eder who will gradually need to play fewer minutes as he gets older, it fits the exact timeline with Hughes (hopefully) progressing and getting more minutes.

Hughes isn’t on the right side anyways,   Woo is, and with Tanev also aging and possibly not being here, there is still room for Woo in a few years when he hopefully earns NHL time 

Edited by Provost
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Provost said:

Except he doesn’t have to play 30 minutes a night and we don’t actually have any young D that are being held back because of a lack of development time.  

Hutton and Stecher, our only two young D were actually way overloaded with minutes last season due to injuries.

Hughes will have more opportunity than he is probably ready for... certainly if we can’t sign Edler.  Even with Eder who will gradually need to play fewer minutes as he gets older, it fits the exact timeline with Hughes (hopefully) progressing and getting more minutes.

Hughes isn’t on the right side anyways,   Woo is, and with Tanev also aging and possibly not being here, there is still room for Woo in a few years when he hopefully earns NHL time 

Add in the fact that simply because he's capable of playing 30 mins a night, he doesn't have to every night. He will likely average closer to 25 mins a night which means less pressure to find those elusive RD to take on minutes and we can actually look at budget guys like Schenn who are fine in more minimal minutes in the bottom pairing or even to give a young guy like Woo more sheltered minutes to start.

 

It opens up way more options in the deployment, but the key thing is having someone in the upper level to bring down the minutes of the rest to more reasonable levels which hopefully prevent more injuries and put the rest in a position to play to their strengths.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

EK has to play a lot of TOI and that hurts the development of the younger Canuck d-core. Canucks are still 3 years away from serious contention and EK is not likely part of that development. Hoping that Benning drafts another 1st and 2nd rdr who can be NHL players that fit into the timeline. UFA's will want to sign with a up and coming contender unlike the past few years. 

I think Provost and Theo covered my thoughts re: development.  We don’t really have the RHD prospects to take time from.  If anything, taking some of the load off of Tanev might help extend his career.

 

As far as competition, I don’t understand the “3 year” number... for me, it’s 3 years if we don’t sign a guy like Karlsson, assuming everything goes right.  With EK I think we’re playoff worthy next season and a whole lot closer to contender status the year after, again, assuming some things pan out.  

 

Karlsson isn’t just a future HOF RHD in his late 20s, early 30s... he’s exactly what this team has been missing so I think his impact will be larger than when added to SJ who already had Burns. He’s going to add 10-15 points to our top line players, especially considering Hughes and Juolevi will be transitioning in during that time period as well.

 

I’m admittedly getting super optimistic about adding EK turning us into contenders... but that path becomes a whole lot more clear with him than without... where we’re still missing that top D man that I can’t fathom us finding outside of sheer luck at the draft table.

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EK would artificially move us up in the standings when our lower finishes are helping our draft position, plus that groin might not hold out for too much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, thundernuts said:

I’d be all over a Sundin type offer. 2 years at the league maximum.

That would give the Canucks more flexibility after the 2 years when Hughes and Pettersson needs to be re-signed.

The max cap is $15.9 million per year.... and a player getting almost $32 million in 2 years would be very enticing for any player.  

But unless it's one of those "wink wink" he's going to re-sign with the Canucks after those two years at a much lower cap hit like $7 million/per for a 7 year front loaded contract, taking him to age 37.  Probably the last couple of season he will on LTIR into retirement.  

 

Year 1 & 2 = 32 million

Year 3 - 7 (second contract) = 47 million

Year 8 - 9 = 2 million

 

First 7 years would still net him 79 million.... but instead of a cap hit of $11.28 million, it will only be $7 million when the Canucks are to be competitive.  Once he reaches his mid-30's, he'll most likely still be a 2nd pairing guy, which with the increase in salary cap, the $7 million wouldn't be too outrageous.  Should he be completely finished in his final two years, his contract would be valuable to teams needing the cap hit to reach the salary floor.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

EK would artificially move us up in the standings when our lower finishes are helping our draft position, plus that groin might not hold out for too much longer.

...ummm how does it “artificially” move us up in the standings?

 

He would be part of our team and our team would be better.  That is what you call reality and nothing artificial about it.

 

Petterson has “artificially” moved us up in the standings too!

 

The fetish for finishing lower is just dumb.  There is virtually no difference in the player you get at #10 or #16. That minor difference is more than made up for in the development our young guys get by playing meaningful games and getting playoff experience.

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lancaster said:

That would give the Canucks more flexibility after the 2 years when Hughes and Pettersson needs to be re-signed.

The max cap is $15.9 million per year.... and a player getting almost $32 million in 2 years would be very enticing for any player.  

But unless it's one of those "wink wink" he's going to re-sign with the Canucks after those two years at a much lower cap hit like $7 million/per for a 7 year front loaded contract, taking him to age 37.  Probably the last couple of season he will on LTIR into retirement.  

 

Year 1 & 2 = 32 million

Year 3 - 7 (second contract) = 47 million

Year 8 - 9 = 2 million

 

First 7 years would still net him 79 million.... but instead of a cap hit of $11.28 million, it will only be $7 million when the Canucks are to be competitive.  Once he reaches his mid-30's, he'll most likely still be a 2nd pairing guy, which with the increase in salary cap, the $7 million wouldn't be too outrageous.  Should he be completely finished in his final two years, his contract would be valuable to teams needing the cap hit to reach the salary floor.  

the last part of your contract idea cannot be structured in the that manner

lowest payment year cannot be less then 50% of the highest payment year

 

once he is a canuck he could sign an 8 year second contract

not sure why he would not insist on that

or walk to another team that would give him more dollars for the 7 year contract

then what you are proposing

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lancaster said:

That would give the Canucks more flexibility after the 2 years when Hughes and Pettersson needs to be re-signed.

The max cap is $15.9 million per year.... and a player getting almost $32 million in 2 years would be very enticing for any player.  

But unless it's one of those "wink wink" he's going to re-sign with the Canucks after those two years at a much lower cap hit like $7 million/per for a 7 year front loaded contract, taking him to age 37.  Probably the last couple of season he will on LTIR into retirement.  

 

Year 1 & 2 = 32 million

Year 3 - 7 (second contract) = 47 million

Year 8 - 9 = 2 million

 

First 7 years would still net him 79 million.... but instead of a cap hit of $11.28 million, it will only be $7 million when the Canucks are to be competitive.  Once he reaches his mid-30's, he'll most likely still be a 2nd pairing guy, which with the increase in salary cap, the $7 million wouldn't be too outrageous.  Should he be completely finished in his final two years, his contract would be valuable to teams needing the cap hit to reach the salary floor.  

I like EK but he’s just getting too fragile.  We’ve seen him breakdown over the last couple seasons.  He’s not a big guy.  He’s kind of built soft like an elf or something.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, thundernuts said:

I’d be all over a Sundin type offer. 2 years at the league maximum.

With Karlsson's recent injury history there's no way he's not going for a long term almost league max contract.

 

Too risky for him to take two years. He wants guaranteed money that he'll be able to collect even if his career is cut short.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I like EK but he’s just getting too fragile.  We’ve seen him breakdown over the last couple seasons.  He’s not a big guy.  He’s kind of built soft like an elf or something.  

That rep is kinda unfair to EK, if he was signed long term by SJ they would have let him heal.

Since they traded quite a bit to get him and he is clearly walking at FA they rode him until he was fully broken because of the price they paid to get him only to lose him. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

With Karlsson's recent injury history there's no way he's not going for a long term almost league max contract.

 

Too risky for him to take two years. He wants guaranteed money that he'll be able to collect even if his career is cut short.

Read EK’s wife is from Ottawa.  Maybe she wants to be back east and closer to her family?  I don’t see him playing on the west coast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

That rep is kinda unfair to EK, if he was signed long term by SJ they would have let him heal.

Since they traded quite a bit to get him and he is clearly walking at FA they rode him until he was fully broken because of the price they paid to get him only to lose him. 

Sharks rode Burns too.  EK is great, but he’s slightly built.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is gonna have a big pay day. Still top 3 or 4 Dman in the NHL. Any team that gets him needs to make sure about his health. If he is recoverable, then good. Rest him up and rehab the crap out of him. Any contact offer would likely involve a medical examination. 

 

Canucks have never had an elite D man. He would also make our forwards go to the next level when it comes to scoring production as well :emot-parrot:

Share this post


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

Sharks rode Burns too.  EK is great, but he’s slightly built.  

On the other hand, Burns is 5 years older than EK and shows how truly elite players kind of defy the “age related decline” we see in most.  If the doctors clear EK, I think his age isn’t even much of an issue for a 6 or 7 year deal.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ilduce39 said:

On the other hand, Burns is 5 years older than EK and shows how truly elite players kind of defy the “age related decline” we see in most.  If the doctors clear EK, I think his age isn’t even much of an issue for a 6 or 7 year deal.

Like EK.  He’s great.  Burns is a big body.  EK is very slight.  Just don’t see EK with his body type staying healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Like EK.  He’s great.  Burns is a big body.  EK is very slight.  Just don’t see EK with his body type staying healthy.

Yeah, it’s always a concern but are his injuries related to being small?  I’m not sure groin and ankle stuff is from being a smaller guy.  

 

Anyways, I doubt he signs.. just pointing out that we still need that #1 D and if we could get one for nothing in FA it’d be fantastic.

  • Upvote 1

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.