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

[Gecklund]

Cap space and cap hits are prorated. I just assumed you knew that

Of course I do. You know that that doesn’t matter when we are talking about the next 4 years but I just assumed you knew that.

 

[Hatrick Marleau]

What is the almost 2M coming back that Pitlick is? Guy is a garbage player by the way.

Name them. I would put money on it being under 5 and all 5 of those have contracts coming up. 4M for 6 years is a detriment to lots of teams as they have young guys coming up that deserve the raises.

You are acting like the Canadiens took on 2 million for 5 years. Pitlick makes 1.75 million AND is on an expiring contract which means they are essentially taking back no cap being that this trade was made halfway through the season it’s more like 900K they are taking on for half a season. Who cares if he sucks, they aren’t stuck with him after this season. If your holdup to getting a 1st, a 2nd, a 5th for a player is taking on 900K for half a season then I don’t know what to tell you. I agree with you IF you have to take on a player that is garbage and has multiple years left.

For your 2nd point, 4 million is 4.8% of the cap. If that causes you to not be able to sign a good young player then that team has bigger problems. Those are the type of contracts a team should be trying to get right now. Couture at 4 million is a great price.

 

[Bizz]

Couture no. He's a consistent 70 point top line forward. You don't retain on those.

Burns maybe, depending on the return.

 

[Gecklund]

You are acting like the Canadiens took on 2 million for 5 years. Pitlick makes 1.75 million AND is on an expiring contract which means they are essentially taking back no cap being that this trade was made halfway through the season it’s more like 900K they are taking on for half a season. Who cares if he sucks, they aren’t stuck with him after this season. If your holdup to getting a 1st, a 2nd, a 5th for a player is taking on 900K for half a season then I don’t know what to tell you. I agree with you IF you have to take on a player that is garbage and has multiple years left.

For your 2nd point, 4 million is 4.8% of the cap. If that causes you to not be able to sign a good young player then that team has bigger problems. Those are the type of contracts a team should be trying to get right now. Couture at 4 million is a great price.

I agree Couture is at 4M a great price. That’s my whole point. You are asking for too little for a player that is better than Toffoli and proven to be a monster in the playoffs. I’m saying very few teams can take on Couture even at 4M and not run into cap issues with the way it’s currently set up and not sending back a contract. The difference between CGY’s situation and other teams is they HAVE to go all in this season and next as they have Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Mangiapane, and most of their defense expiring this season. This is their shot. Despite that they still had to send back almost half the cap.

 

[sharski]

hot take: i think they both should play out their contracts and retire with the sharks

don't @ me

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Of course I do. You know that that doesn’t matter when we are talking about the next 4 years but I just assumed you knew that.

What would make you assume I knew that? The fact I talked about the cap raising next season and every season after that? Or was it when I said teams have pending UFAs for Couture to take their spot

But of course you knew that cap was prorated, that's why you mentioned Couture's full 4 million for only part of the season this year! Sense!

Man, you are good at this

 

[TheBeard]

Couture no. He's a consistent 70 point top line forward. You don't retain on those.

Burns maybe, depending on the return.

Weird to say since he's had one 70 point season in his career and only three 60 point seasons.

 

[Hatrick Marleau]

I agree Couture is at 4M a great price. That’s my whole point. You are asking for too little for a player that is better than Toffoli and proven to be a monster in the playoffs. I’m saying very few teams can take on Couture even at 4M and not run into cap issues with the way it’s currently set up and not sending back a contract. The difference between CGY’s situation and other teams is they HAVE to go all in this season and next as they have Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Mangiapane, and most of their defense expiring this season. This is their shot. Despite that they still had to send back almost half the cap.

According to The Athletic’s player Cards, Toffoli has been slightly more valuable than Couture and he plays on worse team. That being said I think Couture might get slightly more because he is a center and has led the playoffs in scoring. However, I don’t think you’d get much more.

Calgary did take on multiple years with Toffoli even though they have those contracts coming up because his cap hit is small and easy to fit. Plenty of teams would be able to fit Couture at 4 million in the offseason.

 

[tealzamboni]

hot take: i think they both should play out their contracts and retire with the sharks

don't @ me

Sharks: "(interim) coach MacLean, we think you should roll out this sweet Meier - Couture - Burns line. We'll crunch some numbers and have the rest of the lineup ready in a couple of days."

 

[Gecklund]

What would make you assume I knew that? The fact I talked about the cap raising next season and every season after that? Or was it when I said teams have pending UFAs for Couture to take their spot

But of course you knew that cap was prorated, that's why you mentioned Couture's full 4 million for only part of the season this year! Sense!

Man, you are good at this

That’s cute! You think that the 4M isn’t full for next season. Or at least that’s what your post makes it sounds like. But no continue to take shots at me for you not understanding the full picture. Go off man.

 

[Hodge]

That’s cute! You think that the 4M isn’t full for next season. Or at least that’s what your post makes it sounds like. But no continue to take shots at me for you not understanding the full picture. Go off man.

You said only two playoff teams can absorb a $4M hit the rest of THIS season when that isn't true.

 

[Gecklund]

You said only two playoff teams can absorb a $4M hit the rest of THIS season when that isn't true.

Fantastic. Again other teams have contracts they need to sign THIS off-season. But no continue to enter a conversation without reading the whole thing.

 

[DG93]

I would not retain on Burns for sure. Yes, Burns blows on the Sharks, but he's also asked to play 30 minutes a night at 36-37 years old against top lines and still is on pace to put up 50 points. If he plays on a second pairing against secondary competition and gets top PP minutes, he'll be worth at least 6-6.5M imo. That should be able to net you a decent return even with 3 years left on his deal given the shape that he's been in.

Couture is a little more difficult since he has 5 years left at age 32-33, but he's still on track to put up 25 goals and 65-70 points and is known to be a stud in the playoffs. He'll probably be good on a much better team where he doesn't have to be one of the big guys and can dominate as a 2C for another 3 years. Those last 2 years of the contract are definitely tough to sell, but he's also only making 8M in an NHL where guys like Ryan Johansen, Duchene (yes he bounced back this year but he was shit for the last 3 seasons), and Kevin Hayes are making 7.5-8M now, let alone in 3 years (although cap isn't rising as fast as expected with COVID). The most I'd retain on him is 25% and that's if the prospects we get are much better with the retention.

TL;dr: While this team is trash overall, Couture and Burns overall are doing well production-wise despite playing against top-end competition. They would thrive on much better teams in reduced roles with much better top-end talent around them as well as depth (and coaching). I would not retain on those two.

 

[TheBeard]

Fantastic. Again other teams have contracts they need to sign THIS off-season. But no continue to enter a conversation without reading the whole thing.

Doesn’t mean they CAN’T afford the 4 million hit, just means they prioritize other players. Big difference.

 

[PacificOceanPotion]

I would not. Don't mess with a good thing unless you're guaranteed to receive good packages in either, or one deal for both. If a team comes asking, go for it without retention. Otherwise, let this stealth tank run its course. We need these 2 if we ever want a chance at a lottery pick.

 

[Hatrick Marleau]

I would not. Don't mess with a good thing unless you're guaranteed to receive good packages in either, or one deal for both. If a team comes asking, go for it without retention. Otherwise, let this stealth tank run its course. We need these 2 if we ever want a chance at a lottery pick.

I think having them both makes the tank worse because now we will stay in the middle ground where we don’t get a high pick and don’t have great lottery odds. Right now we are projected to have the 11th worst record. In this draft it likely doesn’t matter since 2-10 is similar to last year with unpredictability but you’d like to have as high a pick as possible and better odds at number 1. If we are going to be bad we should be as bad as possible.

 

[Groo]

No on Couture as I don't want to see him moved
Yes on Burns as I'd like to see him go

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think having them both makes the tank worse because now we will stay in the middle ground where we don’t get a high pick and don’t have great lottery odds. Right now we are projected to have the 11th worst record. In this draft it likely doesn’t matter since 2-10 is similar to last year with unpredictability but you’d like to have as high a pick as possible and better odds at number 1. If we are going to be bad we should be as bad as possible.

I don't think Couture moves the needle in either direction. Burns does actually keep the team afloat in certain areas that without him would make it difficult to continue on even at this level. I think that's also true for Hertl, Meier, and Karlsson. You trade any of those four and I think they will hit a lower bar next season. You lose two of those four and you're definitely competing for the bottom spot. Honestly, I just hope that the vets get fed up and ask out. It makes it easier to take less to turn the page on them all than this directionless mediocrity they got going on.

 

[NWSharkie]

According to The Athletic’s player Cards, Toffoli has been slightly more valuable than Couture and he plays on worse team. That being said I think Couture might get slightly more because he is a center and has led the playoffs in scoring. However, I don’t think you’d get much more.View attachment 507519View attachment 507520
Calgary did take on multiple years with Toffoli even though they have those contracts coming up because his cap hit is small and easy to fit. Plenty of teams would be able to fit Couture at 4 million in the offseason.

I take those player cards with a grain of salt because they only reflect the players' current usage rather than "ideal world" deployment. Couture is a so-so value as a top line center, but he's also at the point in his career where he'd be best off making a Pavelski-like transition to either the wing or the middle six. His defense on the player card looks awful because he's being asked to do too much for a team that isn't helping him at all; he'd be much more successful against second-tier matchups. If you could get ~60 points and solid defense out of a 2LW for $8m, especially one who's a proven playoff performer, that contract doesn't look like quite such an overpay.

Same deal for Burns. The Sharks are playing him about 5 minutes/game too much and using him in situations where they actually need a (prime) Vlasic/Braun. For a team that needed a scoring PPQB to take #2 minutes instead, $8m isn't unreasonable.

I'd retain on either for the right return, but not 50%. Either of those guys is a steal at $4m, and we'd have to be getting back at least $6m in value (either ELC savings, underpaid talent or high draft picks) to make it worth taking that kind of stake in another team's payroll.

 

[Hatrick Marleau]

I don't think Couture moves the needle in either direction. Burns does actually keep the team afloat in certain areas that without him would make it difficult to continue on even at this level. I think that's also true for Hertl, Meier, and Karlsson. You trade any of those four and I think they will hit a lower bar next season. You lose two of those four and you're definitely competing for the bottom spot. Honestly, I just hope that the vets get fed up and ask out. It makes it easier to take less to turn the page on them all than this directionless mediocrity they got going on.

I can agree on Couture not moving the needle that much either way. I would honestly like to just pull the plug on all of them. If Hertl is traded and or if we miss the playoffs again, which is very likely, I think some may ask out. Burns I could see being moved without retention but Couture I think will need at least 50% retention just because of the length. I love Hertl and Meier but they should be offloaded too and used as big restocking chips. I think Karlsson is the only one we’d be stuck with no matter what. His contract is too long and too big.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I can agree on Couture not moving the needle that much either way. I would honestly like to just pull the plug on all of them. If Hertl is traded and or if we miss the playoffs again, which is very likely, I think some may ask out. Burns I could see being moved without retention but Couture I think will need at least 50% retention just because of the length. I love Hertl and Meier but they should be offloaded too and used as big restocking chips. I think Karlsson is the only one we’d be stuck with no matter what. His contract is too long and too big.

Karlsson and Vlasic. Only difference is that Vlasic can be bought out.

 

[seroes]

I would retain on Burns but not Couture.

For Couture, I want either him or Hertl (but not both) around to shield the young guys while we rebuild. Just throwing a 20 year old into a 1C role seems like a terrible idea. In addition 5 years is just too much to retain without a such a massive return coming back that no team would pay that price.

For Burns, it would only be for 3 years while we aren't being competitive and he would be a bargain for most teams at 4 million for at least this season and next. He also likely would not be a bad deal for the last 2 seasons either given how well he is playing now. We would get a decent haul to accelerate our rebuild. This is something we should absolutely be looking into.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

That’s cute! You think that the 4M isn’t full for next season. Or at least that’s what your post makes it sounds like. But no continue to take shots at me for you not understanding the full picture. Go off man.

So when I say the cap is going up and teams have expiring contracts opening up space for Couture at 4 million, you thought that meant that I was saying Couture's full 4 million wouldnt apply next season? What? I cant even come close to comprehending this

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I would retain on Burns but not Couture.

For Couture, I want either him or Hertl (but not both) around to shield the young guys while we rebuild. Just throwing a 20 year old into a 1C role seems like a terrible idea. In addition 5 years is just too much to retain without a such a massive return coming back that no team would pay that price.

For Burns, it would only be for 3 years while we aren't being competitive and he would be a bargain for most teams at 4 million for at least this season and next. He also likely would not be a bad deal for the last 2 seasons either given how well he is playing now. We would get a decent haul to accelerate our rebuild. This is something we should absolutely be looking into.

If either ask out then I'm probably on board with it but shielding the young guys is why I'm more for keeping them. We don't seem to have a 2C waiting to take that spot so trading Couture seems like a bad idea in that regard no matter what happens with Hertl. The same applies to Burns. This team is probably still going to stay in the position of just taking their lumps until bad contracts expire.

 

[TheBeard]

If either ask out then I'm probably on board with it but shielding the young guys is why I'm more for keeping them. We don't seem to have a 2C waiting to take that spot so trading Couture seems like a bad idea in that regard no matter what happens with Hertl. The same applies to Burns. This team is probably still going to stay in the position of just taking their lumps until bad contracts expire.

I'd keep Logan but take the C off of him and give it to EK. Erik seems to want that limelight more than Couture does and it would probably help Logan just play his game.