Nice job, put together a pretty decent team

Getting a 1st and a 2nd for Burns is optimistic in my opinion, and I doubt Dallas would want him

@papishark @Klara @Rob32sjsharks @F50marco @KakkoForMauriceRichardAward @sharks_1999 @Ihaveajoner

I feel like this build is a little basic, but seemingly realistic.

Inb4, the Burns trade. I'm biased and bullish on Burns; he's still considered one of the best defensemen in the league, and him having a down year shouldn't count against his true value. Every Shark had a down year, life was Hell, ok! If EK65 can be worth a 1st and a 2nd, so should he.

I'd also love to hear about Mayfield if anyone knows what's up. I don't know too much about him, but he seems like a fun add for his size.

All in all, this looks like a fun team with a lot of potential.

Thanks! Idk, they'll have the money, and I have a feeling they know exactly who they're getting with him; a bit of Texas pride, a big personality, and a perfect compliment to Pavs.

Think we would need to take a dump back on burns, maybe Cogliano? Good team overall though

dude is 35 the only way dallas wants him is with some retention especially for a 1st and 2nd

Personally, I don't think so. Burns moving to Dallas would sell A LOT of tickets. And they would end up with one of the strongest Def corps in the league.

Dude is also one of the fittest guys in the league. 35 ain't nothing for him. If Giordano can win the Norris at 36 so can Burns. I mean, he was nominated last year.

The difference on Karlsson vs burns is age burns is 35 signed till he’s 40 at 8aav
Karlsson was 27 signed for 1 year at 6.5 when we got him

dallas doesnt need him if they really want a dman for 8m they can go after petro for slightly more and he plays defense

Also no one is giving us a 4th for gambrel most likely a 6/7

I hear you, but I'm also shamelessly biased.

Burns will still be a better player at 40 than Karlsson at 35

That was more for flavor. Trading or not trading him isn't a make or break.

Absolutely! Dude is an indestructible beast!
I also think every team knows that as fact.

Not a realistic deal for Dallas. They’ll want to send a contract back and have salary retained as they have to re-sign Heiskanen next year.

If they brought on Burnzie they would still have the money to resign all the players they want, while they let go the players they don't want. But, for sake of conversation, who do you think they send back? Jason Dickinson?

If I had to guess, I'd say most likely Andrew Cogliano.

Really realistic trades and decent outcome but a few changes I would make are:

- Add Cogliano to that Dallas trade (realistically Dallas would want some cap relief if they took on Burns' full contract)
- Remove Paquette from the Tampa trade and change the 3rd to a 6th or 7th
- Not trade Gambrell
- Sell Labanc for picks because we would need some cap space to afford to take on Killorn and Cogliano.

That's just my critique though. I think this was a very solid A-GM.

Thanks, bro! I really appreciate your input.

If we've gotta lose Burns this year I wanted to make sure we got an appropriate value for a Norris Trophy caliber player.

In response to your sugestions:
- I would add Cogliano if we could send him off to another team in a 3 way trade. I mentioned Dickinson because I felt we could use him on the 3rd line LW instead of Paquette.
- As I mentioned above, we could pass on Paquette if we had a similar piece to add in his place. Personally, I really like Baguette's hard style of play, and I think he'd bring a lot to SJ.
- I'm fine with that. I'm sorta over Gambrell, but I'm also not mad at him.
- I'm a fan in the camp of not wanting to lose Labanc. I'm a big believer in his potential, and feel it in my gut that we'd immediately regret trading him. Plus, it would be an incredibly bad look for DW to make a handshake agreement only to trade that player out. City bleeds teal and is another homegrown success story. We need to keep those kids around, especially if we move a big fan draw like Burns.

- I think a 3 way trade could work very well. I'm not sure what the logistics would look like, but if you involved say Ottawa or Detroit who would undoubtedly take on some bad contracts for picks, I think we could definitely see Dickinson moving to SJ.

- Definitely don't dislike Paquette, but my reasoning was simply that we would need to save as much cap as possible and our bottom 6 is already a bit crammed.

- I'm a bit over Gambrell too but he's on a 2 way contract for one more year, is a right handed shot, can play center and is dirt cheap. I'd rather keep him then trade him next year if he still hasn't panned out than dish him and spend money on an older bottom 6 option.

- I agree with you to an extent with Labanc because I don't hate him, I think he has some potential and making him sign an underpaid contract then trading him would be a pretty bad look. To be quite honest though, I don't see him as good enough to be a top 6 option, but I also think he's too good to be in the bottom 6. It's a weird situation. I personally would rather trade him while his value is inflated. I think that his 56 point season was really a result of Joe Thornton's brilliance, than his skill, although he did play well. I think that we could use his value on the trade market to acquire an asset that we're more in need of (A true top 6 RW, a goalie, a bottom 4 RD). That's just me though. I totally understand where you're coming from.

- Agreed!
- Our bottom-6 is crammed with question (???) marks. Baguette is more of an exclamation (!!!) mark, so I think he'd be a guaranteed impact player.
- I feel like Gambrell's guaranteed depth contributions and $700k price tag might be very attractive to a severely cap-crunched team like Toronto. Rather than letting him go next year as a UFA I say we get something for him while we can.
- My feelings for Labanc and the surrounding politics aside, I'd 100% agree if not for the fact that all of the position voids you've expressed we're in need of are available on the UFA market or are easy to attain via late round pick trades (e.g.: Toffoli, Greiss, and Mayfield... etc). And, in the case of those examples, Toffoli is homies with Jones, Greiss is a former Shark on good terms, and the NYI really need to reduce cap exposure and Mayfield is a redundant piece, so grabbing them off the market might not be a tough stretch.

@RawZuccSauce420 @Lord_Simek @Rob32sjsharks @JumboJoe @papishark

Imma implement some of the changes we discussed. Nothing that fundamentally alters the team tho.

- Yeah I definitely understand what you're saying, I think that there's more risk reward to lean on AHL call ups and other prospects to fill in those roled. Paquette would def be a stable, guaranteed role player.
- Definitely agree with what you're saying about Gambrell. Kind of another risk/reward situation. Just depends on who has more of a cap crunch.
- I think that for the right price, I wouldn't think twice on pulling the trigger for Mayfield or Toffoli. As long as the price and term is reasonable, I'd love to get Toffoli as a UFA and Mayfield from a trade. I agree that I'd rather not waste our assets when we can sign UFAs .Anyway I definitely think you have a good point with Labanc. I don't really feel like we need to get rid of him, but there could be some benefits to doing so.

- Totally! Like, believe me, I want our rookies and AHLers to get some time in the NHL, and I'm absolutely sure they will during the course of the season, but I think the experiment of relying on them is a failed one and I don't want to do it again.

- Absolutely on the same page! Also, maybe Gamby blossoms on another team... like Toronto.

- Banker's gonna be fine. I'd put money on that! He spooked us all by having a down year this year, but everybody had a down year. He can't be made to own all parts of this surprise cratering!! Just look at his record on CapFriendly: +9, -6, -1, -33!!. That -33 is a total fluke! I know we're all bummed, but let's just relax, breathe, and not be so hard on City. (Present company excluded. You, of course, have been pretty understanding of Labanc's predicament.)

@McGruff

This one too