It's entirely possible, but if you could somehow get Karlsson, even for one season, without giving up Nylander/Matthews/Marner.. Would you do it?
- PatC80

When I originally said the Leafs should trade for Karlsson, I actually misspoke. What I in fact meant to say, is the exact opposite: that the Leafs shouldn't trade for Karlsson. I hope that clears that up.

Karlsson would be a great addition here, but I agree with you. It's not a need;

We do need to upgrade the right side, but maybe someone like Brett Pesce, Tyler Myers or heck even Torey Krug would be a better fit here
- PatC80

Getting Karlsson would mean gutting the team. Can’t afford him. UG doesn’t math well.


Rielly-Pesce

It's entirely possible, but if you could somehow get Karlsson, even for one season, without giving up Nylander/Matthews/Marner.. Would you do it?
- PatC80

Getting Karlsson for 1 year, that's old school Leafs thinking.

It's entirely possible, but if you could somehow get Karlsson, even for one season, without giving up Nylander/Matthews/Marner.. Would you do it?
- PatC80

a rental is a whole nother story...

It would still be prohibitively expensive I think.


I find it amusing that the same guy who was arguing how few players from the Marlies would be NHL'ers, now feels we have enough depth in young players to give up one of our top 3 to chase a veteran who will be getting paid for what he has accomplished, not for what he will accomplish.

So now you're saying Doughty is better but Karlsson should get the same money as the player that's better than him even though I calculated he'd only get 500K less than him and even had enough cap space left over to give him 11M if it was absolutely necessary.

Log into your other account and agree with yourself now.
- Unholy_Goalie

Karlsson would be a UFA

Doughty wasn't

If you claim JT got overpaid because he was a UFA, why wouldn't Karlsson?

As great as Karlsson is, if Tampa have to give up Point, Sergachev and more for him..Then, I can't see Tampa winning the trade. Even if you take into consideration that the draft picks included, don't pan out.
- PatC80

Tampa Bay was 1 win away from the Cup Final without Karlsson but some how Point and Sergachev loses them a trade where they add a THIRD #1 D to their blueline?

Absolutely no (frank)ing way Tampa Bay loses the deal if it costs them Point and Sergachev.

Getting Karlsson for 1 year, that's old school Leafs thinking.
- Unholy_Goalie

getting a "rental" player for one year, is old school Leafs thinking?

Karlsson would be a UFA

Doughty wasn't

If JT got overpaid because he was a UFA, why wouldn't Karlsson?
- Pen15

Karlsson has 1 year left at 6.5 left. He's not a UFA yet. Anybody acquiring him is going to be giving him an extension.

a rental is a whole nother story...

It would still be prohibitively expensive I think.


I find it amusing that the same guy who was arguing how few players from the Marlies would be NHL'ers, now feels we have enough depth in young players to give up one of our top 3 to chase a veteran who will be getting paid for what he has accomplished, not for what he will accomplish.
- Aetherial

He’s such a hypocrite.

JVR+Bozak > Tavares: argues this

Nylander+Gardiner > Karlsson: argues against this

getting a "rental" player for one year, is old school Leafs thinking?
- PatC80

Unless it cost you Carrick and a 2nd round pick, yeah, it is. 1 year of Karlsson for a 1st round pick and Liljegren or Sandin etc.

If you're going to get Karlsson, he has to come with an extension. No point in giving up future pieces for just 1 run.

Getting Karlsson for 1 year, that's old school Leafs thinking.
- Unholy_Goalie

Getting Karlsson at all is stupid thinking, let someone else gut their team.

Again, old school thinking was overpaying for 1 player and adding him to a pile of poop and expecting it to work out. The Leafs have plenty of other very good pieces to add to. It's not the same at all. It's simply shifting one area of strength to cover an area of weakness.

What if Nylander gets hit in the head and never plays again? It's so easy to just assume a player is going to get hurt and never play again, why does it have to be Karlsson and not Nylander?

Nylander's offense can be replaced by the other young stars they have and Tavares. What Karlsson brings to the table the Leafs simply do not have.
- Unholy_Goalie

Because the likelihood of Karlsson re-injuring a surgically repaired ankle is infinitely higher than Nylander incurring an injury he is not predisposed to.

a rental is a whole nother story...

It would still be prohibitively expensive I think.


I find it amusing that the same guy who was arguing how few players from the Marlies would be NHL'ers, now feels we have enough depth in young players to give up one of our top 3 to chase a veteran who will be getting paid for what he has accomplished, not for what he will accomplish.
- Aetherial

I would love Karlsson here for one season. An extension would be crippling.. We can't give him, Tavares and Matthews $11M per season.. That would hurt the team.. We can afford the 6.5M for this season.. I wonder what the cost would be? Also, would Ottawa even agree to it?

Getting Karlsson at all is stupid thinking, let someone else gut their team.
- bobbyisno1

^^^^^

I would love Karlsson here for one season. An extension would be crippling.. We can't give him, Tavares and Matthews $11M per season.. That would hurt the team.. We can afford the 6.5M for this season.. I wonder what the cost would be? Also, would Ottawa even agree to it?
- PatC80

Yes they can. It would fit, especially if Marleau retires.

Yes they can. It would fit, especially if Marleau retires.
- Unholy_Goalie

if*


Enough said.

Karlsson has 1 year left at 6.5 left. He's not a UFA yet. Anybody acquiring him is going to be giving him an extension.
- Unholy_Goalie

That's correct. And the speculation is that the reason he hasn't been dealt yet is because he's not willing to accept an extension from anyone (except TB) at this time.

He's going to get paid UFA money. You yourself argued this a month ago - why would a bonafide star, who only has one real shot at making top $ in his prime, not take advantage of it when it comes along?

Whatever suits your argument though.

if*


Enough said.
- Steven_Seagull

Whether he does or not, it still works. And he will definitely be done in Toronto after the 3rd year which would give the Leafs plenty of room to continue to add to the team.

Unless it cost you Carrick and a 2nd round pick, yeah, it is. 1 year of Karlsson for a 1st round pick and Liljegren or Sandin etc.

If you're going to get Karlsson, he has to come with an extension. No point in giving up future pieces for just 1 run.
- Unholy_Goalie

That's the issue though.. Can't come with an extension, as we would have to move out a big piece.. This is going to be Karlsson's last big contract and he should get $11M per season.. Realistically, I don't see how we can afford him. We may have to lose more than Nylander..
Gardiner for sure, won't be back.. There would be no way we can re-sign Kadri or Rielly in a few seasons..

Getting Karlsson would be great, I'd love him here but not with the risk of losing Nylander, Kadri and potentially more..

Unless it cost you Carrick and a 2nd round pick, yeah, it is. 1 year of Karlsson for a 1st round pick and Liljegren or Sandin etc.

If you're going to get Karlsson, he has to come with an extension. No point in giving up future pieces for just 1 run.
- Unholy_Goalie

1 year of Karlsson for a 2019 1st, Liljegren or Sandin and Sparks, I would do it.

Whether he does or not, it still works. And he will definitely be done in Toronto after the 3rd year which would give the Leafs plenty of room to continue to add to the team.
- Unholy_Goalie

Nope

That's the issue though.. Can't come with an extension, as we would have to move out a big piece.. This is going to be Karlsson's last big contract and he should get $11M per season.. Realistically, I don't see how we can afford him. We may have to lose more than Nylander..
Gardiner for sure, won't be back.. There would be no way we can re-sign Kadri or Rielly in a few seasons..

Getting Karlsson would be great, I'd love him here but not with the risk of losing Nylander, Kadri and potentially more..
- PatC80

Karlsson for Nylander, Gardiner and 2019 1st round pick.

Karlsson easily fits under the cap for 2018/2019 season.

Here's how he fits the next year.

2019/2020 - Salary Cap Ceiling - 82.46M (Assuming cap goes up 2.96M)

The salary cap this year is 79.5 million, up from 75 million in 2018, 73 million in 2017, 71.4 million in 2016, 69 million in 2015, 64.3 million in 2014. On average, the cap rises 2.96 million a year over the past 5 years. The lowest it has risen in the past 5 years is 1.6 million. The most it has risen is 4.5 million.

Marleau (6.5M) / Tavares (11M) / Marner (7.5M)
Hyman (2.25M) / Matthews (9.5M) / Kapanen (2.5M)
Johnsson (2.5M) / Kadri (4.5M) / Brown (2.1M)
UFA/ELC (750K) / UFA/ELC (750K) / UFA/ELC (750K)

Kessel: 1.2M (How (frank)ing stupid was that to retain salary?)

Rielly (5M) / Karlsson (10.5M)
Dermott (860K) / Zaitsev (4.5M)
UFA/ELC (1M) / UFA/ELC (1M)

Andersen (5M)
UFA (1M)

Total: 80.66M - 1.8M in cap space available.

While McDavid will be used by some as the benchmark to what Matthews and Marner get, Kucherov is a better comparable. He scored 80 and then 100 points as a 24 and 25 year old and led the league in scoring for most the year. McDavid won serious hardware that Matthews and Marner simply can't compare to. Tavares had half a dozen teams making him offers to negotiate with. Matthews and Marner won't have that opportunity until they become UFAs. And no team is going to pay four 1st round picks for either in the form of an offer sheet. As RFAs, they can get big pay days but not UFA paydays. That's why they should make less than Tavares. But, if Matthews must get 11M, there's exactly 1.5M still available to give to him so it still works.

Also assumed Kapanen and Johnsson get the same kind of money Brown and Hyman got because that's the likely type of players they can / will be with top-six minutes, given their age and skill set. If they score 20 goals, it's fair to give them what Brown got. If they want more, they can get traded and replaced.

If Marleau retires (which his contract is built for him to do on July 2nd, 2019, after he gets his 3 million dollar bonus and promptly traded to Arizona) it opens 6.5 more in cap space and solves every cap related problem very easily in one shot. Horton is on LTIR, obviously. Even if Marleau doesn't retire, he can fit but obviously the 6.5 million would be better spent on younger, cheaper players. Either way, it still works under the cap.

If the cap, for some incredible reason stays the same and doesn't rise (hasn't happened once yet) trade one of Johnsson, Brown or Hyman to clear cap space. If necessary, trade Zaitsev or Carrick to clear cap space. Replace with cheap UFA / ELC. Zaitsev is obviously the best candidate to be traded out of all the names listed, especially if Ozy can replace him as the Russian RHD.

Give Karlsson an 8 year deal with half of it in signing bonuses and upfront money. Make it lockout guaranteed. He's not as good as Doughty, that's why he gets a touch less but if it's absolutely necessary, making it 11M still fits.

Karlsson fits. Proven. This is why Prindham is the AGM, right?

Yes they can. It would fit, especially if Marleau retires.
- Unholy_Goalie

If Marleau retires early, don't we get hit with a cap recapture penalty? Or can we simply "Marian Hossa" him?

1 year of Karlsson for a 2019 1st, Liljegren or Sandin and Sparks, I would do it.
- PatC80

Delete your account.

If Marleau retires early, don't we get hit with a cap recapture penalty? Or can we simply "Marian Hossa" him?
- PatC80

Hossa'd to Arizona, easily. But even if he doesn't retire, Karlsson can still fit.