First, San Jose did not screw another signing. That’s basically market value for Kane. Second, Tavares is still a very realistic option. Third, Burns isn’t going anywhere with that albatross of a contract. Fourth, there are more tenable options for relieving salary than moving Burns. E.g. Trading Boedker/Karlsson, buying out Martin. Fifth, Hertl won’t get more then $5M per season. Sixth, Balcers likely won’t start next season with the Sharks.

Well if you read the explanation, i gave my opinion about comaprsion Hertl/Kane and you just say thats basically market value... give some arguments based on his play why Kane should get 2+ more miilion than Hertl. Trading Boedker/Martin is also mentioned in the explanation, but thats what everyone would do, I wanted to try different way. Youre saying Hertl wont get, how can you be so sure? If you seen him in PO, you know he has great starting point to for negotiations. Balcers wont start with Sharks, you think he stays in Barracuda? Man you gave no argument whatsoever, why you comment then?

Where do I start. I’m wondering if you’ve ever watched a game of Sharks hockey. You claim San Jose screwed another signing without any justification and you’re lecturing me on not providing evidence? What a joke. 1) Hertl has never once reached 50pts in his career and had lengthy injury history. You can’t just focus on playoffs as your starting point as a players future salary is based off of the entire body of work. His advanced stats are good but the results just don’t speak to a player who makes above $5M per season. The majority of the informed hockey world believes the type of player with this record only make just below $5M. All of the comps for Hertl’s contract make $5M or less. That’s how I know there’s a 95% probability he doesn’t make more than $5M per. Kane is getting market value at $7x7 because that’s what other GMs, some experts, and quite a few computer models said it would be. That’s based on his point production, advanced stats, and perceived market value due to his toolbox of skill. If you paid attention to hockey you would know this. 2) Trading Boedker/Martin is what other people are doing because it makes the most sense and is the most realistic, anything else is ridiculous. 3) the Sharks have specifically said Balcers isn’t ready for the NHL and will likely start on the AHL roster. By the way, this blog doesn’t require us to write a dissertation on why we are write, just say where we disagree. I just assumed you were knowledgeable Sharks fan (my bad). I explained myself this time just for fun so you might actually learn something and go do research before making ridiculous claims like “Sharks screwed another signing”.

They can trade Martin, Boedker, and Dillon before they trade Burns and it won't hurt them that much. You're also overpaying Hertl. I think they can get him at 4.5m/6 year.

As you can see, I gave Hertl 5.2 million which is close to what youre saying, my point was that Kane doesnt deserve that much (compare to Pastrnak, Barkov, Huberdau or Granlund and their money).

I chose to trade Burns because i do not like his defense play, what i expected was reaction about his play which is what i asked in explanation, you just commented on everything else but man, you cant take it so seriously, maybe i should have written impossible in the name of the topic...
Well since i didnt have that much time last week i dont know what Sharks said about Balcers, I saw him 2 weeks ago few games at WC and giving him couple of games in the beginning of the season wouldnt could help him.

If you think you know so much about hockey, you wouldnt claim about yourself you are better and you undestand it more, i admit i do not have time to watch all stats and thats why i wanted you to hear some arguments to learn a bit too, not to fight about sh*t

About bad signigns, first Burns, too long term and bit too much money (and this caused Vlasic getting his money, if Burns got less, Vlasic would go for less too) Boedker - inconsistent player who is not top 6 forward (and was not by the time they signed him) in Sharks, 4 millions are too much. Martin - one year longer term, but thats not that bad.

I never once made the claim I know so much about hockey. My claim was that your roster was showing you didn't know much about the Sharks, considering it was without any foundational explanation why you think these would happen. You're Team Explanation was insufficient. A "the Sharks suck, so I have to do some crazy things to fit Tavares" isn't a great explanation, and honestly is what pissed me off in the first place. don't go after your own team like that.

With respect to Kane, I'm telling you you're one of the very few people on the planet that don't think the Sharks paid what Kane was expected, at a minimum, to get. A broadcaster on NHL Network made a great point about the contract. It comes in at pretty much the same percentage of the cap hit as his previous contract. I don't like the term, but that was probably necessary to get him to sign in SJ, but also to get the cap hit to $7M.

I completely agree Burns was a bad signing, a very bad signing, its an albatross of a contract. Boedker was coming off of his third 50 point season and has wicked wheels. The signing was fine at the time, but has turned bad because he didn't play to expectations. Boeds actually had a very good year from Dec 1 on, so I don't think its necessary to jettison him yet, I think unless the return is good, let him play out his contract and just be done with it. Martin wouldn't be such a bad contract if he didn't get himself completely wrecked by injury.