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.
Winnipeg looking for "scoring RW" - Cheveldayoff (please read OP)
If's don't matter. The point is he was rushed. That he has been average. And that he has shown the league what he has to offer.
It's also nice you are comparing a rookie to a 3rd year NHLer, it actually goes to show that he isn't as good as Granlund. One guy is adjusting to the North American rink and adjusting the the speed and size of NHLers and still has more points per game than the 3rd year "prospect" that is supposedly just as valuable. Ha!
It's time to remove the goggles fella, Burmi is not worth nearly what Granlund is.
You have your opinion, and I don't agree. I don't punish Burmistrov for the mistakes of Atlanta's management.
If's don't matter. The point is he was rushed. That he has been average. And that he has shown the league what he has to offer.
It's also nice you are comparing a rookie to a 3rd year NHLer, it actually goes to show that he isn't as good as Granlund. One guy is adjusting to the North American rink and adjusting the the speed and size of NHLers and still has more points per game than the 3rd year "prospect" that is supposedly just as valuable. Ha!
It's time to remove the goggles fella, Burmi is not worth nearly what Granlund is.
Now on to other things.
I would consider the Stempniak/Antropov deal suggested but I don't like that Antropov is a UFA after the season and is just as ****** in the faceoff circle if not worse than our converted centers, while Stempniak is playing the best hockey of his career and has a year left on his deal at a very good price tag.
yah sorry to keep at this but there's also an exact flip to that (granlund/burmi).
burmis value = lower because he was rushed and missed development time, has had time to adjust to NA rinks, but isn't producing.
Granlands value = higher because hasn't had time to adjust north american rinks, has had development time, but isn't producing.
If developing somewhere else, rather then playing in the NHL is a plus, and "not being adjusted" is a valid excuse for sub-par offensive production, then surely the opposite (being adjusted but not having development time) should be just as well.
or am i unaware of a very strict development window that has already closed? if that's the case, how do we know the strict "adjust to NA style rinks" window hasn't closed on granlund?
my point being, historically they're more similar then i think your willing to admit. For a team performance wise this year, i'd argue Burmi's more valuable (as in he brings more to an NHL club tomorrow). that is a known. what's an unknown, is what either will bring long term.
Is that not an unknown for both. Or are we going on the assumption that it's impossible to improve beyond your first three years in the NHL, irregardless of how old/where in your development you were when you started? We don't know what burmis offensive out put willbe in 2 years, just like we don't know what Granlunds will be in 2 years. What we do know is burmi's floor, 25-30 pt production and sound defence. What we don't know is Granlunds floor.
\Maybe you disagree, but i'd say through a logical process i don't see how Granlund is worth more, let alone "way more".
Stempniak: Yah i checked his stats out, had no idea he was playing that well and think that might move his value up a tad more then i'd like. Even his advanced stats for this year are very nice (a little high pdo, but even correcting for that he'd be having a good a year), definitely not what i was expecting given his past performance, compared to this one. Still, a player i'd be into.
Grandlund is considered a top 10 prospect. It is EXPECTED he will beocme a 1st line player.
Burmi is considered a 3rd liner. It is HOPED he might develop into a top 6 player.
The argument for Burmi holding that kind of value is ludicrous, it would be like me saying Mikael Backlund carries the same value as Lars Eller because injuries have slowed Backlund down and they weren't drafted very far apart. Seems silly doesn't it?
Quite frankly 3 years after the draft, where they were drafted means absolutely nothing
Grandlund is considered a top 10 prospect. It is EXPECTED he will beocme a 1st line player.
Burmi is considered a 3rd liner. It is HOPED he might develop into a top 6 player.
The argument for Burmi holding that kind of value is ludicrous, it would be like me saying Mikael Backlund carries the same value as Lars Eller because injuries have slowed Backlund down and they weren't drafted very far apart. Seems silly doesn't it?
Quite frankly 3 years after the draft, where they were drafted means absolutely nothing
You're wrong. Burmi has proven as much at the NHL level as Granlund. He has much more proven defensively. Granlund is a 21 year old that is in the AHL and is hoped to be a top 6 player. Burmi is a 21 year old third line center that is hoped to be a top 6 player. They have similar value even if you don't want to admit it. Why does Granlund have higher value? He's proven less than Burmi. Is it because he's a prospect and Burmi has been playing NHL?
They're the same age and Burmi has proven more! But I guess if you're labeled prospect you get more value? That doesn't make any sense to me
You're wrong. Burmi has proven as much at the NHL level as Granlund. He has much more proven defensively. Granlund is a 21 year old that is in the AHL and is hoped to be a top 6 player. Burmi is a 21 year old third line center that is hoped to be a top 6 player. They have similar value even if you don't want to admit it. Why does Granlund have higher value? He's proven less than Burmi. Is it because he's a prospect and Burmi has been playing NHL?
They're the same age and Burmi has proven more! But I guess if you're labeled prospect you get more value? That doesn't make any sense to me
This isn't my logic, it's the way the NHL works. I never said it wasn't faulty, this is just how it is.
But you could bet money that Burmi's value isn't all that close to Granlund's. There is a reason why one player is being mentioned as trade bait and the other is labelled as untouchable
This isn't my logic, it's the way the NHL works. I never said it wasn't faulty, this is just how it is.
But you could bet money that Burmi's value isn't all that close to Granlund's. There is a reason why one player is being mentioned as trade bait and the other is labelled as untouchable
Burmi is mentioned as trade bait and Granlund is untouchable? Dude, you do know that just because fanbases on hfboards say some things that doesn't make it accurate?
Burmistrov is better defensively than Granlund and much more physical. He's proven as much offensively as Granlund, and is the same age. Just because you think Granlund has more value doesn't make it true.
21 years old and Burmi is currently the better NHL player. They have similar ceilings and Burmi has the higher floor.
Burmi is mentioned as trade bait and Granlund is untouchable? Dude, you do know that just because fanbases on hfboards say some things that doesn't make it accurate?
Burmistrov is better defensively than Granlund and much more physical. He's proven as much offensively as Granlund, and is the same age. Just because you think Granlund has more value doesn't make it true.
21 years old and Burmi is currently the better NHL player. They have similar ceilings and Burmi has the higher floor.
It's not my opinion. It's a fact.
Granlund is rated higher now than Burmi ever has been and ever will be.
This isn't my logic, it's the way the NHL works. I never said it wasn't faulty, this is just how it is.
But you could bet money that Burmi's value isn't all that close to Granlund's. There is a reason why one player is being mentioned as trade bait and the other is labelled as untouchable
really? is it in the rule book? I'm pretty sure value is a subjective determination placed by those making the decision or arguing the viewpoint. thus the value you attach to granlund is based entirely on what you've determined. the rest of us are up to debate wether or not you've got a logical basis for that value. I would say you do not.
if you want i'll dig through a list of of top 10 prospects from hockey news articles over the years and compare them to hockey players who joined hte league at 18 and we'll see which one has a higher success rate shall we?
Look i'm aware that burmi isn't wortha kings ransom. But i'm also vehemently opposed to the terrible logic that because you've showed less in the same situation, your somehow worth more.
granlund, on pace for 26 pts over 82 games in his first season as a 21 yearold, while being out chanced by weak oppositione (EDIT: handidly outchanced! negative corsi and RelCorQoC) while getting 2 mins per 60 power play.
Burmi, 22 pt pace over 82 games in first season as an 18 yearold (edit: while getting outchanced to a smaller degree), while getting virtually no power play, but over 1 min per 60 pk.
in granlunds small debut, he did no better then burmi did in his 18 yearold season. that is a fact. given that their the same age, but one accomplished what the other did 2 years prior, i don't follow the logic. its assuming that because burmis been in the show, his offensive future beyond what he is at 21 has dissappeared, which is asinine.
I know it's just "fans" but those fans know as much as you or I
my point was more about the logical backin gbehind it. one which i disagree with "the fans".
this was an attempt to convince one fan, you, to consider it from another angle, and perhaps question the logic being used.
i have failed
also on the rating thing that's not really fair is it? They've gone to two vastly different paths. One is no longer a prospect and thus cannot be included in such lists. I'll use hockeys futures rating as thats what burmi was given when drafted. 8.0 C , granlund, 8.0 b
given careers paths i just fail to see how that translates to "way more".
Granlund is rated higher now than Burmi ever has been and ever will be.
That is your opinion. You look pretty foolish trying to pass it off as fact.
I'll ask you directly: what has Granlund done to raise his NHL value over Burmistrov? Please give me any argument here. Not you're go to "because I said so"
my point was more about the logical backin gbehind it. one which i disagree with "the fans".
this was an attempt to convince one fan, you, to consider it from another angle, and perhaps question the logic being used.
i have failed
that because its just not how it works
For the past 2 years Granlund's been playing in Finland and his value has been rising. He went from being a top 10 pick in 1 particular draft to be widely considered a top 10 prospect in the world. Part of this I will concede is the unknown, because if he hasn't had the chance to fail he could be what everyone hoped.
For the past 2 years Burmistrov has been in the NHL, which is no small feat. But he has not shown flashes of the potential that had him picked in the top 10, this lowers his value because he is seen as less likely to achieve his potential.
Like I said the logic is flawed, but that is not the NHL operates, it's the same reason why top draft picks are worth more than prospects.
It's a pretty flawed argument though. Just because Burmi didn't excel offensively at 20 in the NHL does not mean he will never excel.I don't think NHL gms are foolish enough to discount a 21 year old hockey player though, simply because he hasn't broken out (in one way ) yet.
Burmistrov is alreasy a top defensive forward in the game.
For the past 2 years Granlund's been playing in Finland and his value has been rising. He went from being a top 10 pick in 1 particular draft to be widely considered a top 10 prospect in the world. Part of this I will concede is the unknown, because if he hasn't had the chance to fail he could be what everyone hoped.
For the past 2 years Burmistrov has been in the NHL, which is no small feat. But he has not shown flashes of the potential that had him picked in the top 10, this lowers his value because he is seen as less likely to achieve his potential.
Like I said the logic is flawed, but that is not the NHL operates, it's the same reason why top draft picks are worth more than prospects.
You seem to know a lot about how the NHL works. What organization are you part of? When were you drafted?
For the past 2 years Granlund's been playing in Finland and his value has been rising. He went from being a top 10 pick in 1 particular draft to be widely considered a top 10 prospect in the world. Part of this I will concede is the unknown, because if he hasn't had the chance to fail he could be what everyone hoped.
For the past 2 years Burmistrov has been in the NHL, which is no small feat. But he has not shown flashes of the potential that had him picked in the top 10, this lowers his value because he is seen as less likely to achieve his potential.
Like I said the logic is flawed, but that is not the NHL operates, it's the same reason why top draft picks are worth more than prospects.
fans that have watched would beg to say different. He's had streaks where he's "put it together" and you start drooling, but then he loses it.
I know its failed logic, the point was to highlight that, and get someone to think about it alternatively.
as flying high said, it's mystery box syndrom. which is stupid. stupid stupid stupid. and are draftpicks worth more then prospects? its an assumption that can't really be backed up because you vritually never see prospects moved for picks.
my point is, in a real trade, not a fan organized one, especially not here where our love of youth is borderline pedophilia most of the time, can the argument actually be constructed that Granlund should be worth more.
the only way it is, is if you
a) put more on the mystery effect then performance
b) assume players stop developing after 3 years in the NHL regardless of age
those are pretty silly assumptions no? regardless of who we're talking about.
fans that have watched would beg to say different. He's had streaks where he's "put it together" and you start drooling, but then he loses it.
I know its failed logic, the point was to highlight that, and get someone to think about it alternatively.
as flying high said, it's mystery box syndrom. which is stupid. stupid stupid stupid. and are draftpicks worth more then prospects? its an assumption that can't really be backed up because you vritually never see prospects moved for picks.
my point is, in a real trade, not a fan organized one, especially not here where our love of youth is borderline pedophilia most of the time, can the argument actually be constructed that Granlund should be worth more.
the only way it is, is if you
a) put more on the mystery effect then performance
b) assume players stop developing after 3 years in the NHL regardless of age
those are pretty silly assumptions no? regardless of who we're talking about.
Mystery box syndrome is a good example of why we are all posting on a internet forum and not a part of an NHL front office.
its funny eklund posted a new blog.. Rangers are trying to acquire Kane.. to me its a complete joke.. you know it would start with gabs, but honestly noowayyy ny can afford to trade young pieces happens.. kanes value is high..
but just for fun...what would it take for gaborik+ for kane..
i say plus bc we have good young players, but i dont know what Win's needs are..
its funny eklund posted a new blog.. Rangers are trying to acquire Kane.. to me its a complete joke.. you know it would start with gabs, but honestly noowayyy ny can afford to trade young pieces happens.. kanes value is high..
but just for fun...what would it take for gaborik+ for kane..
i say plus bc we have good young players, but i dont know what Win's needs are..
Kane won't be traded. If he was, they wouldn't consider Gaborik as a return. The Jets are building for 3-5 years from now. If the Rangers insisted on including Gaborik, it'd be as a cap dump that would in no way affect the value of the rest of the package they'd have to give up (and clearly that's not realistic). They'd want multiple top prospects, considering the Rangers firsts are too late to have any realistic chance of replacing Kane. Think Kessel's value when he was traded, then up it due to playing style, contract and cap considerations - the equivalent of two top-10 picks. MDZ + Kreider (which will piss off a lot of Rangers fans, particularly those on here who will think Kreider can be better than Kane...) probably wouldn't even do it. I don't believe the Rangers should give up whatever it'd take to get Kane. In other words, Eklund's rumours are as ridiculous as some of the worst posts on this forum.
its funny eklund posted a new blog.. Rangers are trying to acquire Kane.. to me its a complete joke.. you know it would start with gabs, but honestly noowayyy ny can afford to trade young pieces happens.. kanes value is high..
but just for fun...what would it take for gaborik+ for kane..
i say plus bc we have good young players, but i dont know what Win's needs are..
yah Wins needs are....kane but in RW format. the only thing we need more then kane is a first line center in the same situation (21-25 with at least 5 years on contract).
that's the only thing i'd move kane for. Otherwise, were stuck immediatly looking for, well, a player like kane.
So to get him it takes more then is even remotely reasonable, and Gabby is in no way worth half as much to winnipeg as he would be to a contending team. Yes he's got massive value, but not to winnipeg. We'd be wanting your best young pieces. literally best, and literally plural. No, Kane is not worth that, but it's not about worth in an esoteric sense, it's about what it would take to get him out of the jets. Stepan + Hagelin + is what i'd want. yes its unreasonable.
I am unwilling to trade him for less then a proven 1 c under the age of 25 on contract or a complete second line with all players under 26.
no disrespect but It would be prospects that recently made the jump to the nhl or top prospects in the system..
your right that gab would have more value to a contender.. but gab is still only 31 years old.. he may want to play for win.. being its a way different market then NYC..
but look at kanes numbers
Kane (age 21) signed 5yrs 5m cap
year 1- 66gp 14g 12a 26p
year 2- 73gp 19g 24a 43p
year 3- 74gp 30g 27a 57p
year 3- 29gp 11g 9a 20p (prorated to 31gs 25a 56p)
Stepan (age 22)
year 1- 82gp 21g 24a 45p
year 2- 82gp 17g 34a 51p
year 3- 28gp 8g 11a 19p (prorated to 23g 32a 55p)
last year of Entry level contract RFA
MDZ (Age 22)
year 1- 80gp 9g 28a 37p
year 2- 47gp 2g 9a 11p (hurt and never recovered played in the AHL)
year 3- 77gp 10g 31a 41p
year 4- 26gp 2g 8a 10p
plays 2 way game..really stepping up with defensive injuries to play more defensive game..
All i am doing now is just showing that why would we have to give up so much in terms of value.. I know we all value our prospects a lot to our team.. but Stepans almost a 1c level and he plays in every situation, whether your down a goal, up a goal with a min to go, pp/pk.. solid player.. very similar to what kane means to WPG..
And MDZ ill keep short.. everyone expected bogasian to put up numbers offensively and he really never did yet this stage in his very young career.. numbers arent everything so for us to over pay it just wont happen..
Gaborik still 31, not old at all, still putting up 17p this year.. its not terrible/but a change of scenery would prob help his game.. hes less then a year removed of a 42g+ season.. he still one of the most puriest snipers in the game..
Gaborik+Stepan/MDZ + Kreider.. we didn't even trade that for Nash and Nash is way better then kane at both stages of their career.. (kane can obviously be better one day but not current)
i doubt it happens i am just saying if you look at value of players to kanes value.. Rangers like one of you said shouldn't overpay when our players have proved just as much as Kane has in their early career..We would be veryyy lucky to have kane tho.. good luck the rest of the way!!
no disrespect but It would be prospects that recently made the jump to the nhl or top prospects in the system..
your right that gab would have more value to a contender.. but gab is still only 31 years old.. he may want to play for win.. being its a way different market then NYC..
but look at kanes numbers
Kane (age 21) signed 5yrs 5m cap
year 1- 66gp 14g 12a 26p
year 2- 73gp 19g 24a 43p
year 3- 74gp 30g 27a 57p
year 3- 29gp 11g 9a 20p (prorated to 31gs 25a 56p)
Stepan (age 22)
year 1- 82gp 21g 24a 45p
year 2- 82gp 17g 34a 51p
year 3- 28gp 8g 11a 19p (prorated to 23g 32a 55p)
last year of Entry level contract RFA
MDZ (Age 22)
year 1- 80gp 9g 28a 37p
year 2- 47gp 2g 9a 11p (hurt and never recovered played in the AHL)
year 3- 77gp 10g 31a 41p
year 4- 26gp 2g 8a 10p
plays 2 way game..really stepping up with defensive injuries to play more defensive game..
All i am doing now is just showing that why would we have to give up so much in terms of value.. I know we all value our prospects a lot to our team.. but Stepans almost a 1c level and he plays in every situation, whether your down a goal, up a goal with a min to go, pp/pk.. solid player.. very similar to what kane means to WPG..
And MDZ ill keep short.. everyone expected bogasian to put up numbers offensively and he really never did yet this stage in his very young career.. numbers arent everything so for us to over pay it just wont happen..
Gaborik still 31, not old at all, still putting up 17p this year.. its not terrible/but a change of scenery would prob help his game.. hes less then a year removed of a 42g+ season.. he still one of the most puriest snipers in the game..
Gaborik+Stepan/MDZ + Kreider.. we didn't even trade that for Nash and Nash is way better then kane at both stages of their career.. (kane can obviously be better one day but not current)
i doubt it happens i am just saying if you look at value of players to kanes value.. Rangers like one of you said shouldn't overpay when our players have proved just as much as Kane has in their early career..We would be veryyy lucky to have kane tho.. good luck the rest of the way!!
right but look at the situation
Nash asked for a trade
Nash in his prime, while his club as going to rebuild
kane just signed six years
kane is in the perfect timeline for the jets
thats the point
kane is worth more to the jets right now, then nash was to columbus when they traded him.
and on your last point your absolutely right. both teams would probably be better off just keeping what they've got, that was mostly what i was trying to say. I actually wouldn't hate gaborik coming this way (40+goal scorer, who would) but the other pieces would be the "main" pieces for Winnipeg.
Nash asked for a trade
Nash in his prime, while his club as going to rebuild
kane just signed six years
kane is in the perfect timeline for the jets
thats the point
kane is worth more to the jets right now, then nash was to columbus when they traded him.
and on your last point your absolutely right. both teams would probably be better off just keeping what they've got, that was mostly what i was trying to say. I actually wouldn't hate gaborik coming this way (40+goal scorer, who would) but the other pieces would be the "main" pieces for Winnipeg.
Montreal had a compensation pick for Fischer and they traded it to NYI:
50 2-20
Canadiens
Awarded 2011 second round pick (#50-Johan Sundstrom) on 2010-08-15 as compensation for being unable to sign 2006 first round pick David Fischer
Islanders
Traded James Wisniewski to Canadiens for 2011 second round pick (#50-Johan Sundstrom), 2012 conditional fifth round pick or 2013 fourth round pick (if 2012 fifth round pick is not available) (if Canadiens make 2011 playoffs and Wisniewski plays in at least 50% of Canadiens' playoff games)) (?-?) on 2010-12-28
