Proposal: SJ/EDM

[Pinkfloyd]

We need Couture. Not a Right Dman.

Don’t think that’s going to be available to Edmonton either.

 

[Jumptheshark]

No way in hell the Sharks do this. They could trade Burns with no retention, and not have to take a cap dump and still get a better return than this.

5 years ago yes. Burns is 36 and has 5 years to go on his contract at 8 mill a year

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Karlsson might've be a more interesting trade option at 50% retained, but Oilers are good on the right.


Barrie is currently 3rd in Dman scoring, only 2 points back of league lead. He's bringing what Burns or Karlsson would ideally have brought 3 years ago.


Seems like a smarter move to extend Barrie than go for a has-been. I dunno.

 

[Seachd]

Yeah, that Burns contract is ugly. I'd rather wait out Neal's.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

5 years ago yes. Burns is 36 and has 5 years to go on his contract at 8 mill a year

Four years, unless you're counting this nearly-finished season for that little extra hyperbole...

But the point is moot. Edmonton wouldn't do this (there's no real need) and the Sharks wouldn't either (expecting them to retain $10m, spread over 4 more years, when he's second only to John Carlson in blueline points during the current contract is asinine. He's been worth it so far, regardless of how you or I choose to project him.)

I'd be open to trading BB, purely because this team's window is closed and it won't likely be open again for a while. But if he does go, I'm fairly sure the Sharks would seek a return without retaining.

 

[Sjsharks5]

Burns is a rapidly depreciating asset with a horrible contract and term. He's fallen off the cliff over the last two years. As a Sharks fan I'd take this deal in a heartbeat.

Agreed. The level to which Burns’s defensive abilities has sunk puts a major anchor on the team’s ability to compete over the next few years while he occupies a spot on the top pairing playing well over 20:00/game. The offensive production seems to be falling off as well. All that combined with $8mil/year, I would say that offloading Burns is a good first step towards a Sharks retool.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

For an overpaid 36 year old signed for 4 more years?

Yes. Guys a lot younger with less to offer get more than that at this time.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Agreed. The level to which Burns’s defensive abilities has sunk puts a major anchor on the team’s ability to compete over the next few years while he occupies a spot on the top pairing playing well over 20:00/game. The offensive production seems to be falling off as well. All that combined with $8mil/year, I would say that offloading Burns is a good first step towards a Sharks retool.

Burns is not the first guy you look to move in a retooling effort. That would be Vlasic then Jones then Burns and then Meier. If Burns is taken off the PK where his minutes would be reduced, he’d be fine. 8 mil for his productivity is fine. It’s not great but it’s fine. I understand wanting to get ahead of a decline but they have worse to deal with.

 

[Bizzare]

Yes. Guys a lot younger with less to offer get more than that at this time.

You talking about EK65?

 

[McVespa99]

No way in hell the Sharks do this. They could trade Burns with no retention, and not have to take a cap dump and still get a better return than this.

If it was 30 year old Burns signed for 4 more years sure. At 34-38 years Im not so sure. I would have no interest in Burns at this point.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If it was 30 year old Burns signed for 4 more years sure. At 34-38 years Im not so sure. I would have no interest in Burns at this point.

If he was 30, just like when he was 30, he wouldn’t be available.

 

[McVespa99]

If he was 30, just like when he was 30, he wouldn’t be available.

True. But that does not mean another team should take on that contract and term. Frankly at this point I wouldnt take him for free.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

True. But that does not mean another team should take on that contract and term. Frankly at this point I wouldnt take him for free.

I’m perfectly fine keeping Burns because he’s still producing so it’s whatever to me if someone else won’t take him for free when that’s never going to be the option.

 

[McVespa99]

I’m perfectly fine keeping Burns because he’s still producing so it’s whatever to me if someone else won’t take him for free when that’s never going to be the option.

I wasnt trying to be dissrespectful or anything. Its just in a flat cap world an 8M contract for a decling player at his age is just not an option. I understand why SJ signed him to that originally. It was not a flat cap and he was a great player. They had his best years. Im not even saying he is totally no good. Its just he has to be GREAT for the next 4 years to justify taking on that contract.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I wasnt trying to be dissrespectful or anything. Its just in a flat cap world an 8M contract for a decling player at his age is just not an option. I understand why SJ signed him to that originally. It was not a flat cap and he was a great player. They had his best years. Im not even saying he is totally no good. Its just he has to be GREAT for the next 4 years to justify taking on that contract.

It actually is an option because a free Burns was never the scenario. A Burns trade likely includes a cap dump and/or retention while also throwing value back to the Sharks. Otherwise they just won’t move him because he’s not cooked or anywhere close to it. They can also move him to forward if he starts to drop in production there or they get another rhd to replace him.

 

[McVespa99]

It actually is an option because a free Burns was never the scenario. A Burns trade likely includes a cap dump and/or retention while also throwing value back to the Sharks. Otherwise they just won’t move him because he’s not cooked or anywhere close to it. They can also move him to forward if he starts to drop in production there or they get another rhd to replace him.

I dont dissagree with any of this. It would have to be heavy retention or a 4 year cap dump going back though

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I dont dissagree with any of this. It would have to be heavy retention or a 4 year cap dump going back though

Anything with more than one year is only going to get like 1.5 mil on retaining as history suggests and likely a cap dump that bridges the gap so that isn’t as long.

 

[Mattb124]

These threads are a great barometer of which posters actually watch hockey versus those who just look at NHL.com's stats page.

 

[Sjsharks5]

Burns is not the first guy you look to move in a retooling effort. That would be Vlasic then Jones then Burns and then Meier. If Burns is taken off the PK where his minutes would be reduced, he’d be fine. 8 mil for his productivity is fine. It’s not great but it’s fine. I understand wanting to get ahead of a decline but they have worse to deal with.

Wholeheartedly agree he isn’t the first guy to be shipped out based on merit, but I also don’t really see why it matters. Why would players have to be arbitrarily selected in the order in which they are traded for a retool? Even though Vlasic and Jones suck more, they are theoretically more difficult to trade. If I see a deal where Burns comes off the books for a first round pick and contracts with less term, I’m seriously interested in what the rest of the details of that trade are.

That being said, I’m coming from a place where I think I value Burns less than you do. I look at his play this year as significantly declined. He turns the puck over an inordinate amount and constantly ices the puck and hamstrings the Sharks with defensive zone starts. To me it seems like he weighs down Ferraro significantly. You already mentioned his play on the PK. If his offensive production stays around 45pts, he does offer value. I just think getting out from under his contract and getting a legitimate asset like a first rounder + prospect would be a positive step for the future.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Wholeheartedly agree he isn’t the first guy to be shipped out based on merit, but I also don’t really see why it matters. Why would players have to be arbitrarily selected in the order in which they are traded for a retool? Even though Vlasic and Jones suck more, they are theoretically more difficult to trade. If I see a deal where Burns comes off the books for a first round pick and contracts with less term, I’m seriously interested in what the rest of the details of that trade are.

That being said, I’m coming from a place where I think I value Burns less than you do. I look at his play this year as significantly declined. He turns the puck over an inordinate amount and constantly ices the puck and hamstrings the Sharks with defensive zone starts. To me it seems like he weighs down Ferraro significantly. You already mentioned his play on the PK. If his offensive production stays around 45pts, he does offer value. I just think getting out from under his contract and getting a legitimate asset like a first rounder + prospect would be a positive step for the future.

Because they don’t need to move them all for a retool. They need to move the guys that are the worst in terms of value to what they contribute. They only need to reallocate some of the money. Not every non-execellent value player.

The things you point to with Burns is stuff he’s always done. I think you just maybe focus more on it now that you may be ready to move on from him rather than it actually being any different from before.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

Gross, absolutely not interested in Burns or his contract.

 

[ToDavid]

Burns may be declining but with Neal and retention its a cap neutral trade, at least in the short term, where Edmonton gets the far, far better player. I don't think a 1st + later round upgrades (3rd-->2nd, 6th-->4th) gets it done.

 

[Sjsharks5]

Because they don’t need to move them all for a retool. They need to move the guys that are the worst in terms of value to what they contribute. They only need to reallocate some of the money. Not every non-execellent value player.

The things you point to with Burns is stuff he’s always done. I think you just maybe focus more on it now that you may be ready to move on from him rather than it actually being any different from before.

Right, you don’t need to move all of them, but it’s also not realistic to upgrade obtain any assets that will upgrade the roster by only getting rid of the garbage. Of course I would love to get rid of Vlasic and Jones, but getting rid of Burns allows not only long term cap flexibility, but also a potential young, cost controlled asset for the future.

Youre right that Burns has always to an extent done those things, but what is different isn’t just that I am now open to moving him. What has also happened is he uses his skating to move the puck and exit the zone far less than his prime, and he also doesn’t put up 60-80 points per year anymore. He’s a far less effective and valuable player than he was 2-3 years ago.

 

[Crabapple]

It would cost at least a 1st to get rid of Neal, which means that SJ is trading Brent Burns for 2nd + 4th + Lavoie, which seems pretty lackluster.

 

[Pete Taylor]

These threads are a great barometer of which posters actually watch hockey versus those who just look at NHL.com's stats page.

I watch a lot of EDM living in Canada, and am San Jose born and a sharks fan.

Was wondering what makes you think I don't watch hockey?