HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Min-NYR

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-30-2011, 10:19 PM
  #26
MK9
Registered User
 
MK9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Andover, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
Really, so they wouldn't want to go younger, get a solid young offensive defenseman
No. We have a glut of quality up and coming solid defensemen.

MK9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:20 PM
  #27
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
Jim Carrey had a hell of rookie year as well.
Really, so let's compare a 20 year old defender to a 2nd year (it wasn't his rookie year, smartass) goaltender who won a vezina during a season that he was playing at an inhuman level.

Quote:
I apologize for real life getting in the way watching 82 Rangers games a year.
I apologize for having the decency of thinking I was talking to someone who had a clue of what he was talking about.

Again, quote me where I said you should watch 82 games a year of an out of market team? You should watch at least enough to know what you're talking about before you run your mouth off without having a clue.

Quote:
I doubt that, but there is really now way to prove it either way. So let's move on.
I don't have a single doubt about that.

Quote:
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.
I love when people on here say things with such certainty like they're apart of some team's front office, or they're the general manager themselves.

I admittedly don't know exactly what it would take to get Brent Burns, but that is a pretty damn good offer, and it's better than some of the crap offers you'll see from fans of other teams on here that are notorious for posting crap for quality proposals.

What the hell do you think you're getting for Burns? Taylor Hall?

Quote:
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.
LMFAO. Have fun kid, thank god you're not a general manager.

"Much better than you're offering."

HAHA, wow.

Quote:
Your post at 9:10 PM said "Really, so they wouldn't want to get younger..." forgetting, of course, that Burns is also young.
Again, where does it specifically say that I think Barker is "over the hill".

Keep searching, eventually, I bet you'll find it somewhere in that distorted mind of yours.

Quote:
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".
Depends on what the scenario is. Right now he has a 1 year after this at 4 mill, and then he's a UFA. I hope you're not expecting core pieces for a 1 year rental that's due for a decent raise.

Quote:
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.
Go right ahead, there's not a bad trade that Sather has made as the GM of the Rangers. I dare you to go find one. I said it was a bad trade. I mentioned the Havlat trade as it seems Minnesota likes to acquire injury prone players. I'm not taking a shot at Havlat's skill level, but moreso Minnesota's knack of finding the players that get hurt often.

Quote:
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.
Well, that was mismanagement on the Twins' part. They could have had a decent package of players from the Yankees including Melky Cabrera (decent 3rd/4th outfielder), Ian Kennedy (had a very good year in 10) and a couple of other pitching prospects, most notably Steven Jackson (who is high up in the Yankees' organizational rankings and has some potential).

Quote:
Bump this thread when Del Zotto and Grachev become impact players.
*Bump*?

I guess a near 40 point rookie season for a defenseman doesn't make a player an impact player at this point.

Now, if you want to say "stars" or "Del Zotto becomes as good as Burns" then sure.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:26 PM
  #28
Wraparounds
Powerful Wizard
 
Wraparounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,381
vCash: 500
Eh, Minny would be crazy to deal Burns except for some serious overpayment. I don't see why they would trade him.

Wraparounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:29 PM
  #29
JeffMangum
Ra shi da
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 55,630
vCash: 300
Lisin for Korpicowski is a bad Sather trade. Not a huge one, but still bad.

__________________

#TannerGlass2014
SEEN YOUR VIDEO!
#SheWentToHarvard
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:33 PM
  #30
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraparounds View Post
Eh, Minny would be crazy to deal Burns except for some serious overpayment. I don't see why they would trade him.
I don't either, but I still think that's a decent deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
Lisin for Korpicowski is a bad Sather trade. Not a huge one, but still bad.
Really?

Korpikoski might not even be playing in this lineup dude.

Not a deal that's going to hurt at all.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:34 PM
  #31
JeffMangum
Ra shi da
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 55,630
vCash: 300
A solid bottom-6er is better than a hockey stupid headcase who isn't even with the team anymore.

JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:40 PM
  #32
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
A solid bottom-6er is better than a hockey stupid headcase who isn't even with the team anymore.
Still don't think it's a bad trade when you have an excess of bottom 6'ers that are more talented.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:44 PM
  #33
Wraparounds
Powerful Wizard
 
Wraparounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
Lisin for Korpicowski is a bad Sather trade. Not a huge one, but still bad.
I think Korpedo would fit in on this team. I hated Lisin.

Wraparounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:46 PM
  #34
usernam*
#TeamSuccess
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
Still don't think it's a bad trade when you have an excess of bottom 6'ers that are more talented.
Bro, just stop, you're the only one here who thinks this is an acceptable deal.

usernam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 10:59 PM
  #35
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
 
Dr Jan Itor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 9,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
Really, so let's compare a 20 year old defender to a 2nd year (it wasn't his rookie year, smartass) goaltender who won a vezina during a season that he was playing at an inhuman level.
2 young players that had good years early on. Until Del Zotto comes back to the NHL, they are comparable.

Quote:
I apologize for having the decency of thinking I was talking to someone who had a clue of what he was talking about.

Again, quote me where I said you should watch 82 games a year of an out of market team? You should watch at least enough to know what you're talking about before you run your mouth off without having a clue.
How many Wild games do you watch? You are forming an opinion on Burns' worth, how often do you see him play? I've said I know very little about the Rangers, how about yourself?

Quote:
I don't have a single doubt about that.
Fantastic. It doesn't matter and it doesn't mean you're right, and it makes you seem really petty and obnoxious.

Quote:
I love when people on here say things with such certainty like they're apart of some team's front office, or they're the general manager themselves.
So you mean everybody who has ever posted in this forum? Forgive us for actually trying to put ourselves in the GM's shoes or think like an owner, not somebody trying to make a "fair" trade in (EA Sports: It's in the game)'s NHL 2011.

Quote:
I admittedly don't know exactly what it would take to get Brent Burns, but that is a pretty damn good offer, and it's better than some of the crap offers you'll see from fans of other teams on here that are notorious for posting crap for quality proposals.
It is a good. It would be one of many good offers should he be made available (and, in my opinion, it wouldn't be enough to compete)

Quote:
What the hell do you think you're getting for Burns? Taylor Hall?
I don't think we're getting anybody for him, because I don't think we are trading him, if we do, I certainly hope it's not for 2 AHL players and draft pick (because that is what was offered. Like it or not, whatever DZ did last year, he is an AHL player right now).

Quote:
LMFAO. Have fun kid, thank god you're not a general manager.

"Much better than you're offering."

HAHA, wow.
I will have fun, old timer.

Quote:
Again, where does it specifically say that I think Barker is "over the hill".

Keep searching, eventually, I bet you'll find it somewhere in that distorted mind of yours.
You didn't say Barker was "over the hill" and I didn't say you did. Nickschultzfan said, "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." And you said, "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?"

We weren't talking about Barker yet, we were talking about Burns. And no, getting younger doesn't help when you are also downgrading your talent level.

Quote:
Depends on what the scenario is. Right now he has a 1 year after this at 4 mill, and then he's a UFA. I hope you're not expecting core pieces for a 1 year rental that's due for a decent raise.
I would be, actually, because "1 year rental" is rediculously stated. It would be a 2 playoffs rental, and an all-star player to boot. Definitely worthy of more than 2 AHL players and a pick.

Quote:
Go right ahead, there's not a bad trade that Sather has made as the GM of the Rangers. I dare you to go find one. I said it was a bad trade. I mentioned the Havlat trade as it seems Minnesota likes to acquire injury prone players. I'm not taking a shot at Havlat's skill level, but moreso Minnesota's knack of finding the players that get hurt often.
I said acquisition, not trade, and you signed Boogaard for $1.4 million. Done. Havlat has played in every game (or close to) this year. Name another injury proned player that we have acquired. So far, both our teams have one.

Quote:
Well, that was mismanagement on the Twins' part. They could have had a decent package of players from the Yankees including Melky Cabrera (decent 3rd/4th outfielder), Ian Kennedy (had a very good year in 10) and a couple of other pitching prospects, most notably Steven Jackson (who is high up in the Yankees' organizational rankings and has some potential).
Neither of pieces are worth a Cy Young pitcher. We should've taken Boston's offer of Lester ++ but this isn't an MLB board. This was just an example.

Quote:
*Bump*?

I guess a near 40 point rookie season for a defenseman doesn't make a player an impact player at this point.

Now, if you want to say "stars" or "Del Zotto becomes as good as Burns" then sure.
I'm sorry, you might not like to hear it, but it doesn't make him one. Especially if he can't keep it up long enough not to get sent to the minors the next year. Defensemen have to play in all 3 zones, and Burns does that better than Del Zotto every will. And, yes, bump this thread when Del Zotto and Grachev become impact players.

Dr Jan Itor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 11:00 PM
  #36
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraparounds View Post
I think Korpedo would fit in on this team. I hated Lisin.
That's not the matter at hand though.

The question is, who would they move out of the lineup for him?

You have an excess of forwards once Callahan, Dubinsky, and Prospal get back, and there's no way I'm keeping Korpikoski in the lineup over Zucarello, Prust, Boyle, or Avery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burns4Norris View Post
Bro, just stop, you're the only one here who thinks this is an acceptable deal.
1. Don't call me bro, because I'm not your bro.

2. The post that you're quoting me on is something COMPLETELY different from the Burns deal, so learn how to read, and get your **** straight before coming on with some wise guy post like this when you have no clue of what's actually being discussed at this point.

3. As for the OP, go find something better for all I care, because I'd love to see people offering up what Minnesota fans seem to think they're going to get for him.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 11:09 PM
  #37
usernam*
#TeamSuccess
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
That's not the matter at hand though.

The question is, who would they move out of the lineup for him?

You have an excess of forwards once Callahan, Dubinsky, and Prospal get back, and there's no way I'm keeping Korpikoski in the lineup over Zucarello, Prust, Boyle, or Avery.



1. Don't call me bro, because I'm not your bro.

2. The post that you're quoting me on is something COMPLETELY different from the Burns deal, so learn how to read, and get your **** straight before coming on with some wise guy post like this when you have no clue of what's actually being discussed at this point.

3. As for the OP, go find something better for all I care, because I'd love to see people offering up what Minnesota fans seem to think they're going to get for him.
Bro, I only quoted that post because it was your shortest one. Stop acting like you're so much better and badass than everyone else here, ok bro?

usernam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 11:11 PM
  #38
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post

I love when people on here say things with such certainty like they're apart of some team's front office, or they're the general manager themselves.

I admittedly don't know exactly what it would take to get Brent Burns, but that is a pretty damn good offer, and it's better than some of the crap offers you'll see from fans of other teams on here that are notorious for posting crap for quality proposals.

What the hell do you think you're getting for Burns? Taylor Hall?
No, but we're expecting names like Dubinsky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
Depends on what the scenario is. Right now he has a 1 year after this at 4 mill, and then he's a UFA. I hope you're not expecting core pieces for a 1 year rental that's due for a decent raise.
No, we're actually expect 5+ years of Burns. Also, Burns isn't considered a rental till this season is over, which it isn't, so yeah, we're expecting core pieces for this "2 year rental" thats due for a decent raise (which we are very willing to give)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
Go right ahead, there's not a bad trade that Sather has made as the GM of the Rangers. I dare you to go find one. I said it was a bad trade. I mentioned the Havlat trade as it seems Minnesota likes to acquire injury prone players. I'm not taking a shot at Havlat's skill level, but moreso Minnesota's knack of finding the players that get hurt often.
Havlat trade?

Circulartheory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 11:15 PM
  #39
JeffMangum
Ra shi da
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 55,630
vCash: 300
Coldshot, calm down. It's a hockey forum, not the end of the world, and it certainly doesn't decide what actually happens 99.99999999999% of the time. You're entitled to your opinion, and Wild fans are entitled to theirs. There is no clean cut answer.

In my opinion, the Wild could get much more. I would even give up more from a Rangers perspective, but Burns won't be traded. We're talking about names like Callahan/Dubinsky/Kreider to get Minnesota interested here, and since we're not interested in trading those players, I don't see a deal working out between the teams.

Bottom line, Minnesota would need either a significant forward upgrade, or a bundle of high picks and prospects if they wanted to trade Burns. He loves Minnesota, so I don't think they need to worry about him re-signing.

JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2011, 11:19 PM
  #40
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
Coldshot, calm down. It's a hockey forum, not the end of the world, and it certainly doesn't decide what actually happens 99.99999999999% of the time. You're entitled to your opinion, and Wild fans are entitled to theirs. There is no clean cut answer.

In my opinion, the Wild could get much more. I would even give up more from a Rangers perspective, but Burns won't be traded. We're talking about names like Callahan/Dubinsky/Kreider to get Minnesota interested here, and since we're not interested in trading those players, I don't see a deal working out between the teams.

Bottom line, Minnesota would need either a significant forward upgrade, or a bundle of high picks and prospects if they wanted to trade Burns. He loves Minnesota, so I don't think they need to worry about him re-signing.
If the Wild would be interested in trading Burns, it would be more along the lines of a 1-for-1 deal instead of Burns for prospects.

So I agree, something of a significant forward upgrade but I might be mistaken but I was also under the assumption Rangers were looking for goal scoring as well, which makes the Wild and Rangers bad trading partners.

Circulartheory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 12:11 AM
  #41
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor View Post
2 young players that had good years early on. Until Del Zotto comes back to the NHL, they are comparable.
Again another bi-product of you not knowing how the world is revolving outside of Minnesota. Del Zotto's already back.

Keep reading The Hockey News for your info, or whatever magazine you're getting it from, because you're behind the times.

Quote:
How many Wild games do you watch? You are forming an opinion on Burns' worth, how often do you see him play? I've said I know very little about the Rangers, how about yourself?
As someone that has center ice, I tune into various games on various nights. In total, I'd say around 10-15 games a year for Minnesota, as they bore me for the most part, and whatever games that the Rangers face the Wild in.

I've seen him play enough to know that he's having a good season, but a player that's under contract for only 1 more year is still a rental, regardless of how you twist it. He's a UFA after 2012 that's due for a raise, especially with the year he's having.

Quote:
Fantastic. It doesn't matter and it doesn't mean you're right, and it makes you seem really petty and obnoxious.
I'd rather seem petty and obnoxious than be without a clue.

No point of coming into "trade rumor" boards that would involve the dicussion of players from other teams when you have absolutely no clue of what's going on outside of Minnesota.

Quote:
So you mean everybody who has ever posted in this forum? Forgive us for actually trying to put ourselves in the GM's shoes or think like an owner, not somebody trying to make a "fair" trade in (EA Sports: It's in the game)'s NHL 2011.
Nah, just people who make absurd statements like the one you made before, acting like they know what their team's general manager is thinking.

Quote:
It is a good. It would be one of many good offers should he be made available (and, in my opinion, it wouldn't be enough to compete)
First it's terrible, now it's good... choose a stance and stay with it. Not hard to do.

Quote:
I don't think we're getting anybody for him, because I don't think we are trading him, if we do, I certainly hope it's not for 2 AHL players and draft pick (because that is what was offered. Like it or not, whatever DZ did last year, he is an AHL player right now).
Again, Del Zotto is not in the AHL anymore. He went down for a total of 10 games, and has played 37 games at the NHL level this year.

You might want to actually do some research about the people that you're talking about before you look like a fool like you do now.

Quote:
I will have fun, old timer.
Cool story. I care.

Quote:
You didn't say Barker was "over the hill" and I didn't say you did.
Ok, so then why did you post that as to imply that I was implying that he was over the hill?

Nickschultzfan said, "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." And you said, "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?"

Quote:
We weren't talking about Barker yet, we were talking about Burns. And no, getting younger doesn't help when you are also downgrading your talent level.
Either way, if it's Barker or Burns, they're only a year apart, so what you just said really doesn't matter. I find it hard to believe that a team, if forced to or wanted to trade a guy like Burns wouldn't want a defender like Del Zotto who is younger and on an entry level deal still and can be a more than viable puck-moving defender on any team in this league.

Quote:
I would be, actually, because "1 year rental" is rediculously stated. It would be a 2 playoffs rental, and an all-star player to boot. Definitely worthy of more than 2 AHL players and a pick.
How is that "ridiculously stated"?

In total, assuming you make the first round of the playoffs this year and next, you get about 110 or so games of him overall. Just a roundabout number. 120 games of Burns isn't worth Dubinsky, Callahan, and a 1st, like you seem to think it is.

Quote:
I said acquisition, not trade, and you signed Boogaard for $1.4 million. Done. Havlat has played in every game (or close to) this year. Name another injury proned player that we have acquired. So far, both our teams have one.
I honestly don't care about how many injury prone players Minnesota has signed or traded for. The Barker trade was stupid regardless, and counter-productive for a team that's nowhere close to being a legit threat for a cup, and even then, Cam Barker is what they trade one of their best prospects for? Ouch.

Quote:
I'm sorry, you might not like to hear it, but it doesn't make him one. Especially if he can't keep it up long enough not to get sent to the minors the next year. Defensemen have to play in all 3 zones, and Burns does that better than Del Zotto every will. And, yes, bump this thread when Del Zotto and Grachev become impact players.
This whole entire paragraph looks like you stuck your head in your rear end just to see how much crap could come out of your mouth at one time.

"Can't keep it up long enough to not get sent to the minors next year"?

"Defenseman play in all 3 zones"?

"Burns is better than Del Zotto will ever be"?

Layoff the Green and Red Kool-aid, kid. Del Zotto got sent down because of a lack of confidence. The kid is 20 years old and had a tremendous rookie year on a mediocre team. Of course Burns is better right now, he's been in this league since 05-06. He was drafted 5 years before Del Zotto. Who's to say Del Zotto doesn't work on his defense and become better than Burns? Who's to say Del Zotto doesn't pan out to be a 60+ point a year defender? You've got some nerve to sit here and act like Del Zotto's career is over because of one short stint in the minors in his sophomore year. I guess sophomore slumps have never happened before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burns4Norris View Post
Bro, I only quoted that post because it was your shortest one. Stop acting like you're so much better and badass than everyone else here, ok bro?
You're not even worth a further response at this point, so don't even bother replying to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post
No, but we're expecting names like Dubinsky.
LMFAO OK. The kid was on pace for a 30-30-60 season before he got hurt, and is going to be locked up once this season is over. Keep dreaming.

Quote:
No, we're actually expect 5+ years of Burns. Also, Burns isn't considered a rental till this season is over, which it isn't, so yeah, we're expecting core pieces for this "2 year rental" thats due for a decent raise (which we are very willing to give)
Actually, he's a rental until he gets signed to a new deal. So if you want to sign him, and then deal him (doesn't make sense unless you need/want forward help that bad) then you can start mentioning Dubinsky in trade proposals.

Quote:
Havlat trade?
Sorry, signing.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 12:41 AM
  #42
OnTheFence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
LMFAO OK. The kid was on pace for a 30-30-60 season before he got hurt, and is going to be locked up once this season is over. Keep dreaming.
Couldn't the same be said about Burns, minus the injury part?
He's on pace for a 24-30-54 season, as a defender, on an offensively starved team...

OnTheFence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 12:41 AM
  #43
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
LMFAO OK. The kid was on pace for a 30-30-60 season before he got hurt, and is going to be locked up once this season is over. Keep dreaming.
Thing is, I'm dreaming of 5+ years of Burns more than a 5+ years of 30-30-60 seasons from Dubinsky.

And Burns is on pace for a 24-29-53 season as a defenseman. And he plays physical, matches against top opposing lines, plays the PK, runs the powerplay, and is only 25 years old. So yeah...

Quote:
Actually, he's a rental until he gets signed to a new deal. So if you want to sign him, and then deal him (doesn't make sense unless you need/want forward help that bad) then you can start mentioning Dubinsky in trade proposals.
If we traded him today, he still wouldn't be considered a rental. And we are hypothetically making these trades today. Rentals are players that you acquire for a good playoff push and thats it (around 3 months of play). Burns will give you 1 1/2 seasons worth as well as 1 1/2 season of negotiation time. So we're expecting something very good IF we trade Burns (which will not happen since Wild fans want overpayment, and no one is willing to overpay)

Circulartheory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 12:47 AM
  #44
OnTheFence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post
Thing is, I'm dreaming of 5+ years of Burns more than a 5+ years of 30-30-60 seasons from Dubinsky.

And Burns is on pace for a 24-29-53 season as a defenseman. And he plays physical, matches against top opposing lines, plays the PK, runs the powerplay, and is only 25 years old. So yeah...
Copycat!

OnTheFence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 12:56 AM
  #45
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
Couldn't the same be said about Burns, minus the injury part?
He's on pace for a 24-30-54 season, as a defender, on an offensively starved team...
I'm not knocking Burns at all, I just don't feel he's worth what some of you guys are asking for, especially with the raise he's going to get on July 1st, 2012.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post
Thing is, I'm dreaming of 5+ years of Burns more than a 5+ years of 30-30-60 seasons from Dubinsky.
Fine by me.

Quote:
And Burns is on pace for a 24-29-53 season as a defenseman. And he plays physical, matches against top opposing lines, plays the PK, runs the powerplay, and is only 25 years old. So yeah...
Yeah it seems like there's similarities.

- Young? 24 years old... Check.
- On pace for a career year? Check.
- Physical? Most definitely. Check.
- Plays very well in all game situations? Check.

Yeah Dubinsky is the jack of all trades for the Rangers, and on top of that, his offensive development has taken a spike that some thought it would never take.

I would want a little more back with Burns, like a conditional 1st or 2nd if I'm dealing Dubinsky simply because of the fact that Dubinsky while only being a year younger is restricted, as Burns is unrestricted, and is going to command more money as a UFA.

Quote:
If we traded him today, he still wouldn't be considered a rental. And we are hypothetically making these trades today. Rentals are players that you acquire for a good playoff push and thats it (around 3 months of play). Burns will give you 1 1/2 seasons worth as well as 1 1/2 season of negotiation time. So we're expecting something very good IF we trade Burns (which will not happen since Wild fans want overpayment, and no one is willing to overpay)
It's not a 20 game rental, no, but it's a rental compared to giving up a core piece that's still under control even once this current deal ends (someone like Dubinsky or Callahan).

It's fine to want an overpayment for him, however I just don't see that happening. Honestly when you think about it, the Kovalchuk and Hossa deals were 20 game rentals, and they didn't even get that much, and they're legitimate SUPERSTAR players. Burns is a young emerging star. I mean there's still a little bit of an unknown element with him. Is this year his career year, and does he go back to being a 30 point defender? I don't think that's gonna happen, but part of his upcoming deal will be paid upon potential.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 01:58 AM
  #46
grN1g
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 1,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
I'm not knocking Burns at all, I just don't feel he's worth what some of you guys are asking for, especially with the raise he's going to get on July 1st, 2012.



Fine by me.



Yeah it seems like there's similarities.

- Young? 24 years old... Check.
- On pace for a career year? Check.
- Physical? Most definitely. Check.
- Plays very well in all game situations? Check.

Yeah Dubinsky is the jack of all trades for the Rangers, and on top of that, his offensive development has taken a spike that some thought it would never take.

I would want a little more back with Burns, like a conditional 1st or 2nd if I'm dealing Dubinsky simply because of the fact that Dubinsky while only being a year younger is restricted, as Burns is unrestricted, and is going to command more money as a UFA.



It's not a 20 game rental, no, but it's a rental compared to giving up a core piece that's still under control even once this current deal ends (someone like Dubinsky or Callahan).

It's fine to want an overpayment for him, however I just don't see that happening. Honestly when you think about it, the Kovalchuk and Hossa deals were 20 game rentals, and they didn't even get that much, and they're legitimate SUPERSTAR players. Burns is a young emerging star. I mean there's still a little bit of an unknown element with him. Is this year his career year, and does he go back to being a 30 point defender? I don't think that's gonna happen, but part of his upcoming deal will be paid upon potential.
I think Burn's deciding if he wants to stay in Minnesota for the rest of his career will be a factor in his new contract. Hes said before he loves it here, and with his family all settled i wonder would he try to sign a long contract.

grN1g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 02:09 AM
  #47
usernam*
#TeamSuccess
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldshot View Post
I'm not knocking Burns at all, I just don't feel he's worth what some of you guys are asking for, especially with the raise he's going to get on July 1st, 2012.

I would want a little more back with Burns, like a conditional 1st or 2nd if I'm dealing Dubinsky simply because of the fact that Dubinsky while only being a year younger is restricted, as Burns is unrestricted, and is going to command more money as a UFA.


I mean there's still a little bit of an unknown element with him. Is this year his career year, and does he go back to being a 30 point defender? I don't think that's gonna happen, but part of his upcoming deal will be paid upon potential.
It's funny how blind you are right now. You're saying Burns+ is equal to Dubinsky (you're the only one on hfboards who thinks that).

But I'll tell you what. I'll keep Burns, get a late first round pick, and draft a Dubinsky. I'll have my 30-30-60 guy and an elite defender, you keep your 30-30-60 guy and... McIlrath...

You do know that Burns had a 40 point season even before his injury, right?

In conclusion, a Burns is a hell of a lot rarer than a Dubinsky.

usernam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 03:44 AM
  #48
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Koster, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,647
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
Do not know the relevanace here, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Burns

Quote:
On October 25, 2007, during the 2007-08 season, Burns signed a four-year contract extension with the Wild. Burns emerged as the Wild's best defenseman, establishing a career-high 15 goals and 43 points.

In the 2008-09 season, Burns was shifted between forward and defense with mild success, before he was hampered by a concussion which caused him to miss the final 19 games of the season. Burns' concussion was later a point of scrutiny when his Agent, Ron Salcer, stipulated that Wild staff had misdiagnosed his symptoms for 6-weeks with sinusitis, putting Burns at an increased health risk. Burns then had shoulder surgery upon the completion of the Wild season. He finished the injury-marred campaign with 27 points.

Burns suffered another concussion briefly into his 2009-10 season and started to skate again on January 14. He finished another injury-filled season with 20 points in 47 games.

BBKers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 04:24 AM
  #49
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,315
vCash: 500
Minnesota doesn't need anymore puck moving defensemen.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-31-2011, 04:46 AM
  #50
WildisLaw
Just win, baby
 
WildisLaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Napa Valley, Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 50
Enough with the bickering. I found the solution. Barker for MDZ But seriously, bad trading partners. Wild would only part for first line winger for Burns, nothing less. He won't be traded anyways. Cannot wait for the day he signs his extensions because I am tired of Burns proposals. Not that this proposal was even close to some of the horrible ones I've seen. I watch the rangers, I love MDZ. I would love him on the Wild but I love Burns more. Hell of a player the Rangers have there. Wish him well. /thread please unless you want to talk about Barker, UFA's, or defensive prospects. Nothing pisses off the Wild faithful like a Burns proposal. Now you know. Thank you for your time.

WildisLaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.