Gecklund
Registered User
I’d do it. Allows Bordeleau some time to develop and gives us an actual 3C. Khudobin is an LTIR candidate if I remember right and the 2nd is obviously nice.
Value of: Brent Burns to DAL
- Thread starter JesusNPucks
- Start date
Sure if your retention idea was actually on the table, it could be pursued but my retention of 2 mil would already be more retention than anyone else traded that had more than an extra year remaining on their contract.
I don't know why you're still arguing good value from the Sharks perspective when I already said that moving Burns wasn't about extracting maximum value out of him. They would be trading Burns to Dallas because he would like to compete, he has a three team trade list, and probably would like Dallas as an option. Given the restrictions involved with Burns' trade list, I'm not expecting good value from a trade. I'm expecting them to oblige him and do what they can to make something work more than give a shit about getting good value. They already got great value out of Brent Burns no matter how it ends for him in San Jose.
You're simply not accounting for all the things involved and are actively ignoring some of those things when presented to you.
Shane Diesel
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,372
- 3,211
hotcabbagesoup
"I'm going to get what I deserve" -RutgerMcgroarty
You do understand that you are arguing that the idea of retaining 3 million on Burns would be improbable on the premise of history, while that path likely returns the Sharks more cap relief, less actually salary spent, AND a better asset in return?
Because you say "moving Burns was not about maximum value", other posters should take your bad value proposal as gospel and not question the poor judgement behind it?
I mean, even at max retention, the cap relief would be better than what they'd get with your proposal - and that includes a replacement level player to fill the role Faksa would fill on the Sharks.
If we are talking about ignoring things, you are completely ignoring the real cost in millions to San Jose. It is real cost, not just cap, and the Sharks management is still required to spend wisely.
Add the NTC, and there is an extremely great chance that Dallas is not on Burn's list. So you are telling me that I am not taking the NTC into consideration while you apparently are completely ignoring it.
The chance San Jose can work a deal for Burns out with 40% retention with one of the 3 teams on his list is greater than Dallas being on the list, and it would actually benefit the club more than your proposal. So who is ignoring what now?
Groo
Registered User
You literally with this response have decided to ignore and dismiss everything presented for your own version of things that doesn’t take any of the team’s considerations into account. Go you. You are still ignoring everything in this back and forth.
If salary was of primary concern as you’re trying to lead on here, they wouldn’t have re-signed Hertl when they’re not a playoff team for a third consecutive season. You’ve consistently ignored that the Sharks trading Burns would be a professional courtesy to a Burns request if that request were to happen. I’m sure the Sharks would be happy to keep him the rest of his deal. They’re not going to play hardball extracting value out of him when he has significant control.
That's fair, but how close is the ranch to Dallas? It is just a vacation ranch, and I believe he still lives in Canada during the offseason. It is not likely he'd be commuting from the ranch to the rink...
And we all know his first choice would be Florida, or where ever Thornton was playing.
I just read he also lives in Minnesota in the offseason. So assuming Dallas is on his 3 team list is still a stretch.
But the question is, would you trad Burns and retain 2 million for the rest of his contract for the cap dumps of Faksa (3 years) and Khudobin (1 year) and Dallas' 2nd?
As someone that's been to more Sharks games than I can count, I hate that Value for San Jose.
Groo
Registered User
Quite the band of Gypsies. I would side with PF in that the Sharks would be looking to move him to a contender as more of a favor to him than to look to try and maximize the return. I agree that the Sharks will more than likely have to retain some salary, depending of course on what contracts are coming back.
If DW was still in charge I would have had little doubt he'd look to move Burns as doing him a solid
I posted in here to respond to the OP.
Not once in our exchange did you ever mention professional courtesy, and I am now assuming several other "things" presented. that were never presented. I followed the tree up to every message that was responded to back to the original, and this information was never presented in any of your posts there or the posts responding to me.
If you want to quote someone and debate with them, you probably should include the points you want them to respond to.
Now I see that you had said "If Burns requested a trade to Dallas" in a different response line, but that is not even in the realm of realistic probability,
The points I made that you completely ignored is that Dallas can't afford Burns and his contract, and what he brings is not even remotely close to what their most pressing needs are.
Assume they resign Robertson for 7-8. (Suzuki is a good comp here i think if they want to go long term, he's a 40G PPG player), Oettinger at 5, Gurianov is having a down year, but I think he still gets 2.5-3, and the rest of their RFAs for minimum raises.
They have 11 forwards signed for 44.5m.
With Burns at 8 they have 7 D for 28.8m.
In goal they have Oettinger and Bishop at 10m.
That is 83.3 million and bishop goes to LTIR, but they will need to be cap compliant before opening night. Say your deal goes through and SJ retains 2 million on Burns. So now they have 1 million is cap space instead of being over the cap.
Now, without any upgrades, they still need a back up goalie and two forwards, and if they want to be competitive, one should be a 3c, and one should be a top 6 winger.
And they have one million to spend. How can you say they don't have cap issues?
They can squeak under the cap with AHL fodder like SJ does, but why would they want to add Burns if it forces them to do that? It makes no sense for them. It probably would force them to rush kids like Bourque or Johnston.
If you are moving him and he has a three team list, there is a very likely good chance that you are both sending him to a contender AND doing him a favor.
Groo
Registered User
You’re just gish galloping now. We both know you’re going to ignore any response and go off on some other thing. I’ve already addressed the cap as it relates to Dallas getting Burns. The only thing worth pointing out is that I don’t think Suzuki is a great comparable to Robertson but your ranges are still what I went with as a scenario and it fit fine.
Bottom line is you clearly don’t read the entirety of my posts because you have regularly made mention of something not being there that was in fact there so nothing constructive is going to come of this when you’re not putting in any effort to understand anything.
I read every post you responded to me. I missed the post that you posted to someone else about trading burns as a favor for him.
You assumed I had read it, and accused me of ignoring the points you were making in the debate. I addressed everything you said to me in your replies, but I did not address the points you made to someone else, as I had not read them because you did not make them to me.
Meanwhile, You have completely ignored my points. And I actually gave you hard cap numbers, and when presented with facts, you bow out of an argument you cant win. This is a huge pattern for you.
If you would like to explain how the Stars ice a cap-compliant team next season with Burns in their lineup, with the real numbers, not just the capfriendly free space number, I would love to see it
Robertson(8)-Pavelski(5.5)-Hintz(3.15)
Benn(9.5)-Seguin(9.85)-Guianov(3)
Studenic(1)-xxxx-Viviranta(1)
Karlstrom(1)-Glendening(1.5)-Peterson(.84) 11 FORWARDS = 44.34 MILLION
Suter(3.65)-Heiskanen(8.45)
Burns(6 or 8)-Lindell(5.8)
Hakanpaa(1.5)-Harley(.863)
Hanley(.75) 7 DEFENSEMEN = 27.01 or 29.01 MILLION
Oettinger(4-5)
XXXXXX(backup)
Bishop(4.916) GOALIES = 9-10 MILLION
Lowend total = 80.3 MILLION (cap remaining = 2.2 MILLION)
Highend Total =83.3 MILLION (cap remaining = -.8 MILLION)
They still need a 3C, a back up goalie, and another forward.
Please, enlighten me as to how their cap situation with Burns is not a problem.
rajuabju
The One & Only
Burns has neutral value at best. Maybe a late round pick as a cap dump. Not getting anything of value for him, unless there is retention.
Thank you for proving my points. Both the gish gallop and the cap situation there. They don’t need a 3C when they’re running Hintz, Seguin, and Benn as centers on their top three lines. Your cap numbers are mistaken when you’re including Bishop. That’s five mil extra space for depth pieces. Easily doable despite your best efforts.
You're argument is ridiculous.
First of all, they rarely run Hintz, Seguin, and Benn down the middle in the same game, the team has trouble enough scoring when they are loading up lines, when they dilute their talent across the three lines, they don't produce.
Second of all, Stars are going to start the season already over the upper-limit and using LTIR.
Even by your numbers, they will likely have between 4 and 6 million, and that is generous.
If they are bringing in Burns, they are trying to compete, so they need a legitimate back-up. There goes half of their space. Now they still only have 18 skaters. They need to add three more players.
Like I said, they could squeak under the cap using the Sharks model of icing a third of your team as AHL fodder, but that roster would be substantially worse than this years after letting all their UFAs walk.
You seem to think making it work with the cheapest pieces would be satisfactory. as long as they are under the cap, and you are not admitting that that team would have serious cap constraints.
How is that improving the team or making them better? And how is it not going to affect them the following season when Pavelski and Hintz are UFA?
Adding Burns is a idiotic idea for a team built the way the Stars are, yet somehow, you seem to think it will address their problems
Kcb12345
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2017
- 30,868
- 24,530
You're argument is ridiculous.
First of all, they rarely run Hintz, Seguin, and Benn down the middle in the same game, the team has trouble enough scoring when they are loading up lines, when they dilute their talent across the three lines, they don't produce.
Second of all, Stars are going to start the season already over the upper-limit and using LTIR.
Even by your numbers, they will likely have between 4 and 6 million, and that is generous.
If they are bringing in Burns, they are trying to compete, so they need a legitimate back-up. There goes half of their space. Now they still only have 18 skaters. They need to add three more players.
Like I said, they could squeak under the cap using the Sharks model of icing a third of your team as AHL fodder, but that roster would be substantially worse than this years after letting all their UFAs walk.
You seem to think making it work with the cheapest pieces would be satisfactory. as long as they are under the cap, and you are not admitting that that team would have serious cap constraints.
How is that improving the team or making them better? And how is it not going to affect them the following season when Pavelski and Hintz are UFA?
Adding Burns is a idiotic idea for a team built the way the Stars are, yet somehow, you seem to think it will address their problems
I'm not for acquiring Burns by any means, but just want to point out that it's *likely* that Dallas has 2-3 rookie forwards next season. 3 of Bourque, Johnston, Dellandrea, and Damiani SHOULD make the team (never know, especially if Nill signs more bottom 6 older guys). I agree though, adding Burns would not be a smart move cap-wise. Things are gonna be right
I do think there's a chance we see both Gurianov and Faksa traded, but not sure. Depends on the GM (if it's Nill then Faksa probably sticks around).
Hopefully they sign a cheap backup goalie. Bringing back Wedgewood might be good enough. No doubt he'd sign for dirt cheap
Because despite your continuing to gish gallop, the math works to do it and you clearly don’t know that if Dallas doesn’t find a replacement for Klingberg, they will take more of a hit to their playoff chances than replacing their UFA forwards with internal options. Getting a legitimate backup is feasible even with a Burns acquisition. You can exaggerate all you like but having a hole in your top four is more of a problem than having a hole in your bottom six up front especially when you have some younger players that could play into said bottom six roles. The other part is that it’s typically easier to rent out those depth forward positions at the deadline than it is to find a second pairing level rhd or better.You're argument is ridiculous.
First of all, they rarely run Hintz, Seguin, and Benn down the middle in the same game, the team has trouble enough scoring when they are loading up lines, when they dilute their talent across the three lines, they don't produce.
Second of all, Stars are going to start the season already over the upper-limit and using LTIR.
Even by your numbers, they will likely have between 4 and 6 million, and that is generous.
If they are bringing in Burns, they are trying to compete, so they need a legitimate back-up. There goes half of their space. Now they still only have 18 skaters. They need to add three more players.
Like I said, they could squeak under the cap using the Sharks model of icing a third of your team as AHL fodder, but that roster would be substantially worse than this years after letting all their UFAs walk.
You seem to think making it work with the cheapest pieces would be satisfactory. as long as they are under the cap, and you are not admitting that that team would have serious cap constraints.
How is that improving the team or making them better? And how is it not going to affect them the following season when Pavelski and Hintz are UFA?
Adding Burns is a idiotic idea for a team built the way the Stars are, yet somehow, you seem to think it will address their problems
I’ve already addressed the Hintz/Pavelski thing and Dallas will be fine regardless. But you exaggerate the concerns and pretend like I haven’t already accounted for it. I have but you choose to ignore it time and time again.
RangerBoy
Dolan sucks!!!
Hintz will get the bag the following summer in 23-24.
This is the summer of overpriced players being offered around The NHL when so many teams already have cap concerns with a flat cap for three more seasons.
You are spot on. The OP said no retention and even with some retention it does not work with Dallas’ cap. That’s why for this to work Benn or Seguin have to be moved back. I’m not saying that equal value but Dallas is stuck with 2 guys that are over paid and don’t produce at that level.
Now if someone wants to entertain Seguin going back. Doubt Benn has any interest but is there something built around Seguin and something else that would work?
I would say your Robertson estimation is a little low unless it’s a bridge which I would not want if I were Dallas. Lock him up long term.
You keep saying you've addresses the issues, as if that should end all debate.
Spoiler alert - your assessments are OPINIONs. They are not fact.
I don't see why myself or anyone else should trust your opinions when your brilliant solution to shoehorn Burns into the Stars Cap structure is to ignore Pavelski's and Hint's upcoming UFA status and contract needs.
Pavelski is a PPG player on a team that struggles to score, who signed a super team friendly extension, and you think the Stars should try to cut his cap hit further by filling his contract with bonuses so they can add a player in Burns that Sharks fans can't dump fast enough due to his overall play?
Your take is out to lunch, and that is me biting my tongue and being extra polite.
I posted the real cap hits and you keep referring to that as gish galloping. I do not think you know what that term means. Maybe you should look it up.
Except it didn't ignore it. It addressed them. Just because they aren't to your satisfaction doesn't mean it's ridiculous. Your assessments are opinions and not fact. Remember that. The fact that you didn't protest on the gish-galloping thing until this tells me you know I'm right. Don't bite your tongue. You'll probably make some semblance of sense if you don't because this stuff is just pure whiny nonsense.
themelkman
Always Delivers
With no retention I think free would be fair. Maybe swap a one year bad contract and add a second or something along those lines.
