45
Photo Credit: PHOTO CREDIT: PERRY NELSON-USA TODAY SPORTS

WWYDW: Erik Karlsson

When Elliotte Friedman talks, you listen. And today, he dropped a bombshell:

Apparently, the Canucks are kicking the tires on Erik Karlsson. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, necessarily, considering the team had interest in P.K. Subban just two years ago.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The rumour certainly adds a new wrinkle to the speculation that Trevor Linden’s departure was due in large part to believing the team is farther away from being competitive than the rest of the front office. Still, Erik Karlsson is probably the best defenseman in the league, and the thought of him in a Canucks uniform is intriguing to say the least.

Would you trade for Erik Karlsson? If so, what would you give up? (Please try to be realistic.)

Last week I asked: what changes, if any, would you like to see the Canucks make to their home, away, and third jerseys?

Killer Marmot: 

Let’s face it, the Canucks logos have been a mess. They have used five completely different logos in their history (rink, giant V, flying skate, orca, and lumberjack) and two completely different colour schemes (white, green, blue and yellow, red, black). And with the exception of Johnny Canuck, their logos have no connection to their name.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

No more radical changes. Their current logo isn’t bad looking, but the “splash” where the C turns into a whale is overly complicated. Simplify that bit — perhaps getting rid of that weird jagged line in the C — and then keep to it.

Kaler:

The Canucks aren’t an Original 6 team imbued with tradition. The Canucks don’t have a single iconic jersey. They are the opposite of every team in the league and they should own that.

They should play in a new jersey every single year. Have a New York Fashion Week like event every year on opening day that reveals the jersey for that year.

Forget tradition and iconic. Be stylish, be new, be fashionable.

Rodeobill:

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Spaghetti plate is nostalgic for me, the lumberjack looks good too, stick in the rink is simplistic, and that’s alright, but I think the orca is where its at. It identifies with a cool predatory beast on the coast, the blue and green colors do too, and has a West Coast aboriginal art vibe, an art form pack with symbolism. We should just stick with that.

Defenceman Factory:

I’ve grown to like the blue and green and the killer whale. Don’t think I’d change much.

Something I would like to see is some small adornments to acknowledge the fan base and contributions from our asian communities.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Forever 1915:

Have an indigenous artist redesign the Orca logo in an authentic First Nations art style.

apr:

I think people get a little bit too caught up with jerseys. NBA, NFL, and MLB often have several designs as one offs here and there. I don’t think its a big deal if Canadian teams wear a Remembrance day jersey, an original jersey, a mental health or cancer awareness jersey and auction them off to worthwhile charities. Its no big deal. Just keep the regular jerseys in the playoffs.

Goon:

Get rid of the dopey “VANCOUVER” on the front of the jersey. No other team has their city name spelled out in bold on the chest. Other than that, leave it alone – the orca in this colour scheme is attractive, fits the city, and this team has had too many damn jersey changes over the years.

 



    • Cageyvet

      If Benning didn’t call for Karlsson and Tavares then fire him. We all know what the price should be, and few would advocate paying it, but we’ve seen steals before and they only came to those who started a conversation. I don’t understand the rush to judgement and angst I’m hearing about this, Friedman didn’t even suggest the Canucks were a serious player, just that they’d inquired. There’s no point in him tweeting about Florida or Arizona, but tweet something involving a Canadian team and watch the fan base overreact, it’s predictable and keeps his name out there, which is the point of his Twitter feed.

      • Macksonious

        “….Friedman didn’t even suggest the Canucks were a serious player, just that they’d inquired. There’s no point in him tweeting about Florida or Arizona, but tweet something involving a Canadian team and watch the fan base overreact, it’s predictable and keeps his name out there, which is the point of his Twitter feed.” ~Cageyvet

        That above quote sums it up.

  • If you can take Ryan with Karlsson for a reasonable package built around the Canucks’ second tier of prospects – players like Adam Gaudette, Kole Lind, and Olli Juolevi (No Petterson, no Hughes, no 1st round pick this season) – and then flip Karlsson to an Ottawa rival in need of help on defense like Toronto or Boston (Chara’s going to retire at some point), for a major return, absolutely do it.

    As for acquiring Karlsson to play on the Canucks – that’s just a terrible idea. Karlsson is amazing, but he isn’t going to lift a bottom-five team to contention by himself, and the cost of acquisition will likely be very high.

    • North Van Halen

      Karlsson is no Barry Pederson. Not even close. Pederson was a pretty good centre propped up by playing with the 2nd best winger in the NHL, Rick Middleton (just not as good as Lafleur).
      Karlsson is legit and likely to be one of the best for a few more years. He’s just at the wrong point in his career arc for this team and likely too costly in terms of the assets we do need, prospects.

  • Hockey Bunker

    Lets see, best dman in hockey. Only 28. Right handed (rare). Offensive powerhouse even on his own.
    You are right why would the Canucks go after him, when they have Hutton and Gudbranson and other future Superstars on D. Why would the team want to win now when they can wait another 4 years!! What would they be thinking. Sheesh.

    • Canuck4Life20

      Ummmm…. maybe they’re thinking the price is too high and don’t want to see multiple prospects and draft picks shipped out? The original question was what would you give up in a trade for Karlsson? Apparently your answer is whatever Ottawa asks for. Sheesh indeed.

      • Hockey Bunker

        Great comment.
        Let’s pretend we own the Canucks.
        Ottawa proposes a ridiculous trade for Karlsson demanding:
        Quinn Hughes
        Demko or Virtanen
        Stetcher or Gudbranson
        Maybe another tier two prospect like Gaudette
        And either the first rounder in 19 or 20. Ottawa’s choice.
        And before the deal Canucks and Karlsson agree on a new contract so he can’t walk
        As Canucks owner you know Karlsson, a two time Norris winner will make your team win now. The risk is injuries but that could happen to any player.
        Maybe Canucks won’t win a cup but he’ll drive offense from the back end and your D becomes stronger too because Tanev no longer is #1 on right side. It means millions of dollars in additional profit for you the businessman versus a 2 to 4 year wait during which you lose millions because the team is building up, no playoffs and thousands of empty seats every night
        That will be the boardroom discussion with JB and FA. JB says he wouldn’t do it, I’m not sure FA would agree. We’ll see who the boss is. Would I do it if I owned the team?
        I might have to be talked out of it because Hughes is compared to Karlsson but Karlsson is Karlsson. And money talks and BS walks.
        FYI it’s not going to happen.
        So we can rest easy….

  • OMAR49

    First of all, any trade for Karlsson would have to be conditional upon him signing an extension. If not, then there is no deal.
    I wouldn’t have a problem with the Canucks trading Baertchi, Tanev, possibly Juolevi, Lind and a future 2nd round draft pick for Karlsson. Such a deal would also require the Canucks to take on all or a part the Bobby Ryan contract.The Canucks would still keep their future stars and it would open up positions for players like Goldobin so we we wouldn’t lose them to waivers etc.

  • Dirty30

    From Beagle to Karlsson? That’s going to make this team competitive? What is going to be given up to get him? Hughes?

    This team has one centre, one winger, barely one D and maybe Demko makes the jump to goal and maybe does better than Markie?

    You just drafted Hughes — why would you even entertain the haul you would give up to get Karlsson. Nuts. Set this team back another decade. Totally nuts.

    EK may be the best D in the league but that doesn’t make him the best D for this team unless you get the deal of a lifetime.

  • Burnabybob

    I wouldn’t trade for Karlsson. The price will be too high, and he’ll be in his 30’s by the time they’re ready to compete. If they want to add veteran depth to their defense, they should explore free agency. Giving up young players will just prolong the rebuild.

      • Kootenaydude

        Try to be a little more creative. I find your comment mundane and lacked creativity. Like you could have said Karlsson will be getting pushed around in a wheel chair before the Canucks make the playoffs. Perhaps he will be driving flying cars before the Canucks reach the playoffs. Maybe Karlsson will be retired and driving a powered scooter before the Canucks reach the playoffs. If you’re going to dis the Canucks. AT LEAST HAVE GOOD MATERIAL THAT MAKES ME LAUGH!!

  • North Van Halen

    I’m not sure there is a player on the planet, above the age of 25, the Canucks should trade Petersson, Hughes or their 1st next year for.
    Not Crosby, not Malkin, and not Karlsson. The window opens in 2 – 3 years and all asset should be acquired with that in mind.
    Make the call, sure just don’t do anything stupid.

  • North Van Halen

    Out of curiosity is Friedman’s new job to give Vancouver writers/bloggers summer fodder by linking us to every dman that becomes available. Hanifin made little sense, Karlsson less, yet he keeps singling us out.
    I have no doubt Benning is calling to get costs just to see, I doubt he’s offering our best prospects and high picks (at least he better not be)..

  • TD

    I would take Karlsson in a heartbeat, but what I would offer would never get accepted. I would offer Tanev and a second and a third tier prospect. I would consider Dahlen, Lind, Gaudette second tier prospects and Jasek, Gadjovich, Palmu as third tier prospects. I would not do the deal unless Karlsson agreed to an extension of a minimum of 4 years for no more than 8-9 mil. Obviously my deal wouldn’t work.

    Karlsson could be a great partner for Hughes or Juolevi, but not at the price the Canucks could afford. I’m sure it would take at least two of Boeser, Horvat, Pettersson, Hughes or next year’s 1st round pick plus something else. Way too rich for me.

    • Dirty30

      Karlsson has said he is looking to be the highest paid D in the league — that was based on a conversation he had with another D who just signed a top line contract. So even if we gave Ottawa back Dahlen and nothing else for Karlsson, the cost of signing him would be prohibitive.

      It’s likely that Ottawa will lose EK for next to nothing because any team interested in him is facing a huge contract and he is approaching UFA status.

      My two cents is EK makes it to UFA and Ottawa is in a load of trouble for a long time.

  • truthseeker

    As with any trade, it totally depends on the cost.

    There are only a couple of scenarios that make a trade like that palatable for where the canucks are right now in their development and I don’t see any of those being realistic so basically no…I wouldn’t trade for him.

    Those things?

    1) We get him for cheap. Not going to happen.
    2) He signs for cheap. Not going to happen.

    Basically what I don’t want the team to have (as long as there is a cap structure like there is currently) is a 10+ million dollar player. Hell, I don’t even want an 8 million dollar player if it can be helped. There is no leverage at all with a player like Karlsson. He’s going to cash in and easily be an 8+ million dollar player. It doesn’t fit.

    As I mentioned before…I want a lot of good cost controlled young “stars” all around 6-7 million (for the best of them) then surrounded by good veteran short term deals for when they are ready for a run. Then those contracts are traded right before FA, and we reload.

    I’d love to have Karlsson as a one year rental. That would be fun. I’d even give up some assets for that…but nothing major….like I said…Not going to happen.

  • Lemmy Kilmister

    With Dorian being the absolute biggest buffoon thats come around since Milbury you already know that fool is going get a poor return a la “Duchene” … so why wouldn’t Benning kick the tires with one of the worst GM’s in the last 25 years

    • Cageyvet

      Thank you. We did alright moving Burrows to Ottawa, and the trades Dorion has made have ranged from mediocre to awful. Of course you call, and see if he’s into the tequila that day or whatever influences him to make these deals.

  • Foximus

    Nope. This shouldn’t even be on the table. Like many before me have said – stick with the process. JB is doing a great job drafting – not so much signing free agents and trading. Karlsson is amazing – just not with Vancouver and certainly not right now. Stay the course.

  • Jabs

    Regarding Karlsson, it makes sense for the Canucks to kick the tires to see if they can lowball the Sens but since other teams will be more willing to make better offers then the Canucks should not get into a bidding war.
    Ultimately the best thing is for the Canucks to walk away, they may very well need this cap space, especially considering the potential penalties from Luongo’s contract if he retires before the end of it; also the Canucks are not in a win now situation so they should not be trying to make any serious offers here.

    • truthseeker

      Once again, Luongo’s contract will never be an issue for the canucks.
      1) He’s never going to “retire” before the contract is up. Why would anyone leave that kind of money?
      2) Even in the extremely unlikely case that he did, two things would happen;
      a) The canucks would trade for his contract and “Pronger” him. Lu would “get injured”, Still get paid and that
      cap room would be open for the canucks.
      or
      b) I could even see Florida wanting to keep his contract on their books even if he “retired” simply as a way to
      get to the cap floor. They’re one of those cheap teams so if they can cut costs they would. They’d just do
      the same. Tell Lu to “get injured” and then he gets paid and they get closer to the cap floor.

      • argoleas

        This analysis needs to be packaged as anti-anxiety medication for all that still fret about Luongo’s Ghastly Recapture Penalty.

        Fact is, there are other such Recapture Death Traps out there, and not one will ever hurt any team. They are a tradeable commodity just like any other. And is seems like Arizona buys all of them like they’re collectible items.

    • El Kabong

      If you really want Karlsson wait until next UFA season and make him a whopper of an offer. In order to do it just get rid of Loui Eriksson and either Gagner or Beagle. That would pretty much cover his salary.

      • Bud Poile

        Karlsson will be traded long before he hits free agency.
        The team trading for him will most likely want him under a lengthy contract before surrendering tangible assets.

        • Depends if Ottawa can get a deal done by the trade deadline or not. If they can’t work something out, they may be forced to trade Karlsson as a deadline rental, in which case he very well could hit free agency.

          Obviously that’s a terrible situation for Ottawa to be in, but it’s far from impossible.

  • Defenceman Factory

    I would definitely get the Canucks in a three way deal where Karlsson goes to Vancouver where he is immediately flipped to a 3rd team. Vancouver retains salary for next season and gets a pick or prospect in return.

  • tyhee

    With the Canucks being a bottom dweller, Karlsson having only one year left before unrestricted free agency and being at an age where players cash in on long-term contracts that general managers keep handing out even though they are usually poor value in the long run, it really doesn’t make sense for the Canucks to even consider acquiring Karlsson with a view to keeping him for the long-term.

    If they can get him for next to nothing, then of course it makes sense. I’d be happy to see the Canucks trade Eriksson, Beagle and Gudbranson for Karlsson. Obviously, Ottawa wouldn’t go for that. They aren’t a team to take on bad contracts and they’d be sure to get better offers.

    If the Canucks can manage to get him and flip him so that they get something out of it (preferrably in assets for the future) or if they can take part in a 3-way deal where another team gets Karlsson and the Canucks get more value back than what they pay out as their part of the deal it can make sense, but generally there are better fits for Karlsson than the Canucks. A current Stanley Cup contender with low (or no) state income tax and a desirable location makes the most sense. Vancouver may be a great place to live but otherwise just isn’t a fit.

    • Oscar the dog

      If the Canucks got in a 3 way trade with Ottawa, and toronto, they may think of something along the lines of vancouver getting Ryan sending Baerschi and Jaseck to Ottawa , Karlson to toronto, vancouver
      getting either liligren and or Johanson plus Kapinen, and Ottawa getting the other of liligren Johanson,
      plus Sparks and torontos 1st and second rounders and Dermot

      • Dirty30

        Where is Toronto going to get the cap space to sign EK to the contract he wants?

        And now Vancouver has Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Sutter, and Ryan to carry for how many years? So Benning asks FA to waive $20 mil of salary to the AHL for how long?

        If JB has not signed those contracts he could have swung a deal. Now he doesn’t have the assets to swing a deal without taking Ryan but doesn’t have the long term cap to take Ryan.

  • argoleas

    Karlsson is a generational player that Canucks need….. 4 years from now, when he will be 32. The timing is just not there for a team that is still rebuilding and may be for a few more seasons. A rebuilding team that still really needs high draft picks.

    And if Karlsson wants to come here because he feels this team has something special, then he should go UFA next summer and sign in Vancouver. Basically the Tavares route.

  • Kootenaydude

    I think teams are starting to realize you don’t pay players huge contracts for what they have done in the past. It handcuffs the team. Prime example is Chicago. As a Canuck fan I just don’t see the fit here. We’re in a rebuild. Not a team that needs a boost to become a Stanley Cup contender. As a GM it is Bennings responsibility to check on the cost of getting Karlsson. Unfortunately as an armchair GM. He just doesn’t fit into the Canucks plans and future.

  • Kootenaydude

    If you’re the owner of the Canucks. Are you maybe thinking that Karlsson would help sell more tickets? As fans we want a Stanley Cup contender. We don’t care about the down years with low ticket sales. As an owner though. You might just want to speed things up. Ice a competitive team and get people in the seats sooner than later. Karlsson fits that bill.