Speculation: 2021 Expansion draft

[Barrie22]

For the record I disagree and think he will be around the 40-45 point mark in the last 2 years.

But even if you are right that will leave our forward core in the same state it is currently in plus the possibility of decline to age (Couture, kane) or injuries (hertl). Meier probably improves some and I am about 1 season away from saying Labanc is who he is.. Which (as a group) is just not good enough. Especially with raises coming due and the overall cap situation.

Then find a GM that will stop spending cap space on garbage like labanc who is now overpaid by about 3 million dollars.

 

[seroes]

The entire problem with moving Burns is in your post. His age, salary, relative value, and expected decline means that whatever return you receive simply isn't worth what he is to the Sharks now, let alone in 2 years.

On top of all that, (this is meant everyone, not you specifically) Doug Wilson does not build his team through the draft, particularly his core players, unless there's a season that's a blip in his mind. And before you mention Hertl and Meier, remember he almost traded those 2 for T.J. Oshie and Kevin Shattenkirk. He is not going to move out established high level players for futures. Ever. He does not remove players from the core unless he cannot afford to re-sign them. His plan moving forward is to build around Karlsson, Hertl, Meier, Couture, Burns and Kane. If you think any of those guys are going anywhere, you're not paying attention to his tenure as GM.

Ultimately, for any kind of rebuild, we would need a new GM. Doug either doesn't have the support, or isn't willing to go that route. I think in his mind he's going with the safe bet by acquiring established players instead of the relative unknown with futures.

My big fear moving forward is becoming locked into this core and having to go through a rebuild similar to what the Hawks are going through now or worse what Detroit is doing. Without moving contracts out we will be forced into a rebuild due to simply having subpar play with no cap space and little hope.

 

[seroes]

Then find a GM that will stop spending cap space on garbage like labanc who is now overpaid by about 3 million dollars.

I would argue that he is overpaid by 1.5- 2 millions. I would love Labanc at 1.7 million. That would be a steal for a 40 point player. But while overpaid, his contract is not why we are crippled. Vlassic and Jones are breaking our back. Moving forward Burns becomes overpaid and Kane and Couture could become bad contracts 3 years down the line.

 

[themelkman]

Then find a GM that will stop spending cap space on garbage like labanc who is now overpaid by about 3 million dollars.

Thats an exaggeration. Hes worth like 3.5 and he got 4.725. Hes overpaid but not by an insane amount

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Who has the cap space to take on his contract without retention that is also going to be on his 3 team trade list? Answer is there isn't anyone that fits the bill. And if we're being honest, moving the final 4 years and $8 million in its entirety is incredibly valuable.

Who knows if there will be compliance buyout next off season or who just get's bought out in general from other teams to make room. Maybe the Sharks retain and get more back in compensation. There are a lot of possibilities. But Vlasic has no trade value to bring back assets and for the moment neither does jones. If the Sharks want to improve their 27th rated prospect pool they need to be able to cash in on someone like Burns if at all possible. Can't let valuable assets go for free.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

What they really need to do is trade with Seattle to leave Burns unprotected.

That works too. Kinda the same thing. However it works so they aren't giving him up for free.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Then find a GM that will stop spending cap space on garbage like labanc who is now overpaid by about 3 million dollars.

Thats an exaggeration. Hes worth like 3.5 and he got 4.725. Hes overpaid but not by an insane amount

Of if you look at the way a bunch of league people do, at best he's over paid by 500k. but really, 4mil x5 is completely reasonable for a player at his level and considering that the teams are no longer getting to do true bridge deals and have to pay RFA for production they have yet to achieve.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Thats an exaggeration. Hes worth like 3.5 and he got 4.725. Hes overpaid but not by an insane amount

Yeah. 3.5 is what I had him at. Was expecting 3.5 x 2. The 4 years bother me a bit but to be honest, if he averages out to 50 point/season during this contract and can improve defensively, it will be a good contract for both sides.

 

[STL Shark]

Who knows if there will be compliance buyout next off season or who just get's bought out in general from other teams to make room. Maybe the Sharks retain and get more back in compensation. There are a lot of possibilities. But Vlasic has no trade value to bring back assets and for the moment neither does jones. If the Sharks want to improve their 27th rated prospect pool they need to be able to cash in on someone like Burns if at all possible. Can't let valuable assets go for free.

There seems to be a false equivalence around here with good player and valuable asset. Burns at 36 with 4 years left is not a valuable asset, no matter how good of a player he is. His age, cap hit, and term make him an incredibly risky asset for another team to pay assets to take on. If 36 year old Brent Burns went to market as a UFA (even throwing out the 35+ contract rules), I can guarantee that he is not getting a 4 year deal worth $8 million a year from anyone. If that's the case, why would a team pay assets to then take on that contract? Add in the 3 team trade list and the Sharks have virtually ZERO leverage when it comes to a trade on both what comes back in return and how much they have to retain. Finding the perfect match of a team that Burns wants to go to that has the cap space to take him on (no Cup contenders sans Colorado have cap space and Colorado needs it to extend guys the next two years) is going to be next to impossible.

Sometimes, the most ideal situation isn't the most feasible one and you have to deal with the hand you're dealt. Unless a compliance buyout comes along next offseason, Burns to Seattle is the best realistic scenario that we can hope for in order to increase our chances at winning a Cup.

 

[one2gamble]

no matter how good of a player he is. His age, cap hit, and term make him an incredibly risky asset

A risky asset does not make it non valuable

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

There seems to be a false equivalence around here with good player and valuable asset. Burns at 36 with 4 years left is not a valuable asset, no matter how good of a player he is. His age, cap hit, and term make him an incredibly risky asset for another team to pay assets to take on. If 36 year old Brent Burns went to market as a UFA (even throwing out the 35+ contract rules), I can guarantee that he is not getting a 4 year deal worth $8 million a year from anyone. If that's the case, why would a team pay assets to then take on that contract? Add in the 3 team trade list and the Sharks have virtually ZERO leverage when it comes to a trade on both what comes back in return and how much they have to retain. Finding the perfect match of a team that Burns wants to go to that has the cap space to take him on (no Cup contenders sans Colorado have cap space and Colorado needs it to extend guys the next two years) is going to be next to impossible.

Sometimes, the most ideal situation isn't the most feasible one and you have to deal with the hand you're dealt. Unless a compliance buyout comes along next offseason, Burns to Seattle is the best realistic scenario that we can hope for in order to increase our chances at winning a Cup.

I know that in any regular league year a team that is contending would take on his contract in an attempt to put them over the top assuming they have cap space. Dude still produces. Until such time as he actually stops, he has value to bring back picks and prospects. If a team has the cap space, he's not risky. 3 team list give burns control to pick and choose if it's not one of those 3. That's all. Doesn't mean he won't get asked if the Sharks decide to move on. If they decide Merkley is ready it's entirely reasonable that they would trade him and possibly retain to get maybe an extra pick of prospect. The other teams would want him despite what you think about his contract. Teams that could make it work cap wise would be lining up. A guy producing at his level is still rare and valuable. They would pay additional assets for retention purely so they could fit him under their cap which many contenders are pressed against. He was on a 52 point pace last season despite a lack of NHL forwards and the apparent pout job he did in the 2nd half where his scoring magically dried up. He's a work out fiend also. I'm betting he's back to a 60+ point player next season. Like I said, you don't know what the league is going to do after this next season or even if it gets played. League may be enough financial difficulty they allow compliance buyouts AND reduce everyones contract value like they did a long time ago when shit got out of control.

 

[STL Shark]

I know that in any regular league year a team that is contending would take on his contract in an attempt to put them over the top assuming they have cap space. Dude still produces. Until such time as he actually stops, he has value to bring back picks and prospects. If a team has the cap space, he's not risky. 3 team list give burns control to pick and choose if it's not one of those 3. That's all. Doesn't mean he won't get asked if the Sharks decide to move on. If they decide Merkley is ready it's entirely reasonable that they would trade him and possibly retain to get maybe an extra pick of prospect. The other teams would want him despite what you think about his contract. Teams that could make it work cap wise would be lining up. A guy producing at his level is still rare and valuable. They would pay additional assets for retention purely so they could fit him under their cap which many contenders are pressed against. He was on a 52 point pace last season despite a lack of NHL forwards and the apparent pout job he did in the 2nd half where his scoring magically dried up. He's a work out fiend also. I'm betting he's back to a 60+ point player next season. Like I said, you don't know what the league is going to do after this next season or even if it gets played. League may be enough financial difficulty they allow compliance buyouts AND reduce everyones contract value like they did a long time ago when shit got out of control.

I don't get how anyone can logically look around the league at other good players that teams were vocal about trying to move that they were unable to move and think that Burns can be moved AND bring back a meaningful return. There is literally ZERO evidence based on the happenings of this offseason that this is remotely possible without significant retention which negates the benefit of moving him to begin with.

 

[Alaskanice]

I don't get how anyone can logically look around the league at other good players that teams were vocal about trying to move that they were unable to move and think that Burns can be moved AND bring back a meaningful return. There is literally ZERO evidence based on the happenings of this offseason that this is remotely possible without significant retention which negates the benefit of moving him to begin with.

My only reply to this is: because Doug Wilson??
No argument here. I just think that’s a solid reason. Nothing more.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

I don't get how anyone can logically look around the league at other good players that teams were vocal about trying to move that they were unable to move and think that Burns can be moved AND bring back a meaningful return. There is literally ZERO evidence based on the happenings of this offseason that this is remotely possible without significant retention which negates the benefit of moving him to begin with.

Like I said, circumstances can change greatly next offseason especially with the expansion draft. There will literally be nothing similar next off season to this off season. The league is adding another 82mil in cap space. Another team maybe makes a deal with Seattle to take their high priced contract and they turn around and acquire Burns for their cup run and subsequent seasons. This would be near perfect for a team like Toronto who wiffed on Petrangelo this off season. They also seem to like collecting ex-sharks. So Toronto loses a contract to Seattle and trades back a young player like Nylander to the Sharks and magically Burns fits under their cap. Maybe they can even make it work at the deadline and re0unite Jumbo and Burns to show all the kids for the leafs how to grow a proper beard. This is just one possibility. Lot
s of teams would want to add a guy like Burns even at his age because he really isn't slowing down that much as far as production.

 

[seroes]

I know that in any regular league year a team that is contending would take on his contract in an attempt to put them over the top assuming they have cap space. Dude still produces. Until such time as he actually stops, he has value to bring back picks and prospects. If a team has the cap space, he's not risky. 3 team list give burns control to pick and choose if it's not one of those 3. That's all. Doesn't mean he won't get asked if the Sharks decide to move on. If they decide Merkley is ready it's entirely reasonable that they would trade him and possibly retain to get maybe an extra pick of prospect. The other teams would want him despite what you think about his contract. Teams that could make it work cap wise would be lining up. A guy producing at his level is still rare and valuable. They would pay additional assets for retention purely so they could fit him under their cap which many contenders are pressed against. He was on a 52 point pace last season despite a lack of NHL forwards and the apparent pout job he did in the 2nd half where his scoring magically dried up. He's a work out fiend also. I'm betting he's back to a 60+ point player next season. Like I said, you don't know what the league is going to do after this next season or even if it gets played. League may be enough financial difficulty they allow compliance buyouts AND reduce everyones contract value like they did a long time ago when shit got out of control.

If his contract was even 2 years shorter we could probably trade him, but its the fact that it will still have 4 years left that is the problem. 38 or 39 year old Brent Burns probably won't be a top pairing defenseman. Thats why teams won't take him. They figure they can get better elsewhere.

As for compliance buyouts or devaluing contrqcts, I really don't think they are coming. The players Union doesn't like it and owners do not want to spend more money, especially since revenue will be down this year.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

If his contract was even 2 years shorter we could probably trade him, but its the fact that it will still have 4 years left that is the problem. 38 or 39 year old Brent Burns probably won't be a top pairing defenseman. Thats why teams won't take him. They figure they can get better elsewhere.

As for compliance buyouts or devaluing contrqcts, I really don't think they are coming. The players Union doesn't like it and owners do not want to spend more money, especially since revenue will be down this year.

Again, you don't know that teams won't take him. By the end of that contract the cap could be increasing again and the new normal at that point could very likely be 10-11mil for a #1 d-man. Burns at 8 million with the Sharks retaining 1 or 2 million becomes 6 or 7 million. If he's staying in shape and still producing even 50 points a year that is still a highly valuable asset the sharks can cash in on. His shot and passing ability aren't going anywhere before the end of the contract. Length of his contract doesn't really mean much in equation for trading for him unless he get's injured or suffered a drastic downturn in production. How old was jumbo when he pu up a PPG? 37? Almost 38? Burns work out regime seems more demanding than Jumbos. If I had to bet I would say Burns is putting up at approx 50 points in each of those last 2 years of his contract.

You have no idea about compliance buyouts or devaluing especially if they have to cancel the next season half way thru due to the virus. If the teams take that kind of financial hit they'll just lock the players out until they capitulate to their demands. With no income coming in anyway the owners are negotiating from a position of strength and will break the NHLPA. The longer they don't have to pay players salaries the better for them.

 

[Lebanezer]

There seems to be a false equivalence around here with good player and valuable asset. Burns at 36 with 4 years left is not a valuable asset, no matter how good of a player he is. His age, cap hit, and term make him an incredibly risky asset for another team to pay assets to take on. If 36 year old Brent Burns went to market as a UFA (even throwing out the 35+ contract rules), I can guarantee that he is not getting a 4 year deal worth $8 million a year from anyone. If that's the case, why would a team pay assets to then take on that contract? Add in the 3 team trade list and the Sharks have virtually ZERO leverage when it comes to a trade on both what comes back in return and how much they have to retain. Finding the perfect match of a team that Burns wants to go to that has the cap space to take him on (no Cup contenders sans Colorado have cap space and Colorado needs it to extend guys the next two years) is going to be next to impossible.

Sometimes, the most ideal situation isn't the most feasible one and you have to deal with the hand you're dealt. Unless a compliance buyout comes along next offseason, Burns to Seattle is the best realistic scenario that we can hope for in order to increase our chances at winning a Cup.

Who’s worth more, Vlasic, Burns or Jones?

 

[WTFetus]

My only reply to this is: because Doug Wilson??
No argument here. I just think that’s a solid reason. Nothing more.

When was the last time DW was able to get rid of a contract? Heatley was a lateral move and he had to subsequently buy out Havlat. He had to buy out Burish. He had to buy out Martin. It doesn’t look like there are even any takers for Sorenson right now.

 

[seroes]

Like I said, circumstances can change greatly next offseason especially with the expansion draft. There will literally be nothing similar next off season to this off season. The league is adding another 82mil in cap space. Another team maybe makes a deal with Seattle to take their high priced contract and they turn around and acquire Burns for their cup run and subsequent seasons. This would be near perfect for a team like Toronto who wiffed on Petrangelo this off season. They also seem to like collecting ex-sharks. So Toronto loses a contract to Seattle and trades back a young player like Nylander to the Sharks and magically Burns fits under their cap. Maybe they can even make it work at the deadline and re0unite Jumbo and Burns to show all the kids for the leafs how to grow a proper beard. This is just one possibility. Lot
s of teams would want to add a guy like Burns even at his age because he really isn't slowing down that much as far as production.

I dont think Toronto would make that deal 1 for 1. I would love it but they would be crazy to do it.. They will need to extend Anderson or get a new starting goalie next off-season and the off season after that they have Sandin and Morgan Orielly to re sign. Toronto does not have much cap space coming given their own contracts.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

I dont think Toronto would make that deal 1 for 1. I would love it but they would be crazy to do it.. They will need to extend Anderson or get a new starting goalie next off-season and the off season after that they have Sandin and Morgan Orielly to re sign. Toronto does not have much cap space coming given their own contracts.

I wasn't clear... I didn't mean 1 for 1. Also it was simply an example not my carved in stone solution. The offseason after that the cap will be increasing assuming the world is past the pandemic. You're not doing the math on them moving out at least 2 contracts as I detailed. They'll have room if they want it. Frankly this is more of a thought exercise as I don't even want him moved. I think DW should do whatever it takes to dump vlasic. If it's add a 1st? Do it. Just get that god awful contract off the books so they can use the money for a forward. I would rather keep Burns until he's not even 3rd pair level. We don't know for sure if Merk translates to a top 4 D-man yet and may very well not know next off season.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I really doubt DW is willing to pay the price needed to dump salary. They couldn't move Melker or Dell last off-season when there was significantly more flexibility. Schmidt at 6 mil which is a good deal for him returned a 3rd. Tampa is probably looking at paying a team to take Killorn or Johnson or lose Sergachev or Cirelli or Cernak since taking salary back is likely out of the question for them. The Sharks don't need to dump salary in a time where it costs a premium to do so. There's no reason they can't hold on to the dumps at this stage when they're making little effort to improve.

 

[Barrie22]

No team would sign burns to a 4 year 8 mil a year contract at 35 if we disregard the 35+ rule?

May i remind people that a useless slug of a player that could only deflect pucks for a living just got 3 years at 7 million.

 

[LadyStanley]

Who knows if there will be compliance buyout next off season

Owners not willing to pay out more in current economic times.

Compliance. Buyouts. Won't. Happen.

 

[LadyStanley]

Another thought...

Who might the Sharks have to expose that Seattle might pick and flip/trade to another team?

VGK picked extra D. Schlemko was flipped to Montreal.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

Not a subscriber to the idea that Burns has no value and that getting rid is required.

He would be a really good add to most team's PP, even at his advancing age. Not saying we'd be getting a crazy return by any stretch, and yes you possibly have to eat some of his deal in any return, but there's still some value there in a hockey trade. He's not like Vlasic or Jones.

I'd love to see if we could trade him to Boston in a deal around DeBrusk coming back. Would be a fit both ways, imo.