If a report by TSN’s Pierre LeBrun regarding the San Jose Sharks’ willingness (or rumored lack thereof) to retain salary on Erik Karlsson is accurate, fans in Edmonton who like Evan Bouchard could be in for a stressful two weeks. LeBrun noted during a recent episode of the Got Yer’ Back podcast that any reports the Sharks are only willing to retain 18% of Karlsson’s contract are not true. There is no mandate from ownership or management when it comes to how much they’ll keep if the team can make the right deal.
On the surface, that sounds like good news because it makes a Karlsson trade more plausible. But, if you’re asking, ‘What does this have to do with Evan Bouchard?’, the answer is that the right deal for the Sharks might mean the Oilers need to include a defenseman who has some incredible upside and potential. That is, at least, if Edmonton wants San Jose to hold back more money.
This Much Salary Retention Is Unheard Of
Knowing there are a few things that have to happen for a Karlsson-to-Edmonton trade to even work logistically, San Jose is likely going to want more than just players on this Oilers roster with salary attached to their deals. In the history of the NHL, there’s never been a player traded with this much salary retention and/or for so long a term. The Oilers can’t just flop a first-round pick and names like Jesse Puljujarvi and Tyson Barrie to the Sharks and think they’ll bite. If the Oilers are going to get the Sharks to retain as much as 40% of Karlsson’s contract, they’ll need to sweeten the deal.
Latest News & Highlights
If the Sharks retain a mere 18%, that brings Karlsson’s hit down from $11.5 million to $9.43 million. That’s a massive issue for the Oilers, one they likely can’t overcome. At the same time, Karlsson becomes a more difficult asset to trade at a later date, should the Oilers ever need to. Convincing a team to take on $4.7 million of Karlsson when he’s 35 and 36 years old is far more difficult than it would be to convince a team to take on $3.5 million.
Why Would the Oilers Move Bouchard?
As for why Bouchard, the answer involves the math, the ask, and the position. First, throwing Bouchard into a deal that already includes Barrie and Puljujarvi brings the Oilers up to $8.363 million going back to San Jose. That’s still not enough based on an 18% retention rate. But, Bouchard is a player with an extremely high ceiling. He’s the type of asset that Sharks may see as a future building block for their back end and that has value. Potentially, it has value in the range of about 15% -20% more salary retained.
Second, Karlsson coming in means the Oilers have their top-tier, right-shot defenseman on the roster for the next four seasons. With Karlsson and Cody Ceci patrolling the right side, that keeps Bouchard down on the third pair and that’s not ideal for a team that could use a slightly different dimension and probably had a projection curve in mind for the player. It was always believed that, eventually, Barrie would move on and Bouchard slide in. With Karlsson on the roster, Bouchard doesn’t get those minutes for at least three or four years.
Is This Trade Worth It?
Having Karlsson on this Oilers’ roster sounds like a dream scenario where the team has the two best forwards in the world, great offensive depth, an elite defenseman as part of a solid top-two, and stable goaltending. It’s what Stanley Cup championship teams are made of. But, to do this, there’s the potential it costs the Oilers a first-round pick, Bouchard, Barrie, Puljujarvi, and a prospect like Xavier Bourgault (or something equivalent). That’s a massive price for a defenseman that just a year ago was deemed to have an untradeable contract.
This is not an argument against the idea of adding Karlsson. It’s just a thought that if the Oilers pay this steep a price, they ensure that San Jose retains as much salary as humanly possible. Ken Holland needs Karlsson at a $7 million price tag; not $11.5 and not even $9.43. It needs to be as close to or better than $7 million per season for this to be the right move in the short and long term.