HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

Brent Burns (SJS) to the Habs

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-16-2013, 11:15 AM
  #1
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Brent Burns (SJS) to the Habs

Burns is overpaid (in my opinion) with a cap hit of $5.76M until 2016-17. I couldn't help but notice that he was predominently used as a forward for the Sharks in the playoffs. The Habs could use his size on defense and the fact that he's right handed is a bonus as most of their defensemen are lefties.

Taking his salary into consideration:
  1. Would the Sharks consider trading him; and if so
  2. What kind of return would they be expecting, considering their needs?
Keeping in mind, of course, that they'd need to take some salary back as well. The Habs might have a surplus of centers and they have depth on the wing, especially on LW, as well as some good prospect.

While we'll read a lot from Habs' fans, likely saying that it would be stupid to get Burns at that salary, I'm particularly curious to read what Sharks' fans are thinking...

Here's the Habs' roster and salaries: http://capgeek.com/canadiens/
And the Sharks': http://capgeek.com/sharks/

I'd be also very, very interested in Big Joe (Thornton), but I find difficult to fit both salaries and equal value in a trade for both guys...

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:18 AM
  #2
Chris Cutter
Devil's Advocate
 
Chris Cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Beauce
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,855
vCash: 500
I'd offer Bourque + a 1st round pick.

Chris Cutter is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:18 AM
  #3
OgoBoHo
FIRE BENNING
 
OgoBoHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,106
vCash: 53
IIRC, San Jose fans really like Burns, and it would take an overpayment to even consider moving him.

OgoBoHo is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:19 AM
  #4
iane
turtleneck
 
iane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Bergen, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,404
vCash: 500
No way the Sharks trade Burns unless Galchenyuk/Subban is going the other way.

iane is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:21 AM
  #5
Reacher Gilt
Registered User
 
Reacher Gilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Burns is overpaid (in my opinion) with a cap hit of $5.76M until 2016-17.
So why do you want an overpayed player?

Reacher Gilt is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:24 AM
  #6
Skip2myBordyloo
Maybe next year
 
Skip2myBordyloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,492
vCash: 50
i don't feel burns is really overpaid, i'd gladly take him at 5.5 on the avs.

Skip2myBordyloo is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:26 AM
  #7
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iane View Post
No way the Sharks trade Burns unless Galchenyuk/Subban is going the other way.
I'd encourage realistic comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reacher Gilt View Post
So why do you want an overpayed player?
Because he fills a need in Montreal. Sizable d-man, right handed, still young enough. In this case, because of the Sharks' depth on defense, he's being used at forward so that's why I thought of him.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:26 AM
  #8
AJ SF4L
#GoSharks
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Not happening. Burns is too valuable to San Jose with his ability to be a Top 6 winger or a #1 guy on D. His cap hit is absolutely perfect for the Sharks in the long term and is by no means an overpayment (maybe an underpayment imo). He signed an extension after being traded to SJ without even playing a game with them yet, showing he is committed to the team.

Keeping that in mind, it would take a severe overpayment, the kind which would get Bergevin run out of the franchise. Not to mention the Sharks really can't take on salary unless they can dump some as well, making a trade even less likely.

Thornton is only marginally more available than Burns, but is more than likely going to sign again in San Jose and play out the rest of his career in teal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cutter View Post
I'd offer Bourque + a 1st round pick.
Absolutely terrible.

AJ SF4L is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:27 AM
  #9
OgoBoHo
FIRE BENNING
 
OgoBoHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,106
vCash: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Because he fills a need in Montreal. Sizable d-man, right handed, still young enough. In this case, because of the Sharks' depth on defense, he's being used at forward so that's why I thought of him.
No, he's being used at forward because he's good at it.

OgoBoHo is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:29 AM
  #10
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ SF4L View Post
Not happening. Burns is too valuable to San Jose with his ability to be a Top 6 winger or a #1 guy on D. His cap hit is absolutely perfect for the Sharks in the long term and is by no means an overpayment (maybe an underpayment imo). He signed an extension after being traded to SJ without even playing a game with them yet, showing he is committed to the team.

Keeping that in mind, it would take a severe overpayment, the kind which would get Bergevin run out of the franchise. Not to mention the Sharks really can't take on salary unless they can dump some as well, making a trade even less likely.

Thornton is only marginally more available than Burns, but is more than likely going to sign again in San Jose and play out the rest of his career in teal.
I was thinking that this team hasn't gone anywhere in recent years with the core as it is and that perhaps, a small shake up, just a retooling, might be beneficial. Their window of opportunity is closing rapidly, in my opinion, but I could be wrong.

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:29 AM
  #11
DrSanchez
Back it up
 
DrSanchez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Jose
Posts: 270
vCash: 500
Another post assuming Burns is expendable because he played forward, while ignoring that a) He was originally drafted as one and b) He was very good at it once he was put there. He was there most of the season and will be there this season too.

You're basically asking for a top-6 RW/top-pairing D here. There isn't much that Habs fans will want to give up that I'd take for Burns.

DrSanchez is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:30 AM
  #12
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG Canuck View Post
No, he's being used at forward because he's good at it.
I think it's a mix of both. He's good at defense as well but they can afford playing him at forward because they have the depth that they have on defense. Let's just say that he wouldn't play forward in Montreal. You know what I mean?

Habsterix* is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:36 AM
  #13
Canadian Canuck
FIRE BENNING
 
Canadian Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,024
vCash: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ SF4L View Post
Not happening. Burns is too valuable to San Jose with his ability to be a Top 6 winger or a #1 guy on D. His cap hit is absolutely perfect for the Sharks in the long term and is by no means an overpayment (maybe an underpayment imo). He signed an extension after being traded to SJ without even playing a game with them yet, showing he is committed to the team.

Keeping that in mind, it would take a severe overpayment, the kind which would get Bergevin run out of the franchise. Not to mention the Sharks really can't take on salary unless they can dump some as well, making a trade even less likely.

Thornton is only marginally more available than Burns, but is more than likely going to sign again in San Jose and play out the rest of his career in teal.



Absolutely terrible.

Are u serious??. maybe an underpayment? If anything he is overpayed! There is no way a Nhl team would pay 6 M + for him...

Canadian Canuck is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:38 AM
  #14
couture23
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
 
couture23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: GTA/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,660
vCash: 500
There isn't much on the Habs that would entice the Sharks.

couture23 is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:44 AM
  #15
ARSix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,763
vCash: 500
^ There's Brendan Gallagher. I feel like that could be something to build from.

But it doesn't seem likely the Sharks will trade him; the organizational feeling seems to be that they sort of lucked into something when they swapped him back to wing and it worked out. I suspect they want to see how it goes over 82 games.

ARSix is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:51 AM
  #16
hockfan1991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
I was thinking that this team hasn't gone anywhere in recent years with the core as it is and that perhaps, a small shake up, just a retooling, might be beneficial. Their window of opportunity is closing rapidly, in my opinion, but I could be wrong.
This small shakeup has already taken place. I knw sharks haven't won a cup but haven't gone anywhere? 2 wcf in last 4 years. We're within a game this year of bring the 3 times in four years and we had havlat and Torres out this year. With them in the lineup we probably make the next round

hockfan1991 is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:51 AM
  #17
Brokencow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Oakland
Posts: 568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanucks1 View Post
Are u serious??. maybe an underpayment? If anything he is overpayed! There is no way a Nhl team would pay 6 M + for him...
I'm not going to argue his actual worth but if you do not believe there are any NHL teams willing to pay 6 Million for Brent Burns you weren't paying attention during free agency this year.

Brokencow is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:53 AM
  #18
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,364
vCash: 500
Burns was one of, if not the best, forward for the Sharks last season, and that's saying something.

5.75 or what ever for Burns isn't an overpayment, he can fill in anywhere on the roster, has a good work ethic, he's huge, plays like it, has skill....there isn't a good reason to trade this guy unless he asks to be moved.

Cogburn is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:53 AM
  #19
DrSanchez
Back it up
 
DrSanchez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Jose
Posts: 270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
^ There's Brendan Gallagher. I feel like that could be something to build from.

But it doesn't seem likely the Sharks will trade him; the organizational feeling seems to be that they sort of lucked into something when they swapped him back to wing and it worked out. I suspect they want to see how it goes over 82 games.
Absolutely want to see how he'd do on Thornton's wing for a full season. Also need to consider that when Boyle retires, Burns could take over that spot. Burns is a lot more important to the Sharks than people seem to realize.

DrSanchez is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 11:57 AM
  #20
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Beukeboom Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 12,400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cutter View Post
I'd offer Bourque + a 1st round pick.
In before SJ resoonse of they'd offer Wingels & a 1st for Subban. Your offer wouldn't be anywhere close to what it would take to get him.

Burns is a rare athelete. He's a legit #1 d-man IMO, and can also be as effective as a scoring winger that plays a speed and power game. I would think that his ability to play D is more valuable, but that's just IMO. They'll utilize him like they feel will best give the Sharks a chance to win.

Beukeboom Fan is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:04 PM
  #21
SJSharks39
Registered User
 
SJSharks39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 2,440
vCash: 500
You want us to trade the only player in the NHL that has been successful as a top line winger AND a number one D? I think Galchenyuk or Subban is coming to SJ if we are trading Burns to the Habs.

SJSharks39 is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:12 PM
  #22
Chris Cutter
Devil's Advocate
 
Chris Cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Beauce
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,855
vCash: 500
I like how Bourque is treated like garbage. He can play both wings, he brings size and has 50 pts upside. If you look at your depth on the wing, he'd be in your top 6.

Chris Cutter is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:12 PM
  #23
Draft
Registered User
 
Draft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
^ there's Brendan Gallagher. I feel like that could be something to build from.

But it doesn't seem likely the Sharks will trade him; the organizational feeling seems to be that they sort of lucked into something when they swapped him back to wing and it worked out. I suspect they want to see how it goes over 82 games.
I agree with this. The only players I can see SJ being interested in are our more established young players. Burns is a heck of a player and very versatile. I'm not sure he's a top line player or a #1 defenceman but more a top-6 and a #2. He'd be absolutely loved in Montreal and would fill two holes in one if he were to be acquired. I think he's earning a little much as he's not capable or expected to be a game changer but, with the options and the package he brings, I'd say he's signed to a pretty reasonable contract.

It would kill me to let Gally go but I'd consider something like Gallagher + Thrower/2nd. Might not really be what SJ is looking for but, that's what I would feel comfortable giving up.

Draft is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:16 PM
  #24
SJSharks39
Registered User
 
SJSharks39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 2,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cutter View Post
I like how Bourque is treated like garbage. He can play both wings, he brings size and has 50 pts upside. If you look at your depth on the wing, he'd be in your top 6.
Why would we trade one of our top wingers that has more than 50 point upside AND that can play D for one that is much worse?

SJSharks39 is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:21 PM
  #25
Treb
Registered User
 
Treb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,599
vCash: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cutter View Post
I like how Bourque is treated like garbage. He can play both wings, he brings size and has 50 pts upside. If you look at your depth on the wing, he'd be in your top 6.
50 pts fwd < 40 pts D/ 50+ pts fwd

Burns versatility makes him way more valuable than Bourque and a late first doesn't cover the difference for a contending team.

Treb is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:25 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.