Membre depuis
29 jun 2015
Équipe préférée
Sharks de San Jose
Messages dans les forums
Messages par jour
Sujets de discussion
Forum: Armchair-GM28 fév à 3 h 16
Forum: Armchair-GM28 fév à 2 h 18
Forum: Armchair-GM20 fév à 16 h 35
Forum: Armchair-GM16 fév à 14 h 31
Forum: Armchair-GM11 fév à 2 h 31
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>The fact that so many Shark fans want to trade him even at retention. His raw stats at least to me shows a decline. Even the Sharks...maybe out of necessity have used him at RW. Can the Leafs get better value at 6m long term? I think so.</div></div>

I keep explaining this. I'd be fine with Burns finishing out in teal were it not for the fact that in addition to Burns (age 34, signed to 40), Sharks have

1) Couture (30 through 38),
2) Vlasic (32 through 39),
3) Karlsson (29 through 38),
4) Kane (28 through 33), and
5) Jones (30 through 35)

under contract. That's too many aging players on one team, as I'm sure you fully agree. Our opinions differ it seems on my contention that in isolation, a Vlasic/Karlsson/Couture/Burns helps out a team even at their big contract, whereas you don't agree. I just say that it's too many on one team that needs to rebuild and has a dearth of young guys.

On a team filled with young guys like the Leafs, however, Brent Burns right now would be VERY effective and wouldn't hurt the team given that they have guys signed through their 20s instead of 30s.

THAT's why I keep proposing the Sharks to trade Burns. Because they already have that type of player locked in with Karlsson, and because the Sharks have too many of those contracts. Not because he sucks, and not because his contract in isolation is egregiously terrible (it's not ideal in isolation, but a little retention like I keep proposing and an increasingly insignificant cap-hit-value with the salary cap steadily increasing balances things out for a team like the Leafs).