Confirmed Signing with Link: [SJS] Brent Burns (8 Years, ~8M AAV)
- Thread starter cody275
- Start date
^^but can he be moved or is there a NMC. If there is a full NMC I would have paid more for short term comfort in knowing they won't be stuck with an unmovable contract.
Not really. If his production starts to dip to the point where it makes sense for the Sharks to trade him, they will and likely will retain. They retained about 1.2 mil on Jason Demers' contract when they traded him. Even if they only retained 2 million on Burns' deal, a 6 mil cap hit for a new team is likely going to be pretty good. Even if he somehow drops further off the cliff than to be worth that, the same thing could happen if he's dealt to a third team. It is certainly a risk with this deal that the latter three years will no longer be worth it but moving it will not be that difficult.
Unless the sources are mistaken, they look like they're carrying over the three team trade list NTC. But if it comes down to wanting to trade him, I doubt Burns is really going to be limited to just three teams.
Zirakzigil
Global Moderator
Thats going to be a steep price to place for the last couple years when hes aged. Not sure thats a contract I would have signed him to.
I think the contract kinda stinks, but I'm pretty sure you and I both would have signed it if we were the GM.
glovesave_35
Name
Like everyone else, great deal for now locking him up for "only" $8mil
But jesus christ, that's gonna suck a lot in a few years.
But jesus christ, that's gonna suck a lot in a few years.
Sempiternal
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2014
- 3,460
- 1,944
The deal would make sense if he was 26, maybe you could justify it at 28, but he's going to be 32 years old. Terrible term.
BillyStemhovilichski
Registered User
Yeah come on guys this is a site for sending congratulations cards to millionaires not a site where we discuss hockey
Just as a point of reference, the list of players 35 or older that were in the top 100 scorers last year:
4th - Thornton (36)
22nd - Jagr (43) - ageless wonder
37th - D. Sedin (35)
66th - H. Sedin (35)
96th - Zetterberg (35)
97th - Riberio (35)
100th - Datsyuk (37)
For the current season:
18th - Hossa (38)
31st - Markov (28)
66th - D.Sedin (36)
92nd - Vrbata (36)
95th - H.Sedin (36)
It is a young man's league these days and that trend will probably continue going forward...
Tim Vezina Thomas
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2009
- 11,342
- 629
Would you rather have no Brent Burns or Brent Burns at this contract? Thats what you have to ask yourself.
The answer is I'd rather have Brent Burns. If this is the contract that it would take to sign him then you sign him.
The answer is I'd rather have Brent Burns. If this is the contract that it would take to sign him then you sign him.
Sundinisagod
****
If you think like that, your team would never have an elite player. Burns is worth every penny period.
you're not getting burns on a four year contract. You're losing him if you even bother proposing it.
Gene Parmesan
Dedicated to babies who came feet first
Bingo. You pay superstars. Of course this is a forum that is anti-players being paid.
The last four years are a problem. If this covered age 27-35 it would be great. At 32-40, not so great.
How would a trade with retention not hurt the Sharks?
With this contract a buyout won't help either.
Would a 36-40 y.o. defenceman with an $8MM cap hit limit any team's roster? I think so.
How would a trade with retention not hurt the Sharks?
With this contract a buyout won't help either.
Would a 36-40 y.o. defenceman with an $8MM cap hit limit any team's roster? I think so.
Very happy for Brent Burns.
Very relieved my team doesn't have that contract. They have more than enough boat anchors already.
Foppberg
Registered User
I like how everyone thinks they know best, in a perfect world you sign him for a 4 or 5 year contract. But you do that and his AAV probably goes way up, no way SJ could let Burns go, they'll deal with the last years of his contract when it happens, but for the next 5, 6 years they're fine.
You might develop your own elites instead of paying them for their twilight years.
It drove me nuts when the Leafs treated us to Owen Nolan, Brian Leitch, Ron Francis and Eric Lindros instead of developing new young stars instead.
Yesterday is gone.
Too late for this term at that price to be attractive.
You'll find your stars elsewhere.
CrypTic
Registered User
- Oct 2, 2013
- 5,069
- 81
If he can limit the teams he'll accept a trade to to three teams, that could make it very difficult to trade him. He'd need to list three teams who are having problems with the cap & esp those who don't need a d-man. I don't know that he would do that but he could make it very difficult for SJ. Even if he wasn't trying to make it difficult for SJ, if he limited it to three Cup-contenders (very reasonable for him to do IMO), it could be difficult to work out a deal with only those teams as options.
Why do you doubt that Burns will be really limited to three teams? With the contract being buyout proof, it looks like he really wants to stay with SJ. (Of course, he could change his mind. I wouldn't count on it, though.)
I agree with you that SJ would retain if they needed to do so to make a trade work. I don't think they'd have much of a problem doing that if they decided they wanted to move him.
Retention will hurt the Sharks. I think almost everyone acknowledges that. Depending on how the team is doing financially, it could hurt a lot or not so much. If we're doing well, obviously it gives you less flexibility and makes it more difficult to sign other players. But it will probably only be a few million a year so, while it's a potential problem, it's not a killer (IMO). The problem will be if the Sharks don't do well financially bc Plattner (Sharks' owner) has said that he wants the team to be revenue neutral. So if the budget is tight already, a few million will hurt more.
Last edited:
And then when their UFA years come you will lose them to other teams willing to pay top dollar for max term, ending any future Cup windows and pissing off your fan base.
If the Sharks don't sign Burns they effectively start their rebuild, but most likely hang on as a mediocre team not bad enough to get top-3 picks but not good enough to contend. HF loves those types of teams correct?
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
tsujimoto74
Moderator
- May 28, 2012
- 30,630
- 23,402
Damn that's long and expensive. Incredible player, but I feel like he should've gotten 8 years or 8M AAV, not both. I'm sure it'll be a fine contract for the first few years, but I can't imagine it'll look that great when he's closing in on 40.
