Value of: Value of Couture

[Groo]

You are likely very right about Wilson. As for "Sharks fans pleading for a 1/2C" the thread is asking for Couture's value. At the time of my original post I was unaware of the incident that occured with him so I assumed the thread was about selling him for cap space and futures.
I think Hertl could return Cozens but not Couture, the difference in age and the potential of the contract having negative value a few years before it ends lowers his trade value imo. As for Samuelsson, my original offer included another prospect going back to San Jose. I was thinking Mittelstadt but either is fine.

It's not in the Sharks best interest to trade off either of their top centers
We got what you want and it's not a buyers market

 

[Sota Popinski]

Out of curiosity what do you think San Jose needs to do to fix their issues? They have a really weak prospect pool, a lot of aging players locked up long term, little to know workable cap space, and their their best you player owed a 4M raise with zero money coming off the books before then.

Well, the Sharks have more salary allotted to their defensemen next year than their forwards and their top prospect is a defenseman. So the only way out of it realistically is Burns accepts a trade and they get forward help in return.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Well, the Sharks have more salary allotted to their defensemen next year than their forwards and their top prospect is a defenseman. So the only way out of it realistically is Burns accepts a trade and they get forward help in return.

IMO the only way you are moving Burns is having Seattle take him like Vegas did with Fleury

 

[Sota Popinski]

IMO the only way you are moving Burns is having Seattle take him like Vegas did with Fleury

He's one year removed from being a point-per-game defenseman. I'm pretty sure there are teams that would take him, especially considering his contract was frontloaded and his salary is $6M lower than his cap hit over the next 5 years.

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

IMO the only way you are moving Burns is having Seattle take him like Vegas did with Fleury

Lol Burns has negative value now? Never change main boards.

 

[BeaverSports]

He’s clutch in the playoffs. I’d trade anything Dallas has not named Heiskanen, but might need to send salary back.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Lol Burns has negative value now? Never change main boards.

Did I say that? Did Fleury have negative value?

 

[Nolan11]

He’s clutch in the playoffs. I’d trade anything Dallas has not named Heiskanen, but might need to send salary back.

Strictly as cap dumps, I was figuring you would need to do something like Cogliano, Commeau and Johns to accommodate Burns' 8M salary coming in. That is basically cap neutral next year, but each of those Dallas players expire after that. What you add from there would have to still be significant enough to entice us to consider moving on from #88

 

[majormajor]

CBJ: Couture

SJ: Jonas Korpisalo + Josh Anderson + Gabriel Carlson + Emil Bemstrom or a future pick

Jackets really can't touch Couture's contract unless they're sending their biggest contracts back, including Cam Atkinson's. He has 5 years left at $5.875m. That's the Jackets biggest contract liability, and it's still barely half of Couture's - Couture has 6 years left at $8m. In any case, Couture has a 28 team NTC so he's not going to Columbus.

 

[mccabe2424]

Definitely don't want him in Toronto Ontario

 

[Gecklund]

Because it’s the same tired act with him. Almost every thread on this board involving the sharks he’s aggressive with posters, sometimes swearing at them. His previous post, he told someone to ‘f*** off’...it’s a hypothetical trade on a message board. I think me calling him out after telling someone to f*** off over a hypothetical trade is justified.

Also, if you post on a public forum you open yourself up to being called out. That’s a pretty common theme on this board. You just did it to me. Why not practice what you preach and just PM me instead of calling me out?

So my shit gets deleted but this doesn’t. Man never change HF.

 

[Barrie22]

Did I say that? Did Fleury have negative value?

Well kind of yes since nobody wanted to trade for him before the draft and then the penguins needed to trade assets to vegas for vegas to take him in the draft.

If thats not negative value then i dont know what is.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Well kind of yes since nobody wanted to trade for him before the draft and then the penguins needed to trade assets to vegas for vegas to take him in the draft.

If thats not negative value then i dont know what is.

View it how you like, that "cap dump" carried them to the SCF the same year. Even if Burns is exposed to Seattle and they are "convinced" to take him I doubt it will cost too much since they are division rivals

 

[Pinkfloyd]

IMO the only way you are moving Burns is having Seattle take him like Vegas did with Fleury

Highly doubtful. Burns still has plenty of trade value and his contract is easy to move depending on who is on his list. And the Sharks will likely have no interest in exposing him to Seattle.

 

[Ledge And Dairy]

Highly doubtful. Burns still has plenty of trade value and his contract is easy to move depending on who is on his list. And the Sharks will likely have no interest in exposing him to Seattle.

I would take that bet. Flames are won't be able to move Gio so Sharks definitely can't move Burns in this flat cap.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I would take that bet. Flames are won't be able to move Gio so Sharks definitely can't move Burns in this flat cap.

I don't see why the Flames wouldn't be able to move Giordano if they wanted to after the league year ends and his clause goes to a 19 team trade list. 6.75 and 8 mil are not difficult to trade even in a flat cap. Neither team is likely to ask another team to take them on without giving cap back. Both are tradeable if the teams want to find a trade on their respective players' list.

 

[Bond]

I would take that bet. Flames are won't be able to move Gio so Sharks definitely can't move Burns in this flat cap.

Flames could definitely move Gio if they wanted to.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Good player, ugly contract. He likely has 3 maybe 4 more productive years in him. That's not worth nothing but I dunno if teams will be wanting to pay full price.

The NMC basically means the Sharks are going to have to stick it out with him anyways.