How come this trade happened but the Sharks haven't bought out Vlasic?
I was very happy the team didn't buy out Vlasic. I would much rather have his contract off the books sooner than save more in a meaningless season. Vlasic being there also helps in the Sharks' campaign to Tank Hard for Bedard, whereas Burns actually had some positive value. I would absolutely have preferred a better pick/prospect in return, but I think the Sharks were desperate to get some cap flexibility and that might be the best they were able to find.
Quoting: Stones6160
Umm, Grier?
Trade 11 for 3 picks, giving up the chance for a higher talent guy/armstronged
The trade from 11 to 27, 34, and 45 was a good value trade. That being said, aside from Havelid at 45, I'm not super happy with who they took with those picks. I'd argue that trade was the most logical move he's made since becoming GM.
Canes win he deal but the Sharks finally have legit cap and a bit of breathing room for the first time in YEARS. Though my team lost the trade, I am breathing a bit better now.
In the mid-1960's (I'm old enough to have forgotten the year) I was pleased to attend a match on Randall's Island in the East River between the boroughs of Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx featuring West Ham United with Geoff Hurst up front, Martin Peters in midfield and Bobby Moore at the back. There were fewer than 5,000 fans in attendance.
In the mid-1960's (I'm old enough to have forgotten the year) I was pleased to attend a match on Randall's Island in the East River between the boroughs of Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx featuring West Ham United with Geoff Hurst up front, Martin Peters in midfield and Bobby Moore at the back. There were fewer than 5,000 fans in attendance.
Nice! I've only followed the Mighty Hammers for about 5 years but I have some mates who can relate to experiences like that.
I was very happy the team didn't buy out Vlasic. I would much rather have his contract off the books sooner than save more in a meaningless season. Vlasic being there also helps in the Sharks' campaign to Tank Hard for Bedard, whereas Burns actually had some positive value. I would absolutely have preferred a better pick/prospect in return, but I think the Sharks were desperate to get some cap flexibility and that might be the best they were able to find.
The trade from 11 to 27, 34, and 45 was a good value trade. That being said, aside from Havelid at 45, I'm not super happy with who they took with those picks. I'd argue that trade was the most logical move he's made since becoming GM.
If the goal is cap flexibility then they should have bought out Vlasic and saved $6.75M. They could plug his spot with some younger players to get some experience. The additional cap penalty of $1.69M that starts in 2026 is peanuts as the cap will go up significantly by then.
If the Sharks wanted to trade Burns, they'd be dealing from a better position of strength if they bought out Vlasic first, since other GMs wouldn't see them as desperate for cap flexibility.
Nice! I've only followed the Mighty Hammers for about 5 years but I have some mates who can relate to experiences like that.
Now that I think back, I was still in high school, so it was in 1964 or 1965. Maybe you and your mates can dredge up the reference from the archives. It wasn't the game they played against Santos in 1970 because I was otherwise occupied overseas at the time.
We should have gotten a 2nd round pick at the least for the retention, but this trade had to be done given the Sharks' cap situation. Take care of him Canes, you got a hell of a wookie on your team.
so much for sharks fans saying burns is worth 1st round picks +++
This should have been the price for burns with no retention. With retention it’s a steal.
It’s his age, and only his age, that lowered his value. Nobody was going to give up assets for a 37-year-old signed for 3 more years at $8M cap hit without retention, no matter how good he was this past season. How much longer can he play 26 minutes a game?
This is one situation where I’m not sure it makes sense for the cap hit to be equal to the AAV for the whole contract. His average total salary for the next 3 years is only $5.5M, which seems reasonable given the decline you would expect over an 8-year contract for a player that age. Carolina doesn’t care about the money, so if that was also his cap hit, the Sharks wouldn’t have had to retain. On the other hand, that would have made his cap hit $10M at the beginning of the contract when the Sharks were still a contender. Retaining salary now is the price they pay for the lower cap hit they enjoyed then.
Even with the retention I think this is still a bigger risk for Carolina than keeping DeAngelo at 2x$5M (assuming he would have signed the same contract in Carolina as in Philadelphia, and didn’t take less there because he’d rather play for Tortorella than Brind’Amour), but more upside if Burns doesn’t start playing like a guy in his late 30s.
I think this was one of the rare trades that one team won and the other lost, but that both teams can feel good about. My Canes didn't give up too much for a great offensive righty and got SJ to retain some of that ghastly contract he signed, but SJ clears cap space and gets a great young guy in Stevie and a Mak seems like a decent goalie prospect.