Or maybe they didn't want San Jose making them look like idiots again and getting more for Karlsson than the Senators could get for him like what happened with Hoffman. The Sharks got more for Hoffman than Ottawa did, how (frank)ing stupid would they look if San Jose flipped him to Tampa Bay for more than what they gave up to get him from Ottawa?

If Ottawa was offered a good enough package from the Leafs (which Nylander would have been way better than anything else they were offered) they would have considered the deal and ultimately made the deal because it's better for their team than the pile of spare parts they got from San Jose. They may spite the Leafs to a certain degree and even make them pay more for Karlsson, but they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot just to spite the Leafs if there was a legitimately better offer on the table.
- Unholy_Goalie

Too late for that now

And Nylander controllable for 5 more years, Karlsson is a rental - UFA next year. One of these things is different from the the other.

Too late for that now

And Nylander controllable for 5 more years, Karlsson is a rental - UFA next year. One of these things is different from the the other.


- winsix

San Jose will re-sign Karlsson, they just have to wait so they can give him 8 years. And no, the idea wouldn't have been to acquire him as a rental, only would have acquired him if an extension was agreed upon.

Yes he is.
- HealthyScratch6

No hes not.
Watch him play

San Jose will re-sign Karlsson, they just have to wait so they can give him 8 years. And no, the idea wouldn't have been to acquire him as a rental, only would have acquired him if an extension was agreed upon.
- Unholy_Goalie

Karlsson is a great dman that will command $12 - $13 mil a year next year - cannot conceive of a scenario where he fits into Leafs structure - unless you are anxious to be rid of Nylander and Marner as well.

Karlsson is a great dman that will command $12 - $13 mil a year next year - cannot conceive of a scenario where he fits into Leafs structure - unless you are anxious to be rid of Nylander and Marner as well.
- winsix

He gets the same as Doughty, if not a touch less. He's not getting 12 or 13 unless San Jose is really, really stupid.

No hes not.
Watch him play
- Fakepartofme

Not a likely scenerio in any event. Winnipeg tough to deal with, Boston wants Trouba more than the Leafs do. He has been bridged twice and is looking at a third bridge deal. All this plus he's managed more than 30 points once in 5 years and wants to get paid as if he's a perenial 50+ point scorer. As soft as Myers plays, he s a better fit.

He gets the same as Doughty, if not a touch less. He's not getting 12 or 13 unless San Jose is really, really stupid.
- Unholy_Goalie

He's getting 12 Minimum, which is why he hasn't signed yet. He wants to get paid and if San Jose doesn't pay, a NY team or Vegas or a team with lots of available cap space will pay him.

He's getting 12 Minimum, which is why he hasn't signed yet. He wants to get paid and if San Jose doesn't pay, a NY team or Vegas or a team with lots of available cap space will pay him.
- winsix

Wrong. He hasn't signed yet because they have to wait until the trade deadline to give him an 8 year deal because of the way the CBA is written.

Wrong. He hasn't signed yet because they have to wait until the trade deadline to give him an 8 year deal because of the way the CBA is written.
- Unholy_Goalie

Give yourself a shake. I'm WRONG - because I believe Karlsson will sign for $12 million or more. The prediction of an event yet to take place. You are Right of course because you are aware of future events before they take place.

Great power you have. Now tell me the winning numbers to the Super Seven Draw next Friday please?

Give yourself a shake. I'm WRONG - because I believe Karlsson will sign for $12 million or more. The prediction of an event yet to take place. You are Right of course because you are aware of future events before they take place.

Great power you have. Now tell me the winning numbers to the Super Seven Draw next Friday please?
- winsix

You're wrong about why he didn't sign yet.

You're wrong about why he didn't sign yet.
- Unholy_Goalie

That is also your opinion. My opinion is that he hasn't signed yet because he wants to squeeze the lemon dry. You could have said there is a mitigating rule signing for 8 years, but you didn't say that. You said I am wrong. Your argument is flawed and full of leaks.

That is also your opinion. My opinion is that he hasn't signed yet because he wants to squeeze the lemon dry. You could have said there is a mitigating rule signing for 8 years, but you didn't say that. You said I am wrong. Your argument is flawed and full of leaks.
- winsix

An SPC with a term of greater than seven (7) years, provided, however, that a club may sign a player to an SPC with a term of up to eight (8) years if that player was on such club's reserve list as of and since the most recent trade deadline. With respect to potential unrestricted free agents only, the ability to re-sign a player to an SPC of eight (8) years expires when the player becomes an unrestricted free agent. With respect to a player who becomes a Group 2 restricted free agent, a club may sign such player to an SPC with a term of up to eight (8) years provided such player was on such club's reserve list and/or restricted free agent list as of and since the most recent trade deadline.

An SPC with a term of greater than seven (7) years, provided, however, that a club may sign a player to an SPC with a term of up to eight (8) years if that player was on such club's reserve list as of and since the most recent trade deadline. With respect to potential unrestricted free agents only, the ability to re-sign a player to an SPC of eight (8) years expires when the player becomes an unrestricted free agent. With respect to a player who becomes a Group 2 restricted free agent, a club may sign such player to an SPC with a term of up to eight (8) years provided such player was on such club's reserve list and/or restricted free agent list as of and since the most recent trade deadline.
- Unholy_Goalie

Your quote is still meaningless here. You offered an opinion as fact, time to admit you were wrong. It's not that hard - be a man!

Your quote is still meaningless here. You offered an opinion as fact, time to admit you were wrong. It's not that hard - be a man!
- winsix

"He's getting 12 Minimum, which is why he hasn't signed yet."

Is that even legal to do? There is a lot of faith that would need to be had by both parties. Only way Id see that even possible is that they would need to agree ahead of time with a predated contract for the extension regardless of the season he would have.

I dunno, risky on both parties. He could have a fantastic year and think to himself, nope I want 10 mil to stay, leafs are screwed. He could get a career ending injury which would be insured by the leafs / LITR, if he has no contract he'd be screwed.
- mel_vin

It is not legal.
Also
Stupid. He would be a RFA in a year and would need to be qualified at over the 10 million figure from
The first year.

It is not legal.
Also
Stupid. He would be a RFA in a year and would need to be qualified at over the 10 million figure from
The first year.
- Dr. Leaf

It's debatable if it's legal or not. It's along the same lines of the theories they came up with about Tavares signing a 1 year deal then an 8 year deal in January. Basically a similar concept.

And obviously, they'd have to agree to do it and not leave the possibility of Nylander (frank)ing them over in a move of bad faith so that they can both get what they want.

"He's getting 12 Minimum, which is why he hasn't signed yet."


- Unholy_Goalie

Yes that was my opinion, clearly stated. Not once did I say you were "wrong" - as you did more that once. "There is no defense of the indefensible" No matter how many lol emojis you put up.

It's debatable if it's legal or not.

And obviously, they'd have to agree to do it and not leave the possibility of Nylander (frank)ing them over in a move of bad faith so that they can both get what they want.
- Unholy_Goalie

No it isn’t. It is not allowed clearly in the CBA.
I’m going to leave you to arguing nonesense just so you never have to realize you’re wrong. Have a good night.

No it isn’t. It is not allowed clearly in the CBA.
I’m going to leave you to arguing nonesense just so you never have to realize you’re wrong. Have a good night.
- Dr. Leaf

Where exactly? It's debatable and depends on what can actually be proven. It's just a 1 year deal followed by an 8 year deal.

(frank)ing arguing about a trade that was never going to happen...

(frank)ing arguing about a trade that was never going to happen...
- Steven_Seagull

but... taxes!!

(frank)ing arguing about a trade that was never going to happen...
- Steven_Seagull

Pretty evident that sens werent trading him to the east. Utterly inexcusable to continue to suggest that nylander should have been traded for him even after seeing the return that he actually got.

It is not legal.
Also
Stupid. He would be a RFA in a year and would need to be qualified at over the 10 million figure from
The first year.
- Dr. Leaf

Yeah. Ugs a clown. We've explained to him dozens of times why the Nylander contract would be stupid as you'd have to qualify him at 11 mil or whatever deal he proposes. We also explained that Ottawa would never trade EK to the Leafs. He wouldn't have it, so we had to read the stupid proposals every night for an extra month. Then EK gets traded with a clause that it'd cost the Sharks to trade him to the East.

Best not to bother with Berger

anyone interested in joining a yahoo league, feel free to join:

https://hockey.fantasyspo...lnk&ikey=c7a58115f748ceb5

draft tonight 6pm EST

I drafted Crosby 5th overall last night