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

[topshelf15]

Cost of doing buisness in the NHL ,Burns would have easily gotten this as a UFA .Whether its wort it over the long haul who knows or cares,SJ is selling tickets and making money off of him. Doing what he does, so they think he is worth it .

So if Sharks fans are happy ,then its a great deal

 

[19sharks19]

Cost of doing buisness in the NHL ,Burns would have easily gotten this as a UFA .Whether its wort it over the long haul who knows or cares,SJ is selling tickets and making money off of him. Doing what he does, so they think he is worth it .

So if Sharks fans are happy ,then its a great deal

absolutely + very well said.

 

[topshelf15]

absolutely + very well said.

He is a great player that was going to make his money,so i dont really get people trying to rain down on you guys for resigning him .Enjoy him ,enjoy your team .And drink CANADIAN BEER

 

[19sharks19]

He is a great player that was going to make his money,so i dont really get people trying to rain down on you guys for resigning him .Enjoy him ,enjoy your team .And drink CANADIAN BEER

The Canadian beer it is for sure,,,LOL.

Yeah, if management would have let him walk next summer, the reaction and anger would have been wild,,,LOL. Guys like this you need to hold onto as you well stated, another team would have walked in and paid the same or more = his value is well worth it.

 

[Daz28]

Great hockey fan...

Hoping for strike/lockout so that there would be compliance buyouts...

Hoping? So if I point out there's a mess with RFA's getting $6M, then I'm hoping for a lockout? That's a big leap. There's currently a mess with teams up tight to the cap, and fewer and fewer teams with room to take on salary. The only solution I see is buyouts, because that's how they handled it last time.

...which leads me to my point on why they won't retain his salary at the end. The Sharks will have to hinder themselves with a $5 hit for nothing, and the other team will need $8M in cap laying around to be able to use on him. Not a likely scenario at all.

 

[rockinghockey]

Glad SJ gave him that contract did not want to give him 7 yrs

 

[CrypTic]

Hoping? So if I point out there's a mess with RFA's getting $6M, then I'm hoping for a lockout? That's a big leap. There's currently a mess with teams up tight to the cap, and fewer and fewer teams with room to take on salary. The only solution I see is buyouts, because that's how they handled it last time.

...which leads me to my point on why they won't retain his salary at the end. The Sharks will have to hinder themselves with a $5 hit for nothing, and the other team will need $8M in cap laying around to be able to use on him. Not a likely scenario at all.

You haven't given any reason that the Sharks wouldn't retain salary if they wanted to move him. If, e.g., the team decides to rebuild and both Burns and the Sharks think they should part ways, why wouldn't SJ eat $2 - $4M a year in cap if they think it will benefit the team?

Whether another team would want him at $4-$6M cap is the question but there is a good chance that the Sharks could find teams who want him at that price, esp in the later years when his salary is less than his cap hit. Whether there's enough overlap between the teams Burns would accept a trade to and the teams who'd want to trade for him so that the Sharks can get something worthwhile back is the Q for the Sharks (and Sharks' fans) but that's a completely different issue than whether the Sharks would retain to make a deal work. They've done it before and I see no reason to think that they wouldn't do it again to improve the team.

 

[Daz28]

You haven't given any reason that the Sharks wouldn't retain salary if they wanted to move him. If, e.g., the team decides to rebuild and both Burns and the Sharks think they should part ways, why wouldn't SJ eat $2 - $4M a year in cap if they think it will benefit the team?

Whether another team would want him at $4-$6M cap is the question but there is a good chance that the Sharks could find teams who want him at that price, esp in the later years when his salary is less than his cap hit. Whether there's enough overlap between the teams Burns would accept a trade to and the teams who'd want to trade for him so that the Sharks can get something worthwhile back is the Q for the Sharks (and Sharks' fans) but that's a completely different issue than whether the Sharks would retain to make a deal work. They've done it before and I see no reason to think that they wouldn't do it again to improve the team.

Try to imagine getting a team to do that now. Now, imagine a team willing to do it when it's way worse. Like I said, they'd prob have to eat $5. May as well eat the whole 8, and keep the player. You prob won't have a choice. The NHL needs some kind of slide, like the NFL carry-over. Teams just hit a wall, and there's really not much GM's can do anymore.

 

[CrypTic]

Try to imagine getting a team to do that now.

Do what? Eat half of Burns's contract? It would make no sense to do that now. Trade for Burns for $4M for 8 years now? Teams would be lining up.

Now, imagine a team willing to do it when it's way worse.

Willing to do what? Eat 25% or 50% of Burns's contract? that's probably not what you meant since, from that perspective, it can only get better since you have to eat less salary/cap. Trade for Burns? If that's it, a lot of that depends on how Burns has been playing, how much of his contract is left, where the cap is, and a lot of other things that we can't know now.

Like I said, they'd prob have to eat $5. May as well eat the whole 8, and keep the player. You prob won't have a choice. The NHL needs some kind of slide, like the NFL carry-over. Teams just hit a wall, and there's really not much GM's can do anymore.

They can't eat $5M/ year in cap bc the max you can retain is 50% = $4M/year cap. Whether it makes more sense to eat some of his cap (which might not be $4M) keep him, or e.g., trade him with a pick/prospect will depend the Sharks' needs as well as on Burns's play, other teams' needs, how much contract is left, salary cap, who else is available & for how much, whether Burns wants to be traded (and to which teams), etc.

 

[Joe Sakic]

The term is what potentially ruins is.

Burns is a premier defenseman in this league and worth every part of 8M per year...but can the same be said when he's 37, 38, 39?

 

[CHaracter79]

in three years at 34 burns is gonna suck and be too old and slow and stuff. Right summertime Shea weber haters? This term may I repeat may b a problem at 39 or 40

Elite dmen can absolutely play well Into their mid to late thirties

Especially ones that rely on physicality positioning and brains rather then speed agility and puck carrying

Term is fine especially a cap hit of 8 rather then 9 or 9.5 for 6yrs

 

[Daz28]

Do what? Eat half of Burns's contract? It would make no sense to do that now. Trade for Burns for $4M for 8 years now? Teams would be lining up.



Willing to do what? Eat 25% or 50% of Burns's contract? that's probably not what you meant since, from that perspective, it can only get better since you have to eat less salary/cap. Trade for Burns? If that's it, a lot of that depends on how Burns has been playing, how much of his contract is left, where the cap is, and a lot of other things that we can't know now.



They can't eat $5M/ year in cap bc the max you can retain is 50% = $4M/year cap. Whether it makes more sense to eat some of his cap (which might not be $4M) keep him, or e.g., trade him with a pick/prospect will depend the Sharks' needs as well as on Burns's play, other teams' needs, how much contract is left, salary cap, who else is available & for how much, whether Burns wants to be traded (and to which teams), etc.

I thought I was pretty clear. It would be very hard for a team to eat $4m cap, and get nothing for it. Buyouts are already hurting teams. It was kinda a crappy idea, and they will possibly double down on the stupidity next CBA.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I thought I was pretty clear. It would be very hard for a team to eat $4m cap, and get nothing for it. Buyouts are already hurting teams. It was kinda a crappy idea, and they will possibly double down on the stupidity next CBA.

They very likely won't need to eat 4 million. They will probably only have to eat about 2 million in the latter stages of his contract. Burns even at 37-40 putting up only 30-40 points a year will be worth 6 million to a team.

 

[CrypTic]

I thought I was pretty clear. It would be very hard for a team to eat $4m cap, and get nothing for it. Buyouts are already hurting teams. It was kinda a crappy idea, and they will possibly double down on the stupidity next CBA.

You've moved the goalposts again (from SJ wouldn't retain on Burns, which you've never offered any evidence for). I disagree with "it would be very hard for a team to eat $4M cap" as well. No one wants to eat cap but it has different implications for different teams. If you're not near the cap, it doesn't matter much. If you are, it can be a killer.

You didn't even know that the most a team can eat is 50% so I don't think you've thought about this issue much. (That's a very basic part of the issue.)

If the SJ Sharks are no longer contenders and if they want to trade Burns and if they can get Burns to agree to the trade or find a worthwhile trade among the three teams Burns listed (which, IMO, is going to be the tough part if you assume they want to make a good trade, not the cap/salary retention part), they will probably not be that affected by retaining. It will hurt but $4M is typically not a big deal for teams who aren't contending unless they've managed their cap poorly or unless they've loaded up on bad contracts in exchange for picks/prospects (but then they aren't likely to be the team looking to eat $4M in cap).

Drafting/development/trades are going to be a much bigger issue for the Sharks than any retention on Burns' contract IMO. (Tough to draft well outside the top 10, esp if you're as risk averse as DW, and the Sharks can't afford to be inside the top 10 - esp the top 5 where you really win - on a regular basis.) If they are trying to rebuild, they'll need younger players. Those players have lower cap hits bc you don't get paid in the NHL for your RFA years. If they have more young players than they do now, cap is not likely to be a huge issue. If they are trying to contend at that point, retaining on Burns could be a big issue for them. That seems unlikely to me (going by our current roster/prospects) but it's possible.

I'm not saying cap isn't important. I've said it's always important ITT. I'm saying that cap or cap retention is a much bigger deal for some teams than for others and that what stage of growth (full on tank, partial rebuild/retool, working on rebuild that's mostly set, competing for Cup, trying to stay relevant) your team is at has a lot to do with how important cap and cap retention is.

Edit to add: I agree with PF that the Sharks probably would not need to retain 50%. It's possible but I agree that 25% is more likely, if they decide to trade him and need to retain.

 

[Daz28]

There are only 4 teams with more than $7m cap space, 22 with under $4m, and 14 with roughly a million or less(NHL numbers). RFA's are getting paid like vets, and that trend is not likely to change. It's just an unlikely scenario where you can move an $8M. Trade clauses make it more unlikely. Would it be impossible? No, but again, unlikely seeing the trend the league's salaries are on.

They very likely won't need to eat 4 million. They will probably only have to eat about 2 million in the latter stages of his contract. Burns even at 37-40 putting up only 30-40 points a year will be worth 6 million to a team.

That team will have to have room, need Burns, and Burns must want them. It's already hard for teams to move contracts, and will likely get even harder.


Let me be clear, I'm not crying albatross on this deal. I feel it's quite likely the next CBA will attempt to give teams relief of some sort. The current situation is handcuffing GM's. I'm not one of the "they shouldn't have gave out those contracts" people either, as no one has a crystal ball. I've made threads about how to address the problem, but there's no easy answers once teams willing/able to absorb contracts are used up(which btw kind of circumvents the spirit anyways/unfair advantage).

 

[CrypTic]

There are only 4 teams with more than $7m cap space, 22 with under $4m, and 14 with roughly a million or less(NHL numbers). RFA's are getting paid like vets, and that trend is not likely to change. It's just an unlikely scenario where you can move an $8M. Trade clauses make it more unlikely. Would it be impossible? No, but again, unlikely seeing the trend the league's salaries are on.

If Burns gets traded, it's probably an off-season deal where it's much easier for teams to add a player with a $4M - $8M contract (depending on how much SJ retains). Even Detroit and SJ tried to get Stamkos this summer and they both are currently above the cap and using LTIR. (Plus the Leafs and Habs who each currently have ~1M in cap space.) I don't think looking at teams that currently have ~$4M or more in cap space is a good indication of which teams might be interested in Burns.

That team will have to have room, need Burns, and Burns must want them. It's already hard for teams to move contracts, and will likely get even harder.

Let me be clear, I'm not crying albatross on this deal. I feel it's quite likely the next CBA will attempt to give teams relief of some sort. The current situation is handcuffing GM's. I'm not one of the "they shouldn't have gave out those contracts" people either, as no one has a crystal ball. I've made threads about how to address the problem, but there's no easy answers once teams willing/able to absorb contracts are used up(which btw kind of circumvents the spirit anyways/unfair advantage).

On the other side, I'm not saying this is a great deal. I've said IMO it's not.

I think it's a good thing that teams can trade cap space as an asset. Big market teams have many advantages in the NHL (including not needing to worry about salary, being able to afford to tank much more easily than small market teams, getting more air time so easier to attract casual fans, generally having much better broadcast deals, etc.) and trading cap space is a good way for smaller market teams to make the playing field more level IMO.