In this edition of the hotstove we share our thoughts on Brent Burns' eight-year, $8 million per extension with the San Jose Sharks.
Todd Cordell
I get why San Jose did it. Their window to win is now and they certainly have a much better chance with Brent Burns in the picture. The objective every year is to win the Stanley Cup and San Jose wouldn't be able to do that by allowing a player of Burns' caliber to walk away for nothing.
That said, eight years is a lot of term and they didn't get any sort of discount by giving Burns max term as he's still the 2nd highest paid blue liner (in terms of annual average) in the NHL. This is a deal the Sharks had to make but I think it's going to look real ugly by the end of it.
James Tanner Wow. That is way too much for way too long - from the team's perspective.
If there was no salary cap, then Burns deserves to be paid 8 million relative to what the other top contracts are. That is totally fair.
And for a guy who looks like that to add 64 million dollars to his already considerable net worth, well that is just awesome. Take that, fat cats!!
For the team, however, it will sadly turn out to be a horrible contract unless Burns happens to age like Jagr. Given the unlikelihood of that, I can't understand why the team would sign this deal. Especially considering San Jose is, I think, the league's oldest team and they are likely rebuilding by year two or three of this deal.
As bad as this may be for the Sharks in a few years, it is a great day toothless weirdos everywhere.
Adam French I think that the question of being good or bad is indeterminable, simply because it is necessary. The NHL would never allow Burns to not get his 8 year deal, if it's with San Jose or some other team is the crux of it. Burns has thrived in his role first as a forward and then as a fourth forward for San Jose. He's probably the second best offensive defender in the game and he brings his size to the table as well. San Jose has one or two last shots at the Cup before they transition.
Let's look at this objectively...this is an OLD core. Good? Yes. But old.
Pavelski - 32 Thornton - 37 Marleau - 37 Ward - 35 Burns - 31
With the "Young Guns"
Vlasic - 29 Couture - 27 Hertl - 23 Donskoi - 24
I was actually shocked that Couture was 27...makes me feel old.
This team needs to win now and they need Burns to do it. It's a necessity. You will never replace him and if you don't, then you lose your potential to win. So is this good? Yes. Is this bad? In 5 years, probably. One Cup win will make this a "Good" deal. None will make it "Bad." One Norris will make this a "Solid" deal. None will make it "Bad." It's the nature of the game.
So in summation. This is a great deal for Burns and a necessary deal for the Sharks. So...good?
Peter Tessier As I just tweeted out today- who would you rather have a 8 million per year?
31 year old Dustin Byfuglien or (Mar 27 1985) 31 year old Brent Burns (Mar 9 1985)
It's never the early years, ono it's the last ones and even though San Jose front loaded the deal and even though the actual salary is way less in those back years, and even though it's a limited no trade clause this is fraught with risk.
I'm a Burns fan- who isn't, but remember when coming out of the last lockout we were told that revenue could be so high the cap is 80 million plus? Sure. This could hurt later.
Good luck with this one in 4 years Sharks because while Byfuglien might spell 'fugly' the Burns contract could be that on steroids and make former Shark Mike Ricci look good.
Recent posts: Most disappointing off-season acquisition?