Value of: Brent Burns to DAL

[Irie]

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.

I ignored the gish gallop comment, the same way I ignore all of the irrelevant things you type when interacting with you because I know from past interactions that when presented with facts, you will focus on inane tangents to avoid the discussion to focus on them, instead of honestly answering questions.

So as much as you would like to pretend that the Stars actual salary numbers are irrelevant for this discussion, and bringing them up is gish galloping, they are the heart of the entire debate.

The facts in my mind are:

Dallas has cap constraints currently, You disagree.

Adding Burns and his cap hit till he is 40 will make their situation worse. You disagree.

Adding Burns who is currently a hot-mess on the ice and losing all their current UFAs and depth, and then only having 5 million to sign 3 skaters and a back-up goalie is not going to make them a better team. You disagree.

Adding Burns would greatly hinder the Stars ability to retain Pavelski and Hintz next year. You disagree.

Both short term and long term, adding Burns makes Dallas a worse hockey club. You disagree.

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree, because there are no amount of crazy scenarios you can concoct that are going to make me believe none of the above is more than likely the outcome of this trade proposal.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I ignored the gish gallop comment, the same way I ignore all of the irrelevant things you type when interacting with you because I know from past interactions that when presented with facts, you will focus on inane tangents to avoid the discussion to focus on them, instead of honestly answering questions.

So as much as you would like to pretend that the Stars actual salary numbers are irrelevant for this discussion, and bringing them up is gish galloping, they are the heart of the entire debate.

The facts in my mind are:

Dallas has cap constraints currently, You disagree.

Adding Burns and his cap hit till he is 40 will make their situation worse. You disagree.

Adding Burns who is currently a hot-mess on the ice and losing all their current UFAs and depth, and then only having 5 million to sign 3 skaters and a back-up goalie is not going to make them a better team. You disagree.

Adding Burns would greatly hinder the Stars ability to retain Pavelski and Hintz next year. You disagree.

Both short term and long term, adding Burns makes Dallas a worse hockey club. You disagree.

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree, because there are no amount of crazy scenarios you can concoct that are going to make me believe none of the above is more than likely the outcome of this trade proposal.

All the facts in your mind are opinions that you literally just complained about me doing. Guess it's a one-sided thing in your brain. Where I come from, we call that hypocrisy. You always do this lol. You project hard.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I want this to happen purely to get the Burns-Pavelski magic back together. I have never seen a defenseman-forward combo has more chemistry than those two. For a while I thought it was Thornton that made them tick, but they actually got better without him.

 

[Irie]

All the facts in your mind are opinions that you literally just complained about me doing. Guess it's a one-sided thing in your brain. Where I come from, we call that hypocrisy. You always do this lol. You project hard.

We just went over this. It is ALL opinion, except the salary cap facts I posted. I've said that three times now, and you twist words to sidestep all the points presented to you.

Facts in my mind is a way of saying I think they are very close to likely. If they were facts and not opinion, they would be proven and then they would just be plain facts, not something I keep in my mind....

See, the difference is that I post my opinions, and then provide evidence to back up my opinion.

You state an opinion, and when challenged, say that you already have proven your stance to be fact.

Example: Remember I once said in the covid cap environment that Labanc and Ghostisbehere had no value due to their cap hits, and you told me they had value and that both would definitely be claimed if waived in the offseason and you believed Labanc, with his awful contract, was worth a late first?

Once i presented you with solid evidence and sound logic for my opinion, instead of offering a rebuttal, you claimed I had already been proven wrong. I remember it because it was such a surreal post and it made me laugh.

Well, Philly had to attach a 2nd to Ghost to move him in the offseason, and no one wants Labanc.

Or remember the time when I posted that Francis was likely going to build Seattle through the draft due to the lack of top pairing and top 6 forwards available, and you replied to me incessantly carrying on and on that i did not know what I was talking about in regards to the draft and the Seattle hockey market, and claiming that the draft changes guarantee Seattle will be a competitive playoff team out of the gate and Seattle's market won't support a losing club?

We've had some good times, haven't we? But i have to admit, your track record with topics debated with me is not very promising.

There are more examples I would be happy to dig up along with your posts if you would like me to, all you have to do is ask...

When you are are losing an argument, you always ignore the core of the argument and focus on something that is totally irrelevant to spin the discussion off on a tangent, like you did with the post here about my use of "facts in my mind"

You ignored the entire list of points because you have zero response to logic. Here, I will repost, you can still address them if you have any real evidence to refute my opinions, and we can have a grown up debate on the actual topic.

Dallas has cap constraints currently, You disagree.
Adding Burns and his cap hit till he is 40 will make their situation worse. You disagree.
Adding Burns who is currently a hot-mess on the ice and losing all their current UFAs and depth will make them worse. You disagree.
Adding Burns and only having 5 million to sign 3 skaters and a back-up goalie is not going to make them a better team. You disagree.
Adding Burns would greatly hinder the Stars ability to retain Pavelski and Hintz next year. You disagree.
Both short term and long term, adding Burns makes Dallas a worse hockey club. You disagree.

Not that I expect you to actually debate anything, since you never do. I am certain you will sidestep and try your hardest to change the subject to something else to avoid the actually logic presented to you. I know it is not just in debates with me, as I watch you do it with other posters regularly in here, but now is your chance to change your ways. Turn over a new leaf and try to debate from your apparent position of strength. Tell me why my logic is flawed and present your side to convince everyone of your opinions.

The world is watching....

 

[Pinkfloyd]

We just went over this. It is ALL opinion, except the salary cap facts I posted. I've said that three times now, and you twist words to sidestep all the points presented to you.

Facts in my mind is a way of saying I think they are very close to likely. If they were facts and not opinion, they would be proven and then they would just be plain facts, not something I keep in my mind....

See, the difference is that I post my opinions, and then provide evidence to back up my opinion.

You state an opinion, and when challenged, say that you already have proven your stance to be fact.

Example: Remember I once said in the covid cap environment that Labanc and Ghostisbehere had no value due to their cap hits, and you told me they had value and that both would definitely be claimed if waived in the offseason and you believed Labanc, with his awful contract, was worth a late first?

Once i presented you with solid evidence and sound logic for my opinion, instead of offering a rebuttal, you claimed I had already been proven wrong. I remember it because it was such a surreal post and it made me laugh.

Well, Philly had to attach a 2nd to Ghost to move him in the offseason, and no one wants Labanc.

Or remember the time when I posted that Francis was likely going to build Seattle through the draft due to the lack of top pairing and top 6 forwards available, and you replied to me incessantly carrying on and on that i did not know what I was talking about in regards to the draft and the Seattle hockey market, and claiming that the draft changes guarantee Seattle will be a competitive playoff team out of the gate and Seattle's market won't support a losing club?

We've had some good times, haven't we? But i have to admit, your track record with topics debated with me is not very promising.

There are more examples I would be happy to dig up along with your posts if you would like me to, all you have to do is ask...

When you are are losing an argument, you always ignore the core of the argument and focus on something that is totally irrelevant to spin the discussion off on a tangent, like you did with the post here about my use of "facts in my mind"

You ignored the entire list of points because you have zero response to logic. Here, I will repost, you can still address them if you have any real evidence to refute my opinions, and we can have a grown up debate on the actual topic.

Dallas has cap constraints currently, You disagree.
Adding Burns and his cap hit till he is 40 will make their situation worse. You disagree.
Adding Burns who is currently a hot-mess on the ice and losing all their current UFAs and depth will make them worse. You disagree.
Adding Burns and only having 5 million to sign 3 skaters and a back-up goalie is not going to make them a better team. You disagree.
Adding Burns would greatly hinder the Stars ability to retain Pavelski and Hintz next year. You disagree.
Both short term and long term, adding Burns makes Dallas a worse hockey club. You disagree.

Not that I expect you to actually debate anything, since you never do. I am certain you will sidestep and try your hardest to change the subject to something else to avoid the actually logic presented to you. I know it is not just in debates with me, as I watch you do it with other posters regularly in here, but now is your chance to change your ways. Turn over a new leaf and try to debate from your apparent position of strength. Tell me why my logic is flawed and present your side to convince everyone of your opinions.

The world is watching....

Bahahaha you are unbelievably silly to keep doing this. I made my case and supported it with the same cap facts you did. You just don't agree but that doesn't make you right. Most of this is just gish-galloping opinions. I've addressed your core arguments previously. You just had no real answer so you throw a wall of text as if that changes anything but it's just you accusing me of things you're guilty of rather than being reasonable. It's hilarious watching you do this lol

 

[Irie]

Bahahaha you are unbelievably silly to keep doing this. I made my case and supported it with the same cap facts you did. You just don't agree but that doesn't make you right. Most of this is just gish-galloping opinions. I've addressed your core arguments previously. You just had no real answer so you throw a wall of text as if that changes anything but it's just you accusing me of things you're guilty of rather than being reasonable. It's hilarious watching you do this lol

Yep,

Knew you would dodge.

very predictable.

No, your arguments had zero cap facts, just ludicrous scenarios.

Like,

Stars are better off with Burns and letting Pavelski walk, unless he gave the team a ridiculous, even more team friendly bonus laden contract,

You claim they will resign Robertson, Oettinger, and Gurianov for 15m, and knowing if they add Burns(at an unlikely retention figure), they would be right at the upper-limit cap level and only have 4 million for a back up goalie and 3 forwards, so they would accrue zero cap all season and don't even take into account those implications.

You dismiss re-signing Hintz as not an issue because "Hintz will be the only one you really need to make room for, and so you can use Pavelski's money because you are walking away from him. You also ignore the other UFAs that will have to be replaced.

you ignored the statistical support of needing a third line center.

Sorry dude, your arguments are poorly thought out and are not grounded in reality.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Yep,

Knew you would dodge.

very predictable.

No, your arguments had zero cap facts, just ludicrous scenarios.

Like,

Stars are better off with Burns and letting Pavelski walk, unless he gave the team a ridiculous, even more team friendly bonus laden contract,

You claim they will resign Robertson, Oettinger, and Gurianov for 15m, and knowing if they add Burns(at an unlikely retention figure), they would be right at the upper-limit cap level and only have 4 million for a back up goalie and 3 forwards, so they would accrue zero cap all season and don't even take into account those implications.

You dismiss re-signing Hintz as not an issue because "Hintz will be the only one you really need to make room for, and so you can use Pavelski's money because you are walking away from him. You also ignore the other UFAs that will have to be replaced.

you ignored the statistical support of needing a third line center.

Sorry dude, your arguments are poorly thought out and are not grounded in reality.

No they did. You simply didn't like it to such an absurd degree that you keep going off on these tangents. Plenty of teams this year didn't accrue much or any cap space over the season. It's a reality of the league for now. It doesn't mean they're incapable of making moves. I never even said Dallas should do it like you have claimed. Merely that they could and I proved that repeatedly despite your claim otherwise. You just don't like it and this is how you act. But keep it up. It's quite entertaining seeing how up in arms you are about it all. I didn't dismiss Hintz. I offered a legitimate path if Pavs wanted to stay another instead of just retiring since he's getting older. If you have Hintz, Seguin, and Benn running as centers, even if it's not all the time now, doesn't mean they can't lean that way if their cap situation necessitates it. If you're having this much of an issue, you should probably ask yourself how you intend on replacing Klingberg and go from there.

 

[JesusNPucks]

To me it’s pretty simple, actually. Dallas would have to send money back the other way. Faksa would be a good candidate, would still be a serviceable player for SJ, and his contract is the same duration. If he goes the other way, then the net effect on the Stars cap is only $4-5M, which is very reasonable for adding a player like Burns.

 

[Irie]

No they did. You simply didn't like it to such an absurd degree that you keep going off on these tangents. Plenty of teams this year didn't accrue much or any cap space over the season. It's a reality of the league for now. It doesn't mean they're incapable of making moves. I never even said Dallas should do it like you have claimed. Merely that they could and I proved that repeatedly despite your claim otherwise. You just don't like it and this is how you act. But keep it up. It's quite entertaining seeing how up in arms you are about it all. I didn't dismiss Hintz. I offered a legitimate path if Pavs wanted to stay another instead of just retiring since he's getting older. If you have Hintz, Seguin, and Benn running as centers, even if it's not all the time now, doesn't mean they can't lean that way if their cap situation necessitates it. If you're having this much of an issue, you should probably ask yourself how you intend on replacing Klingberg and go from there.

It is not that I don't like it, it is that your ideas are far fetched.

Asking your PPG player to take a deep discount based on a bonus heavy contract so you can add a defenseman that is signed till he's 40 and not playing well is 1.) a terrible strategy, and 2.) not realistic.

The one thing you are correct in is that Burns would replace Klingberg in that they have both been pretty terrible this season.

Letting klingberg walk and replacing him with a defensively responsible D man would be a win right off the bat. There are plenty of cheap PP specialists they could bring in and shelter to fill the PP QB role and the team would be better for upgrading their even strength play.

I am not a fan of the +/- stat, but on the Stars blueline, of their current top 6, these are their minutes and +/-

Suter - 24 minutes a night - even
Heiskanen - 25 minutes +2
Lindell - 22 minutes +5
Hakanpaa - 16 minutes -1
Harley - 14 minutes -6 (rookie)
Klingberg - 22 minutes -25

+/- is a very flawed stat, but when I watch the stars, Klingbergs defensive coverage has been so bad it is almost shocking.

Removing Klingberg for the Stars will be addition through subtraction.

They have Heiskanen on the blueline, and Harley has the pedigree, that giving him a little PP time may be good for his development. They could easily work a forward at the point part of the time on the man advantage, it isn't like losing Klingberg would hurt them in the goal scoring department from the blueline.

if they don't like the cheaper UFA options, there are some options available around the league via trade to fill the hole that would more than likely perform as good if not better than Burns, and be a ton cheaper.

A short term stop gap likely plays as well as burns, costs a ton less, and won't be the boat anchor contract that sinks their cap.

 

[Sysreq]

I am going to repeat myself: Burns to Dallas makes almost too much sense not to happen. Perfect replacement for Klingberg and Dallas front office has shown age isn’t a deal breaker for them.

I think Burns + Bonino replacing Klingberg + Radulov makes Dallas an immediately better team while being cap neutral. I would have done that at TDL to be honest. And I wouldn’t consider that a “good” trade or even optimum.

Here’s the reality: With Klingberg and Sekera coming off the books, you’ve got 7 million in cap that you need to use to replace a 50pt top-4 RHD capable of playing big minutes. Who else is available, that fits the team, and isn’t going to cost a ton?

There’s been mention of cheaper UFA options - you mean PK Subban, Johnny Bouchuk and Anton Stralman? Or is this argument all built around Kris Letang leaving Pittsburgh to signing a sweetheart contract to win it all in Dallas? Other wise, I don’t know who you are talking about.

Honestly, I think this move just makes too much sense. Gets San Jose the cap they need to bolster their offense, and keeps Dallas from taking a step back. Absolute no brainer.

 

[Kcb12345]

It is not that I don't like it, it is that your ideas are far fetched.

Asking your PPG player to take a deep discount based on a bonus heavy contract so you can add a defenseman that is signed till he's 40 and not playing well is 1.) a terrible strategy, and 2.) not realistic.

The one thing you are correct in is that Burns would replace Klingberg in that they have both been pretty terrible this season.

Letting klingberg walk and replacing him with a defensively responsible D man would be a win right off the bat. There are plenty of cheap PP specialists they could bring in and shelter to fill the PP QB role and the team would be better for upgrading their even strength play.

I am not a fan of the +/- stat, but on the Stars blueline, of their current top 6, these are their minutes and +/-

Suter - 24 minutes a night - even
Heiskanen - 25 minutes +2
Lindell - 22 minutes +5
Hakanpaa - 16 minutes -1
Harley - 14 minutes -6 (rookie)
Klingberg - 22 minutes -25

+/- is a very flawed stat, but when I watch the stars, Klingbergs defensive coverage has been so bad it is almost shocking.

Removing Klingberg for the Stars will be addition through subtraction.

They have Heiskanen on the blueline, and Harley has the pedigree, that giving him a little PP time may be good for his development. They could easily work a forward at the point part of the time on the man advantage, it isn't like losing Klingberg would hurt them in the goal scoring department from the blueline.

if they don't like the cheaper UFA options, there are some options available around the league via trade to fill the hole that would more than likely perform as good if not better than Burns, and be a ton cheaper.

A short term stop gap likely plays as well as burns, costs a ton less, and won't be the boat anchor contract that sinks their cap.

Do you watch the Stars often? Klingberg is the beginning and end of all offense from the backend. Replacing him with another defensive dman makes the team significantly worse

He's just not a good fit for Bowness hockey, but man the team would be so bad without him. The powerplay is one thing, but his ability to break out of his own zone, go in transition, walk the line, etc. Isn't gonna be replaced by some defensive dman lol. I genuinely can't imagine watching this team and thinking, "hmm Klingberg is the problem, I bet this team would be better with another Esa Lindell or Jani Hakanpaa"

I don't think they should sign him cause obviously he's gonna be too expensive, but people have gotta stop with the "Klingberg is easily replaceable stuff". And we definitely don't need to get older back there. I would like to see Harley get more time, but like I said Bowness hockey is flawed so that won't happen until next season, so the Stars won't know what they're working with on the PP until then with Klingberg gone.

 

[Gecklund]

To me it’s pretty simple, actually. Dallas would have to send money back the other way. Faksa would be a good candidate, would still be a serviceable player for SJ, and his contract is the same duration. If he goes the other way, then the net effect on the Stars cap is only $4-5M, which is very reasonable for adding a player like Burns.

I’ve been a pretty big advocate for trading Burns for a second pair RD and a 3C with various pluses on either side to make values match. Now I don’t think that Dallas has the RD we are looking for but Faksa is close to a perfect fit at 3C for us with his two way play. Pair him with Labanc or Dahlen and someone like Gregor, Balcers, or Reedy and that’s actually not a bad third line.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It is not that I don't like it, it is that your ideas are far fetched.

Asking your PPG player to take a deep discount based on a bonus heavy contract so you can add a defenseman that is signed till he's 40 and not playing well is 1.) a terrible strategy, and 2.) not realistic.

The one thing you are correct in is that Burns would replace Klingberg in that they have both been pretty terrible this season.

Letting klingberg walk and replacing him with a defensively responsible D man would be a win right off the bat. There are plenty of cheap PP specialists they could bring in and shelter to fill the PP QB role and the team would be better for upgrading their even strength play.

I am not a fan of the +/- stat, but on the Stars blueline, of their current top 6, these are their minutes and +/-

Suter - 24 minutes a night - even
Heiskanen - 25 minutes +2
Lindell - 22 minutes +5
Hakanpaa - 16 minutes -1
Harley - 14 minutes -6 (rookie)
Klingberg - 22 minutes -25

+/- is a very flawed stat, but when I watch the stars, Klingbergs defensive coverage has been so bad it is almost shocking.

Removing Klingberg for the Stars will be addition through subtraction.

They have Heiskanen on the blueline, and Harley has the pedigree, that giving him a little PP time may be good for his development. They could easily work a forward at the point part of the time on the man advantage, it isn't like losing Klingberg would hurt them in the goal scoring department from the blueline.

if they don't like the cheaper UFA options, there are some options available around the league via trade to fill the hole that would more than likely perform as good if not better than Burns, and be a ton cheaper.

A short term stop gap likely plays as well as burns, costs a ton less, and won't be the boat anchor contract that sinks their cap.

Your point per game player is already taking a deep discount for next season yet it’s far fetched to believe he’d do it again for another season? Seems like that’s an unreasonable stance to take.

All I can tell you is good luck with thinking replacing Klingberg is at all realistic based on what you’re talking about. A PP specialist like who? Already going there without replacing a top four guy with one that isn’t is problematic that tends to lead to bad results. Keeping your top four up to snuff is going to be more important and more difficult to do than needing even a 3C like you talk about. Dallas didn’t even believe that getting rid of Klingberg was addition by subtraction because they had the opportunity to rent him off at the deadline and bring in an alternative like what you suggest and didn’t do it.

 

[10Ducky10]

Brendan Dillon, Ville Heinola and a 2nd for Provorov.