Thread: Proposal: Brent Burns to New Jersey...
View Single Post
Old
07-03-2010, 11:45 AM
  #24
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEVILS ALL THE WAY View Post
LOL.

What's funny is that our board thinks I overpayd in my proposal. The Wild would be adding a aging veteran in Rolston but showed some solid chemistry with PMB in the past, a bluechip prospect in Tedenby and a potential top 4 in Corrente who's NHL ready but would see bottom pairing minutes as of right now and a 1st round pick.

That's a terrible deal for a team that isn't a "Brent Burns" away from going to the Western conference finals. You would add depth at both positions with two solid prospects, a guy that can step in right away and a decent pick.

Before everyone jumps on the "Devils don't have any good prospects" marathon, our kids were good enough to land us IK at the deadline and Arnott a couple of weeks back.... just saying
The problem isn't with value, its what we need. Our prospect group has improved since GMCF took over. If we move Burns, we need an offensive d-man, which Corrente isn't, and considering our D prospects(Scandella and Prosser are near NHL-ready, while Cuma was our top-prospect before his knee injury in 2008 and is just turning pro), Corrente isn't needed by the organization period. Rolston/Salvador is a pure cap dump to us as Rolston would be on our 3rd line and Salvador would be a 3rd pairing d-man, and we're already cap-strapped so taking back a contract like that kills us. Tedenby is a great prospect, but we have Havlat and Bouchard and just drafted Granlund. Do we really need another undersized playmaking winger?

There isn't a trade NJ could make for Burns that works both ways, as your thinnest position long-term(center) is our need as well. Zajac straight up or Josefson + would have to be the deal, and obviously NJ isn't interested in doing that.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote