SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Reversing History- Sharks never made the Karlsson Trade

Created by: Ghost789
Team: 2020-21 San Jose Sharks
Initial Creation Date: Oct. 13, 2020
Published: Oct. 13, 2020
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
Wow, what a lineup this could’ve been. Too bad. DW can go now. Enough cap space to add value at the trade deadline any year and I bet Pavelski originally would’ve taken 6M to stay with the Sharks.
Free Agent Signings
RESERVE LISTYEARSCAP HIT
3$925,000
RFAYEARSCAP HIT
2$800,000
Trades
1.
SJS
  1. Balcers, Rūdolfs [RFA Rights]
  2. Norris, Joshua
  3. Stützle, Tim [Reserve List]
  4. Tierney, Chris [RFA Rights]
  5. 2021 2nd round pick (SJS)
2.
SJS
  1. 2021 4th round pick (MTL)
3.
SJS
  1. Pietrangelo, Alex
Additional Details:
They could’ve signed Pietrangelo instead if they were patient
VGK
4.
SJS
  1. Pavelski, Joe ($1,000,000 retained)
Additional Details:
Could’ve kept Pavelski for 6M total most likely!
DAL
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2021
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the MTL
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
2022
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the MIN
2023
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
Logo of the SJS
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
23$81,500,000$75,709,166$0$1,580,000$5,790,834
Left WingCentreRight Wing
$925,000$925,000
C
UFA - 3
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$8,000,000$8,000,000
C
M-NTC
UFA - 7
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$3,000,000$3,000,000
LW, RW
UFA - 3
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$7,000,000$7,000,000
LW, RW
M-NTC
UFA - 5
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$5,625,000$5,625,000
C
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Dallas Stars
$6,000,000$6,000,000
RW
NMC
UFA - 2
$800,000$800,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Ottawa Senators
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
C
UFA - 2
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$4,725,000$4,725,000
RW, LW
UFA - 4
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$1,900,000$1,900,000
LW, C, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$768,333$768,333 (Performance Bonus$65,000$65K)
LW, RW
RFA - 1
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$792,500$792,500 (Performance Bonus$132,500$132K)
C
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$7,000,000$7,000,000
LD/RD
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo of the Vegas Golden Knights
$8,800,000$8,800,000
RD
NMC
UFA - 7
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$5,750,000$5,750,000
G
M-NTC
UFA - 4
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$212,500$212K)
LD
UFA - 2
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$5,280,000$5,280,000
RD
M-NTC
UFA - 5
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$2,166,667$2,166,667
G
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$2,250,000$2,250,000
LD/RD
UFA - 4
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$863,333$863,333 (Performance Bonus$300,000$300K)
RD
UFA - 3
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$700,000$700,000
C
UFA - 1
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$763,333$763,333 (Performance Bonus$20,000$20K)
C, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the San Jose Sharks
$750,000$750,000
C
UFA - 2

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Oct. 13, 2020 at 7:45 a.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2018
Posts: 17,319
Likes: 12,360
Sorry, no take backs
Oct. 13, 2020 at 7:49 a.m.
#2
Who adds what?
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2017
Posts: 13,677
Likes: 2,703
Wait, so the Sharks would have been good with Pavelski instead of Karlsson, but they still would have drafted Stutzle? Interesting.

Would you trade Karlsson? If so, what for?
Oct. 13, 2020 at 7:52 a.m.
#3
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2017
Posts: 325
Likes: 72
The 2020 3rd overall 1st rounder that went to Ottawa for Karlsson in that deal was the Stutzle selection.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 7:52 a.m.
#4
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2017
Posts: 325
Likes: 72
Quoting: Eli
Wait, so the Sharks would have been good with Pavelski instead of Karlsson, but they still would have drafted Stutzle? Interesting.

Would you trade Karlsson? If so, what for?


The 2020 3rd overall 1st rounder that went to Ottawa for Karlsson in that deal was the Stutzle selection.
Lenny7 liked this.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 7:58 a.m.
#5
Lenny7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 13,293
Likes: 11,054
Quoting: Dotz789
The 2020 3rd overall 1st rounder that went to Ottawa for Karlsson in that deal was the Stutzle selection.


I think he meant it as "If the lineup was as good as you're saying, they wouldn't have been one of the worst teams in the league last year, so Stutzle wouldn't be a thing".
Eli and yikes liked this.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 8:02 a.m.
#6
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2017
Posts: 325
Likes: 72
Quoting: Lenny7
I think he meant it as "If the lineup was as good as you're saying, they wouldn't have been one of the worst teams in the league last year, so Stutzle wouldn't be a thing".


I think that depends how bad Jones/Dell would’ve been, most likely the same. The same Defensive issues. I’m hoping just as bad so we would’ve drafted him in that 3rd slot ourselves. 😂
Lenny7 liked this.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 8:10 a.m.
#7
Who adds what?
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2017
Posts: 13,677
Likes: 2,703
Quoting: Dotz789
I think that depends how bad Jones/Dell would’ve been, most likely the same. The same Defensive issues. I’m hoping just as bad so we would’ve drafted him in that 3rd slot ourselves. 😂


But DeMelo actually developed into an average defenseman this year. His plus/minus was +4, as opposed to Karlsson's -19, on a similar team. That and a better 2nd line of forwards might have gotten the Sharks out of the bottom ten, to where they just missed the wild cards.
yikes liked this.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 8:20 a.m.
#8
Lenny7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 13,293
Likes: 11,054
Quoting: Eli
But DeMelo actually developed into an average defenseman this year. His plus/minus was +4, as opposed to Karlsson's -19, on a similar team. That and a better 2nd line of forwards might have gotten the Sharks out of the bottom ten, to where they just missed the wild cards.


C'mon man. It's not 1990...everyone knows that plus/minus is the largest joke stat in hockey.

DeMelo had a very good season possession-wise, and Karlsson also put up very strong numbers. The biggest difference? Karlsson: On ice save %: 87.8% vs. DeMelo: 91.1%...that's pretty significant.
yikes liked this.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 8:50 a.m.
#9
Who adds what?
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2017
Posts: 13,677
Likes: 2,703
Quoting: Lenny7
C'mon man. It's not 1990...everyone knows that plus/minus is the largest joke stat in hockey.

DeMelo had a very good season possession-wise, and Karlsson also put up very strong numbers. The biggest difference? Karlsson: On ice save %: 87.8% vs. DeMelo: 91.1%...that's pretty significant.


Okay, yeah, they had the same Fenwick and, while both played slightly sheltered zone starts, DeMelo's were a significant 3% more sheltered, and Karlsson played more minutes. You're right. Karlsson for Demelo alone is still a win, other than their cap hits.

But as for Karlsson's on ice save percentage, it's harder for goalies to stop breakaways. Karlsson hasn't been top-five on his own team's blue line in that stat since 2014. On small sample sizes, sure, on ice save percentages are luck stats, but six years? Come on, man.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 8:58 a.m.
#10
Lenny7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 13,293
Likes: 11,054
Quoting: Eli
Okay, yeah, they had the same Fenwick and, while both played slightly sheltered zone starts, DeMelo's were a significant 3% more sheltered, and Karlsson played more minutes. You're right. Karlsson for Demelo alone is still a win, other than their cap hits.

But as for Karlsson's on ice save percentage, it's harder for goalies to stop breakaways. Karlsson hasn't been top-five on his own team's blue line in that stat since 2014. On small sample sizes, sure, on ice save percentages are luck stats, but six years? Come on, man.


I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here? That DeMelo is better than Karlsson?
Oct. 13, 2020 at 9:45 a.m.
#11
Who adds what?
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2017
Posts: 13,677
Likes: 2,703
Quoting: Lenny7
I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here? That DeMelo is better than Karlsson?


There's less than a three percent chance that Karlsson finished in the bottom half of his team's defensemen in a given stat five years in a row just by luck. 1/2 a chance each year, but multiply that by five, and it's unlikely. You said Karlsson would have a higher plus/minus except that he had bad luck with goalies making saves while he was on the ice. Obviously Karlsson is more skilled than DeMelo, but they play a different game and get different results.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 10:55 a.m.
#12
Lenny7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 13,293
Likes: 11,054
Quoting: Eli
There's less than a three percent chance that Karlsson finished in the bottom half of his team's defensemen in a given stat five years in a row just by luck. 1/2 a chance each year, but multiply that by five, and it's unlikely. You said Karlsson would have a higher plus/minus except that he had bad luck with goalies making saves while he was on the ice. Obviously Karlsson is more skilled than DeMelo, but they play a different game and get different results.


Haha, I didn't say that Karlsson would have a better plus/minus, I said that plus/minus is a joke stat. Ovi was -35.

As for Karlsson vs. DeMelo, Karlsson is a much better all around player, but if we're arguing on the overall cap hit, DeMelo is a safer bet long-term.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 11:47 a.m.
#13
Who adds what?
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2017
Posts: 13,677
Likes: 2,703
Quoting: Lenny7
Haha, I didn't say that Karlsson would have a better plus/minus, I said that plus/minus is a joke stat. Ovi was -35.

As for Karlsson vs. DeMelo, Karlsson is a much better all around player, but if we're arguing on the overall cap hit, DeMelo is a safer bet long-term.


Ovechkin was -35 once, and the Caps changed coaches and he changed back. Ovechkin's also been +45. Tag me when Karlsson hits +20.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 11:53 a.m.
#14
Lenny7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 13,293
Likes: 11,054
Quoting: Eli
Ovechkin was -35 once, and the Caps changed coaches and he changed back. Ovechkin's also been +45. Tag me when Karlsson hits +20.


WTF would it matter if Karlsson was +20? It's the absolute dumbest stat in hockey. He won the Norris as a +7, and finished second as a -2.

Instead of our normal talks, where I feel like I'm banging my head on a wall, here's this:
https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/11/01/behind-the-numbers-why-plusminus-is-the-worst-statistic-in-hockey-and-should-be-abolished/
Oct. 13, 2020 at 11:55 a.m.
#15
Who adds what?
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2017
Posts: 13,677
Likes: 2,703
Quoting: Lenny7
WTF would it matter if Karlsson was +20? It's the absolute dumbest stat in hockey.

Instead of our normal talks, where I feel like I'm banging my head on a wall, here's this:
https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/11/01/behind-the-numbers-why-plusminus-is-the-worst-statistic-in-hockey-and-should-be-abolished/


If that's the logic that got the Sharks to trade for Karlsson, and this is a thread about how the Sharks would be better if they hadn't traded for Karlsson, then which of us is beating his head against the wall? You go ahead and reread that as many times as you want. I'm fine. Thanks.
Oct. 13, 2020 at 9:08 p.m.
#16
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2017
Posts: 325
Likes: 72
Quoting: Lenny7
WTF would it matter if Karlsson was +20? It's the absolute dumbest stat in hockey. He won the Norris as a +7, and finished second as a -2.

Instead of our normal talks, where I feel like I'm banging my head on a wall, here's this:
https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/11/01/behind-the-numbers-why-plusminus-is-the-worst-statistic-in-hockey-and-should-be-abolished/


Quoting: Eli
If that's the logic that got the Sharks to trade for Karlsson, and this is a thread about how the Sharks would be better if they hadn't traded for Karlsson, then which of us is beating his head against the wall? You go ahead and reread that as many times as you want. I'm fine. Thanks.


You guys both have made valid points. But at the end of the day. The Sharks would have been better off not trading all those high value prospects for EK65. Both Stutzle and Norris will be 50-60 point guys in the NHL very soon and Balcers a 40-50 guy possibly with some good upside. That’s roughly 150 a season between the 3 of them which is 2.5x more than what EK averages in a season. Plus the depth of scoring alone and fact that none of them would exceed 5M+ dollar contracts anytime soon. Allowing for more depth to be added if needed. The point is don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Especially when you already have a #1 Norris trophy caliber D-man in Burns. DW got trigger happy, he was pressured to sign a big name player instead of trusting the process and it’s unfortunate.

There’s a reason why teams like Toronto, Edmonton, etc have multiple players on non team friendly contracts and continue to suffer when playoffs roll around because they don’t have a balanced lineup. Then you look at teams like Boston, Pens, Hawks, etc who have had guys on very team friendly deals for the last decade all cup winners and contenders each and every season the last 10 years. Each and every year it comes down to that extra 1-2 depth guy who sends his team to the cup.
Eli liked this.
Oct. 14, 2020 at 9:01 a.m.
#17
Who adds what?
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2017
Posts: 13,677
Likes: 2,703
Quoting: Eli
If that's the logic that got the Sharks to trade for Karlsson, and this is a thread about how the Sharks would be better if they hadn't traded for Karlsson, then which of us is beating his head against the wall? You go ahead and reread that as many times as you want. I'm fine. Thanks.


I went back and read it. Not bad. The graph doesn't make any sense, statistically, because R^2 is always supposed to be between zero and one, and should go up with sample size, but some of the stuff about why they shouldn't count short-handed goals surprised me. I always took for granted that short-handed goals were hard to get, and noteworthy, but maybe a lot of them start with a takeaway by a forward, so a defenseman can be on the ice for a few of them and get too much credit.

Not sure I agree with the assumption that pulling the goalie increases the rate of goals against more than it increases the rate of goals for. I'd want to see numbers on that, but I suppose I could look them up. Thanks for an interesting read.
Oct. 14, 2020 at 10:47 a.m.
#18
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2017
Posts: 325
Likes: 72
Quoting: Eli
I went back and read it. Not bad. The graph doesn't make any sense, statistically, because R^2 is always supposed to be between zero and one, and should go up with sample size, but some of the stuff about why they shouldn't count short-handed goals surprised me. I always took for granted that short-handed goals were hard to get, and noteworthy, but maybe a lot of them start with a takeaway by a forward, so a defenseman can be on the ice for a few of them and get too much credit.

Not sure I agree with the assumption that pulling the goalie increases the rate of goals against more than it increases the rate of goals for. I'd want to see numbers on that, but I suppose I could look them up. Thanks for an interesting read.


The stats may not show it or be updated enough to be clear but I can tell you just from watching Sharks hockey on a consistent basis, = 82 games a season pretty much. That when they do pull the goalie 80% of the time that empty net gets scored on... And guess who’s out there for the Sharks when that happens- Both Burns and EK. That alone probably goes down ~10 games per season!

I’m a huge skeptic when it comes to pulling the goalie. Unless you have an O-zone draw with 1 minute or less on the clock after an icing or similar where the other team is tired. I just think the advantage is very slim marginally and also idk if this is just for the Sharks but I recall a few times last year when they pulled the goalie too early down 1 goal, then got scored on and then put Dell/Jones back in down by 2 and ended up scoring a goal under a minute left. That kind of **** ticks me off. Coaching staffs need to trust the process, don’t be so quick to jump in panic mode only down by one goal.
Eli liked this.
Oct. 14, 2020 at 12:16 p.m.
#19
Who adds what?
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2017
Posts: 13,677
Likes: 2,703
Quoting: Dotz789
The stats may not show it or be updated enough to be clear but I can tell you just from watching Sharks hockey on a consistent basis, = 82 games a season pretty much. That when they do pull the goalie 80% of the time that empty net gets scored on... And guess who’s out there for the Sharks when that happens- Both Burns and EK. That alone probably goes down ~10 games per season!

I’m a huge skeptic when it comes to pulling the goalie. Unless you have an O-zone draw with 1 minute or less on the clock after an icing or similar where the other team is tired. I just think the advantage is very slim marginally and also idk if this is just for the Sharks but I recall a few times last year when they pulled the goalie too early down 1 goal, then got scored on and then put Dell/Jones back in down by 2 and ended up scoring a goal under a minute left. That kind of **** ticks me off. Coaching staffs need to trust the process, don’t be so quick to jump in panic mode only down by one goal.


That makes sense, as far as offensive defensemen often ending up with lower plus/minus because they're out when the team wants to make risky plays to try to get a goal, including times when they pull the goalie.

Just looked it up and, league-wide, teams at 5 on 6 outscored opponents 269 to 125 this year. Just over 2 to 1. So it seems like pulling the goalie is a bad idea, because you'll get outscored 2 to 1. Not really, though. Teams only pulled their goalie when they were down by a goal or two. Since the average game ended up with six goals, the most common scores at which a goalie was pulled might have been 3-2 or 3-1. So on average, maybe the team that doesn't pull its goalie already outscores the team that's going to pull its goalie by about 2-1 on those days, and pulling the goalie just increases the rate at which each side scores, while keeping the ratio about the same. If you're going to lose anyway, then the final score doesn't matter, but the chance of a comeback victory is exciting.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll