Speculation: 2021 Expansion draft

[Pinkfloyd]

sorry if this was discussed earlier, I only went back a few pages.

Isn't it likely that Burns is exposed? And given the need to reach the floor, boost attendance, etc it isn't a reach to say Seattle drafts him?

Why would it be likely? If the choice is to expose Burns or to expose Simek then the choice is clear to expose Simek.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Why would it be likely? If the choice is to expose Burns or to expose Simek then the choice is clear to expose Simek.

Some people would argue for the strategy of exposing Burns assuming Seattle wouldnt take his contract, allowing someone else to be protected

And some would say if Seattle does take him, good we wont have him until hes 40

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Some people would argue for the strategy of exposing Burns assuming Seattle wouldnt take his contract, allowing someone else to be protected

And some would say if Seattle does take him, good we wont have him until hes 40

I'd rather have Burns until he's 40 than Simek. A slightly overpaid Burns is still a better player to keep around than Simek.

 

[STL Shark]

I still don't believe the hype for dahlen, and yes i know what he has done in a 4th tier league overseas. This is the same league that made super star 62 points in 215 games sorenson look like the next gretzky.

Ahl dahlen is nothing great, barely even a .5 point per game player when playing what could be argued as the 2nd or 3rd best league in the world.

I would not waste a protection spot on someone that has shown to cry and take his ball home at the first sign of criticism and that has shown in his time in north america that he just can't handle this style of game.

Agree on not being all in on Dahlen, but Sorensen and Dahlen were totally different case studies in that league. Sorensen was playing 23:06 a night there while Dahlen was playing 18:21. Dahlen still has to prove it, but using Sorensen as the reason for why he won't make it is statistically irrelevant.

 

[STL Shark]

I'd rather have Burns until he's 40 than Simek. A slightly overpaid Burns is still a better player to keep around than Simek.

So you think we should pay Vlasic's buyout for 10 years in the name of "cap space" but not use an opportunity to get rid of the final half of Burns' deal for free? Gotta pick a side of the fence to sit on there. These takes are incredibly short sighted and reactionary.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

So you think we should pay Vlasic's buyout for 10 years in the name of "cap space" but not use an opportunity to get rid of the final half of Burns' deal for free? Gotta pick a side of the fence to sit on there. These takes are incredibly short sighted and reactionary.

I don't understand why you're trying to equivocate the two. Vlasic is a net negative player. Burns is not now even if he's not the elite version of himself from previous years. There's also absolutely no guarantee that Seattle would take Burns if he were available. There's nothing short-sighted or reactionary about these takes. You simply don't understand them whether it's intentional or not.

 

[Barrie22]

So you think we should pay Vlasic's buyout for 10 years in the name of "cap space" but not use an opportunity to get rid of the final half of Burns' deal for free? Gotta pick a side of the fence to sit on there. These takes are incredibly short sighted and reactionary.

You think the 2 players have the same value? Now i can see where your entire stance on this subject is coming from. Burns will not hit the uselessness that is vlasic until the final year or at the very worst 2 years left in his contract. Vlasic still has 5 years and is already a echl level player for just 1 mil less and more years. One hurts the team on the team and off the team, one is still a top 20 defensemen in the league.

 

[Herschel]

You think the 2 players have the same value? Now i can see where your entire stance on this subject is coming from. Burns will not hit the uselessness that is vlasic until the final year or at the very worst 2 years left in his contract. Vlasic still has 5 years and is already a echl level player for just 1 mil less and more years. One hurts the team on the team and off the team, one is still a top 20 defensemen in the league.

It's unlikely many people would have Burns as a top 20 defenceman as of right now and we all realize he will continue to decline.

Getting out from his 8M works if DW wants to add and compete.

Losing Burns and not adding helps with a rebuild as the team would be weaker next season = better draft position and cap room.

 

[Herschel]

You think the 2 players have the same value? Now i can see where your entire stance on this subject is coming from. Burns will not hit the uselessness that is vlasic until the final year or at the very worst 2 years left in his contract. Vlasic still has 5 years and is already a echl level player for just 1 mil less and more years. One hurts the team on the team and off the team, one is still a top 20 defensemen in the league.

I completely get the Vlasic hate but since he has been moved down to the third pairing with Simek he seems to pass the eye test.

What do the fancy stats have to say? Has that pairing been getting caved in? I am honestly asking

 

[STL Shark]

You think the 2 players have the same value? Now i can see where your entire stance on this subject is coming from. Burns will not hit the uselessness that is vlasic until the final year or at the very worst 2 years left in his contract. Vlasic still has 5 years and is already a echl level player for just 1 mil less and more years. One hurts the team on the team and off the team, one is still a top 20 defensemen in the league.

You gathered I think they have the same value from that comment? Oof that's a big swing and a miss.

No, my point is that if you're advocating for 10 years of punishment for getting rid of Vlasic immediately while we're not in a contention window for the sake of cap space, you can't sit there and say we shouldn't let Burns go for free without having to give up any assets or endure a buyout penalty. You simply can't play both sides of that argument and be taken seriously.

While anyone with a brain realizes that Vlasic is a worse player, he is the hardest and costliest to get rid of. While Burns is better, the fact that you can free up that money without paying for it for the next decade makes the net result far more favorable than you care to admit/realize because while Vlasic is a negative on the ice, dealing with a 10 year burden in buying him out is a far bigger detriment to the eventual goal of winning the Stanley Cup than letting Burns go to Seattle for free.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I completely get the Vlasic hate but since he has been moved down to the third pairing with Simek he seems to pass the eye test.

What do the fancy stats have to say? Has that pairing been getting caved in? I am honestly asking

The only guy he's succeeded with was Knyzhov. With Simek though, he's under water but not terrible.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

You gathered I think they have the same value from that comment? Oof that's a big swing and a miss.

No, my point is that if you're advocating for 10 years of punishment for getting rid of Vlasic immediately while we're not in a contention window for the sake of cap space, you can't sit there and say we shouldn't let Burns go for free without having to give up any assets or endure a buyout penalty. You simply can't play both sides of that argument and be taken seriously.

While anyone with a brain realizes that Vlasic is a worse player, he is the hardest and costliest to get rid of. While Burns is better, the fact that you can free up that money without paying for it for the next decade makes the net result far more favorable than you care to admit/realize because while Vlasic is a negative on the ice, dealing with a 10 year burden in buying him out is a far bigger detriment to the eventual goal of winning the Stanley Cup than letting Burns go to Seattle for free.

Um, yes you can say both those things because anyone with a brain understands that there's a significant difference between the two situations. It's not both sidesing an argument. You're trying to pigeonhole it into that as a gotcha but it's two different players with two different options and two different contracts.

 

[Dicdonya]

I completely get the Vlasic hate but since he has been moved down to the third pairing with Simek he seems to pass the eye test.

What do the fancy stats have to say? Has that pairing been getting caved in? I am honestly asking

Not sure exactly when Vlasic got demoted so I just took the last ten games as a sample, can adjust that sample size if anyone wants.

In those ten games Vlasic is 1st in CF%, FF%, and SF% as the only defenseman above 50% in all those categories. He has a 62.5 GF% which is tied for 2nd, only Simek has a better % than him. Vlasic has the best XGF% of any of the defenseman in that time frame at 57.82%. 1st in SCF% and HDCF% as well. And to top it all off his PDO is only slightly above 1.000 which means luck is not producing unexpected results in his favor right now.

Honestly did not expect to see Vlasic doing that good, I definitely have not found myself pissed off at him lately, but he has been statistically our best defenseman over the last 10 games by a country mile.

edit- dug a little deeper these are the actual pairings stats over the last ten games.

	CF%	FF%	SF%	GF	GA	GF%	SCF%	HDCF%	HDGF%	PDO
Karlsson/Knyzhov	46.38	44.14	40.79	3	7	30.00	46.86	44.29	20.00	.971
Ferarro/Burns	45.89	45.28	45.91	8	5	61.54	49.64	48.48	75.00	1.051
Vlasic/Simek	46.08	49.32	49.51	3	2	60.00	55.67	56.82	100.00	1.020

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That pairing is doing the best overall, now obviously we cannot discount the fact that they play the weakest comp, so should be able to play well against them, but it at least points to Vlasic not being so bad that he should be out of the NHL like some here argue. He was struggling mightily playing with Karlsson, but with Simek on the third pairing he is indeed coming out ahead.

 

[Cas]

Agree on not being all in on Dahlen, but Sorensen and Dahlen were totally different case studies in that league. Sorensen was playing 23:06 a night there while Dahlen was playing 18:21. Dahlen still has to prove it, but using Sorensen as the reason for why he won't make it is statistically irrelevant.

Using a single data point for a comparison is always silly.

 

[sharski]

brb starting a “Is Vlasic an elite third-pairing defenseman? (srs)” thread on the main boards

 

[Kcoyote3]

It’s better than suggesting he’s ECHL level

 

[LadyStanley]

Paywall.

Off to do some reading

 

[The Nemesis]

Paywall.

Off to do some reading

The Shark bit in a few words:

expectation is the team would protect 7F/3D.

Probable suggested protection candidates are:
F: Couture, Hertl, Meier, Kane, Donato, Labanc, ???
D: Karlsson*, Vlasic*, Simek
*NMC, must be protected unless the player agrees to waive. (Regular NTC's are not selection-exempt and can be left exposed if desired)

Suggests the potential 7th protected forward could be Balcers or Gambrell, both of whom are pending RFA

Notes that the exposed forward group includes Sorensen, Marleau, and Nieto who are all pending UFAs.

Ponders if the Sharks could create a package to entice the Kraken to take Burns for financial reasons, while also reckoning that he would give Seattle a marquee name and minute-muncher blueliner even if it costs them a significant amount of cap hit for several more years.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The Shark bit in a few words:

expectation is the team would protect 7F/3D.

Probable suggested protection candidates are:
F: Couture, Hertl, Meier, Kane, Donato, Labanc, ???
D: Karlsson*, Vlasic*, Simek
*NMC, must be protected unless the player agrees to waive. (Regular NTC's are not selection-exempt and can be left exposed if desired)

Suggests the potential 7th protected forward could be Balcers or Gambrell, both of whom are pending RFA

Notes that the exposed forward group includes Sorensen, Marleau, and Nieto who are all pending UFAs.

Ponders if the Sharks could create a package to entice the Kraken to take Burns for financial reasons, while also reckoning that he would give Seattle a marquee name and minute-muncher blueliner even if it costs them a significant amount of cap hit for several more years.

Unless this team is signaling rebuild, exposing Burns to keep Simek doesn't seem worth it to me. Even with what Burns is now, he is still much more difficult to replace than Simek is. Chances are that Merkley is the only internal candidate that even has a chance at being a top four RHD and he still has a decent amount of development to do to reach that. Simek can be replaced pretty easily with Pasichnuk, Kniazev, and Hatakka all having good years and making good progess to where you can see them make the team next season.

To note, in order for the Sharks to meet the exposure requirements, chances are they will have to re-sign one of Marleau, Nieto, or Sorensen. They could trade for some forward who has it met but I don't see them spending assets for that when that's an alternative. Nieto makes the most sense because he could play next year and not get picked up. Marleau makes sense if there's no trade market for him and there is for Nieto and Sorensen plus he could retire after the season to where he fulfills the exposure requirements but then doesn't play again. We'll see how it goes. I did enjoy the speculative parts of the Vegas expansion off-season and this has been fun as well.

 

[STL Shark]

Um, yes you can say both those things because anyone with a brain understands that there's a significant difference between the two situations. It's not both sidesing an argument. You're trying to pigeonhole it into that as a gotcha but it's two different players with two different options and two different contracts.

In a vacuum, buying out Vlasic puts you further away from the eventual goal of winning a Stanley Cup than letting Brent Burns go to Seattle for no penalty. It is really that simple and I am amazed that people are not smart enough to realize that. If this was the Burns of 2017 then yeah, you're probably going to hold onto him at all costs. That's not the case. You basically win the game of getting the best years of a contract while dumping the declining aging player onto someone else without having to give up any assets to get rid of it. That is an absolute DREAM SCENARIO for any competent hockey mind.

Again, Vlasic is a lesser player (captain obvious) and for that reason you must weigh the marginal cost of riding it out a little longer before pulling the trigger while you're not in a go for it mode to preserve cap space for the time when you decide to go for it or making the move now and costing yourself a bevy of future assets in the process (i.e. additional years of dead cap space that can't be traded or moved in any form or fashion). The goal is to win a Stanley Cup and we know that is not a realistic outcome for the next couple of years (at least). It simply does not make any sense to make a move that will hurt your ability to achieve your eventual end goal by unnecessarily cutting into future cap space. Objectively speaking, Brent Burns is unlikely to be a key cog in this org winning a Stanley Cup given where he is in his career and the odds that he will begin to turn into a negative value player most likely by the time our window begins to reopen. If you get that full $8 million (with no future payouts) off your books that increases your chances of winning a Cup.

I would respect your argument even more if you said that you want Seattle to take Burns in addition to buying out Vlasic rather than saying just buyout Vlasic and keep Burns. That actually would have an ounce of merit to it as cutting out Burns' $8 million makes the sting of Vlasic's buyout penalty in future years hurt less. I would not agree with it necessarily because the biggest hold up is the daunting 10 year length of the buyout more than anything else, but it would at least be a stance that makes logical/rational sense unlike your current stance.

 

[Barrie22]

In a vacuum, buying out Vlasic puts you further away from the eventual goal of winning a Stanley Cup than letting Brent Burns go to Seattle for no penalty. It is really that simple and I am amazed that people are not smart enough to realize that. If this was the Burns of 2017 then yeah, you're probably going to hold onto him at all costs. That's not the case. You basically win the game of getting the best years of a contract while dumping the declining aging player onto someone else without having to give up any assets to get rid of it. That is an absolute DREAM SCENARIO for any competent hockey mind.

Again, Vlasic is a lesser player (captain obvious) and for that reason you must weigh the marginal cost of riding it out a little longer before pulling the trigger while you're not in a go for it mode to preserve cap space for the time when you decide to go for it or making the move now and costing yourself a bevy of future assets in the process (i.e. additional years of dead cap space that can't be traded or moved in any form or fashion). The goal is to win a Stanley Cup and we know that is not a realistic outcome for the next couple of years (at least). It simply does not make any sense to make a move that will hurt your ability to achieve your eventual end goal by unnecessarily cutting into future cap space. Objectively speaking, Brent Burns is unlikely to be a key cog in this org winning a Stanley Cup given where he is in his career and the odds that he will begin to turn into a negative value player most likely by the time our window begins to reopen. If you get that full $8 million (with no future payouts) off your books that increases your chances of winning a Cup.

I would respect your argument even more if you said that you want Seattle to take Burns in addition to buying out Vlasic rather than saying just buyout Vlasic and keep Burns. That actually would have an ounce of merit to it as cutting out Burns' $8 million makes the sting of Vlasic's buyout penalty in future years hurt less. I would not agree with it necessarily because the biggest hold up is the daunting 10 year length of the buyout more than anything else, but it would at least be a stance that makes logical/rational sense unlike your current stance.

Your stance is that teams can't compete with a buyout player, but yet florida is doing just that this year with nearly 4 million of dead space between buyouts, recapture penalties and retained salaries.

And i want to know the gymnastics that you have to be pulling to be thinking that burns contract will be so detrimental to this team in 4 years that getting rid of him for absolutely zero return is a better idea then getting rid of the true anchor who has zero actual value to us or any other nhl team now or in the future.

And this does not even take into account that burns at the end of his contract will still be usefull to a team that is a potential cup contender because he will still be good and be used on the 3rd pairing power play specialist.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

In a vacuum, buying out Vlasic puts you further away from the eventual goal of winning a Stanley Cup than letting Brent Burns go to Seattle for no penalty. It is really that simple and I am amazed that people are not smart enough to realize that. If this was the Burns of 2017 then yeah, you're probably going to hold onto him at all costs. That's not the case. You basically win the game of getting the best years of a contract while dumping the declining aging player onto someone else without having to give up any assets to get rid of it. That is an absolute DREAM SCENARIO for any competent hockey mind.

Again, Vlasic is a lesser player (captain obvious) and for that reason you must weigh the marginal cost of riding it out a little longer before pulling the trigger while you're not in a go for it mode to preserve cap space for the time when you decide to go for it or making the move now and costing yourself a bevy of future assets in the process (i.e. additional years of dead cap space that can't be traded or moved in any form or fashion). The goal is to win a Stanley Cup and we know that is not a realistic outcome for the next couple of years (at least). It simply does not make any sense to make a move that will hurt your ability to achieve your eventual end goal by unnecessarily cutting into future cap space. Objectively speaking, Brent Burns is unlikely to be a key cog in this org winning a Stanley Cup given where he is in his career and the odds that he will begin to turn into a negative value player most likely by the time our window begins to reopen. If you get that full $8 million (with no future payouts) off your books that increases your chances of winning a Cup.

I would respect your argument even more if you said that you want Seattle to take Burns in addition to buying out Vlasic rather than saying just buyout Vlasic and keep Burns. That actually would have an ounce of merit to it as cutting out Burns' $8 million makes the sting of Vlasic's buyout penalty in future years hurt less. I would not agree with it necessarily because the biggest hold up is the daunting 10 year length of the buyout more than anything else, but it would at least be a stance that makes logical/rational sense unlike your current stance.

Just because you preface something with 'in a vacuum' doesn't mean it's some objective fact or common sense. It's still just your opinion and one I disagree with. I still think Burns is a useful player and I don't believe the team is in a mode where they aren't trying to make the playoffs. You can make of that what you will but to me that means they will still look to ice the best team that they have available to them. Under that premise, Burns is still useful to them and Vlasic is not. The bevy of future assets you speak of with dead cap space is exaggeration to me. Lots of teams have dead cap space because to them, they are better having it instead of the alternative. This is no different as it relates to Vlasic.

But you're trying to pigeonhole this discussion into a false dichotomy. There are numerous possibilities for this offseason and it's not off the table that I would be for buying out Vlasic and letting Burns go to Seattle but I find them to be very unlikely. It would require seeing if he has no trade value and that Seattle would pick him without compensation. Both these things I don't believe are true. This would also require having something in place to replace him that I doubt is also the case.

This topic is very nuanced with lots of possibilities to discuss. There's no need to oversimplify it to some sort of black and white binary choice that also has to apply to every other situation that this team has to deal with. They each have their own set of options to consider. Some more than others so I won't treat them the same like you are.

 

[STL Shark]

Your stance is that teams can't compete with a buyout player, but yet florida is doing just that this year with nearly 4 million of dead space between buyouts, recapture penalties and retained salaries.

And i want to know the gymnastics that you have to be pulling to be thinking that burns contract will be so detrimental to this team in 4 years that getting rid of him for absolutely zero return is a better idea then getting rid of the true anchor who has zero actual value to us or any other nhl team now or in the future.

And this does not even take into account that burns at the end of his contract will still be usefull to a team that is a potential cup contender because he will still be good and be used on the 3rd pairing power play specialist.

I did not say that you can't compete. I stated that you're decreasing your odds of competing by penalizing yourself with dead cap space. Can you compete with less cap? Sure you can. Is it advantageous to have more cap space than less cap space to try to build a contending roster? Sure is.

Additionally, Burns play is already declining. He is still a solid player, but he is not going to be part of the core group that wins a Stanley Cup here. That is not mental gymnastics, that is just common sense given his trajectory and his age. Even to the point of burying him on the 3rd and giving him PP time seems optimistic. Who is he taking PP time from in this scenario? Is it Karlsson or is it the boy wonder Ryan Merkley that everyone here continues to fawn over?

If you can find someone who will give you value for him this offseason that will be on his 3 team trade list, then no duh you move him. The odds in this cap environment of teams being willing to give up value for a 36 year old declining (still useful but declining) D-Man with 4 years left on his deal without significant retention is just slim. If you can find the team that he'd be willing to be dealt to that can make all of that stuff work, then I'll eat some crow. Seattle taking the remainder of that deal off our hands remains the best bet with the least penalty when it comes to clearing a significant contract from the defense, something everyone can agree is necessary if we want to improve the overall team.

Again, I can't help that your simple minded "right here and now" thinking can't understand the factors that go into this scenario, but I will lay out one more time for you to try and be able to understand:
Brent Burns (better player) and his final 4 years at $8 million per season to Seattle puts the organization in a better position to win a Stanley Cup in the future than buying out Marc Edouard Vlasic (worse player) and paying him against the cap for the next 10 seasons. If you wait 2 years while the organization is still in this overall reset mode to buyout Vlasic, you can shave off 2 years from that buyout and lessen the overall burden that MEV and his contract have on the organization. The benefit of buying out MEV now (when we're not in a go for it mode) versus say 2 years from now (when we are hopefully restocked with prospects emerging as NHL players ready to compete for another long period of time) is not worth more than saving $1,833,333 against the cap for the 2029-30 and 2030-31 seasons.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I did not say that you can't compete. I stated that you're decreasing your odds of competing by penalizing yourself with dead cap space. Can you compete with less cap? Sure you can. Is it advantageous to have more cap space than less cap space to try to build a contending roster? Sure is.

Additionally, Burns play is already declining. He is still a solid player, but he is not going to be part of the core group that wins a Stanley Cup here. That is not mental gymnastics, that is just common sense given his trajectory and his age. Even to the point of burying him on the 3rd and giving him PP time seems optimistic. Who is he taking PP time from in this scenario? Is it Karlsson or is it the boy wonder Ryan Merkley that everyone here continues to fawn over?

If you can find someone who will give you value for him this offseason that will be on his 3 team trade list, then no duh you move him. The odds in this cap environment of teams being willing to give up value for a 36 year old declining (still useful but declining) D-Man with 4 years left on his deal without significant retention is just slim. If you can find the team that he'd be willing to be dealt to that can make all of that stuff work, then I'll eat some crow. Seattle taking the remainder of that deal off our hands remains the best bet with the least penalty when it comes to clearing a significant contract from the defense, something everyone can agree is necessary if we want to improve the overall team.

Again, I can't help that your simple minded "right here and now" thinking can't understand the factors that go into this scenario, but I will lay out one more time for you to try and be able to understand:
Brent Burns (better player) and his final 4 years at $8 million per season to Seattle puts the organization in a better position to win a Stanley Cup in the future than buying out Marc Edouard Vlasic (worse player) and paying him against the cap for the next 10 seasons. If you wait 2 years while the organization is still in this overall reset mode to buyout Vlasic, you can shave off 2 years from that buyout and lessen the overall burden that MEV and his contract have on the organization. The benefit of buying out MEV now (when we're not in a go for it mode) versus say 2 years from now (when we are hopefully restocked with prospects emerging as NHL players ready to compete for another long period of time) is not worth more than saving $1,833,333 against the cap for the 2029-30 and 2030-31 seasons.

You decrease your odds of competing by keeping a vastly overpaid player who is very arguably a net negative player at full price all to shave off two years at 1.8 mil at the back end. I disagree with your benefit conclusion and it's not absurd to think so.

 

[Barrie22]

Burns is declining from a 80 point offensive defensemen to a 50 point defenseman. Declining yes, but no where close to being as quick of a decline as some you all think he is doing it. At the very worst he will be a late 30's to 50 point defensemen in 4 years, slightly overpaid. But still very much needed on a contending team. At no point in this contract will burns become a negative value to the team. Especially since there is no one close enough to dethroning him on the current team or even in the system for the next 3 or so years.

But any ways i am done with this conversation with you, we have 2 very different opinions on where the team actually is right now and where the team will be going in the next 4 years. You think they will be coming out of a rebuild in those 4 years i think they will be trying to compete next season like wilson keeps trying to tell people he is doing. Until one of those 2 opinions changes this conversation is just going to go around and round in circles with no end in sight.