HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Islanders Dangle 5th overall pick.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-17-2011, 01:17 PM
  #51
se7en
infamous...
 
se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mission Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,090
vCash: 500
Hey Kev,

Thanks for the input. I'm actually a HUGE Islanders fan! I've loved the Isles since 1993 when the North Stars left (we also moved to Queens that year) but in all honesty, Burns shouldn't be in any proposals for the Isles 5th. I keep trying to point that out to people.. It just won't happen, I can guarntee that..

The Wild need a full fledged proven 30+ goal scorer for Burns, & I love Comeau but it won't happen, especially for the Wilds 10th in there as well. That would be a total deal breaker. I honestly don't think you'd get Burns for just your 5th even with the expiring contract. No offense in that at all, but it's because Wild GM Fletcher is already walking a thin line. Burns is a fan favorite & (Burns) WANTS to stay in Minnesota. Fletcher can't afford to let Burns go for anything short of a proven player coming back over. Honestly tho, because of Burns contract expiring I don;t think he goes anywhere. I'd bet a reasonable sum of money Burns re-signs here..

And trust me, I know the Isles have cap space but they still dont have the money to take huge contracts..

I just think that your 5th won't command the value you think it will (when it comes to trying to be a trade partner with the Wild) I could be wrong but it's been rumored that almost all the top 10 teams are willing to trade their draft pick this year. There's definitely good players in the draft but no franchise changing superstars & alot of players that are all similar in what they bring.

I think the Islanders will get a single 60-80pt player (a forward) for that 5th pick. I could be wrong & for the Islanders sake I hope they get more but realisticly I think that it's not going to get the value that we are hoping for ( & trust me, I say that as an Isles fan...) Also, as an Isles fan, I know it still doesnlt sound like enough for your 5th but to keep preaching what I have been, I think Havlat, PMB or Nick Shultz would all be a huge even swap for the Isles. I would LOVE to see Havlat or PMB added to the Isles Offense. (But again there's always issues. they'd need to have a healthy season, want to go to NYI, etc, etc so it may not be plausable) but I think they would make great additions to the Isles..

EDIT - Also, I wanted to add in quick that your proposal wasn't a bad proposal. So I meant no disrespect by shooting it down. I only say what I did because of the conditions around Burns. I just don't see it happening. Burns is a special case where because of the Wild's recent failures & the fact that he's a fan favorite, the Wild brass can't trade him for anything short of a massive overpayment from another team & the Isles don't need to overpay in this situation. So that's the only reason I say it won't happen..


Last edited by se7en: 06-17-2011 at 01:32 PM.
se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 08:00 PM
  #52
Kevin27nyi
Global Moderator
#21KO
 
Kevin27nyi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 9,352
vCash: 615
Thats understandable. I remember seeing an article that Fletcher is under heat to make the playoffs. I don't think the forwards would help too much, not because they aren't good but the Islanders are better off trading the pick+ for defensive help.

Kevin27nyi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 08:11 PM
  #53
se7en
infamous...
 
se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mission Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin27NYI View Post
Thats understandable. I remember seeing an article that Fletcher is under heat to make the playoffs. I don't think the forwards would help too much, not because they aren't good but the Islanders are better off trading the pick+ for defensive help.
I'm glad my ramblings made sense haha

Ya, I was wondering why Snow said he wanted a forward for the pick. Maybe I misread that but I remember thinking "The Isles need D more than O!" I must have gotten bad info.. But ya, the only reason I was throwing forwards into that proposal was because I thought I heard Snow wanted a forward for the pick..

Have you heard any word on Mark Streit? Is he going to be back next season? I haven't heard much news on him lately (And in all honesty I've been too lazy to look)

Just out of curiosity, Would the Isles have any interest in Nick Shultz (slightly overpaid BUT extremely reliable & efficent defenseman. He's nothing flashy but about as solid as stay at home D as you can get or ask for. The Wild LOVE him but we got alot of great D prospects in the pipeline & we need Offense so I think he's on the table)

him or

Marek Zidlicky (PP captain, great shot from the point, puts up good numbers & is still a pretty solid defenseman.)

Just curious if they interest the Isles Brass? Or if you guys were hoping for something else when it comes to D?

se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 08:43 PM
  #54
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,866
vCash: 500
a lot of great D prospects?

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 09:59 PM
  #55
se7en
infamous...
 
se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mission Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
a lot of great D prospects?
Hahaha you ball buster you!

Ok, how about -

we have more decent defensive prospects with some promise of being full time nhlers than we do offensive propects and because of our few good D prospects We could afford to trade away a vet dman & be a little thin next year if it gets us a good draft pick?

Better or am I still being to generous? Haha

se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 10:17 PM
  #56
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,866
vCash: 500
nah, that looks better

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 10:28 PM
  #57
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 14,044
vCash: 500
I think Zanon is the most likely D-man traded of the vets.

TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 12:47 AM
  #58
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by se7en View Post
. Burns is a fan favorite & (Burns) WANTS to stay in Minnesota.
Mikko Koivu?

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 02:01 AM
  #59
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,449
vCash: 500
On a slight tangent, could San Jose eat up salary from Minnesota by doing something like Burns + Bouchard for 1st round pick, Justin Braun, another prospect?

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 10:32 AM
  #60
Generic User
Dynamic as they come
 
Generic User's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Country: United States
Posts: 6,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
On a slight tangent, could San Jose eat up salary from Minnesota by doing something like Burns + Bouchard for 1st round pick, Justin Braun, another prospect?
Not nearly enough. In this thread we have people hesitant to give Burns up for the 5th overall. In another thread we have posters saying the only deal with San Jose involving Burns should involve Couture too. The Sharks late 1st and a decent-ish prospect or two wouldn't even get a second thought from Fletcher. And IMO, the Sharks aren't doing the Wild a favor by having us throw in PMB. Barker on the other hand...

Generic User is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 11:54 AM
  #61
North Metro Peewees
Registered User
 
North Metro Peewees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philly Stupid
Country: United States
Posts: 1,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Simply putting it; it would cost us too much to move up to the 5th spot on a team that is as deep as a puddle of water in a July afternoon.

I'm thinking Burns + Bouchard for the 5th at best.
Your placing WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY too much value on the 5th pick in a decent not great draft. Snap out of it and step away from Hockeysfuture for a couple of days.

Seriously, I would not trade Burns alone for the 5th pick. To me Burns gets you a top 5 pick and a player. Remember your hoping a top 5 pick is as good as Burns and you need to look at past top 5 draft busts as an example. Would you trade Burns for any of the following players straight up.

Alex Daigle
Pavel Brendl
Benoit Pouliot
Gilbert Brule
Jack Skille
Cam Barker
Nik Zherdev
Kari Lehtonen
Alex Svitov
Stan Chistov
Rick DiPietro
Patrik Stefan
Andre Zyuzin

Shall I go on.......

North Metro Peewees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 01:14 PM
  #62
se7en
infamous...
 
se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mission Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Mikko Koivu?
Umm, you lost me on this one...

Are you saying that Mikko is also a fan favorite? Cause I know that but Koivu hasnt been part of these talks at all...

Or are you saying that Burns will turn into a Koivu situation where we're goin to have to over pay to keep him?

I'm just not sure where you were going with this comment...

se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 01:16 PM
  #63
se7en
infamous...
 
se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mission Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NM Squirts View Post
Your placing WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY too much value on the 5th pick in a decent not great draft.

I said the same thing when I saw that, actually I think I've said it a few times. Some People are WAY overvaluing that pick! If it were #1 or #2 pick and there was a Ovechkin Or Stamkos available but a #5 in this draft class is a total crap shoot!

se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 01:49 PM
  #64
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by se7en View Post
Umm, you lost me on this one...

Are you saying that Mikko is also a fan favorite? Cause I know that but Koivu hasnt been part of these talks at all...

Or are you saying that Burns will turn into a Koivu situation where we're goin to have to over pay to keep him?

I'm just not sure where you were going with this comment...
Mikko Koivu was 'suppose' to take a fan favorite discount. Rolston 'loved' it here in Minnesota.

Bottom line is this; Salcer is Burns agent for now.

Burns without a long term contract is a very iffy situation to trade simply because of the uncertainty of getting him signed long term.

To me, it's like in baseball. You want to draft this really great player but he has Rosenhaus as an agent. You're not going to want to touch that guy.

If this organization is moving toward a youth movement, maybe moving Burns wouldn't be so bad. Especially if we can pick up Larsson or Hamilton.

BTW 5th + would probably be a bit appropriate for Burns and Bouchard, now thinking about it.

Top 5 of this draft to me is pretty damn strong.

Would you trade Burns for Vanek? Kessel? Schenn?

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 01:55 PM
  #65
North Metro Peewees
Registered User
 
North Metro Peewees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philly Stupid
Country: United States
Posts: 1,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Mikko Koivu was 'suppose' to take a fan favorite discount. Rolston 'loved' it here in Minnesota.

Bottom line is this; Salcer is Burns agent for now.

Burns without a long term contract is a very iffy situation to trade simply because of the uncertainty of getting him signed long term.

To me, it's like in baseball. You want to draft this really great player but he has Rosenhaus as an agent. You're not going to want to touch that guy.

If this organization is moving toward a youth movement, maybe moving Burns wouldn't be so bad. Especially if we can pick up Larsson or Hamilton.

BTW 5th + would probably be a bit appropriate for Burns and Bouchard, now thinking about it.

Top 5 of this draft to me is pretty damn strong.

Would you trade Burns for Vanek? Kessel? Schenn?
Yes definitely since I believe a Vanek-type player is what this organization desperately needs, no Kessel's value has dropped the past two years, Hell no, to me Schenn is a Hamhuis type d-man with limited offensive potential!

North Metro Peewees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 02:03 PM
  #66
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NM Squirts View Post
Yes definitely since I believe a Vanek-type player is what this organization desperately needs, no Kessel's value has dropped the past two years, Hell no, to me Schenn is a Hamhuis type d-man with limited offensive potential!
Brayden Schenn as well (drafted 5th overall)...

Kessel has no one around him.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 03:42 PM
  #67
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Mikko Koivu was 'suppose' to take a fan favorite discount. Rolston 'loved' it here in Minnesota.

Bottom line is this; Salcer is Burns agent for now.

Burns without a long term contract is a very iffy situation to trade simply because of the uncertainty of getting him signed long term.

To me, it's like in baseball. You want to draft this really great player but he has Rosenhaus as an agent. You're not going to want to touch that guy.

If this organization is moving toward a youth movement, maybe moving Burns wouldn't be so bad. Especially if we can pick up Larsson or Hamilton.

BTW 5th + would probably be a bit appropriate for Burns and Bouchard, now thinking about it.

Top 5 of this draft to me is pretty damn strong.

Would you trade Burns for Vanek? Kessel? Schenn?
Burns without a long-term contract is something that's unchangeable until July 1st. So do we trade him without even kicking the tires? Do we trade him for a draft pick when we're looking to compete now? It just doesn't make sense. Fletcher's already made it clear Koivu is the only untouchable, so by all indications he'd move Burns regardless of his contract demands for the right player, but that's not going to be a draft pick, and probably won't happen until he at least gets an idea of what Burns' demands are, which is unknown at this point.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 04:25 PM
  #68
Shimoe
Registered User
 
Shimoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Norm Green Sucks
Posts: 330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Simply putting it; it would cost us too much to move up to the 5th spot on a team that is as deep as a puddle of water in a July afternoon.

I'm thinking Burns + Bouchard for the 5th at best.
Trade Burns and Bouchard in hopes of getting a player that is the caliber of Burns?

Shimoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 04:25 PM
  #69
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
So do we trade him without even kicking the tires?
Might have to. If you've decided that Burns isn't the player you want to build around, now until Friday is the best time to trade him. You don't want to "kick the tires", not like it, and then try to trade him. Too late. Now you're stuck with either a undesirable contract or a disappointing trade return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
Do we trade him for a draft pick when we're looking to compete now? It just doesn't make sense.
Well that's just it. Why should this organization have any reason to believe they should try to "compete" right now?

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 05:52 PM
  #70
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
Burns without a long-term contract is something that's unchangeable until July 1st. So do we trade him without even kicking the tires?
Looking at it more, I rather trade him for a 2012 draft pick as apparently that draft is deeper and more impressive than this draft and it gives us some flexibility to at least talk. But if we go into August without him under an extension, he needs to be traded as soon as possible.

Quote:
Do we trade him for a draft pick when we're looking to compete now?
I thought we were moving to a youth movement?

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 06:37 PM
  #71
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post

Well that's just it. Why should this organization have any reason to believe they should try to "compete" right now?
You realize that whether you condone it or not, this organization IS trying to compete now rather than solely focusing on creating a stable of talent for future competition?

The reason...Well, we looked pretty good relative the rest of the conference for a time last season, without our leading scorer from the season before (Latendresse). It would seem that we aren't far off...Latendresse and a lengthy injury to Koivu might very well have been the difference between making it and not. We aren't ridiculously far off.
Or are you saying the replacement (i'm making a big assumption here) of our FA with other personnel is going to drag us down to the point where we have no shot at the post season? Are they that good?

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 07:02 PM
  #72
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Might have to. If you've decided that Burns isn't the player you want to build around, now until Friday is the best time to trade him. You don't want to "kick the tires", not like it, and then try to trade him. Too late. Now you're stuck with either a undesirable contract or a disappointing trade return.
Hard to say now will be the greatest return. Remember Waddell said the best offers for Hossa came at the last minutes of the trade deadline. Any team trading for him prior to July 1 cannot talk extension either, so they will be hesitant as well.

My list of players I'd trade Burns for, well lets just say I don't see any incentive for any of those teams to make that trade without being able to talk extension at the very least. And I'd be very opposed to getting multiple secondary pieces back for him. He's our best d-man and help isn't coming through the pipeline(Scandella's good, could actually be better defensively than Burns, but won't be scoring 15+), and UFA-wise we're not likely to get anyone comparable significantly cheaper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Looking at it more, I rather trade him for a 2012 draft pick as apparently that draft is deeper and more impressive than this draft and it gives us some flexibility to at least talk. But if we go into August without him under an extension, he needs to be traded as soon as possible.



I thought we were moving to a youth movement?
Not really a fan of moving him for draft picks in general. We are trying to compete now, but at the same time not mortgage the future, which has always been Fletcher's plan. The difference is this year it appears Fletcher wants spots open for our younger players opposed to signing free agents to fill out the roster like last year with Madden/Nystrom as late-summer additions.

I would agree that the 2012 draft is much better among d-man prospects than this one(much like 2008), but they're also a year further from making an impact.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 07:03 PM
  #73
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
You realize that whether you condone it or not, this organization IS trying to compete now rather than solely focusing on creating a stable of talent for future competition?

The reason...Well, we looked pretty good relative the rest of the conference for a time last season, without our leading scorer from the season before (Latendresse). It would seem that we aren't far off...Latendresse and a lengthy injury to Koivu might very well have been the difference between making it and not. We aren't ridiculously far off.
They need to realize that having your cake and eating it too is virtually impossible in the NHL. This isn't baseball. But kinda like you said, we don't have to worry about management trying to do both because Fletcher and Co. have shown very little urgency to build for the future. For as bad as this team has been, he hasn't made a big move in 16 months. Since the ill-fated you-know-who trade, he's been ultra conservative. So conservative that building for the future has been put on virtual lockdown. Might not be a bad mindset. . . if we were Cup winners.


Was the team that competitive last season? No. We overachieved for a while to get into just playoff contention, and then fell apart. Mr. Fatso isn't the reason we didn't make the postseason. His unreliability issues are par for his course and a reason why we got him for an unreliable player. Meanwhile we blew another season to at least build for the future.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 07:28 PM
  #74
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,866
vCash: 500
hahha what's fatso in french? Mr. Graisseux?

my main point is they aren't going to do that, so why not focus speculation on a course of action that takes it as a given? We aren't, and we won't as long as CL owns the sucker.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 08:01 PM
  #75
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,505
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
H
Not really a fan of moving him for draft picks in general. We are trying to compete now, but at the same time not mortgage the future, which has always been Fletcher's plan. The difference is this year it appears Fletcher wants spots open for our younger players opposed to signing free agents to fill out the roster like last year with Madden/Nystrom as late-summer additions.

I would agree that the 2012 draft is much better among d-man prospects than this one(much like 2008), but they're also a year further from making an impact.
We already mortgage the future for the present.

Fletcher HAS NO PLAN. His plan is to throw as much to the wall and hope something finally sticks.

We cannot compete now BTW. You seen our left wing depth? Our right wing depth?

Fletcher keeps saying one thing but doing another. He knows he's under the gun to do something with this organization but he doesn't know what.

Our youth movement isn't going to replace Brunette or even Mitts.

thestonedkoala 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 12:00 PM.

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.