Karlsson is a norris candidate right now and he looks like his old self after a long summer of rest. Why would SJ eat 3.5 mil for 5 years and give up perhaps their most valuable TDL asset for Bobrovsky and a 2nd?

They're more likely to just trade reimer for a second and then eat half of Karlsson's contract and get a pile in return for him.

If Jeff Petry at 6.25 mil got Mike Matheson, then the Karlsson we're seeing right now at 5.75 should get a lot more.

The second is for Reimer, has nothing to do with the sweetner Florida would have to add for the 3m cleared and the better player. I'm also thinking that SJ could retain 50%, so lower cap hit and increase the retain, and then Flr retains on Bobrovsky if that changes the tax situation for him.

The idea is that SJ doesn't get out of Karlsson's contract but they get the trade value of him as a player. My question is what could Florida give (didn't include that in the trade).

Literally zero incentive for SJS to do this trade. EK65 with retention holds much better value than a massively overplayed Bobrovsky.

Not to mention, why would SJS be looking to add Bobrovsky and that contract whilst trying to retool?

The above is just a trade skeleton, the challenge to this trade is 1) what's Bob's motivation to waive? 2) Does Florida have the assets to trade for Karlsson?

what the hell is this??

so Reimer and the 2nd cancel out and we’re paying a lot more w/ the retention for a 10 mil backup?

With how Karlsson has started this season I don’t see an EK65-Bob trade happening.

Sharks take on a F*CK ton of cap and get massively worse for nothing? Reimer has been better than Bob at $8 mil cheaper. Good lord my guy.

It's not meant to be a 2 for 2.

From the right side of the trade description:

"I know this probably has no chance of happening but what would the sweetner for the extra 3m and a hot Karlsson look like? Florida is already low on high draft capital, Lundell is probably too valuable to give up."

My question is what does Florida have to give that could make this interesting for SJ? They don't got any 1st.

Why is Bobrovsky in the trade? So that SJ isn't getting out of paying Karlsson's salary, the only benefit they are getting through swap of contracts is that Bob has 1 less year, so they will get back 8m/11.5m in the 5th year.

Read the right side of the trade description or my replies above.

Florida could add Lundell, Samoskevich and Benning and it would be fair

Either way, San Jose isn’t paying essentially $13.5 mil for Bobrovsky. That’s asinine

If they are just retooling then I agree, but if they are trying for a long-term rebuild they could.

Essentially they are paying Karlsson to play on Florida for 5 years, and they are taking a 13.5m cap hit for 4 years + 3.5m 1 year vs 11.5 x 5 and they are stuck with playing or scratching Bobrovsky.

first you gotta kidnap Bob's family members for ransom/blackmail
then you have to give SJ at 2-3 of their top prospects because panthers have no picks left
and then RIP Florida's future

I could see Zito further mortgage the future for a luxury like Karlsson, but I don't think ransom/blackmail are in his bag of bold moves.

Barkov, Tkachuk, Lundell, Ekblad, and Knight will have to be enough for them for the next 5+ years.

1) his motivation is slim to none especially considering the tax difference between FLA and CAL

2) of course FLA has the assets to trade for EK65 (but Bobrovsky won’t be going back the other way as part of that deal)

If FLA wants to move Bobrovsky, they’re gunna have to retain (plus convince him to waive) to another team.

Then pay extra to SJS for retaining on EK65 for them to retain too to make the money work

Even if a team is in for a long term rebuild a $40 mil cap dump plus another $15 mil in retention is going to be a massive cost that no franchise could afford, especially one with no picks

It's you: getting offended, lol.

I agree that Bobrovsky has no motivation, not only is he losing money but he's going to a worse team, (maybe they could guarantee him the starting role but that's just about it).

For Florida to dump Bobrovsky, they will have to pay a ton of assets, so they aren't going to dump him and then give additional assets to get EK65.

Regardless of how well Karlsson is doing, his contract is a terrible one, he has a full NMC in all 5 years, he's 32, so even at 50% retained the only motivation for teams in general to take on his contract is if they are getting him for pennies on the dollar, maybe they get like two 2nds if they are lucky. Taking Bobrovsky essential counteracts the risk associate with Karlsson's contract even at retention, so it gives SJ the leverage to actually get something of significant value for Karlsson.

The proposed trade basically gives SJ Bobrovsky at 13.5mx4+3.5mx1 at Karlsson's salary instead of Karlsson at 11.5mx5 and FLR gets Karlsson 8mx5 at Bobrovsky's current salary, so they are getting cap and getting the better player (currently).

Bobrovsky is only owed 22.5m in future salaries while Karlsson is owed 39m which they will be paying 30% of which is 11.7m+22.5m = 34.2m. Karlsson's salary this year is 2m and Bob's is 6m, so with retention it's basically the same salaries (I'm not going to do the extra math to get the exact amount needed for it to be equivalent). What's being changed is the player, the terms of their contracts+duration, and effective cap hit.

Bob has no reason to leave no tax Florida for high tax California, And San Jose wouldn't be the team he'd be waiving for anyways,

I know, I know...someone came up with an unfeasible "solution" to try getting around Bob's NMC. The only thing that SJ has to offer him is the starting role which I don't think is enough. I'm wondering though if he were to be paid by Florida (if they retained some and then SJ retains more), would that improve his tax situation? Or is he still getting taxed on it all in California?

Sharks are like the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the NHL right now, At least Florida is still in it and playing very competitive hockey without Ekblad and losing Huberdeau, Weegar, Marchment having Duclair on IR.

Yep, there's that too, like I said in the trade description, he would be losing money to go lose.

I’ll bet you anything that EK65 at 4.5yrs with 50% retained nets more than two 2nds.

He probably does but I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't get traded for much more.

Well, if SJS goes full scorched earth, could always buy him out vs retaining 50% for 5 seasons