Proposal: SJ/EDM

[McVespa99]

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.

Im 100% sure they would seek a return without retaining. At this point though that would never happen unless they took back a bad 3 or 4 million dollar contract with the same term. Which in the end is basically the same as retaining.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Im 100% sure they would seek a return without retaining. At this point though that would never happen unless they took back a bad 3 or 4 million dollar contract with the same term. Which in the end is basically the same as retaining.

That's not likely as there is no precedent for such a trade. It would be someone like James Neal and that's only if the team trading for Burns is providing value with the other pieces of the deal to make it worth it. The only way the Sharks actually move Burns is if someone on his three team trade list knocks the team's socks off or Burns asks out. In either instance, a bad 3 or 4 mil contract for four years is not going to be part of that return because Burns isn't anywhere near that bad of an asset.

 

[McVespa99]

That's not likely as there is no precedent for such a trade. It would be someone like James Neal and that's only if the team trading for Burns is providing value with the other pieces of the deal to make it worth it. The only way the Sharks actually move Burns is if someone on his three team trade list knocks the team's socks off or Burns asks out. In either instance, a bad 3 or 4 mil contract for four years is not going to be part of that return because Burns isn't anywhere near that bad of an asset.

Agree to dissagree. At his age and with that contract I think he IS that bad of an asset. Maybe Im wrong...

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Agree to dissagree. At his age and with that contract I think he IS that bad of an asset. Maybe Im wrong...

Sure he'd be a bad asset if you completely ignored what he's doing and just look at age and cap hit pretending like he's doing nothing.

 

[McVespa99]

Sure he'd be a bad asset if you completely ignored what he's doing and just look at age and cap hit pretending like he's doing nothing.

Come on man. He is 36 and signed for 4 more years at 8 million per. His production is down and is not likely to increase over the next 4 years. Im not saying he is useless or bad. Im just saying his best days are behind him and he is signed long term at a big cap hit in todays flat cap nhl. He would be impossible to trade at this point without retention or taking back a bad contract. Anyway like I said agree to dissagree.

 

[voxel]

This thread still alive? Oilers don't need Burns. Way too expensive cap-wise and not the type of D we need.

Oilers need a long-term bonafide #1 goalie.

 

[Moose and Squirrel]

There's a possibility that both teams say no.

Burns probably says no. He submits a 3 team trade list every year. What are the odds he wants to go to Edmonton? I think Burns could have signed for more $$$ when he signed this contract and he took a team discount to stay in sunny California.

San Jose says no because they could surely get a lot more for Burns. They're probably going to want Edmonton to at least add Broberg. Possibly even more.

Maybe Edmonton says no because Burns is 36 now, will be 40 when his contract expires and with Klefbom coming back into the line-up next season; if anything they need a d-man who is better defensively.

were there really other teams willing to pay Burns till he was 40?

 

[Sota Popinski]

Agree to dissagree. At his age and with that contract I think he IS that bad of an asset. Maybe Im wrong...

He is literally one season removed from a Norris Trophy runner-up. So he went from a top 2 or 3 defenseman in the NHL to someone who requires a $3M or $4M cap dump for four years? Good grief, man.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Come on man. He is 36 and signed for 4 more years at 8 million per. His production is down and is not likely to increase over the next 4 years. Im not saying he is useless or bad. Im just saying his best days are behind him and he is signed long term at a big cap hit in todays flat cap nhl. He would be impossible to trade at this point without retention or taking back a bad contract. Anyway like I said agree to dissagree.

Burns is on pace for 48 points for a full season. Productive RHD's come at a premium whether you like it or not. Even if his production is down from the point per game peak he was at a few years, that level of production is still valuable even relative to his cap hit. You're not going to get that sort of player playing that sort of position for a cap dump of equal term or half retention. It just isn't going to happen. You get that player by paying up something that is actually valuable plus whatever is needed to make the cap work for the other team. But retention is going to max out at 1.5 mil maybe 2 mil until it gets to the deadline prior to the last year of his deal and you're not going to dump a useless long term cap for that. History is not on your side for this.

 

[McVespa99]

He is literally one season removed from a Norris Trophy runner-up. So he went from a top 2 or 3 defenseman in the NHL to someone who requires a $3M or $4M cap dump for four years? Good grief, man.

Good grief man. He is not Lidstrom. He is 36. Are you telling me you think he will be worth 8 million a year until he is 40. Sorry, I dont buy it.

 

[McVespa99]

Burns is on pace for 48 points for a full season. Productive RHD's come at a premium whether you like it or not. Even if his production is down from the point per game peak he was at a few years, that level of production is still valuable even relative to his cap hit. You're not going to get that sort of player playing that sort of position for a cap dump of equal term or half retention. It just isn't going to happen. You get that player by paying up something that is actually valuable plus whatever is needed to make the cap work for the other team. But retention is going to max out at 1.5 mil maybe 2 mil until it gets to the deadline prior to the last year of his deal and you're not going to dump a useless long term cap for that. History is not on your side for this.

History is not on the side of 36--40 year old defenceman with one of the highest contracts in the league for a dman. You can say whatever you want. I dont see any team taking him at this point without substantial retention or a crap contract going back. Again that is my opinion. I could be wrong

 

[Three On Zero]

Add Bouchard and SJ maybe thinks about it

 

[coopooter]

If he's overpaid, then what does that make James Neal?

An easy buyout

 

[Pinkfloyd]

History is not on the side of 36--40 year old defenceman with one of the highest contracts in the league for a dman. You can say whatever you want. I dont see any team taking him at this point without substantial retention or a crap contract going back. Again that is my opinion. I could be wrong

He's the 6th highest paid among rhd's with the 12th highest point total. Someone will take him if he becomes available this offseason.

 

[McVespa99]

He's the 6th highest paid among rhd's with the 12th highest point total. Someone will take him if he becomes available this offseason.

If you say so.

 

[ConnorMcNugesaitl]

Add Bouchard and SJ maybe thinks about it

Edmonton is unlikely to accept the OP, why are they adding Bouchard?

 

[hohosaregood]

I think SJ needs to add Hertl to make this fair

 

[Sota Popinski]

Good grief man. He is not Lidstrom. He is 36. Are you telling me you think he will be worth 8 million a year until he is 40. Sorry, I dont buy it.

So anyone who might not live up to their contract for its entire length is an instant cap dump? Great logic there, dude.

 

[IIxGURUxII]

Burns is 2 mill over his current worth .. no interest in taking on his salary at 8.. 6 sure .. but also not paying a high price for declining production

 

[ManofSteel55]

He is literally one season removed from a Norris Trophy runner-up. So he went from a top 2 or 3 defenseman in the NHL to someone who requires a $3M or $4M cap dump for four years? Good grief, man.

That's usually how "until he's 40" contracts work. The value is in the front end of the deal. Who wants to just take on the middle and back end parts when all signs are pointing to his regression?

 

[ManofSteel55]

So anyone who might not live up to their contract for its entire length is an instant cap dump? Great logic there, dude.

Seriously? Of course an older player, declining in play, signed long term to a cap hit he used to earn is worth less than he was before he started to decline. Nobody wants to pay him what he used to be worth.

 

[Sota Popinski]

That's usually how "until he's 40" contracts work. The value is in the front end of the deal. Who wants to just take on the middle and back end parts when all signs are pointing to his regression?

Oh, thanks for that info.

Now here's how trade value works: San Jose doesn't retain half of his salary if he's better than a $4M per year defenseman. Or retain $3M per year if he's better than a $5M per year defenseman. Maybe they do that at the end of the deal but not now. Let's see what players are in the $6M-$7M range for defenseman. Vlasic, Seabrook, McDonagh, Giordano, Provorov, Krug, Fowler, Faulk, Yandle, Ellis, Morrisey, Myers, Boychuk, Edler, Johnson, Dumba. How many of those guys are better than Burns right now? Provorov (who is on an RFA deal), maybe Ellis, and who else?

So if Burns is better than almost all of the $6M defensemen, why would the Sharks retain more than that to trade him? And take cap dumps back on top of that? IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN

 

[TFHockey]

Oh, thanks for that info.

Now here's how trade value works: San Jose doesn't retain half of his salary if he's better than a $4M per year defenseman. Or retain $3M per year if he's better than a $5M per year defenseman. Maybe they do that at the end of the deal but not now. Let's see what players are in the $6M-$7M range for defenseman. Vlasic, Seabrook, McDonagh, Giordano, Provorov, Krug, Fowler, Faulk, Yandle, Ellis, Morrisey, Myers, Boychuk, Edler, Johnson, Dumba. How many of those guys are better than Burns right now? Provorov (who is on an RFA deal), maybe Ellis, and who else?

So if Burns is better than almost all of the $6M defensemen, why would the Sharks retain more than that to trade him? And take cap dumps back on top of that? IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN

I don't think any Sharks fan could get mad at Oiler fans not wanting to trade for a 36 year old defenseman who is signed until he is 40. There are very legitimate concerns about his play dropping off, injuries and a desire to actually play out the contract. His cap hit is a very significant $8 Million a year. Why would you expect Edmonton to go after him? The team has a glut of young defensemen coming up and they are not sure what to do with them. Odds are the Oilers are losing an NHL ready d-man in the expansion draft. This trade does not seem to take in the Oilers needs and only focuses on what Sharks fans would want.

 

[Sota Popinski]

I don't think any Sharks fan could get mad at Oiler fans not wanting to trade for a 36 year old defenseman who is signed until he is 40. There are very legitimate concerns about his play dropping off, injuries and a desire to actually play out the contract. His cap hit is a very significant $8 Million a year. Why would you expect Edmonton to go after him? The team has a glut of young defensemen coming up and they are not sure what to do with them. Odds are the Oilers are losing an NHL ready d-man in the expansion draft. This trade does not seem to take in the Oilers needs and only focuses on what Sharks fans would want.

I'm not mad at Oiler fans not wanting to trade for Burns. Nor do I think the Oilers should or would trade for him, or that Burns would waive his NTC to go there. I'm saying it's insane to think that no team would want Burns unless the Sharks retained 3 or 4 million of his salary for the next 4 years. There are teams that would take Burns at a $6M cap hit with no cap dumps coming back, or with no retention and a moderate cap dump coming back.

 

[McVespa99]

So anyone who might not live up to their contract for its entire length is an instant cap dump? Great logic there, dude.

Once they hit the point in the contract that they are no longer living up to their cap hit..... Logically yes, they are a cap dump.To a lesser or greater degreee depending on how much they are underperforming the contract.