Burns has yet to fully develop as a defenseman and there is questions if he will ever hit his upside or if he'll just be a solid top 4 defenseman. There is also questions surrounding how much it will cost to keep him or if he will look into free agency.
Please.
He's already a top 2 defenseman on most any team in the league. Almost universally regarded as a top 15-20 defenseman in the entire NHL. As a 26 year old who's only been playing the position for 8-9 years. Not to mention his skill set and frame. Any team in the league would kill to have that talent on their squad. He's worth much more than the #5 overall by himself.
And there's not much question as to what he'll cost, nor where he wants to be.
__________________
After Meaningless Win - 3/29/12 - Game 77 | SoH-"Who knows, that could have cost us a Cup tonight." | Dooohkay
I agree. I think Burns would command at least a #1 overall pick & probably a prospect too.
Look at the Leafs, they gave up like 3 number 1 picks for Kessle. Id rather have Burns then Kessle...
He may have some question marks but nothing to show that he's not worth more than a #5 pick alone.. I think you undervalue Burns a bit. If the Wild said Burns for your 5th the hockey world would laugh at us for doing that trade. Burns is proven, a draft pick, regardless of how high up is not.
He's already a top 2 defenseman on most any team in the league. Almost universally regarded as a top 15-20 defenseman in the entire NHL. As a 26 year old who's only been playing the position for 8-9 years. Not to mention his skill set and frame. Any team in the league would kill to have that talent on their squad. He's worth much more than the #5 overall by himself.
And there's not much question as to what he'll cost, nor where he wants to be.
On some teams.
And not really universally regarded...
Again the question isn't really his skills, it's how long. If Minnesota traded him to a team he didn't want, they have a year.
And once again, a lot of teams would be hesitant to move Burns for a top 5 pick and then have him walk the next year. There is no question regarding his upside or his skills if he reaches them, but there is question of how long and most teams unless it is a playoff run don't move top picks for a guy that might not be there.
Frankly, Minnesota does not have the ability to move up in the draft.
Actually there is.
Remember Koivu? Everyone thought around 5-6 million and then he signs for 6.75 million?
I do not like Salcer as an agent. I think Burns at least makes 6.5 million, if not more.
As for Kessel, that was considered one of the most idiotic moves in the past decade and it was more of an offer sheet than a straight up trade.
It's not some. There's about 3-5 teams that have two, legitimately better defenseman.
There's a thread on the General board. Most everyone has him in their top 20. That's as universal as it gets. Especially here on HF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi
Again the question isn't really his skills, it's how long. If Minnesota traded him to a team he didn't want, they have a year.
Well, if a team is trading for him, they're not moving the type of player it would take to motivate Minnesota to move him if they're not positive they're going to keep Burns. That mindset doesn't enter the equation as he's not being traded as a rental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi
Actually there is.
Remember Koivu? Everyone thought around 5-6 million and then he signs for 6.75 million?
I do not like Salcer as an agent. I think Burns at least makes 6.5 million, if not more.
An extra 500-750k isn't going to handcuff any team. Especially when you're dealing with players you intend to build your team around.
Burns CAN be a top 20 defenseman when healthy and when his head is screwed on right. That's not always the case. I really don't think he's worth #1 overall by any means though. And I don't think the Wild would take that step backwards in going with a prospect over a player.
It's not some. There's about 3-5 teams that have two, legitimately better defenseman.
New York Rangers, Vancouver, Nashville, Detroit, Los Angeles Kings, Chicago, Boston Bruins, Philadelphia Flyers, Anaheim Ducks
Quote:
There's a thread on the General board. Most everyone has him in their top 20. That's as universal as it gets. Especially here on HF.
I wonder where most GMs would place him. He's inconsistent, which is a major factor (as evident by the many threads in the past season).
Quote:
Well, if a team is trading for him, they're not moving the type of player it would take to motivate Minnesota to move him if they're not positive they're going to keep Burns. That mindset doesn't enter the equation as he's not being traded as a rental.
He could definitely be moved as a rental if we don't get him under contract, and again that has to do with Salcer.
Quote:
An extra 500-750k isn't going to handcuff any team. Especially when you're dealing with players you intend to build your team around.
A million there, 500K there...yep that doesn't handcuff the team. Like Bouchard, like Cullen, like Nystrom, like Backstrom...
Burns CAN be a top 20 defenseman when healthy and when his head is screwed on right. That's not always the case. I really don't think he's worth #1 overall by any means though. And I don't think the Wild would take that step backwards in going with a prospect over a player.
Thank you, Jarick.
Quiet frankly, Burns is really the only asset we have to move that we can afford to really move if push comes to shove.
New York Rangers, Vancouver, Nashville, Detroit, Los Angeles Kings, Chicago, Boston Bruins, Philadelphia Flyers, Anaheim Ducks
That's your list? Again, I see Nashville, Philadelphia, Boston, and Detroit as having clearly two better defenseman. The rest, not as definite and you're definitely pushing on a few. Grabbing at straws at best.
If you don't think he's top 2 material, name 60 better defensemen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi
I wonder where most GMs would place him. He's inconsistent, which is a major factor (as evident by the many threads in the past season).
Yes, he's inconsistent. But we're talking about a player not yet in his prime that logs huge minutes, plays against opposing team's number one line, and in all situations. It's not uncommon that you're going to have a slip up. Especially when the team depth starts to dwindle over the coarse of the year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi
He could definitely be moved as a rental if we don't get him under contract, and again that has to do with Salcer.
The team isn't going to take pennies on the dollar for him by risking him going unsigned up until the deadline. He's not being traded as a rental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi
A million there, 500K there...yep that doesn't handcuff the team. Like Bouchard, like Cullen, like Nystrom, like Backstrom...
Koivu's 750k that you were concerned about is effecting those contracts how again? You sign your best players when you draft and develop them. You don't fret over 500k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi
Thank you, Jarick.
Quiet frankly, Burns is really the only asset we have to move that we can afford to really move if push comes to shove.
Ya, I know what you mean. Teams can always afford to move their best player at the most difficult position to draft, develop, and find. Especially when that player makes an impact in both ends. Not to mention taking unproven DRAFT PICKS in return.
Last edited by this providence: 06-16-2011 at 03:17 PM.
Bouchard isn't getting moved for 5th overall. He's a 60 point playmaker with concussion history. If they're moving 5th overall, they want a top pairing defenseman or a goal scorer.
5th overall for Jeff Carter might be a win-win if they weren't in the same conference.
Something built around that is probably what they have in mind. I don't see the Wild as ideal partners here.
If we could trade one good player and end up with the #5 and #10, I'd say jump on it. It would be more value than we tend to get out of our players anyway, especially ones in the final year of their contract next year.
I'd love to see us dangle Burns for the 5th overall. It would be a great kickoff to a proper rebuild. But knowing this management, fat chance. They're way too conservative to make a splash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN
Um...fyi Burns is already a number one all-star defenseman.
On this pathetic team, yes. On a Stanley Cup team, not a chance.
I'd love to see us dangle Burns for the 5th overall. It would be a great kickoff to a proper rebuild. But knowing this management, fat chance. They're way too conservative to make a splash.
On this pathetic team, yes. On a Stanley Cup team, not a chance.
Boo
What good would it do to just get a 5th overall pick for Brett Burns? There is no guarantee that the 5th would ever turn out much less turn out to have the talent level that Brett Burns has. Unless were getting some one who has shown some goal scoring abilities with that 5th overall pick that would be a negative trade. Do you just want to delay the process of putting a quality team on the ice?
Anyways, I'd rather keep us keep our all-star defensemen who happened to have the 3rd most goals among defensemen in the league last year.
How about his production? Or can we just shrug that off too? By some of the comments about Burns, you think that nearly every top four defensemen on all the teams in the league are the model of consistency game in game out. But the reality is that outside the absolute top tier of 5-6, Burns is in the very same boat as the tier on down.
How about his production? Or can we just shrug that off too? By some of the comments about Burns, you think that nearly every top four defensemen on all the teams in the league are the model of consistency game in game out. But the reality is that outside the absolute top tier of 5-6, Burns is in the very same boat as the tier on down.
Some are veterans, some are better.
Burns isn't really a shut down defenseman. He's not a defensive liability MOST of the time due to his skating but he is a classic Pronger type defenseman yet. He can get there.
Burns would make a strong second pairing on a team loaded with solid veterans. I would think on a team like the Bruins, he definitely could be a second pairing guy. On Vancouver 2nd pairing as well.
Burns isn't really a shut down defenseman. He's not a defensive liability MOST of the time due to his skating but he is a classic Pronger type defenseman yet. He can get there.
Burns would make a strong second pairing on a team loaded with solid veterans. I would think on a team like the Bruins, he definitely could be a second pairing guy. On Vancouver 2nd pairing as well.
He's not a true shutdown, but his overall game dictates his ice time. Whether that's on a thin Wild team or a deep playoff squad. You don't log 25+ minutes a game (top 15 at the position) and not have a strong defensive game as well.
Don't disagree that he would be second pairing on Boston. But Vancouver? Debatable but I'd lean no.
Ok, so from what I'm reading from people on here, some of us value Burns way differently...
I say Burns is worth waaaaay more than a 1st round, #5 draft pick and i would NEVER trade him for just that, I tried to make that clear earlier. Burns for the 5th is a terrible trade even with his contract expiring..
PMB, Nick Shultz or Havlat however I think any one of them would be a more than fair trade for just the 5th... I think people are overvaluing the 5th pick & slightly undervaluing any of the 3 I just mentioned. All though dicey at times with PMB & Havlat, either would be a fantastic addition to the Islanders squad. It adds depth to their forward corps who are already coming together fantasticly. You add PMB or Havlat when you already have Grabner, Moulson, Nielson, Tavares, Comeau, Parenteau, etc, that's a solid, SOLID line-up! The Isles had 5 guys score 20+ goals & 2 score 30+ or more. Plus Tavares had 29 and is still improving.
I think PMB or Havlat would be ideal for them. They fit all the criteria..
Now for Defense, the Isles biggest issue, I'd say besides goal (but Montoya looked promising) D is the Isles biggest problem & Shultzy, or even Zidlicky would be a huge pick up for them. He'd give them way more stability at the postiton. Or Zidlicky could give that extra scoring threat...
I'm not saying there's no other teams that could make great offers, but I am saying that it wouldnt take Burns to get that pick..
I see us as very good trade partners with the Isles & it would be nice to drop a 4mil+ contract & pick up 2 top 10 draft picks in the same season. Getting 2 big names that develope & come up together along with last years strong drafting could be amazing.
Hell if we didnt want two 1st round picks & we felt comfortable, we could probably trade our #10 for a late 1st rounder & also get a 2nd back...
Maybe I'm missing something but I see this as having some potential... IMO of coarse...
don't get me wrong tho, I would miss Havlat, PMB or Shultzy alot but like I said before, if we trust Fletchers drafting, & we pick up 2 solid scoring forwards. In 2-3 seasons we could be a powerhouse...
If Burns can produce on a pathetic team at an All-Star level, what's he going to do on Cup-caliber one?
Get pushed down the depth chart into an offensive depth role.
And besides, the issue with Burns isn't the offensive side of the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper
What good would it do to just get a 5th overall pick for Brett Burns?
What good? Maybe get better in the years ahead? A 5th overall pick could nab us a better player at a much younger age years away from the big contracts associated with unrestricted free agency.
Draft picks are no guarantees. And neither is hitching your wagon to a player that so far hasn't shown the ability to carry his team. That could be the biggest winning delay possible. I'd rather take my chances into the unknown, instead of the known that isn't good enough.
When valuing Brent Burns's value, you aren't taking into account his contract. For example, the Islanders would be bent over in a deal if the terms were the 5th for Burns and he just walked after this upcoming year. But it came up on an Islander messageboard and here was my proposal:
Blake Comeau, Jack Hillen, the 5th overall pick and the 50th overall pick for Brent Burns and the 10th overall pick. In addition, if Brent Burns does not sign an extention with the Islanders, the Islanders recieve the Wilds 2012 second round pick. On the reverse, if Brent Burns does sign an extention, The Wild recieve the Islanders 2012 second round pick.
A little breakdown for the Islander guys: Blake Comeau is 25, scored 24 goals and had 46 points as well as 120 hits last year and 182 shots. He has one rocket of a shot. He is currently an RFA. He played with Josh Bailey (dissapointing season) and a run of the mill other wingers such as Jon Sim and Rob Schremp. If he isn't traded in this mock trade, he would likely play with Bailey and Niedereitter. Jack Hillen being traded is more to create roster space but he definitely can bring the speed and is a good puck mover. He has the tendency to get crunched but can deliver a few hipchecks every now and then. And the other two (possibly three) pieces are picks.
You guys probably won't like it, but see it from the perspective I put out above. Realistically, Burns as a player has more value but not with that expiring contract.
And FWIW, we don't have a boatload of cash to throw around and won't be taking bad contracts. The Islanders are on the tightest budget in the league and can't afford to waste it on guys not worth their contracts. We already have that with Dipietro.
Anyway, I think this works for both sides. Wild get a young, producing top 6 winger (was on the third line with the Isles but behind Grabner who had 34 goals and Moulson who had 31) with RFA status so you get him for a few years minimum, a speedy offensive dman who is a number 6/7, the 5th overall pick in the draft and a second rounder, which they don't have. Islanders get a (on their team) number two dman they desperately need and still draft well with the 10th overall pick.
