HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Proposal: Min-NYR (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=870902)

BPD 01-30-2011 01:39 PM

Min-NYR
 
:rangers get

Brent Burns

:wild get

Michael DelZotto
Evgeny Grachev
2011 2nd (WSH)

Flame on. I'm curious as to what it would take to bring Burns to Broadway.

Fel 96 01-30-2011 01:41 PM

Well, this is an interesting deal but still no thanks.

Anyways, Burns won't be traded.

Emptyvoid 01-30-2011 01:42 PM

Value wise, in terms of potential, I think this is okay-good.

However, real world wise, I see no reason for the wild to do this. They're trading an all-star offensive defensemen for an inconsistent offensive dman (with large ?s in the defensive zone) and a top 6 prospect who has only recently started to 'dominate' the ahl.

I feel it will take more to take Burns.

P.S. I'm not sure of Burns' contract situation though.

BPD 01-30-2011 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fel 96 (Post 30547844)
Well, this is an interesting deal but still no thanks.

Anyways, Burns won't be traded.

Oh, I totally agree. The Wild brass would have lost their mind barring a certified statement from Burns saying he will absolutely not re-sign in Minny. Burns is too damn good for Minny to let go. Just wanted to see if I had the ballpark right here.

Dr Jan Itor 01-30-2011 01:56 PM

I don't know anything about Grachev, but I really doubt Burns is dealt, and if by some chance he is, I hope it would be a 1 for 1 deal, not for 3 pieces that add up to 75 cents on the dollar.

grN1g 01-30-2011 02:28 PM

for the sake of the thread i wont say this will never happen, but burns isn't getting traded for anything less than a proven young top 6 forward+.

JeffMangum 01-30-2011 02:32 PM

As a fan of both teams, Wild say no, Rangers say hell yes.

saywut 01-30-2011 02:37 PM

If Burns does not have an extension in place by September, then yes, I could see him being traded(off-season, if he rejects ANY extension offer). However, in the case of Mikko Koivu this past off-season, we got an extension done, at a non-discount price(7/47.25). We'd definitely do the same for Brent Burns. If he wants ~6/40, we will give him it.

WestCoastWild 01-30-2011 02:53 PM

Burnzie has a tattoo of the Minnesota Wild on his body, He LOVES Minnesota, he has his own little farm in Woodbury. I'm gonna be the guy here that says 100% Brent Burn resigns a long term deal with the Wild.

So no deal.

MK9 01-30-2011 03:02 PM

No go.

thestonedkoala 01-30-2011 05:52 PM

Quantity =/= Quality

CM Lundqvist 01-30-2011 07:31 PM

They're most likely not trading Burns.

This isn't a terrible deal, however.

Dr Jan Itor 01-30-2011 07:51 PM

It actually is kind of. 3 lessor pieces for 1 good piece isn't what we would be looking for. If Burns was 34 and we were rebuilding, then yes, it might be acceptable. But he is 25 or 26, just coming into his prime and has improved every year that he has been healthy.

ShawnTHW 01-30-2011 08:00 PM

Am I really the only one who thinks this is a bad deal for the Rangers?

CM Lundqvist 01-30-2011 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor (Post 30556111)
It actually is kind of. 3 lessor pieces for 1 good piece isn't what we would be looking for. If Burns was 34 and we were rebuilding, then yes, it might be acceptable. But he is 25 or 26, just coming into his prime and has improved every year that he has been healthy.

It's really not.

You're getting a 21 year old puck moving defender that scored nearly 30 points as an NHL rookie last year, a solid prospect with a lot of potential in Grachev that's developing a little slow, but has a pretty high ceiling, and a 2nd rounder.

The only thing I could think of to change it would be to add another prospect like a Tomas Kundratek.

Dr Jan Itor 01-30-2011 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldshot (Post 30556564)
It's really not.

You're getting a 21 year old puck moving defender that scored nearly 30 points as an NHL rookie last year, a solid prospect with a lot of potential in Grachev that's developing a little slow, but has a pretty high ceiling, and a 2nd rounder.

The only thing I could think of to change it would be to add another prospect like a Tomas Kundratek.

Well, it's 3 unknowns for known, so I consider it to be. Like I said, for a over 30 guy, that's probably a good package, but Burns is about to be 26, and has improved every full year he has played. I'm sorry, but does Del Zotto have 1st pairing upside? Does Grachev have 1st line upside? Because if we trade a 26 year old Burns for for a 2nd pairing D and a 2nd/3rd line forward, I'm going to be pretty pissed.

coolbean04 01-30-2011 08:34 PM

I'm a Rangers fan.

If I was Minny, I'd turn down this deal. I would want a player or two over a 2nd round pick.

I would ask for Del Zotto, Grachev, Werek, and C. Thomas. Kreider is who I'd love but I know NYR won't trade him. If they did, they wouldn't be getting DZ or Grachev in a deal.

DZ and Grachev have HUGE potential but have their values at their lowest.

Werek has the potential to be a solid #3 or a good #2, he's progressing nicely.

Thomas as the 4th is a huge risk/reward case. He's been tearing it up and his shooting/shot placement is amazing. His size is an issue but he has a great wrist shot. He's also built like a tank so he won't get knocked off the puck easily.

Burns is an awesome player but I follow the Rangers prospects a lot. To do that 4 for 1 that I listed above would have me super excited.

Remember, DZ is only 20 so he has 5 more years before he's Burns age and I think by then, he will be putting up his kind of #'s. Which is 15 goals 30-40 assists.

nickschultzfan 01-30-2011 08:57 PM

The Wild have no reason to do this. Burns is their best defenseman, this deal fills zero holes, and the Wild don't get back equivalent talent.

Sounds like Rangers just want to upgrade their defense without giving up anything that will hurt them.

CM Lundqvist 01-30-2011 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor (Post 30556778)
Well, it's 3 unknowns for known, so I consider it to be. Like I said, for a over 30 guy, that's probably a good package, but Burns is about to be 26, and has improved every full year he has played. I'm sorry, but does Del Zotto have 1st pairing upside? Does Grachev have 1st line upside? Because if we trade a 26 year old Burns for for a 2nd pairing D and a 2nd/3rd line forward, I'm going to be pretty pissed.

3 unknowns?

You definitely don't watch hockey all that much if Del Zotto is an "unknown". Nearly 40 points in his rookie year isn't much of an unknown. If you're taking a shot at him because he got sent down to Hartford, it was because of his confidence on the ice, and it's only his 2nd year in the NHL. The kid is going to get better. He put up 37 points last year and he didn't even have a point shot to pass the puck to on the power play after Kotalik went down the drain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickschultzfan (Post 30557401)
The Wild have no reason to do this. Burns is their best defenseman, this deal fills zero holes, and the Wild don't get back equivalent talent.

Really, so they wouldn't want to go younger, get a solid young offensive defenseman, and get a forward prospect that they could most definitely use with the lack of organizational depth up front in their system, plus a 2nd rounder?

Nah, you're probably right. They'll just pull another dumb deal and trade a good prospect like Leddy for an often injured Cam Barker and go a little older in the process.

Quote:

Sounds like Rangers just want to upgrade their defense without giving up anything that will hurt them.
No, that's the OP, not the actual organization. The fans don't speak for the organization.

BBSeabs27 01-30-2011 09:11 PM

Brent Burns isn't going to go anywhere. He's done well for the wild.

Dr Jan Itor 01-30-2011 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldshot (Post 30557738)
3 unknowns?

You definitely don't watch hockey all that much if Del Zotto is an "unknown". Nearly 40 points in his rookie year isn't much of an unknown. If you're taking a shot at him because he got sent down to Hartford, it was because of his confidence on the ice, and it's only his 2nd year in the NHL. The kid is going to get better. He put up 37 points last year and he didn't even have a point shot to pass the puck to on the power play after Kotalik went down the drain.



Really, so they wouldn't want to go younger, get a solid young offensive defenseman, and get a forward prospect that they could most definitely use with the lack of organizational depth up front in their system, plus a 2nd rounder?

Nah, you're probably right. They'll just pull another dumb deal and trade a good prospect like Leddy for an often injured Cam Barker and go a little older in the process.



No, that's the OP, not the actual organization. The fans don't speak for the organization.

Yeah, one good year and getting sent to the minors is an unknown to me. I watch a lot of hockey; none of it happens to be the Rangers or Del Zotto. Maybe you don't watch a lot of hockey, if you think that Del Zotto and Grachev could fill the void that losing Burns would create. And yes, we don't want to get younger; we'll just keep our "over the hill" 25 year old all-star defenseman. A forward prospect would be great, if it didn't come at the expense of our best defenseman. Cam Barker's performance aside, are you serious? He's 24; Leddy is 19. I wasn't aware that the average age of the Stanley Cup champions is and should be 19.5.

CM Lundqvist 01-30-2011 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor (Post 30557908)
Yeah, one good year and getting sent to the minors is an unknown to me.

Then you need to get off of these boards and do a little more research.

Quote:

I watch a lot of hockey; none of it happens to be the Rangers or Del Zotto.
Shocker. Maybe you should before talking about another player from another team before making posts like the ones you have in this thread to this point.

Quote:

Maybe you don't watch a lot of hockey, if you think that Del Zotto and Grachev could fill the void that losing Burns would create.
I've watched and played more in one year than you have in your life.

As for the void, right now, there's no way this trade could fill the void. A couple of years down the road, yes. If the Wild wanted to completely rebuild, and thought they would have a hard time resigning Burns in the future, than this is the type of deal they'd probably like to make.

Quote:

And yes, we don't want to get younger; we'll just keep our "over the hill" 25 year old all-star defenseman.
Could you quote me on where I said "over the hill"? Please do, especially since you're going to use it in that context. I know Barker's 25, he's younger than I am, but to act like that trade was smart on the part of Minnesota isn't something I would go around parading about considering his injury history and salary compared to a younger defenseman with a similar ceiling.

Quote:

A forward prospect would be great, if it didn't come at the expense of our best defenseman.
Gotta give to get, and giving up a guy like Burns is going to get quite a return. I don't know what you think you're going to get for him, but it's not going to 3 forward prospects, and a can't miss defense prospect on top of a 1st. He's good, but he's not Doughty or Keith or Weber.

Quote:

Cam Barker's performance aside, are you serious? He's 24; Leddy is 19. I wasn't aware that the average age of the Stanley Cup champions is and should be 19.5.
Cam Barker's injury history could easily elevate him to 30+ years old. The guy's had more injuries in his career to this point than some guys in the league that are 30 years and older. I would be hesitant to take him on as he gets hurt constantly. Then again, Minnesota also signed Martin Havlat who misses a ton of games too.

Dr Jan Itor 01-30-2011 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldshot (Post 30558298)
Then you need to get off of these boards and do a little more research.

Jim Carrey had a hell of rookie year as well.

Quote:

Shocker. Maybe you should before talking about another player from another team before making posts like the ones you have in this thread to this point.
I apologize for real life getting in the way watching 82 Rangers games a year. How many Wild games have you seen?

Quote:

I've watched and played more in one year than you have in your life.
I doubt that, but there is really now way to prove it either way. So let's move on.

Quote:

As for the void, right now, there's no way this trade could fill the void. A couple of years down the road, yes. If the Wild wanted to completely rebuild, and thought they would have a hard time resigning Burns in the future, than this is the type of deal they'd probably like to make.
Your "ifs" are two pretty big ifs. You are correct; if Burns refused to re-sign, and the Rangers were the only other team in the league, then yes, that would probably be a pretty good offer. But I think if a 26 year old defenseman was put on the block, they would have to do much better than what you are offering. I'm sure 20 other teams would be ringing our GM as well.

Quote:

Could you quote me on where I said "over the hill"? Please do, especially since you're going to use it in that context. I know Barker's 25, he's younger than I am, but to act like that trade was smart on the part of Minnesota isn't something I would go around parading about considering his injury history and salary compared to a younger defenseman with a similar ceiling.
Your post at 9:10 PM said "Really, so they wouldn't want to get younger..." forgetting, of course, that Burns is also young.

Quote:

Gotta give to get, and giving up a guy like Burns is going to get quite a return. I don't know what you think you're going to get for him, but it's not going to 3 forward prospects, and a can't miss defense prospect on top of a 1st. He's good, but he's not Doughty or Keith or Weber.
I agree that you have to give to get, which I could probably throw right back at you, asking for Burns and all. If you want an impact player, you're going to have to give up more than 3 "maybes".

Quote:

Cam Barker's injury history could easily elevate him to 30+ years old. The guy's had more injuries in his career to this point than some guys in the league that are 30 years and older. I would be hesitant to take him on as he gets hurt constantly. Then again, Minnesota also signed Martin Havlat who misses a ton of games too.
Barker sucks, and the trade was a bad one. Every Wild fan will concede that. Didn't you guys sign an injury-proned Gaborik? Shall we venture into all of your acquisitions? Funny you bring Havlat up, as he is having an all-star year this year.

We saw our professional baseball team trade our Cy Young pitcher for what amounted to Baltimore's best middle relief prospect. Forgive us if we don't want to trade the best defenseman we've ever had for 3 "potentially" good players.

Bump this thread when Del Zotto and Grachev become impact players.

Circulartheory 01-30-2011 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldshot (Post 30557738)
Really, so they wouldn't want to go younger, get a solid young offensive defenseman, and get a forward prospect that they could most definitely use with the lack of organizational depth up front in their system, plus a 2nd rounder?

Actually no, we'd rather keep our all-star defenseman that is only 25 (that is very young), big (6'5" 219lbs), mobile, physical, can play against top lines, top minutes on even strength, top minutes on PP, top minutes on PK, on a good contract and second in the league in goals for defensemen.

We like that over 2 prospects and a pick.

JeffMangum 01-30-2011 10:05 PM

It's not a good deal for the Wild. Burns is better than MDZ will ever be imo. He brings the physical edge, defense, and size that MDZ just doesn't have.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:55 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.