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.
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.
Not going to get in to it for a Vlassic buyout with you. We both disagree on that. But do you really think there will be almost no decline for Burns from his current level? He has been on a steady decline already and is not an elite player anymore. Still a great top 4 option but I can't see him being a 40 point player in 2 years let alone 4.
Do you really think we are close to competing? Let alone contending? I just don't see it and we certainly don't have a franchise level prospect coming to save us.
I think Sharks can most certainly be competitive next year. To me the wild-card is Jones and if he can continue to bounce back and keep a SV% of 0.910 or better. Sharks have 13M cap space next season (assuming flat cap). That is with 5 of our current top-6 F and entire defense being set.Do you really think we are close to competing? Let alone contending? I just don't see it and we certainly don't have a franchise level prospect coming to save us.
Do you really think we are close to competing? Let alone contending? I just don't see it and we certainly don't have a franchise level prospect coming to save us.
To me the wild-card is Jones and if he can continue to bounce back and keep a SV% of 0.910 or better.
I think we should have zero confidence in that happening.
That's assuming our top six sticks around. There is a decent chance we lose Hertl or Meier as cap casualties due to Wilson's extensions not paying off. And I'm sorry I just don't see how he doesn't slide further in production and overall play, especially as we lower his ice time as he gets older.He has had the same 50 point pace the past 2 years and this is with the team having severe lack of depth. Give him depth on the team and there is zero reason why he does not keep up this or a slightly lower pace for 4 more years.
With the right move in the offseason yes we can be competing next season.
Adding a top line center would push us into maybe contending if the other parts played even half decently. But that happening this offseason is a long shot. Adding another top 6 forward and a tweener for the 2nd or 3rd line would make us compete.
But lots of this has to do with the team commiting defensively or finding a goalie that can give average goaltending under the absolute worst defensive play imaginable.
I think Sharks can most certainly be competitive next year. To me the wild-card is Jones and if he can continue to bounce back and keep a SV% of 0.910 or better. Sharks have 13M cap space next season (assuming flat cap). That is with 5 of our current top-6 F and entire defense being set.
Kane-Couture-Labanc
Meier-Hertl-
Leonard-
Ferraro-Burns
Simek-Kalrsson
Vlasic-Knyzhov
Jones
That cap space goes up to 18M+ if we buy out Vlasic. Fill his position with a UFA under 2M AAV and still leaves you over 16M. I am not sure how much re-signing the likes of Donato, Balcers, Gambrell, Gregor, True will cost but I am assuming it will not be that high and some (Gregor, True) may end up getting 2 way contracts as well. We may potentially lose Simek in FA but I expect his replacement may be about the same price or even cheaper.
I would not put money on Merkley, Wiesblatt, Bordleau or Chekhovich being impact players next season but there is a chance. This team is at a point where they may end up having really good cheap and talented depth at forward in the next season or two. They may not have the elite #1C but that depth can be a big factor in the playoffs.
I think we've already done our 12 rounds over buying out Vlassic. I'm against it for the next 2-3 years. You're for it. I'll wait to rehash it until at least after the TDL to see what happens.Competing for a playoff spot? Yes. For a Cup? No. However, even if you were a rebuilding or resetting team, buying someone out that you have no real options for can help you if you use the space appropriately. Yes, you have to account for Vlasic's spikes in his cap hit but if you bought him out after this season, you could use the 5.4 mil you would create to make a deal with a team who may be willing to part with a promising young asset to take a cap dump. Just as an example, pretty similar to what we did with Minnesota this past off-season. I don't think they need a franchise level prospect coming to save us to justify this sort of transaction. Now, if the team has no real plans on utilizing the space they'd save by buying out Vlasic then it makes sense for them to keep him until that's the case. But between the sort of prospects this team does have and what they can do with the savings, it's certainly something to consider. If this team is more or less going with the same mentality this off-season of resetting, I think it makes sense to buy Vlasic out to open up that spot for the likes of Pasichnuk, Hatakka, and Kniazev to earn and then use the cap space to acquire future assets. It doesn't need to be exactly like Dubnyk/Donato for draft picks as it could also just be being a middle man to retain cap for a rental. I can see Vancouver or Edmonton calling the Sharks about us taking on Holtby or Koskinen for some meaningful future asset that would be more easily available for us by doing this sort of move.
I think we've already done our 12 rounds over buying out Vlassic. I'm against it for the next 2-3 years. You're for it. I'll wait to rehash it until at least after the TDL to see what happens.
Not against those deals, but what could we get for taking those on? A 2nd and B prospect?
Cant help but think a lot of the declining players on this team are due to motivation issues. Drop most of these players on teams like Vegas and Colorado and watch them get back to their pre 2018 ish paces.
I'm not advocating starting him. Just not buying him out. He can be our 7D. If any of those guys beat him out they should start.I think waiting 2-3 years when you have kids pretty close to being ready to take his spot in the lineup if they aren't already is not going to help. It'd be one thing if we didn't have anything coming up that could fill that role but we do. I just feel like a spot in the lineup for Pasichnuk, Kniazev, or Hatakka and whatever deal we'd make with the cap left over is more valuable than the dead cap hit we'd have for Vlasic or keeping him. I get though that it's unlikely for monetary reasons and it looks bad for DW but if there's no trade options, that's still a better alternative to me.
I'm not advocating starting him. Just not buying him out. He can be our 7D. If any of those guys beat him out they should start.
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.
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.
[Mod edit] 4 more years at 8 million per versus 3 more at 2.25? The Burns contract is a massively depreciating asset where as with Simek you have a better chance for a slower rate of depreciation and his contract is movable.
Barring a miracle this team is not competing for anything for 5 years+ The sooner some of you leave fantasyland and wake up to the reality that this franchise massively hosed when it comes to the cap and bad contracts the better it will be for your health.
A 40 year old Burns is still probably a better player than Simek, but that 8 million cap hit at the end is nasty. Simek will never have that kind of risk associated with him.[Mod edit] Simek is a dime a dozen player that offers nothing but a warm body. Burns could depreciate to a 30 point defenseman and still be more valuable than Simek will ever be. Anyone claiming shit about competing in 5+ years can kick rocks as far as I'm concerned because you're not trying to have an actual conversation. You just want to sensationalize and denigrate others.
So far that isn't Burns. But if it does happen we're in for a world of pain. But he is such a physical monster we should hopefully be safe from that.With players and aging, often it isn't a gradual decline but a fall off a cliff...one season where there is just a huge drop in play.
A 40 year old Burns is still probably a better player than Simek, but that 8 million cap hit at the end is nasty. Simek will never have that kind of risk associated with him.
[Mod edit] Simek is a dime a dozen player that offers nothing but a warm body. Burns could depreciate to a 30 point defenseman and still be more valuable than Simek will ever be. [Mod edit]