Confirmed Signing with Link: [SJS] Brent Burns (8 Years, ~8M AAV)

[DonskoiDonscored]

Cap hit always matters. If nothing else, having little cap on your books allows your team to take on bad contracts from other teams in exchange for good prospects/picks. You have more flexibility with lower cap. That's always important when contemplating trades. You also want your players to have a reasonable cap hit bc it makes trading them easier (which is esp important since Burns's contract is buyout proof).

I agree that cap hit isn't as important to a rebuilding team as to a contending one but it's always important IMO. It's not the end of the world like it might be with a contending team but it is a negative.

Oh well of course it does in some regard.

My point is, when rebuilding we won't be worrying about being close to the ceiling and always have the option to retain if necessary for a trade. There's also always going to be a team or two that needs to hit the floor without spending the full value.

Also, fans on here overrate how good/bad players' contracts are. Remember when we heard that Phaneuf's contract was immovable without 50% retention?

And Burns' contract isn't buyout proof in the portion of the deal where a buyout might be necessary.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Oh well of course it does in some regard.

My point is, when rebuilding we won't be worrying about being close to the ceiling and always have the option to retain if necessary for a trade. There's also always going to be a team or two that needs to hit the floor without spending the full value.

Also, fans on here overrate how good/bad players' contracts are. Remember when we heard that Phaneuf's contract was immovable without 50% retention?

And Burns' contract isn't buyout proof in the portion of the deal where a buyout might be necessary.

It's not buyout proof in the sense that they can't actually do it. It's buyout proof in the sense that it would make very little sense for them to actually do it. No matter when they decide to buy out Burns, the cap benefits are minor. For the most part, if they choose to buy him out, they're only going to see about a two mil savings in the following season after a buyout. Having a 5 or 6 mil dead cap hit is not advantageous for the team really.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Honestly? That's a fantastic contract. Yes, it may become an anchor down the road, but by then, San Jose will have long departed from being a serious contender. They've basically secured one of the best defensemen throughout their prime playoff years at a very reasonable price. He could have easily gotten 10M if it were a shorter deal.

Love the player but hate the deal overall.

Now if it was 8 years 52m or 6.5 average I'd gave issues especially since you could make the last couple years at 4m per, easier buyout. But is the guy really gonna 8m good at 37/38 years old. Seems unlikely.

I feel 6 years 48m would have been better but if the Sharks were willing to tack on that extra 16m, more power to em! Enjoy the extra cash Beardman.

Seems like this could be a recapture penalty nightmare in about 7 years.

And in what world would Burns sign for 6.5M? If he tested free agency, teams would line up to dump money on his driveway. San Jose is basically looking at this contract as though it were 6yrs/10.6M. They'll eat two potentially bad years to save an enormous amount of cap through their cup competitive years.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

This contract is going to end up an albatross for SJ.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

This contract is going to end up an albatross for SJ.

It could be but I doubt it'll be as bad as the extremists believe it will be. All they'd have to do is trade and retain some and it'll be fine.

 

[Djp]

It could be but I doubt it'll be as bad as the extremists believe it will be. All they'd have to do is trade and retain some and it'll be fine.

Yes it will.....the last few years it will look ugly.

Teams have got to stop this.

What I see younger GZms doing is

ELC
2-3 yr bridge
8 yr high contract.

This takes them to around 31-33 yrs I LHD.

Free agent signings will take them to 33/34 yrs old.

 

[mikeyp24]

Love burns so good for him and the team for.gettinf it done. I didn't read the whole thread but is there a NMC of any kind here? Long term this contract could get realllllyyyyyyy ugly.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Very happy. Sharks couldn't afford to lose Burns, and he should age just fine.

People who think this will be bad for the Sharks longterm don't know Doug Wilson or understand that no one else will get a deal as close to this in term of length. They're always fine financially.

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

Yes it will.....the last few years it will look ugly.

And the Sharks can eat the caphit or retain money or bank on another round of compliance buyouts becuase they will not be contenders.

Teams have got to stop this.

No, I really enjoy having superstar players locked up on great AAV contracts.

What I see younger GZms doing is

ELC
2-3 yr bridge
8 yr high contract.

This takes them to around 31-33 yrs I LHD.

Free agent signings will take them to 33/34 yrs old.

A) not every player wants to stay with an organization until they are 31.
B) not every player is going to be consistent in their demands
C) You do realize that players are effective past the age of 30, yes?

The Sharks are really, really good at getting players to be productive in their late 30s.

 

[rhinoshawarma]

Worth it, I see him playing till at least 38 so this is more than ok

 

[Hunter368]

Wow......

8x8 and he's already 31 years old????? GTFO

I guess the Sharks are in win now over the next few years......b/c shortly after that this contract is going to be a massive boat anchour. Brutally bad term for a player his age......wow epically bad. How many years until this becomes the new "Brown" contract of the NHL. Enjoy him while you can Shark fans......in a few years you will hate him/his contract. Shudder......it's so bad.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

And the Sharks can eat the caphit or retain money or bank on another round of compliance buyouts becuase they will not be contenders.



No, I really enjoy having superstar players locked up on great AAV contracts.



A) not every player wants to stay with an organization until they are 31.
B) not every player is going to be consistent in their demands
C) You do realize that players are effective past the age of 30, yes?

The Sharks are really, really good at getting players to be productive in their late 30s.

You think the Sharks have some magic potion that will force Burns to be an elite player in eight years, rather than coincidence?

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

You think the Sharks have some magic potion that will force Burns to be an elite player in eight years, rather than coincidence?

They seem to have some for that guy your team traded us 11 years ago.

 

[CrypTic]

Very happy. Sharks couldn't afford to lose Burns, and he should age just fine.

People who think this will be bad for the Sharks longterm don't know Doug Wilson or understand that no one else will get a deal as close to this in term of length. They're always fine financially.

I agree that the Sharks can't afford to lose Burns. If this is what it takes to keep him on the team, DW had to agree. He couldn't let Burns walk. The AAV is very good for the Sharks in the beginning, so I'm glad about that. I wonder why he signed the contract so early in the season, tho. It seems like he might have been able to get a better deal if he pushed harder. I understand that you can't hardball your players too much or you'll lose them and create a bad reputation which will bite you in the long run. But such a quick signing suggests to me that there wasn't a lot of bargaining about this contract.

re: the 1st bolded: We don't know that. He may age well or he may age poorly. I'm concerned about his prior injuries. (That's one reason I don't agree with ppl saying that we can just have him play forward if he falls off as a D-man. He was injured a lot as a forward.)

re: the 2nd bolded: We are not always fine financially. We have a brutal broadcast contract and Plattner has said that he wants to be net neutral or net slightly positive wrt annual profits for the Sharks. Money is a concern, especially if we stop being perennial playoff contenders. This is one of my concerns about this contract and why I think it may hamstring us even after we are no longer Cup contenders.

 

[Evil Janney]

This contract is going to end up an albatross for SJ.

I don't think so...

 

[A Loyal Demidog]

Wow...8 years. I mean, the guy is already 31.

Don't get me wrong, he fully deserves it today. But that's gonna be an anchor at some point. I suppose you can always flip it to Arizona or whoever though.

Arizona and Carolina are always ready to pick up expensive old trash, along with a shiny new toy in return. Seems like they're stuck in limbo forever.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

I don't think so...

Is ttue

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

You think the Sharks have some magic potion that will force Burns to be an elite player in eight years, rather than coincidence?

No. I don't believe I said that. In fact, I'm really not sure how the hell you arrived to that conclusion.

 

[10coach*]

Whoa, love Burnsie but this is a lot.

 

[Evil Janney]

For ****s sake.

The guy signed a big contract, be happy with it and him. Already, people are thinking 8yrs into the future because they're professional "Cap management accountant specialists" for NHL teams.

 

[nhlfan9191]

Love the player but hate the deal overall.

Now if it was 8 years 52m or 6.5 average I'd gave issues especially since you could make the last couple years at 4m per, easier buyout. But is the guy really gonna 8m good at 37/38 years old. Seems unlikely.

I feel 6 years 48m would have been better but if the Sharks were willing to tack on that extra 16m, more power to em! Enjoy the extra cash Beardman.

Seems like this could be a recapture penalty nightmare in about 7 years.

This isn't like 2012 and before where teams were tagging $2 million for multiple years at the end of the contract to keep the AAV down. Burns is still making a substantial amount towards the end which means if he isn't on LTIR or bought out at the end of the deal, the Sharks will take a hit. I get the contact but at the same time it came at to high of a price. They better win a cup.

 

[LV*]

Thats the term you have to take if you only want him for 8M

It doesnt matter if he sucks in years 7 and 8 tbh

 

[thadd]

I feel stupid... it's like I'm always expecting free agents to sign for what their worth.

8M is a bit much, but hey, he was gonna be a UFA!
8 years is too years too long, but hey, he was gonna be a UFA!

I guess that means that this contract looks just as good as Lucic's.

 

[mouser]

Only $11M out of $24M is signing bonus money in the last 4 years.

The first 4 years are a different money, with $26M out of $40M being signing bonuses.

Yup, which means a buyout in any of the final 4 years would be for 80%+ of the contract salary, rather then the standard 66.7%, plus consider the contract was front-loaded, so that amount is also getting tacked into the buyout cap hits. If for example the final 2 years of Burns deal were bought out, the total buyout cap hit would be $14m (or 87.5% of the $16m two years of cap hit remaining). Scheduled as $6m, $6m, $1m, $1m--meaning a buyout cap savings of only $2m in each of the final two contract years from his $8m AAV.

I would consider that as pretty close to buyout proof.

 

[CrypTic]

It could be but I doubt it'll be as bad as the extremists believe it will be. All they'd have to do is trade and retain some and it'll be fine.

Any info on his NTC? Depending on the terms, it might be pretty easy or very difficult to trade him if they need to.

Arizona and Carolina are always ready to pick up expensive old trash, along with a shiny new toy in return. Seems like they're stuck in limbo forever.

Whether that would work depends a lot on his NTC. He can probably veto a trade to the teams most likely to accept such a trade. At least he doesn't have an NMC so they can send him to the minors if he doesn't agree to a trade. (It's right down the hall. )He'd still be collecting his paycheck, though.

Yup, which means a buyout in any of the final 4 years would be for 80%+ of the contract salary, rather then the standard 66.7%. Also if for example the final 2 years of Burns deal were bought out, the total buyout cap hit would be $14m (or 87.5% of the $16m two years of cap hit remaining). Scheduled as $6m, $6m, $1m, $1m--meaning a buyout savings of only $2m in each of the final two contract years.

I would consider that as pretty close to buyout proof.

I agree. This is as buyout proof as you are likely to get IMO. Sure, you can technically buy him out but you can do that for any contract. There's no benefit to doing so here. I don't understand ppl who say it's not buyout proof.