Quote:
|
According to CapFriendly, Burns limited no-trade clause is: "Player submits a 3 team trade list every year on July 1 starting in 2017 & in each year for the duration of the contract."
|
This is a fair point... I'll happily give you credit for. When the news broke out the article I read suggested there was more flexibility in that. Not being able to move him to more than 3 teams during those years would severly change SJ's flexibility. I'll own that one, I wasn't playing with a full deck.
Quote:
|
I just think you have a disconnect from real world economics when you start calling 16M+ insignificant and assuming that it would be easy to move a contract like his if he were to become useless on the back half. I can pretty much prove that's not the case by pointing out that Dennis Wideman is still on the Flames.
|
The reason Dennis Wideman is still on the Flames is because the flames haven't been seriously trying to win a Stanley Cup. If they were, they would happily pay the price to move him off the books. A team like the Coyotes would happily accept real assets to take that contract for a year.
Quote:
If it was easy to move useless defenders making a lot of money with a sizable cap-hit as you are suggesting, you should probably let Treliving know.
I don't have an issue with the contract, it's pretty obvious what it is. High reward early on, huge risk later. Which is fine because that's the Sharks window pretty much. It makes sense from that point of view. I'm just saying that it won't be an easy contract to move if he does become useless at 37+.
|
There's no debate that it would inexpensive to move. I have maintained that if the Sharks have cup aspirations during the last few years of his contracts and that he is a plug, that through retention, and the usage of valuable draft picks, that they would have the means to do so, and wouldn't be knee buckling to do so. They would be moves that could be very favourable in terms of asset acquisition, and potentially economically for a cap floor team would consider. Again, reiterating, the terms of the trade clause make many of points void.
