Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
- The Ducks will not trade Getzlaf, Perry, or Ryan.
- The Ducks have a deep prospect pool. (i.e. Gardiner, Palmieri, McMillan, Clark, Holland etc.)
Considering it's 50/50 the Wild finish above the Ducks in the standings next season if you really are interested in acquiring Burns you would likely need to include Ryan.
Honestly, this post is like me saying since the Ducks aren't going anywhere next season why wouldn't they trade Getzlaf to the Wild.
If you want Ryan you know you'd have to add right? Im okay with trading ryan IF the wild add pieces on top of burns but burns for ryan straight up is ridiculous.
IMO my list was a good attempt value wise. I know they're were a few big stretches, and those were just the players I was interested in acquiring from those teams which didn't have many other young players. Their only young players just happened to be stars in the league. Obviously some of those the wild would have to add or vice versa, some are untradeable (stamkos,backstrom,datsyuk,P. kane,etc) and I understand that, but most of the guys I listed on that list were pretty fair deals. Burns would be a beast on your team.
As a Wild fan, I've said this all along....The only guy I would trade Burns for is Bobby Ryan.
The kicker is a lot of these trade proposals are (mediocre player) + (prospect) + (pick). That would make sense if Burns was not going to re-sign, or if it was a deadline deal, or if the Wild were rebuilding. But right now, Burns has two years on his contract, loves it here, and the Wild are just on the outside looking in on a playoff spot.
The only way Burns gets traded is in return for a young top line scorer. Maybe a player/prospect/pick gets added to even things out, but our GM is not dumb enough to move a really talented player who has two years on his deal at a very good cap hit for a package of mediocre players or gambles.
This is not a Toronto Fans + Kaberle situation with the Wild Fans and Burns. We are not the ones saying that the only way Burns is traded is for a top line winger or a top tier center.
We are simply parroting what our GM and pretty much the entire organization has stated since the new order took over.
FYI: We have a new GM. You might have heard of Cliff Fletcher. It’s Chuck Fletcher, his son. Don’t forget this fact, since Risebrough is gone, you can’t trick us into trading a draft pick for Chris Simon.
So when we have a GM that is saying (paraphrasing, but close):
We aren’t looking to trade Brent Burns.
If there was a good offer on the table, where a top line sniper or a top tier center were on the table, we would be stupid not to consider it.
So yeah, it would take a pretty big name to pry Brent Burns from us, so don’t throw in (crap you want to dump) + (mid-round pick).
Did I say that all these palyers were the same talent level? Obviously not. Obviously toronto would have to add other stuff. Have you not read my other post? How about switch Bozak with Kessel....are you happy then? Toronto has nothing the wild are interested in. Those deals would be the main pieces that would come back. They're would be other variables and some just won't happen but I like those players so that's why I put them in there. Most of them are fair value.
My list to acquire Brent Burns.....
Anaheim-Ryan
Dallas-Neal
Colorado-Duchene
Washington-Backstrom Tampa Bay-Stamkos
Philadelphia-Carter
Detroit-Datsyuk
Chicago-Kane
I could have kept more as well, but these are the ones that really struck me...
Did I say that all these palyers were the same talent level? Obviously not. Obviously toronto would have to add other stuff. Have you not read my other post? How about switch Bozak with Kessel....are you happy then? Toronto has nothing the wild are interested in. Those deals would be the main pieces that would come back. They're would be other variables and some just won't happen but I like those players so that's why I put them in there. Most of them are fair value.
Neither alpine4life nor karlssonlee had any clue what you said. They should probably learn to read.
You weren't saying that those were viable trade options for Burns. You said that those names would have to be involved for Burns to be moved out.
You were only saying that Burns isn't going to be moved unless it's a major, major overpayment.
I think most of the posters mocking that list is not getting the point.
Anaheim-Ryan
Dallas-Neal
Colorado-Duchene
Washington-Backstrom
Tampa Bay-Stamkos
Philadelphia-Carter
Detroit-Datsyuk
Chicago-Kane
The poster named guys we would trade for Burns. Perhaps you could extend it a little (adding Getzlaf or Toews) but the point is, if it isn't one of them, we're not moving him. Overpay or we'll gladly keep our potential top pairing defenseman thank you very much.
So lets just make this simple. Think one for one deals. If the player we are acquiring does not have the same amount of talent as Burns, Burns isn't moving. We do not want a package deal.
I think most of the posters mocking that list is not getting the point.
Anaheim-Ryan
Dallas-Neal
Colorado-Duchene
Washington-Backstrom
Tampa Bay-Stamkos
Philadelphia-Carter
Detroit-Datsyuk
Chicago-Kane
The poster named guys we would trade for Burns. Perhaps you could extend it a little (adding Getzlaf or Toews) but the point is, if it isn't one of them, we're not moving him. Overpay or we'll gladly keep our potential top pairing defenseman thank you very much.
So lets just make this simple. Think one for one deals. If the player we are acquiring does not have the same amount of talent as Burns, Burns isn't moving. We do not want a package deal.
It's even more simple than that.
If Tampa Bay called the Wild, and asked for Burns, Fletcher would respond, "i am hanging up the phone unless Stamkos is coming to Minnesota." That doesn't mean that Burns is as valuable as Stamkos. It means that Stamkos has to be in play or the Wild aren't interested.
Lupul+Gardiner+2nd is fair value IMO, but value clearly isnt what Minny fans want here, as they feel their team isnt rebuilding, fair enough. Bobby Ryan's Value >>> Burns Value at the moment. Burns value is low because of his injuries in recent seasons. Which is exactly why he wont be moved, as much as I would love him in Anaheim. And, I can save a few pages, by saying that the other 5 times this thread has been brought up, it ended in Lupul for Schultz.
Lupul+Gardiner+2nd is fair value IMO, but value clearly isnt what Minny fans want here, as they feel their team isnt rebuilding, fair enough. Bobby Ryan's Value >>> Burns Value at the moment. Burns value is low because of his injuries in recent seasons. Which is exactly why he wont be moved, as much as I would love him in Anaheim. And, I can save a few pages, by saying that the other 5 times this thread has been brought up, it ended in Lupul for Schultz.
How so?
Lupul = 50pt winger. Has a quite heavy contract (4.25/yr)
Gardiner = Very good prospect but boom/bust type. Still raw.
2nd = 2nd
FOR
Burns = Good #3 defenseman. Many times have shown ability to be a very good #1 defenseman, needs to do it on a consistent basis.
Schultz for Lupul seems like a good deal, both overpaid slightly, both fixes holes in both teams.
But to put Burn's into perspective, Burn's value is alot better than Schultz, meaning he is worth more than just Gardiner and a 2nd.
Lupul is not an upgrade over Brunette, Lats, or Kobasew. Nor even the RWs of Havlat, Bouchard, and Miettinen. So, Lupul isn't "filling" any hole.
Morever, trading Schultz would create a hole on the blueline.
That deal would just make the Wild worse, and force them to take on even more salary.
The hole I'm referring to is a skilled top six forward that can score a solid amount of goals. You have Havlat - Cullen - Latendresse as a fixed line. Then you have Koivu and Brunette, who needs someone to score some goals. Miettinen is not a top six foward. PMB can only pass and Kobasew is a good bottom six player.
On the blueline, you have Burns, Schultz, Zidlicky, Zanon, Barker, Stoner. Giving away Schultz does make the defense worse by a good bit, but you have to give to get. And looking at the d-man now, I think a team that lacks goal scoring and have 5-6 decent dman can afford to lose Schultz (of course, in order for a forward)
When's the last time he played even close to a full season? That should effect trade value, no?
Toronto would trade you Kaberle, but you'd have to add Klutterbuck because he's a "Burke type player." Maybe Cuma too, since Kaberle's an elite defenseman, that for some reason or another, you guys need wether you do or not, right?
The hole I'm referring to is a skilled top six forward that can score a solid amount of goals. You have Havlat - Cullen - Latendresse as a fixed line. Then you have Koivu and Brunette, who needs someone to score some goals. Miettinen is not a top six foward. PMB can only pass and Kobasew is a good bottom six player.
On the blueline, you have Burns, Schultz, Zidlicky, Zanon, Barker, Stoner. Giving away Schultz does make the defense worse by a good bit, but you have to give to get. And looking at the d-man now, I think a team that lacks goal scoring and have 5-6 decent dman can afford to lose Schultz (of course, in order for a forward)
The part you are not seeing is that Lupul is not the guy the Wild are looking for. He's a LW, and he's not even an upgrade over Miettinen.
