Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Burns next contract

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Juxtaposer said:
How did I know this was going to be started by an Oilers fan.

Burns will be like Stamkos, IMO. He'll consider offers from other teams but his ask will be astronomical from them and reasonable for the Sharks.

Honestly, who wants to move their young family to Edmonton from the Bay Area?
Click to expand...

Can you honestly blame us? Burns is a stud and exactly what we are looking for. On a side note, do you even know anything about Edmonton the city? This place is very appealing to many people.

-We made the top 10 in National geographic's best cities during the summer (link below)
http://globalnews.ca/news/2003203/ed...-summer-trips/
-We are a short drive from a beautiful mountain retreat, great for summer and winter.
-If you are an outdoors person and love wilderness (seems like Burns would be) we are surrounded by forests, great off-roading trails, and unparalleled hunting.

True, it gets cold. But if you don't know anything else about the city don't demean it, because it is actually quite nice. It's as naive as me saying, if you don't like surfing the bay area has nothing to offer. Its just not true.

Trash the team but not the city itself. The bay area is beautiful, so be aware that isn't what I am saying. But it appeals to a person who enjoys an urban lifestyle which isn't for everyone.
 
I think he'll be looking at more than Buff in both AAV and term...

Something like $8M x 6 years at a minimum, I would think.
 
Prostyle said:
It's as naive as me saying, if you don't like surfing the bay area has nothing to offer. Its just not true.
Click to expand...

The Bay Area might be the worst place in California for surfing (unless you're a professional), so if you're coming here to surf at all, it's not the right decision...
 
8X8 if he resigns with SJ

8X7 if he signs somewhere else

So then everyone will complain that he is overpaid when hes getting going rate.

For those who think hes gonna sign for 5/6 years, why would he? If anything he takes a discount at 7.5X8 or 7.5X7, and thats a strech IMO.

8.25X6=49.5 mil

8X6= 48 mil

7.88X6= 47.28 Mil


vs

7.5X8= 60 Mil

7.5X7= 52.5 Mil


Simple math, hes going to sign for max years wherever he goes. It's his best economical option and someone WILL pay that in the end.
 
Prostyle said:
True, it gets cold. But if you don't know anything else about the city don't demean it, because it is actually quite nice. It's as naive as me saying, if you don't like surfing the bay area has nothing to offer. Its just not true.

Trash the team but not the city itself. The bay area is beautiful, so be aware that isn't what I am saying. But it appeals to a person who enjoys an urban lifestyle which isn't for everyone.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post but the two bolded items show that you know nothing about the Bay Area, which, as you point out, means that you shouldn't say things about it. I spit out my coffee reading the last one.
 
thedoughboy said:
8X8 if he resigns with SJ

8X7 if he signs somewhere else

So then everyone will complain that he is overpaid when hes getting going rate.

For those who think hes gonna sign for 5/6 years, why would he? If anything he takes a discount at 7.5X8 or 7.5X7, and thats a strech IMO.

Simple math, hes going to sign for max years wherever he goes. It's his best economical option and someone WILL pay that in the end.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. SJ isn't signing him to an 8m contract till he's 40. And neither is another team signing him to an 8m contract till he's 39. If he wants anything near 8m, it's going to be a hell of a lot shorter contract, and if he wants that term, it's going to be a LOT lower AAV.

I mean seriously, go look at what some of the other players his age and caliber are signing. Seabrook, Byfuglien, Giordano, etc. Only Seabrook signed for the max term (Gio for 6 and Byf for 5). And none have a cap hit higher than 6.9m.
 
McSuper said:
A winter tax for a guy who is from Northern Ontario . Maybe he is worried about global warming and wants out of the USA before it become a dust bowl :sarcasm: Or maybe the Shark should sign him only to play games in the warm states . You do know hockey is a winter sport ? :help:
Click to expand...

Barrie is not Northern Ontario.
 
Juxtaposer said:
How did I know this was going to be started by an Oilers fan.

Burns will be like Stamkos, IMO. He'll consider offers from other teams but his ask will be astronomical from them and reasonable for the Sharks.

Honestly, who wants to move their young family to Edmonton from the Bay Area?
Click to expand...

Firstly, I respect you as a poster. That said the bolded is nothing but a shot below the belt. Did you forget about McLellan just a season and change ago leaving to Edmonton? I wouldn't doubt that many or even most players would rather play in SJ than Edmonton for a bunch of reasons but Edmonton has a lot going for it as well from a professional standpoint (let's keep city bashing out of this). McDavid, a solid supporting cast, his former coach, a new state of the art arena, etc. Is that enough to lure Burns? Most think that he's quite content right where he is and he may very well be based on a similar thread that I started awhile back. But no one knows this for sure other than Brent and his wife.

I do however think that if it's such a slam dunk that it's a little odd that he hasn't been extended yet. Naturally he could sign after the season like Stamkos or during the season like Byfuglien, but it at least adds a small amount of a possibility that he may test the FA waters.
 
Bryanbryoil said:
I do however think that if it's such a slam dunk that it's a little odd that he hasn't been extended yet. Naturally he could sign after the season like Stamkos or during the season like Byfuglien, but it at least adds a small amount of a possibility that he may test the FA waters.
Click to expand...

This contract needs to be handled with precision. We have three huge contracts (Burns, Thornton, Marleau) ending next summer and we currently have very little cap room. On top of that, this could be the last year we go for it (depending on how everyone looks this season), so Doug needs to figure out if he's going to attempt to retool or go through a mini-rebuild.

Burns is also away in the WCoH (negotiations don't typically happen in these big tournaments). I don't think it's too odd that there hasn't been a deal yet.

TL;DR we have to be careful with how we handle this and need to wait it out to see where to go forward.

If DW wants to re-sign Burns and Burns wants to be on the Sharks going forward, I'm sure a deal will get done. If not, the highest bidder will win next July 1st.
 
Burns strikes me as a loyal kind of guy--I can see him being one of the rare NHL stars that will just go with his current team for one of the first reasonable (or unexpectedly low) contracts offered instead of ******* around.

Sharks will get a good deal.
 
If I were to offer Brent Burns a contract now... it wouldnt be anything to high over 8 million. Considering he's 32, he should be declining soon, so a 4 year contract is probably the longest term one should offer. Maybe 8.25 million with a NMC in the first two years.. just so he doesn't have to worry about getting traded.
 
As an outsider, I think Burns to Edmonton would cost so much that it would hamper their chances of retaining all of their younger players. 8.5m by 7 is what I think it'd come down too, whereas with the Sharks I'd feel they'd come to a more reasonable number in salary per year but have to settle signing him for 8 seasons in an attempt to offer 40 million as the base target total salary. Something along the lines of 5.88m per season but structure the salary at least 40% in the first two seasons above that 5.88 number as incentive for Burns to not only sign but most likely only 6 of the 8 seasons he's signed played out.
 
Why does everyone think over 8? When has a 32 year old defenseman ever gotten that?

My guess is he gets 55-60 points this year and signs a Giordano like contract
 
Riptide said:
Doubt it. SJ isn't signing him to an 8m contract till he's 40. And neither is another team signing him to an 8m contract till he's 39. If he wants anything near 8m, it's going to be a hell of a lot shorter contract, and if he wants that term, it's going to be a LOT lower AAV.

I mean seriously, go look at what some of the other players his age and caliber are signing. Seabrook, Byfuglien, Giordano, etc. Only Seabrook signed for the max term (Gio for 6 and Byf for 5). And none have a cap hit higher than 6.9m.
Click to expand...

Your undercutting Burns by a fair amount if those are his comparables. Age sure, but caliber wise they are on a tier below.

Not mentioning the fact he just had a career year at the age of 30 and has done nothing but trend upwards while in san jose, as you probably know.

absolute min would be 7X7 or 7X8, it makes absolutely no sense at all from his standpoint to do anything less.
 
Bryanbryoil said:
Firstly, I respect you as a poster. That said the bolded is nothing but a shot below the belt. Did you forget about McLellan just a season and change ago leaving to Edmonton? I wouldn't doubt that many or even most players would rather play in SJ than Edmonton for a bunch of reasons but Edmonton has a lot going for it as well from a professional standpoint (let's keep city bashing out of this). McDavid, a solid supporting cast, his former coach, a new state of the art arena, etc. Is that enough to lure Burns? Most think that he's quite content right where he is and he may very well be based on a similar thread that I started awhile back. But no one knows this for sure other than Brent and his wife.
Click to expand...

Edmonton absolutely does have a lot going on from a professional hockey stand point. Their team should challenge (or at the very least compete) for the playoffs this season and over the next year or two will just get better and better. Not to mention the brand new arena (can't wait for Oct 26th!), and this team will be an exciting one.

But how do you not remove the city from the equation? It is where the players and their families will live for most of the season. I mean for most of the US teams, it's all fairly similar. Different, but only to an extent. Some really nice cities and some less nice cities. But even then at least the weather even in "winter" is usually pretty easy to deal with. You have half a dozen or so sunbelt teams with beaches and great weather, then you have the rest of the US teams. Outside of a couple of them, most of their climates are relatively similar. Different, sure, but likely not to the point where someone might decide that they're going to play in Philly over Pittsburgh. So in these cases unless you're comparing the beach to what little winter they get, the climate will almost never be an issue, and the city part, likely isn't different enough to matter.

But Edmonton is different in that regard (same applies to Calgary and Winnipeg). Unlike many US cities, they get a real winter, with cold and sub zero temps for weeks/months on end. Now maybe the player doesn't mind - especially as they're out of town for half of each month. But what about their families? Their wives/GFs and kids will spend the vast majority of the season at home, and they will have to deal with that weather all of the time.

As for the town itself, it's not a bad town. A little industrial and not enough green space for my tastes (not to mention table top flat), but I'm sure with the money these guys make that they can afford to be in the nicest area's of town, which would change at least some of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom