I don't see the big deal. The guy will just be coming off his ELC. The Sens could technically offer him a 5% increase over his current contract of $875k (not including his past bonuses). They won't do that so as not to p!$$ him off but he has no real leverage for another 4 full years after this one.
The only way he gets big bucks long term is if he gives up UFA years but the Sens may not want to commit to a 5+ year contract just yet not knowing what will be in the new CBA. Lets just say the owners and GMs know better than we do what they will be trying to get. Suppose for example it affected parts of guaranteed contracts signed under the new CBA. They'd be crazy to sign a guy for 100% of his full salary if for example the new CBA only promised 100% of the 1st year and 66% or less after that. If something went sour a la Redden they'd be salary protected to some extent.
Whatever their decision they make you can be sure there will be some well calculated business decisions involved on both sides.
Wow this could be really good news. We know Erik is already the face of this team and a future captain, future Norris winner potentially. Erik wants to play in Ottawa and lead this team back to the top. Lock him up for as long as possible. Would be thrilled if we forked over the cash to give him a M.Richards/Luongo/Zetterberg type deal where he's a Senator for the next decade at 75-80 million or so.
This is a contract we absolutely have to get right. At the very minimum we sign him to a 5 year deal and worry about re-upping him when he's really hit his prime.
So what does this mean "intriguing turn" ??? Murray lowballed EK an offer and now EK wants out???
Intriguing turn being a short term 3 year deal instead of a long term one like most people expected. It's better for Karlsson to have the chance at another contract in 3 years because the cap may go up, and so will average salaries, so he can sign for a larger average amount in 3 years. i don't understand why you think Karlsson would want out of here though, unless you're trolling.
Actually after the Carter and Richards trades, I wouldn't sign a long term contract while I was still a RFA either (if I was a big time star player), just in case the team ends up trading me away to a place like Columbus before my NTC kicked in.
No, I'm not a girl. Stop asking!
JUST SAY NO to LIFELONG CONTRACTS! Seriously, can anyone name ONE lifetime contract that as EVER worked out? Of all the ones that come to my mind, all of them turned out poorly in the end for one reason or another. Keep things six years or under please.
This is great to here. Come on Murray get this done.
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
Karlsson is supposedly willing to take a short term to remain an RFA when his next contract expires.
That way Ottawa owns his rights and he can't just walk a la Chara. They pay him more now and he remains their property after said deal expires.
The contract after will be Karlsson's monster deal, no doubt.
Why should they pay him more now? His willingness to sign or not is no big deal. As a RFA the ball will not be in his court. What other option does he have? What could he do if he didn't sign the 1, 2 or 3 year offer from the Sens. Sit out like Turris did? I don't think so!
There is no reason that the Sens should overpay him to sign a 3 year contract since he's not giving up anything and he has no real bargaining power. They'll make a fair offer because they recognize his value to the team and they are a class act but it's not because they have to.