article: Karlsson an "obvious fit" with the Rangers?

[Phil]

Karlsson has not tipped his hand either way on his future other than making sure to park the situation and focus on the moment, which he insists is no big deal.

 

?Ah it?s easy. I think I?ve been doing it pretty much all year,? he said. ?I know what I am, I know what I bring and what I can do. It?s just up to me to bring that, show that and the rest will take care of itself; no matter what happens.??

 

It didn?t go unnoticed that both GM John Chayka and head coach Rick Tocchet from the Arizona Coyotes took in a Sharks-Knights game during the first round. It would not be the craziest idea for Arizona to try and splurge on Karlsson come July 1. The Coyotes intend on being active this offseason, feeling that they?re a team on the rise and wanting to make a splash.

 

The more obvious fit would be in New York with the Rangers and his pal Henrik Lundqvist. They?ve got the cap room and it?s time for the revamping Blueshirts to head into their next phase of team building.

 

https://theathletic.com/956937/2019/05/01/lebrun-erik-karlssons-balancing-act-between-winning-a-cup-and-proving-to-potential-suitors-that-hes-still-the-man/

[Future]

Arizona would be interesting. OEL could help sell it.

[josh]

Yeah buddy

[Kevin]

I still hope this is one free agent we miss out on. I know he's elite but the injury concerns are real.

[Slobberknocker]

Pass. keep up on the rebuild. he'd be an add two years from now if his age was the same.

[Ozzy]

I know the guy's a 2 time Norris trophy winner, but I can't explain why I'm not feeling Karlsson here with the Rangers. ...and isn't Hank's contact up in a couple years??? I doin't think that's a real reason to bring him here.

[Phil]

I still hope this is one free agent we miss out on. I know he's elite but the injury concerns are real.

 

I feel the exact opposite. I think people are dramatically underestimating his star power. He is, still, on one and a half ankles, the games' premiere defender to me. I've watched every Sharks game this postseason specifically to watch him, and there's yet to be a single game I'm not awed by his commanding presence with the puck. He was also single-handedly the reason the Ottawa Senators made the run they did when they knocked the Rangers out to hit the East Final.

 

The term generational gets thrown around a lot. With him, it's apt. I'm going to have an awfully hard time turning down any opportunity to get him for nothing but dollars.

[ThirtyONE]

I think handing out two 7-year deals this summer will end up being a mistake when our young players will be due raises.

[CBrowningPI]

Can the Rangers afford both Panarin and Karlsson ? Would be great to have both but if it's either/or, I would go with the bread man.

[phillyb]

No real reason why at all, but I hate this fucking guy. Not like, Brad Marchand, hate to play against him, love him if he's on your team.

I just fucking hate him. Again, no reason why, but I do.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

Please no

[BrooksBurner]

Previously I only wanted Karlsson if we also got Panarin. My view has been shifting as the offseason has progressed. Between watching Karlsson this postseason (amazing) and getting the #2 pick that will give us an instant top 6 forward, to me it has shifted the focus a little bit from offense to defense. Karlsson/Fox/DeAngelo/Shattenkirk down the right is too good for me to pass up. Even better if you can dump Shattenkirk.

 

Skjei/Karlsson

Staal/Fox

Hajek/DeAngelo

Claesson/Pionk

 

Karlsson makes this unit so much more respectable. The Fox addition doesn't hurt either, though we should be prepared for him not quite being ready or not panning out. I don't think that will be the case though.

[Phil]

I think handing out two 7-year deals this summer will end up being a mistake when our young players will be due raises.

 

Stop paying middling players and it won't be. We've been having this argument for what feels like a decade. Not you and I, just the more general tone as a fanbase.

 

So, in this case, guys like Strome, Namestnikov, Andersson, Vesey, Kreider to an extent, Fast, Howden, Lemieux, Nieves, etc. are all the types I'm talking about.

 

If signing Panarin and Karlsson causes this team to not see a long-term future in Lemieux, Howden, etc. I don't give a shit. I take the elite-level talent every single time.

 

Can the Rangers afford both Panarin and Karlsson ? Would be great to have both but if it's either/or, I would go with the bread man.

 

Yes. They just need to make a hard-and-fast plan on what they're going to do about keeping specific players. Who to bridge, who to go long-term with, who to walk away from, etc.

 

Previously I only wanted Karlsson if we also got Panarin. My view has been shifting as the offseason has progressed. Between watching Karlsson this postseason (amazing) and getting the #2 pick that will give us an instant top 6 forward, to me it has shifted the focus a little bit from offense to defense. Karlsson/Fox/DeAngelo/Shattenkirk down the right is too good for me to pass up. Even better if you can dump Shattenkirk.

 

Skjei/Karlsson

Staal/Fox

Hajek/DeAngelo

Claesson/Pionk

 

Karlsson makes this unit so much more respectable. The Fox addition doesn't hurt either, though we should be prepared for him not quite being ready or not panning out. I don't think that will be the case though.

 

In this scenario, you move Shattenkirk. There isn't enough PP time to adequately award between Karlsson, Fox, DeAngelo and Shattenkirk.

[BrooksBurner]

Stop paying middling players and it won't be. We've been having this argument for what feels like a decade. Not you and I, just the more general tone as a fanbase.

 

So, in this case, guys like Strome, Namestnikov, Andersson, Vesey, Kreider to an extent, Fast, Howden, Lemieux, Nieves, etc. are all the types I'm talking about.

 

If signing Panarin and Karlsson causes this team to not see a long-term future in Lemieux, Howden, etc. I don't give a shit. I take the elite-level talent every single time.

 

 

 

Yes. They just need to make a hard-and-fast plan on what they're going to do about keeping specific players. Who to bridge, who to go long-term with, who to walk away from, etc.

 

 

 

In this scenario, you move Shattenkirk. There isn't enough PP time to adequately award between Karlsson, Fox, DeAngelo and Shattenkirk.

 

If you can't move Shattenkirk, you move DeAngelo. If the kid has maturity issues that they don't think will improve, then they shouldn't keep devoting time to him anyway. But agreed, one of them would likely need to be on the move. Pionk isn't even in the picture here either.

[Phil]

Based on age, speed, and total package, I move Shattenkirk, even with retention, well before I do DeAngelo, head problems and all.

[Guest]

The cap situation is that if you pay Panarin and Karlsson 11X7, you can run into issue down the line with Kakko/Hughes, Chytil, Kravtsov, Fox, Miller, etc.

 

Winning the #2 pick, scooping Fox, and both Kratsov and Shestyorkin coming over makes me think that's a gamble worth taking now. Cap will go up, and you can trade from strength if you have to. As a comparable if the Leafs can't figure out a way to get Marner under contract, they can still trade his rights for max value.

[josh]

The Rangers have 2 guys signed through 3 seasons, 1 signed for longer than that. Not sure why people are worried about cap space in 3- 12 seasons from now.

 

And this is paying top players, 1st line/1st pairing guys. Not 2nd liners and depth defensemen.

[Guest]

The Rangers have 2 guys signed through 3 seasons, 1 signed for longer than that. Not sure why people are worried about cap space in 3- 12 seasons from now.

 

And this is paying top players, 1st line/1st pairing guys. Not 2nd liners and depth defensemen.

 

Once you've got 2 players making 1/8th of the cap each, it gets tricky to add a third making 1/8. That puts you in Pittsburgh, Toronto territory. But if two of Kakko, Chytil, and Kratsov become superstars, you're then going to have to lose one of them. Can't have 4 players take up 1/2 of your cap and still field team around them. If they all develop (first, weeeeeeeeeeeeee!) but you're going to lose two of them.

 

So what, you might think? But you're losing them in three years in favor of 31-year-old Panarin and 33-year-old Karlsson. You'll still get whatever in returns to restock prospects, but it can get dicey.

[josh]

Once you've got 2 players making 1/8th of the cap each, it gets tricky to add a third making 1/8. That puts you in Pittsburgh, Toronto territory. But if two of Kakko, Chytil, and Kratsov become superstars, you're then going to have to lose one of them. Can't have 4 players take up 1/2 of your cap and still field team around them. If they all develop (first, weeeeeeeeeeeeee!) but you're going to lose two of them.

 

So what, you might think? But you're losing them in three years in favor of 31-year-old Panarin and 33-year-old Karlsson. You'll still get whatever in returns to restock prospects, but it can get dicey.

 

Toronto's problem isnt having JT, Mathews and Marner. Pittsburgh's problems isnt Crosby and Malkin. Chicago's problem isnt Kane and Toews.

 

Its all those middle 6/pair guys they over paid. The Danger Zone.

It's the Marleaus, Zatisev contracts, Pittsburgh will be looking to ship out contracts between 4m - 7m. And Chicago has plenty of cap space with Seabrook, Saad and Anisimov, too.

 

As long as you dont hand out Skjei contracts to guys just for being around, you'll be fine.

[siddious]

I dont really think its that "obvious" of a fit truth be told. I wouldnt mind Karlsson on this team (even though these signings never work out for the Rangers) but his price tag will be enormous and on top of that where does he fit into the line up exactly with 3 bad contracts (4 if you wanna be really hard on Skjei) on defense already and not one of those guys living up to expectations. Better hope Karlsson is still on his game if youre gonna pay him 8-9 mil a season or whatever hes requesting.

[Puck Head]

Put me down for zero interest on Karlsson....age simply doesn?t fit into our future plans. And no need to cap ourselves like that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[ThirtyONE]

Stop paying middling players and it won't be. We've been having this argument for what feels like a decade. Not you and I, just the more general tone as a fanbase.

 

So, in this case, guys like Strome, Namestnikov, Andersson, Vesey, Kreider to an extent, Fast, Howden, Lemieux, Nieves, etc. are all the types I'm talking about.

 

If signing Panarin and Karlsson causes this team to not see a long-term future in Lemieux, Howden, etc. I don't give a shit. I take the elite-level talent every single time.

 

 

Yes. They just need to make a hard-and-fast plan on what they're going to do about keeping specific players. Who to bridge, who to go long-term with, who to walk away from, etc.

 

 

 

In this scenario, you move Shattenkirk. There isn't enough PP time to adequately award between Karlsson, Fox, DeAngelo and Shattenkirk.

 

I don't disagree but when you look at a team like Toronto, you see where the Rangers could be headed. Sure having too many stars to pay it's a good problem to have but it's still a problem. I too think Karlsson is fucking dynamic and was probably the best player in the league two years ago. That said, I'm weary of signing the biggest names for the biggest prices because we've already been there. We've already failed doing that exact thing.

 

I think it's safe to assume Karlsson will not age well. His contract might be worth it for the next three years but after that it's very questionable. I'd be more than happy to give him 4-5 years at an astronomical price than 7 years at a fair price. Look at Hanks deal. We're talking about another Hank deal, only worse.

[Pete]

Karlsson, to me, seems like the guy who signs for 7 years and then LTIRetires after 5 due to "injury".

 

He might just want the security of knowing he's getting paid for 7 years, but you can probably Robidas him if he's that bad.

 

And in reality you don't have to worry about superstar contract for Krav or the #2 overall for another 3 years and by then we'll have a ton of guys coming off the cap. You'd also hope that one of these guys turns into a MacKinnon/Pasta situation when they wind up breaking out after they ink their 7 year, $7 million contracts and not $11 million LOL.

[josh]

Karlsson, to me, seems like the guy who signs for 7 years and then LTIRetires after 5 due to "injury".

 

He might just want the security of knowing he's getting paid for 7 years, but you can probably Robidas him if he's that bad.

 

And in reality you don't have to worry about superstar contract for Krav or the #2 overall for another 3 years and by then we'll have a ton of guys coming off the cap. You'd also hope that one of these guys turns into a MacKinnon/Pasta situation when they wind up breaking out after they ink their 7 year, $7 million contracts and not $11 million LOL.

 

I'd love to have the problem of trying to pay 2 guys $10m+ in 3 seasons from now. That'd be awesome!

[RangersIn7]

Karlsson, to me, seems like the guy who signs for 7 years and then LTIRetires after 5 due to "injury".

 

He might just want the security of knowing he's getting paid for 7 years, but you can probably Robidas him if he's that bad.

 

And in reality you don't have to worry about superstar contract for Krav or the #2 overall for another 3 years and by then we'll have a ton of guys coming off the cap. You'd also hope that one of these guys turns into a MacKinnon/Pasta situation when they wind up breaking out after they ink their 7 year, $7 million contracts and not $11 million LOL.

 

I agree with a lot of that

Still not wild about Karlsson getting 7 years

I can deal with big money as he’s earned it

And if he were willing to do a shorter deal, I’d be all over it. I’d gladly spend 60 million dollars on him over next 5 years. I think they’d actually have a good chance at getting their money’s worth on that.

 

It isn’t career ending injury that scares me, it’s aging coupled with maybe an injury or two resulting in severely diminished play.