Speculation: Would you eat 50% to trade Couture and Burns?

[Hatrick Marleau]

Considering the Sharks position in the standings and the future of the current core, a rebuild makes the most sense. As you know, the Sharks have many expensive and untradeable at their current cap hit. A buyout of Burns contract would not make any sense as it would lower his cap hit from 8 million to 6 million. Burns is still a productive player and at 4 million for 3 years, he would be seen as a valued asset as a big right shot defenseman. It would also only be a 4 million dollar cap hit for the Sharks for 3 years plus any assets they receive in a trade. That cap hit would also be gone by the time Eklund would need a new contract.

Couture on the other hand could possibly make sense financially to buyout as most years of the buyout would be less than 3 million cap hit wise. However a trade of his contract at 50% would make far more sense as that 4 million dollar cap hit would last 5 years compared to 10 years for a buyout.

Would you trade them both at 50% and if so what would you expect back in return?

Click to read more...

 

[Gecklund]

If I’m retaining 50 I’m expecting a huge package coming back otherwise 0 possibility I’m retaining at all.

 

[Hatrick Marleau]

If I’m retaining 50 I’m expecting a huge package coming back otherwise 0 possibility I’m retaining at all.

What would be a huge package to you? Similar return as Toffoli?

 

[one2gamble]

i dont care anymore but both those players are worth more than 50% of their salaries.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Don't see a compelling enough reason to hang on to that much dead cap space for that long. Neither will return franchise altering talent or picks. Now if you want to retain 1 or 2 mil each to get a decent return like maybe a late 1st or equivalent prospect and a contract then I'd consider it but eight mil of dead cap is better used getting paid to take on dead weight than just having it sit there for a late 1st still at best or equivalent for retaining half.

 

[TheBeard]

If I’m retaining 50 I’m expecting a huge package coming back otherwise 0 possibility I’m retaining at all.

Man if we're off the hook for 50%, I'll take a conditional 7th for Burns.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Man if we're off the hook for 50%, I'll take a conditional 7th for Burns.

I don't see how retaining four mil to get rid of Burns means we're off the hook. We're paying four mil to have him play somewhere else while still getting worse. Burns may not be playing well but the alternative is to put a lot of players way too high in the lineup. Let Burns eat the minutes that's going to probably hurt the progression of younger defensemen.

 

[TheBeard]

I don't see how retaining four mil to get rid of Burns means we're off the hook. We're paying four mil to have him play somewhere else while still getting worse. Burns may not be playing well but the alternative is to put a lot of players way too high in the lineup. Let Burns eat the minutes that's going to probably hurt the progression of younger defensemen.

Because this may be our only chance to do it and keeping him in the lineup isn't really doing anything. It's blocking someone else from being showcased, it's killing Mario and it's not as if the team won't be overplaying him still in two years. It's better than a buyout.

 

[Gecklund]

What would be a huge package to you? Similar return as Toffoli?

Way more. Couture and Burns are both better players than Toffoli and would be cheaper if we are retaining 50. Basically from the Sharks asset perspective I’d be asking Eklund+1st (with the caveat that our first is early)+cap. Basically a better prospect, a better first, and useful cap. Will we get that for them? Probably not but they need to make it worth it to retain 4M for 4 or 6 years.

 

[TheBeard]

Way more. Couture and Burns are both better players than Toffoli and would be cheaper if we are retaining 50. Basically from the Sharks asset perspective I’d be asking Eklund+1st (with the caveat that our first is early)+cap. Basically a better prospect, a better first, and useful cap. Will we get that for them? Probably not but they need to make it worth it to retain 4M for 4 or 6 years.

You're insane.

 

[Hatrick Marleau]

I don't see how retaining four mil to get rid of Burns means we're off the hook. We're paying four mil to have him play somewhere else while still getting worse. Burns may not be playing well but the alternative is to put a lot of players way too high in the lineup. Let Burns eat the minutes that's going to probably hurt the progression of younger defensemen.

At that point, the goal would be to be bad to have a chance at drafting Bedard and Michkov.

 

[Gecklund]

You're insane.

In what way? Couture especially is the best comparable to Toffoli. Guy has 34 points in 43 games on an absolute garbage team and would be cheaper than Toffoli and is better defensively as well as has better playoff stats. Why would we accept less?

 

[Hatrick Marleau]

Way more. Couture and Burns are both better players than Toffoli and would be cheaper if we are retaining 50. Basically from the Sharks asset perspective I’d be asking Eklund+1st (with the caveat that our first is early)+cap. Basically a better prospect, a better first, and useful cap. Will we get that for them? Probably not but they need to make it worth it to retain 4M for 4 or 6 years.

Toffoli is very comparable to Couture at this point in his career. You could probably get slightly more being that he is a center that plays all situations and is slightly cheaper if retained. Burns may get overvalued by a team but I highly doubt a team would give up a top 10 pick++ for him. What you’re asking for is what I’d expect from a Timo Meier trade.

 

[TheBeard]

In what way? Couture especially is the best comparable to Toffoli. Guy has 34 points in 43 games on an absolute garbage team and would be cheaper than Toffoli and is better defensively as well as has better playoff stats. Why would we accept less?

Toffoli is under 30, and under contract for 2 more years at just over 4 million. He's got 26 points in 37 games on arguably the worst team in hockey (he and Suzuki are the only players on Montreal over 20 points for the season).

 

[themelkman]

Id eat 50 on Burns, Couture no. Anything to make Boog stop playing Burns 3o mins a night

 

[Hodge]

There are no signing bonuses in the last four years of Couture's deal so it should be pretty easy to buy out if they need to. No way would I want the Sharks to retain salary for five years.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Because this may be our only chance to do it and keeping him in the lineup isn't really doing anything. It's blocking someone else from being showcased, it's killing Mario and it's not as if the team won't be overplaying him still in two years. It's better than a buyout.

I don’t think this is a real option nor is a buyout. Him being there is better than Merkley in the top four or whoever else they’d put there both in a competitive and a tanking sense. Asking too much of a player with potential can be a damaging thing. Unless we have a replacement in mind to fill that role, it’s better to just ride Burns out unless he wants out.

 

[TheBeard]

I don’t think this is a real option nor is a buyout. Him being there is better than Merkley in the top four or whoever else they’d put there both in a competitive and a tanking sense. Asking too much of a player with potential can be a damaging thing. Unless we have a replacement in mind to fill that role, it’s better to just ride Burns out unless he wants out.

Find a vet then to take minutes. Bring back Pateryn. There’s a million guys like that out there. I’d rather not ruin the development of Mario by forcing him to play with the human embodiment of what not to do as a defenseman.

it’s all moot though because I can’t imagine a single team wanting Burns at this point without being enticed with other pieces.

 

[Hatrick Marleau]

There are no signing bonuses in the last four years of Couture's deal so it should be pretty easy to buy out if they need to. No way would I want the Sharks to retain salary for five years.

This is true but you’d have salary on the books for 8 years if you buyout next year when he has no more signing bonus. A buyout would have 5 years of a 2.3 cap hit, 2 years of 3.3 cap hit and 1 year of a 4.3 cap hit. I’d rather just eat 4 million for 5 years and get assests back. Plus you’d already be bad for 2-3 of those years so you’d have dead cap 4 million for 2-3 years compared to 5-6 years on a buyout.

 

[Gecklund]

Toffoli is very comparable to Couture at this point in his career. You could probably get slightly more being that he is a center that plays all situations and is slightly cheaper if retained. Burns may get overvalued by a team but I highly doubt a team would give up a top 10 pick++ for him. What you’re asking for is what I’d expect from a Timo Meier trade.

Again what y’all are forgetting is that we are now taking on an extra 4M that is unmovable so basically we got probably about 4M in dead cap and probably about another 4M in garbage players. I’m not taking on that much for nothing.

 

[TheBeard]

This is true but you’d have salary on the books for 8 years if you buyout next year when he has no more signing bonus. A buyout would have 5 years of a 2.3 cap hit, 2 years of 3.3 cap hit and 1 year of a 4.3 cap hit. I’d rather just eat 4 million for 5 years and get assests back. Plus you’d already be bad for 2-3 of those years so you’d have dead cap 4 million for 2-3 years compared to 5-6 years on a buyout.

There's just not enough forward depth on this team to buyout one of the few "weapons" (and I use that term lightly). I don't think it would be that difficult to find someone to replace Burns and provide the same head-scratching play.

 

[Hatrick Marleau]

Again what y’all are forgetting is that we are now taking on an extra 4M that is unmovable so basically we got probably about 4M in dead cap and probably about another 4M in garbage players. I’m not taking on that much for nothing.

If we trade Couture for picks and young players and retain 50% we only have 4 million in dead cap. What you are calculating is 8 million being taken on. If we had to retain AND take on a garbage player with a bad contract then yes I would want a lot more but that is not what was suggested.

 

[Hatrick Marleau]

There's just not enough forward depth on this team to buyout one of the few "weapons" (and I use that term lightly). I don't think it would be that difficult to find someone to replace Burns and provide the same head-scratching play.

Well the plan would be to rebuild if we trade these 2 so I wouldn’t be worried about forward depth. Tank for a top pick next year and maybe get Bedard.

 

[TheBeard]

Well the plan would be to rebuild if we trade these 2 so I wouldn’t be worried about forward depth. Tank for a top pick next year and maybe get Bedard.

You still want to develop younger guys and having them play with other younger guys isn’t the way. That’s the main reason they brought in Bonino and Cogs IMO.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

You still want to develop younger guys and having them play with other younger guys isn’t the way. That’s the main reason they brought in Bonino and Cogs IMO.

Problem is that the vets aren't being deployed that way. Bonino and Cogs are playing with Nieto. Vlasic and Simek are on the same pairing when Middleton and Meloche are very inexperienced by comparison being used as a pairing. This team isn't being coached to develop anyone. This team isn't being managed to develop anyone either.

If we're making the transition to doing what we feel is needed to develop people then we need to identify who it is we want to develop and put them in the best position to succeed. For me, it's going to be difficult to see anything that makes it a good idea to trade Burns for the scraps he'd get or pay to get rid of him.