Who are the Untouchable Sharks?

[Nighthock]

 

[Lebanezer]

With COVID I don't think we should be touching any of them.

 

[Boy Hedican]

Jones is untouchable. Nobody would dare.

 

[Sharksfan83]

Untouchable is a silly term, but Im building my Sharks team around Meier and Hertl.

 

[Solmors]

None. I'm convinced the team has an attitude of mediocracy that has been there for years, as in they seem content with being average and having bad games. I am all for selling anyone top to bottom who might be part of this team culture.

 

[Groo]

None. I'm convinced the team has an attitude of mediocracy that has been there for years, as in they seem content with being average and having bad games. I am all for selling anyone top to bottom who might be part of this team culture.

The one constant to "team culture" has been Doug Wilson
Starts at the top

 

[LeeIFBB]

Doug Wilson Jr., evidently.

 

[Sharksrule04]

The players that are a firm part of the core, should not be trade bait etc. My take:

Couture
Hertl
Meier
Karlsson
Kane
Ferraro

Not including Burns because I think it is a possible way to get out from under that contract to have him picked by Seattle. 8mil more cap space could do us wonders.

What say ye?

There is literally no chance with 8M that we can get a more impactful player than Burns for the next 2-3 years via free agency. We are talking guys like Kevin Hayes here. Burns at best is still a top 5 scoring Dman in the NHL. At worst he’s probably still top 20.

Only way I move Burns is if there is a lot coming back, and despite how much Sharks fans seemed to have soured on the guy who Is one season removed from having more Pts than games as a DMan, he still has a ton of value around the league.

 

[Sharksrule04]

I don’t think anyone on this roster is truly untouchable. I would have said Meier and Hertl prior to this past season but with Meier having an iffy season and Hertl’s injury risks even they aren’t untouchable to me. I absolutely don’t see how anyone says Karlsson is untouchable. Yes he’s a piece you build around but realistically there are plenty of players you trade him for considering his recent performance and injuries. My idea of an “untouchable” player is a guy your team simply wouldn’t trade regardless of the haul. There are maybe 10-20 of those types in the entire NHL.

 

[Nolan11]

I don’t think anyone on this roster is truly untouchable. I would have said Meier and Hertl prior to this past season but with Meier having an iffy season and Hertl’s injury risks even they aren’t untouchable to me. I absolutely don’t see how anyone says Karlsson is untouchable. Yes he’s a piece you build around but realistically there are plenty of players you trade him for considering his recent performance and injuries. My idea of an “untouchable” player is a guy your team simply wouldn’t trade regardless of the haul. There are maybe 10-20 of those types in the entire NHL.

We have two of them on our team.
.
.
.
.
Karlsson
Vlasic
Both have Total NMC and are therefore untouchable.

 

[matt trick]

I was somewhat heartened than Vlasics buyout is less than $2M per year for any year he is bought out. The term sucks, and you’d have to sign someone to replace him, but $2M to put $5M toward a second pair D-man isn’t awful.
I’d be thrilled if we could move him to Montreal.

Jones’ buyout is so much worse, despite his salary being 1.25M less and a year shorter.

 

[themelkman]

I was somewhat heartened than Vlasics buyout is less than $2M per year for any year he is bought out. The term sucks, and you’d have to sign someone to replace him, but $2M to put $5M toward a second pair D-man isn’t awful.
I’d be thrilled if we could move him to Montreal.

Jones’ buyout is so much worse, despite his salary being 1.25M less and a year shorter.

The buyout would effect us so long. Its better for us to just play Vlasic until he cant play

 

[TreeLane]

There is literally no chance with 8M that we can get a more impactful player than Burns for the next 2-3 years via free agency. We are talking guys like Kevin Hayes here. Burns at best is still a top 5 scoring Dman in the NHL. At worst he’s probably still top 20.

Only way I move Burns is if there is a lot coming back, and despite how much Sharks fans seemed to have soured on the guy who Is one season removed from having more Pts than games as a DMan, he still has a ton of value around the league.

I agree about Burns but of the big contracts we have his is the most tradeable. With the cap likely staying flat for a couple years it's not a bad though to move it.

 

[Barrie22]

I was somewhat heartened than Vlasics buyout is less than $2M per year for any year he is bought out. The term sucks, and you’d have to sign someone to replace him, but $2M to put $5M toward a second pair D-man isn’t awful.
I’d be thrilled if we could move him to Montreal.

Jones’ buyout is so much worse, despite his salary being 1.25M less and a year shorter.

How do you figure?

Vlasics buyout would last until the 31-32 season and the jones contract until the 27-28 season. So a full 4 seasons longer.

The cap hits per year would be as follows.

Vlasic.

Year 1 6.42 mil
Year 2 1.40 mil
Year 3 3.65 mil
Year 4 1.40 mil
Year 5 4.15 mil
Year 6 5.15 mil
Year 7-12 1.65 mil

Jones

Year 1 2.87 mil
Year 2 1.87 mil
Year 3 2.37 mil
Year 4 2.87 mil
Year 5-8 1.62 mil

Where you got the 2 mil number i have no idea. But these numbers above are from capfriendly.

 

[Sharksrule04]

I agree about Burns but of the big contracts we have his is the most tradeable. With the cap likely staying flat for a couple years it's not a bad though to move it.

Yes his is most movable but if you aren’t improving or able to use that money to get a better player, what is the point?

 

[TreeLane]

Yes his is most movable but if you aren’t improving or able to use that money to get a better player, what is the point?

I don't see why we wouldn't shore up other deficiencies with a Burns trade. Just having that cap back would be monumental for the team but Doug isn't the type of GM to just sit on 8mil.

It's not just a better player but we could get a couple players in places of need. With 8mil we could easily sign a UFA goaltender and acquire a middle six winger.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't see why we wouldn't shore up other deficiencies with a Burns trade. Just having that cap back would be monumental for the team but Doug isn't the type of GM to just sit on 8mil.

It's not just a better player but we could get a couple players in places of need. With 8mil we could easily sign a UFA goaltender and acquire a middle six winger.

They could shore up other deficiencies but it's highly doubtful that they get better moving Burns and doing whatever they want with that 8 mil in cap space. If I had to guess any team that would trade for Burns right now, it'd probably be Dallas that would likely be on Burns' trade list. I don't see much there that would make this team better minus Burns next season. We would probably get a contract back like Johns or maybe Faksa that could help fill a spot but you're left with 5.5-6 mil while losing a premier talent and only capable of replacing that with secondary level talent. For instance, if we dealt Burns to Dallas for say Faksa and a 1st, yeah we have more depth up front that they need but who goes in place of Burns? We still lack elite talent.

 

[TreeLane]

They could shore up other deficiencies but it's highly doubtful that they get better moving Burns and doing whatever they want with that 8 mil in cap space. If I had to guess any team that would trade for Burns right now, it'd probably be Dallas that would likely be on Burns' trade list. I don't see much there that would make this team better minus Burns next season. We would probably get a contract back like Johns or maybe Faksa that could help fill a spot but you're left with 5.5-6 mil while losing a premier talent and only capable of replacing that with secondary level talent. For instance, if we dealt Burns to Dallas for say Faksa and a 1st, yeah we have more depth up front that they need but who goes in place of Burns? We still lack elite talent.

Dallas cannot trade for Burns unless a contract of significance is coming back like Pavelski or Radulov... They have to sign Heiskanen and Dickinson next year, Faksa and Hintz this year.

I can see something like
To DAL: Burns, 2nd (Col)
To SJS: Pavelski and a 1st (late 1st)

Getting a substantial return isn't a necessity from Dallas, it's all about freeing up cap for the future so we can sign players and remain competitive.

 

[Barrie22]

Dallas cannot trade for Burns unless a contract of significance is coming back like Pavelski or Radulov... They have to sign Heiskanen and Dickinson next year, Faksa and Hintz this year.

I can see something like
To DAL: Burns, 2nd (Col)
To SJS: Pavelski and a 1st (late 1st)

Getting a substantial return isn't a necessity from Dallas, it's all about freeing up cap for the future so we can sign players and remain competitive.

So get substantially worse with no cap savings? How does this trade make sense in any way possible.

Trade argueably a top 10 defensemen in the league for someone that can barely pass as a 4th liner in the league nowadays.

Oh but we get a 1st round pick that might help us 5 years down the road. Yippeeee

 

[TreeLane]

So get substantially worse with no cap savings? How does this trade make sense in any way possible.

Trade argueably a top 10 defensemen in the league for someone that can barely pass as a 4th liner in the league nowadays.

Oh but we get a 1st round pick that might help us 5 years down the road. Yippeeee

We get out from under an 8million dollar contract that has Burns locked down until he's 40. That's how it helps us, I thought it was pretty obvious. Try to see the other side before offering me your immature snark.

 

[Barrie22]

We get out from under an 8million dollar contract that has Burns locked down until he's 40. That's how it helps us, I thought it was pretty obvious. Try to see the other side before offering me your immature snark.

The point is to try and still win now. Not 4 years from now. Burns will still be at the very worst a top 20 defensemen in the league in 4 years.

There are other better ways that save more money that can be done, that would keep us competive now and in the long run without trading one of the best players on the team now and for a few more years.

And the only time we start to save money and get out from a contract that may or may not even become bad is 3 years from now. How does this help us be competive now?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Dallas cannot trade for Burns unless a contract of significance is coming back like Pavelski or Radulov... They have to sign Heiskanen and Dickinson next year, Faksa and Hintz this year.

I can see something like
To DAL: Burns, 2nd (Col)
To SJS: Pavelski and a 1st (late 1st)

Getting a substantial return isn't a necessity from Dallas, it's all about freeing up cap for the future so we can sign players and remain competitive.

Your premise is false that they need to move Pavs or Radulov to sign Heiskanen and Dickinson after next season. The two of them will probably cost 7 mil combined and they have about 10 mil expiring. Neither Faksa nor Hintz will require a huge enough raise that means that they can't use more of the 20 mil in space they have to get Burns. The Sharks could take more obviously but the more they do, the more it defeats your purpose. Your trade proposal is complete garbage. We downgrade from Burns to Pavs, save one mil in the short term, and upgrade a few spots in the draft to be a lot worse next season.

 

[DG93]

They could shore up other deficiencies but it's highly doubtful that they get better moving Burns and doing whatever they want with that 8 mil in cap space. If I had to guess any team that would trade for Burns right now, it'd probably be Dallas that would likely be on Burns' trade list. I don't see much there that would make this team better minus Burns next season. We would probably get a contract back like Johns or maybe Faksa that could help fill a spot but you're left with 5.5-6 mil while losing a premier talent and only capable of replacing that with secondary level talent. For instance, if we dealt Burns to Dallas for say Faksa and a 1st, yeah we have more depth up front that they need but who goes in place of Burns? We still lack elite talent.

If they can then flip that 1st + other assets for a legit top-6 forward, it's probably worth it. Faksa shores up the 3C position, and the top-6 forward fills a big need as well without eating into the Sharks' 16M of current cap space. That 16M can then be used to add a goalie, sign Gudas or Dillon, re-sign depth + Labanc, and maybe even add another top-9 guy. With this, SJ is of course banking on Merk being ready soon, but it's not the worst idea even though I wouldn't mind keeping Burns either.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If they can then flip that 1st + other assets for a legit top-6 forward, it's probably worth it. Faksa shores up the 3C position, and the top-6 forward fills a big need as well without eating into the Sharks' 16M of current cap space. That 16M can then be used to add a goalie, sign Gudas or Dillon, re-sign depth + Labanc, and maybe even add another top-9 guy. With this, SJ is of course banking on Merk being ready soon, but it's not the worst idea even though I wouldn't mind keeping Burns either.

They can probably flip the extra 2nd with other assets for a legit top-6 forward without losing a pretty major contributor right now for someone who isn't. Burns is still one of the five best players at worst. The Sharks problem is that they don't have enough top guys. At best you're getting worse at the top of your lineup to get slightly better below that when that's not going to be what wins them more games. The team needs to drop dead weight long before they worry about Burns.

 

[DG93]

They can probably flip the extra 2nd with other assets for a legit top-6 forward without losing a pretty major contributor right now for someone who isn't. Burns is still one of the five best players at worst. The Sharks problem is that they don't have enough top guys. At best you're getting worse at the top of your lineup to get slightly better below that when that's not going to be what wins them more games. The team needs to drop dead weight long before they worry about Burns.

Absolutely, I'd rather get rid of Vlasic if possible. I just don't think that it is lol...and if what you said is true, why not acquire 2 top-6 guys? One for a 1st and one for a 2nd + prospects? Those 2 + Faksa fills all 3 holes up front while Ferraro-Dillon can probably pass as a 2nd pair until Merk is ready. I'd prefer to hold onto Burns too, but that's a big upgrade to the forward group there.