Tavares vs Karlsson (HB21 vs EB)

[Eskimo Brother]

Except I have no interest in Eller. Not exactly that simple.

[havanablast21]

Can you afford a different C, rather than use the player's you've listed from your farm as a replacement?

If you can't, I would pass on the deal because the risk/reward factor isn't on your side. Moving a rock of a player like Tavares where you know what you're going to get from season to season for a high risk/high reward type player in EK just seems too risky due to his recent injuries.

What if you add Eller to the deal, and he gives a minor upgrade at C in return to off-set the risk of EK vs Tavares? Could still work out as a win-win deal for both sides...

I get the risk/reward concern of EK65. But would not be counter intuitive to send my #2 and #3 C's (Tavares/Eller) For arguably my #1/2 D and a small upgrade at C? That would leave me with Matthews and a small upgrade on Eller rather than Matthews, Eller and try and add 3rd C. Eller is actually a fantastic value in our league under control for 3 more years at a fantastic cap hit. He's the only reason i'm considering moving Tavares out, and try and fill that hole with the numerous C eligible C i have on the farm.

[Eskimo Brother]

You can have Jordan Staal if you want him

[stevegamer]

Somehow I didn't realize they are roughly the same age. Karlsson just seems older with the injuries, I guess.

[saucelife90]

Except I have no interest in Eller. Not exactly that simple.

These are details of your discussions regarding the deal that I have no clue about. I was throwing out ideas to try and balance the deal, but if Eller isn't a piece you want, then obviously it doesn't work. I'm sure there's something else you guys can work out that's similar such as a minor winger for winger swap added to the deal, but again I'm not sure who's on your squad that HB would be interested in and who's on his that you'd have your eye on.

I get the risk/reward concern of EK65. But would not be counter intuitive to send my #2 and #3 C's (Tavares/Eller) For arguably my #1/2 D and a small upgrade at C? That would leave me with Matthews and a small upgrade on Eller rather than Matthews, Eller and try and add 3rd C. Eller is actually a fantastic value in our league under control for 3 more years at a fantastic cap hit. He's the only reason i'm considering moving Tavares out, and try and fill that hole with the numerous C eligible C i have on the farm.

No, it would leave you with Matthews, the upgrade @ #2C and then your farm replacement @ #3 which is better than Matthews, Eller & farm replacement.

[jshed2]

I think that Karlsson is the boom/bust pick here. Could hit a 60+ point pace or could be closer to 45 points. However you more or less know that you have a 75-90 point center with Tavares. I think you're paying a price that assumes that Karlsson hits that 60+ point pace and doesn't compensate you for taking on that risk.

Also I think that there is a large discrepancy in name value between the two at this point. Tavares is the leafs center playing with guys like Marner. Karlsson on the other hand is coming off of one of his worst seasons, directly after signing a massive contract and is perceived to still be dealing with long-term effects of his ankle surgery. I think you should be able to find a leaf fan who'd be willing to pay more (or at least give you a defenceman on a better contract).

Also not a fan of the firsts involved. In order for you to net gain on the swap of firsts you'd need to win the league next year, which has no certainty even if you are the favourite. More likely you lose out on the swap.

I think Karlsson could be a decent piece for you still, but I wouldn't do this deal as it is here. I'd be looking to add on another swap that helps reduce that risk for you. For example if you could include Tuch or Palat for a comparable player with less risk I think this would be ok for you, but more so a lateral move.

[Eskimo Brother]

Couple of thoughts related to the assets here:

Karlsson in his "disappointing" last two seasons has paced for an average of 65 points. With a fresh start coming, time for him to get fully healthy, and having had some time to cope with the personal tragedy of his baby being a stillborn. Seems like his poor production in a healthy season is about 65 points, which means the upside would still be there for a point per game player.

The ankle injury concerns are probably valid to some extent, but we haven't heard anything about that bugging him for about two years now. His groin should be healed with all the rest, and his last injury was a freak on to his thumb IIRC. So really all this apparent risk seems more like a massive bit of groupthink around the hockey community. I'm looking to buy Karlsson for this upcoming year in every pool of mine that I can.

A pick one year for a pick next year usually has to be a better pick next year for the swap to make sense. Otherwise you keep the present pick every time to have the extra year of development and time for the player value to rise.

[metaldude26]

Can't help myself.

This is a well-crafted offer for Tavares because you can see the potential reward and positional value, and there's really no salary consideration here. However, the trick lies in the swapping of the picks. #23 has no upward mobility, and looking at how picks in that range have been treated, aren't expressing a ton of trade value. As confident as one may be about their 2021 roster, that pick has unknown potential. It could be a lottery pick, and even if it's a pick in the teens, that's an incremental gain.

So this deal is essentially a double-down on Karlsson bouncing back, with some strong downside if he doesn't, or gets hurt AGAIN.

The side gaining Tavares adds one of the most consistent and reliable stars, while reducing volatility, and you gaining the added bonus of betting on your opponent flopping and this trade turning into a bonanza.

If you want to trade Tavares for Karlsson, do it as a one-for-one. If you want to trade into the 2020 draft at the expense of your 2021 pick, do it one-for-one, but maybe shop around. You can probably get a higher pick!

Doing both in one deal sees you absorb most, if not all of the risk.

Like I said, it's a well crafted offer. You walk away feeling like a winner because you get to make a pick now and have the rush of betting on the Karlsson upside and perhaps filling a position of need. But meanwhile, you've conceded all these slight edges and taken on all the risk.

[havanablast21]

Thanks all for your feedback. Much appreciated. I've decided not to move JT out as my primary goal was to eventually move him for 2 cheaper upside assets. I think I'd have less roadblocks doing so with the slightly cheaper, less risky JT then trying to convince everyone that the EK65 redflags are not warranted. Definitely boom/bust, but with JT, I avoid the bust risk.

[havanablast21]

Can't help myself.

This is a well-crafted offer for Tavares because you can see the potential reward and positional value, and there's really no salary consideration here. However, the trick lies in the swapping of the picks. #23 has no upward mobility, and looking at how picks in that range have been treated, aren't expressing a ton of trade value. As confident as one may be about their 2021 roster, that pick has unknown potential. It could be a lottery pick, and even if it's a pick in the teens, that's an incremental gain.

So this deal is essentially a double-down on Karlsson bouncing back, with some strong downside if he doesn't, or gets hurt AGAIN.

The side gaining Tavares adds one of the most consistent and reliable stars, while reducing volatility, and you gaining the added bonus of betting on your opponent flopping and this trade turning into a bonanza.

If you want to trade Tavares for Karlsson, do it as a one-for-one. If you want to trade into the 2020 draft at the expense of your 2021 pick, do it one-for-one, but maybe shop around. You can probably get a higher pick!

Doing both in one deal sees you absorb most, if not all of the risk.

Like I said, it's a well crafted offer. You walk away feeling like a winner because you get to make a pick now and have the rush of betting on the Karlsson upside and perhaps filling a position of need. But meanwhile, you've conceded all these slight edges and taken on all the risk.

Thanks for sounding in Steve. Totally agree with your point of view here.

[Eskimo Brother]

Steve makes some solid points that the different segments of the deal break down well and fairly evenly, though the risk is mostly one-sided.
I guess we'll look at a few other options here.

[Eskimo Brother]

The one bit I will add a thought on is that a pick in the "teens" is an incremental gain. This is thought to be a deeper draft, and having a pick a few slots later from a year ahead will generally get you out in front value wise due to the extra year of development. Trading a mid 4th rounder for a late 3rd next year is pretty even value for both teams.
Interpolating that down to the first round versions, pick 23 for somewhere in the 16-24 range seems like a fair value play.
Yes there is the upside risk on the pick, but if that doesn't pan out then I don't think it's still a win for the '21 pick. The value of moving up a few slots is cancelled out by moving back a year.

[metaldude26]

The one bit I will add a thought on is that a pick in the "teens" is an incremental gain. This is thought to be a deeper draft, and having a pick a few slots later from a year ahead will generally get you out in front value wise due to the extra year of development. Trading a mid 4th rounder for a late 3rd next year is pretty even value for both teams.
Interpolating that down to the first round versions, pick 23 for somewhere in the 16-24 range seems like a fair value play.
Yes there is the upside risk on the pick, but if that doesn't pan out then I don't think it's still a win for the '21 pick. The value of moving up a few slots is cancelled out by moving back a year.

Giving away some of my secrets here, but some of that year over year value loss of a pick is reduced with this being a limited keeper. Every incremental gain is boosted with the reality that it enhances the chances of landing a player worth keeping.

And, knowing your "compete now" philosophy unlikely you're using that pick at #23, so swapping it back a year buys you more time with that asset to shop around with the upside that if you hold on it gains value over time.

But that's all debatable. As I said previously, you can more easily justify each half of the deal. My main point, making both of those bets at once causes one side to incur all the risk.

[Eskimo Brother]

Definitely a good take on it all.

[havanablast21]

IF this topic turns into a new Steve Laidlaw Podcast featuring Alex McLean, I want some credit for it!

Sounds like a great topic to discuss further.