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.
Brent Burns is the most untouchable Shark in my books. He's 27, 6'5'', has a wicked wrister, elite skating, strong positional play, and underrated defense. As of the second half of last season, he is our #1 defenseman. He's signed to an awesome contract for 5 more years. He's not going anywhere.
Burns fits in with our core perfectly, plus he's a perfect compliment to 25 y/o Vlasic. Those two are going to be our top pairing for a while.
We traded Setoguchi, Coyle, and a first to get him. Unless you can blow that out of the water, it's not happening.
This is faulty logic.
Montreal gave McDonagh for Gomez,
Vancouver gave Grabner, Bernier, 1st round for Ballard.
You forgot to mention that he was also one of the few Sharks to show up for every game of the playoffs last season.
Minnesota was stupid to trade him. They went out and payed Suter a huge amount of money instead of hanging on to Burns. (Maybe they knew Burns wouldn't sign ANY deal to stay, who knows for sure)
Burns is a huge stud on the blueline and the only way he ends up in Edmonton is if the Sharks add and one of the big guns heads back to San Jose.
One of the big reasons I consider him our #1D now. He was awesome in the playoffs, dominant offensively and defensively. If only anyone but Joe Thornton did anything in front of him.
I'd definitely take Suter over Burns in a vacuum, and I'd definitely take Suter, Setoguchi, Coyle, and Phillips over Burns. Good move by Minnesota, but I don't know if they could have known that Suter would sign with the Wild when they traded Burns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom
This is faulty logic.
Montreal gave McDonagh for Gomez,
Vancouver gave Grabner, Bernier, 1st round for Ballard.
past trade value doesnt affect current value.
Unless you give us something that is much more valuable than that package was at the time of the trade, then he won't be traded.
One of the big reasons I consider him our #1D now. He was awesome in the playoffs, dominant offensively and defensively. If only anyone but Joe Thornton did anything in front of him.
I'd definitely take Suter over Burns in a vacuum, and I'd definitely take Suter, Setoguchi, Coyle, and Phillips over Burns. Good move by Minnesota, but I don't know if they could have known that Suter would sign with the Wild when they traded Burns.
Unless you give us something that is much more valuable than that package was at the time of the trade, then he won't be traded.
Semantic arguments, always fun.
Well, at least summer 2011 , no teams in the league was willing to give more than SJ offer to MIN. Have we a good reason they would be now?
So ww kinda agree, SJ value him more than most team in the league, so he wont be traded.
Sorry, I thought that was established. Burns only had one year left on his contract when he was traded, now he's on a 5 year deal at a great cap hit. That increases his value quite a bit.
There's also the fact that the Sharks went out of their way to get this guy. They're not going to just turn around and flip him for equal value.
Sorry, I thought that was established. Burns only had one year left on his contract when he was traded, now he's on a 5 year deal at a great cap hit. That increases his value quite a bit.
There's also the fact that the Sharks went out of their way to get this guy. They're not going to just turn around and flip him for equal value.
While contract is a good reason to increase value.
Past trade value only show SJ interest in him, nothing to do with his current market value.
But we agree he is not likely to be traded if SJ is among the most interested team to have him.
Vancouver gave Grabner, Bernier, 1st round for Ballard.
past trade value doesnt affect current value.
The implicit point there is his performance has thoroughly justified the trade value. So are you arguing that performance doesn't justify trade value, or just arguing?
The implicit point there is his performance has thoroughly justified the trade value. So are you arguing that performance doesn't justify trade value, or just arguing?
i am just arguing for arguing, i dont actually have a point.
I would be willing to bet any amount of money that San Jose would be hanging up the phone unless it was one of the big 4, or if somehow the oilers score the first overall again this year haha.
Realistically though, and I know I'm going to get slammed for this, but I think the price for a younger #1 D man on reasonable contract like Burns is Yakupov. And I think it's fair. Burns legitimizes a Defence that needed a lot of help last year, and we all know the oilers really didn't need much more offensive firepower. Yakupov plays his first year receiving silky passes from Jumbo Joe, and carries the sharks offence for the future.
Minnesota was stupid to trade him. They went out and payed Suter a huge amount of money instead of hanging on to Burns. (Maybe they knew Burns wouldn't sign ANY deal to stay, who knows for sure)
Minnesota didn't want to take the risk of losing Burns to free agency and wanted to know the players and prospects they would get back. Minnesota had already lost Gaborik and they didn't want to lose Burns. It wasn't stupid for them to trade Burns as he helped rebuild the team a lot quicker. We lost zero assets signing Suter and got three huge pieces for our rebuild.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangerine
Coyle is an average prospect.
Coyle is an average prospect?
He's probably a top 10 prospect in the AHL and 25 in the NHL. 29/30 GMs would love to grab a kid like Coyle. He's a big, power winger. If he's an average prospect than guys like Scheifele, Palmieri, Saad are mediocre prospects.
He's probably a top 10 prospect in the AHL and 25 in the NHL. 29/30 GMs would love to grab a kid like Coyle. He's a big, power winger. If he's an average prospect than guys like Scheifele, Palmieri, Saad are mediocre prospects.
With you until you named three guys that are basically the same caliber of prospect as Coyle. He is a very good prospect though, just disagree with putting him a notch above the other guys. They are all very good prospects and in the top 50, probably top 30.
On Burns, have to think Hall is the only name that gets this going so...
He's probably a top 10 prospect in the AHL and 25 in the NHL. 29/30 GMs would love to grab a kid like Coyle. He's a big, power winger. If he's an average prospect than guys like Scheifele, Palmieri, Saad are mediocre prospects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405
With you until you named three guys that are basically the same caliber of prospect as Coyle. He is a very good prospect though, just disagree with putting him a notch above the other guys. They are all very good prospects and in the top 50, probably top 30.
He's saying Coyle is on the same level as Scheifele (not sure if I agree with that one), Palmieri, and Saad.
I think you misunderstood, because he's saying exactly what you think.
Burns would cost to much. Sharks need him. Boyles time is running thin and Burns the obvious choice to pass the torch to. I'd rather go after Clowe honestly.
"Minnesota was stupid to trade him. They went out and payed Suter a huge amount of money instead of hanging on to Burns"
Um, do you know anything about the Wild? Our offense is well known for being next to non-existent. Losing Burns hurt, but we picked up a great prospect, a possibly decent prospect, and an immediate impact on our offense. All for a guy who might walk. Win for both teams.
The Havlat trade on the other hand...
Someone said Havlat's latest injury was a freak injury. Look at the guy's history. He ALWAYS has a freak injury. Not to mention Heatley has a much better attitude.
Speaking of attitude, I've seen Shultz mentioned a few times as a trade possibility. Wasn't he too much of a head case to sign with the team that drafted him (Anaheim)? Am I wrong on this?
If I'm a GM, I'm reluctant to trade for a guy like that.
Speaking of attitude, I've seen Shultz mentioned a few times as a trade possibility. Wasn't he too much of a head case to sign with the team that drafted him (Anaheim)? Am I wrong on this?
If I'm a GM, I'm reluctant to trade for a guy like that.
Not wanting to sign in Anaheim = Headcase. I guess every player who's ever requested a trade is a head case.
Requesting a trade is a little different. That implies that you've at least given the organization a chance, but for whatever reason, it isn't working out.
Again, I might be missing some information here, but Shultz refused to sign at all. To me, that's a little different than requesting a trade.
Requesting a trade is a little different. That implies that you've at least given the organization a chance, but for whatever reason, it isn't working out.
Again, I might be missing some information here, but Shultz refused to sign at all. To me, that's a little different than requesting a trade.
Without entering further and without any emotion, I think it could be understood for a team to be cautious in receiving Schultz when said team wasn't on his short-list as a destination, even though the risks would be a lot more limited now that he's under contract. Not that Edmonton would or should have any thought about trading him.
But let's really not open that box of fun any further in this thread, as well. A lot of e-blood and real time has been lost over it and will continue to be lost over his case, but we can keep it to where it's more substantial to the topic at hand than on here.
Requesting a trade is a little different. That implies that you've at least given the organization a chance, but for whatever reason, it isn't working out.
Again, I might be missing some information here, but Shultz refused to sign at all. To me, that's a little different than requesting a trade.
He had the opportunity few players had to sign wherever he wanted. There was no financial incentive as he was going to sign a close to max ELC wherever. Its not like he owed Anaheim anything, they haven't paid a penny towards his development(as an NCAAer if Schultz went to any prospect camps he had to pay for everything or lose eligibility).
He had a chance to choose his own destiny and took it, like most players would. I know I would of.
