would you trade Tavares + Ghost + Marner for Karlsson?

[Overated Veteran]

It is a very steep price but imo Karlsson is the most valuable player in a points only league, right after Mcdavid I guess.

[Doug Glatt]

I own EK, love the guy, but this is a steep price. Your D corps is outstanding already, I dont think I would give up so much. No deal for me.

[Noddes55]

I would t do it. Very steep price. Your d is already great.

[Nikerato]

Too much imo. I would definitely not do that.

[Triplea14]

NO, NO, and NO for karlsson

[Axeman33]

Too rich for my blood. Tavares straight up should be a fair deal for both sides, let alone adding the two other young assets.

[Eskimo Brother]

Too rich for my blood. Tavares straight up should be a fair deal for both sides, let alone adding the two other young assets.

This was my thinking as well. I could see someone going Tavares for EK, as there have also been threads of people looking at Benn for EK, however adding Ghost AND Marner, you're easily going to be losing that three years down the road.

[Sherpa]

In a cap league, Tavares is a top-5 own all by himself. Given that there doesn't appear to be any extra scoring attached to defensemen, I'd think Tavares for EK straight up would be a very fair deal.

Throwing in the two young guys tips the scales to the other owner significantly.

[Lekkric]

I think that in a points only league Karlsson is the most valuable player bar none. His points compared to the second best at his position (consistently) is such a huge gap that McDavid might someday get there but isn't there yet. The cap situation may tip the scales toward another player being best, not sure on that.

That said, on this deal you're paying Tavares and Marner for a 25 (ish) point upgrade. Pretty damn expensive. Last November I paid Stamkos and D. Strome for Karlsson in a points-only league, but the player he bumped out of my lineup was friggin Cody Ceci, not Gostisbehere.

[Bra]

I agree, too steep.

Sorry guy.

[Ed.]

Limited keepers are a factor here as well though. It's actually Tavares+Ghost+Marner for Karlsson+Two guys he'd have to drop.

So just guessing here, but let's say keepers are:

F: McDavid, Tavares, Crosby, Hall, Eberle, Backstrom, Domi
D: Letang, Shattenkirk, Faulk, Weber, Gostisbehere, Theodore
G: Dubnyk, Helleybuck

I assume Marner, as a 2015 prospect didn't count against last year's roster, since he isn't listed, but would count this year. Thus to keep Marner, one of those 15 has to go. Theodore maybe?

But if Tavares becomes Karlsson, and Marner goes away, Theodore can stay. If Ghost goes away, one of T.Johnson, S.Bennet, Spooner, B.Schenn can stay. So it ends up being more like Tavares+Ghost+Marner for Karlsson+Bennett+Theodore, which isn't all that unreasonable. Karlsson is probably an upgrade, since he is more exceptional at his position than Tavares is, fantasy-wise. Bennet vs Marner...who knows, but arguably pretty even. Ghost vs. Theodore is a loss, at least for now. Proven vs. potential and all, but Theodore is a highly rated offensive D prospect who could quite conceivably reach Ghost heights in a few years. Not sure I'd do it, but in a limited keeper environment it isn't a bad thing to consider.

[pmorrow]

It is a very steep price but imo Karlsson is the most valuable player in a points only league, right after Mcdavid I guess.

In a 10 team keep 15 is Marner a keeper? Im guessing no but Im not actually sure.

What would help is a little context. How many guys you are giving up are perceived keepers? If it's just JT then I can see the argument for getting Karlsson.

[Overated Veteran]

First of all, thank you guys for the many answers offered. I think the unanimous decision is to keep Tavares and the two other studs. That's what I'll do.

Just to let you know, I offered him Tavares and ghost first. He said Karlsson was not for trade... can't blame him I guess

Ed got it all figured out. If I could double rep you I'd do it

Limited keepers are a factor here as well though. It's actually Tavares+Ghost+Marner for Karlsson+Two guys he'd have to drop.

So just guessing here, but let's say keepers are:

F: McDavid, Tavares, Crosby, Hall, Eberle, Backstrom, Domi
D: Letang, Shattenkirk, Faulk, Weber, Gostisbehere, Theodore
G: Dubnyk, Helleybuck

I assume Marner, as a 2015 prospect didn't count against last year's roster, since he isn't listed, but would count this year. Thus to keep Marner, one of those 15 has to go. Theodore maybe?

But if Tavares becomes Karlsson, and Marner goes away, Theodore can stay. If Ghost goes away, one of T.Johnson, S.Bennet, Spooner, B.Schenn can stay. So it ends up being more like Tavares+Ghost+Marner for Karlsson+Bennett+Theodore, which isn't all that unreasonable. Karlsson is probably an upgrade, since he is more exceptional at his position than Tavares is, fantasy-wise. Bennet vs Marner...who knows, but arguably pretty even. Ghost vs. Theodore is a loss, at least for now. Proven vs. potential and all, but Theodore is a highly rated offensive D prospect who could quite conceivably reach Ghost heights in a few years. Not sure I'd do it, but in a limited keeper environment it isn't a bad thing to consider.

Marner didnt play a single nhl game so I get to keep him for free (my 16th keeper). And yes the key in a keeper in my opinion is to make some nice 2:1 or even 3:1 trades in the off season. This way you get to keep some more players while upgrading another one (ala Tavares for Karlsson). Maybe my offer was a bit too generous here, it got declined anyway oh well!

While we're at it. Should I really keep Theodore instead of Tyler Johnson? I feel like I'd do the same mistake I did last year when I kept Derek Pouliot. I mean Tyjo is bound to have another 70pts season right? At 3.5m it's pretty sweet. Anyway that's another story.

[havanablast21]

Way too much

[Ed.]

You're right. You should probably keep Johnson. There's no guarantee he bounces back to 70 points, but he's worth giving another chance. Those 3-for-1 offseason deals get harder and harder to make in limited keepers, as more GMs figure out the value of that strategy, and don't want to be on the other end.