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
Notices

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, 12:23 PM
  #26
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,394
vCash: 1040
I doubt you will find any Sharks fans who think Burns is even remotely overpaid or want to trade him. He's incredibly versitile and is only playing forward for us because we have such poor forward depth and he's more needed there.

He's either a top-pairing two-way d-man or a top-line high-end 1st line RW. Aside from Couture, Burns is probably the most untouchable guy on the team.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:24 PM
  #27
Chris Cutter
Devil's Advocate
 
Chris Cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Beauce
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJSharks39 View Post
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?
Much worse? Bourque is a lot proven at forward than Burns is. Correct if I'm wrong but don't you guys have a surplus if defenseman? Burns being able to step up on D is a nice luxury to have but it shouldn't be a make it or break it for him being a trade possibility. Bourque is signed to a much cheaper contract and you get a first rounder back. I can understand not wanting to trade him but to say an offer of a top 6 forward and a first is garbage just blows my mind.

Chris Cutter is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:29 PM
  #28
bromando
Registered User
 
bromando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cutter View Post
Much worse? Bourque is a lot proven at forward than Burns is. Correct if I'm wrong but don't you guys have a surplus if defenseman? Burns being able to step up on D is a nice luxury to have but it shouldn't be a make it or break it for him being a trade possibility. Bourque is signed to a much cheaper contract and you get a first rounder back. I can understand not wanting to trade him but to say an offer of a top 6 forward and a first is garbage just blows my mind.
As a neutral fan, Bourque and a first is nowhere near the value of Burns. Burns is a much better forward and can play top pairing D. Bourque is falling off his game-he hasn't been a 50 point forward for the last couple seasons but Burns was last season. No way that deal goes through because the deal is garbage. Bourque isn't a garbage player, but he certainly isn't a first away from being on Burns' level.

EDIT: also consider the age difference, Bourque is 31 and Burns is 28. Your asking them to trade a worse, older, smaller, less versatile player and a late first for Burns.

bromando is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:38 PM
  #29
SJSharks39
Registered User
 
SJSharks39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 3,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cutter View Post
Much worse? Bourque is a lot proven at forward than Burns is. Correct if I'm wrong but don't you guys have a surplus if defenseman? Burns being able to step up on D is a nice luxury to have but it shouldn't be a make it or break it for him being a trade possibility. Bourque is signed to a much cheaper contract and you get a first rounder back. I can understand not wanting to trade him but to say an offer of a top 6 forward and a first is garbage just blows my mind.
Could you tell me when Bourque's last 50 point season was? A first that's probably going to be 25 or lower and Bourque who really isn't that great. That's not going to get to Brent Burns, the only player in the league that is both a top pairing D and a top 6 power forward. Please tell me where I said it was garbage too. I'm absolutely positive I didn't. Bourque has 13 points last season and 5 in the postseason. Burns had 20 last season and 4 in the postseason. That's not including his checking, that changes the flow of games by the way.

Edit- Also saying he would be in our top 6 isn't saying much. We have some of the worst forward depth in the league.

SJSharks39 is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:40 PM
  #30
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
 
Luigi Lemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 14,433
vCash: 500
Burns is one of the most valuable players in the league imo. Extremely versatile and can excel anywhere he's put, not to mention physically he's a monster as well.

Luigi Lemieux is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:43 PM
  #31
TheJuxtaposer
#LetJohnPlay
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 32,903
vCash: 50
Paul Bissonette is also more established as a forward than Burns.

Burns is absolutely untouchable barring Subban or Galchenyuk or something ridiculous like Gallagher + Beaulieau + two firsts. Burns is not even close to overpaid, and I'll stop repeating this stat when it becomes untrue: As a forward, Burns scored at the second highest 5v5 points/60 in the league. So when we Sharks fans say 'elite', we mean it.

TheJuxtaposer is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:47 PM
  #32
Chris Cutter
Devil's Advocate
 
Chris Cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Beauce
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJSharks39 View Post
Could you tell me when Bourque's last 50 point season was? A first that's probably going to be 25 or lower and Bourque who really isn't that great. That's not going to get to Brent Burns, the only player in the league that is both a top pairing D and a top 6 power forward. Please tell me where I said it was garbage too. I'm absolutely positive I didn't. Bourque has 13 points last season and 5 in the postseason. Burns had 20 last season and 4 in the postseason. That's not including his checking, that changes the flow of games by the way.
His last 50 point season was 2 years ago, not that long ago. He had a horrible season in 11-12 but he bounced back this season. One thing you have to take in consideration is that his line (Plek, Gio and him) were our shutdown line last season. Therrien made them play against other teams top forwards every game. He could produce more than his current 0,5PPG if he was given softer minutes. Him and Plek were also our best players in the playoffs. The first could be anywhere from 10th to 25th, most 'experts' on the main boards think Montréal's season was a fluke so it's flattering to see that you think they can repeat their success As for the horrible remark, I wasn't pointing fingers at you but more of the other people in the thread. I might have undervalued Burns in my offer but Thats personally what I would have been willing to give for Burns as a DEFENSEMAN.

Chris Cutter is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 12:51 PM
  #33
SJSharks39
Registered User
 
SJSharks39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 3,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cutter View Post
His last 50 point season was 2 years ago, not that long ago. He had a horrible season in 11-12 but he bounced back this season. One thing you have to take in consideration is that his line (Plek, Gio and him) were our shutdown line last season. Therrien made them play against other teams top forwards every game. He could produce more than his current 0,5PPG if he was given softer minutes. Him and Plek were also our best players in the playoffs. The first could be anywhere from 10th to 25th, most 'experts' on the main boards think Montréal's season was a fluke so it's flattering to see that you think they can repeat their success As for the horrible remark, I wasn't pointing fingers at you but more of the other people in the thread. I might have undervalued Burns in my offer but Thats personally what I would have been willing to give for Burns as a DEFENSEMAN.
Montreal would be pretty amazing with Burns on their blue line. That's why I say it will be higher. Their really only problem is top 4 D. But, I would say that as a defenseman he is still top 15 in the league.

SJSharks39 is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:07 PM
  #34
Zrhutch
Registered User
 
Zrhutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 1,804
vCash: 500
Look at what Burns cost in the trade from Minny, and add on to that. Cause he's worth a lot more now.

Zrhutch is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:12 PM
  #35
Minnesota
Global Moderator
L'Étoile du Nord
 
Minnesota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Country: United States
Posts: 20,737
vCash: 828
Burns isn't overpaid - many teams would love to have him under that contract.

Minnesota is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:21 PM
  #36
Sharks4Life
Registered User
 
Sharks4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Bay, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
[I][I]I'd encourage realistic comments.


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.
So would I to you, as you clearly don't know at all what you are talking about.

Sharks4Life is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:25 PM
  #37
hockfan1991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Paul Bissonette is also more established as a forward than Burns.

Burns is absolutely untouchable barring Subban or Galchenyuk or something ridiculous like Gallagher + Beaulieau + two firsts. Burns is not even close to overpaid, and I'll stop repeating this stat when it becomes untrue: As a forward, Burns scored at the second highest 5v5 points/60 in the league. So when we Sharks fans say 'elite', we mean it.
This. And only second to who's that scrub Crosby? Aside from Crosby burns was the best even strength forward in the league.

hockfan1991 is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:30 PM
  #38
DuckEatinShark
GET ALL THE PPs!!!!
 
DuckEatinShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 5,990
vCash: 500
Burns is overpaid? News to me.

While I don't think Burns will keep up the scoring pace he had last year, he's still our most dangerous winger we have (I think he's more dangerous than Marleau in the scoring dept.) When Boyle retires, Burns will probably move back to D, since I doubt Braun/Demers will develop into a #1 puckmover.

His value to the Sharks is enormous. Almost as high as Couture's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zrhutch View Post
Look at what Burns cost in the trade from Minny, and add on to that. Cause he's worth a lot more now.
Exactly. Burns is now signed to a longer contract and fits more of a need here in SJ than he did at Minny. And we still gave up a top 6 winger (Setoguchi) that was comparable at the time to Bourque and 2 firsts for him.

Bourque + 1st doesn't begin to scratch the surface. A package for Burns starts with Galchenyuk+ or Subban for Burns+.

DuckEatinShark is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:32 PM
  #39
fasterthanlight
Registered User
 
fasterthanlight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ithaca, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,609
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
Burns is overpaid (in my opinion)
Why do you think Burns is overpaid?

fasterthanlight is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:32 PM
  #40
hockfan1991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cutter View Post
Alright we'll keep our gritty "injury prone" winger while you guys keep Havlat who's been injured a lot more in his career. Bourque is closer to getting 50 pts than Havlat at getting 70 pts at this point. One gets injured from being sucker punched by some duster while the other gets injured getting off the bench
Burns will be one of the top wingers in the nhl this year. He's huge 6 "5 230 can skate like the wind is physical has great shot instincts. On jumbos wing he will put up 65+ PTS with at least 30 goals. Lets see how the season plays out and get back too this convo. If he get 1 pp time which he has never gotten the sky is the limit

hockfan1991 is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:36 PM
  #41
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,768
vCash: 500
As a fan of another team, I've seen the chaos and damage Burns can do. He won't be moved until he asks to be, and from what I've seen, he loves the West coast, and the San Francisco area especially (according to his interviews). Now that he's playing wing, I don't think there is a single Canuck that wouldn't be available (in a +/+ context especially) if he were the return.

Cogburn is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:43 PM
  #42
bigwillie
Registered User
 
bigwillie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 6,490
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to bigwillie
Beginning this thread with "Burns is overpaid..." is not the correct way to go about things.

Burns is, at worst, a top pairing defenseman, if not a number one.

Last season he also proved he was a top-line right winger, and honestly was just as good as Thornton, Couture, Pavelski and Marleau most of the time. He was the best player on the ice some nights and downright dominated multiple games.

Sharks fans are thrilled to see what he can do with a full season at forward while further developing his chemistry with Joe Thornton. 60+ points while providing an intimidating physical presence and a tenacious forecheck isn't unreasonable. And if that doesn't work out, he can move right back to the blueline and anchor our top pairing.

But he's overpaid in your opinion and you'd do the Sharks a huge favor taking him off our hands. So very nice of you.

bigwillie is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:49 PM
  #43
Engebretson
I WANT HOLYFIELD!!!!
 
Engebretson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 8,882
vCash: 1000
I miss Brent Burns so much as a Wild fan. Charlie Coyle is the only thing that is easing the sting of losing Burnsie in the trade a couple years ago.

Burns being used as a forward does nothing but increase his value to San Jose. To have someone with that kind of versatility that you can plug into the Top 6 or into the Top 4 on Defense.

Interesting to hear the overpaid argument as to why a team should trade him, but at least they're no longer ending with an argument about his "concussion history"

Engebretson is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:52 PM
  #44
Mattb124
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsterix View Post
I'd encourage realistic comments.
The comments on needing Subban or Galchenyuk as pieces in a trade for Burns is absolutely realistic, it your perception of Burns' value that is not. Burns was acquired with 1 year left on his contract for Devin Setoguchi, Charlie Coyle and a 1st round pick. Seto has more value than Borque and Charlie Coyle was a 1st round pick/blue chip prospect who has transitioned well into the NHL, so that would translate to roughly Bourque plus 2 1sts. Burns has re-signed to a longer term contract with a pretty good value, so it would take more than Bourque plus 2 1sts to acquire him *if* he was available.

Burns playing forward is a commentary on the Shark's lack of top 6 forward depth, not their defensive depth.

Edit: Bourque would be a 3rd liner for the Shark's, and a top-6 filler in case of injuries. We have Kennedy and Torres who fill that role already, so he is redundant.


Last edited by Mattb124: 08-16-2013 at 02:02 PM.
Mattb124 is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 01:58 PM
  #45
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
The comments on needing Subban or Galchenyuk as pieces in a trade for Burns is absolutely realistic, it your perception of Burns' value that is not. Burns was acquired with 1 year left on his contract for Devin Setoguchi, Charlie Coyle and a 1st round pick. Seto has more value than Borque and Charlie Coyle was a 1st round pick/blue chip prospect who has transitioned well into the NHL, so that would translate to roughly Bourque plus 2 1sts. Burns has re-signed to a longer term contract with a pretty good value, so it would take more than Bourque plus 2 1sts to acquire him *if* he was available.

Burns playing forward is a commentary on the Shark's lack of top 6 forward depth, not their defensive depth.
Marleau, Thornton, Pavelski, Couture, Havlat, as well as possibly Hertl, Torres, or Kennedy to mix it up some...I think it's more a commentary on Burns' versatility then a lack or surplus of depth either way

Cogburn is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 02:00 PM
  #46
irunthepeg
Mr. 2 Milli
 
irunthepeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Peg, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,478
vCash: 69
Yeah, Bourque and a 1st would not be enticing if I were the Sharks GM. He is an absolute stud at forward or defense. Not many who can do that...

Sharks would need a severe overpayment, especially if Boyle is gonna retire soon, maybe Burns will switch back to D.

irunthepeg is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 02:14 PM
  #47
K2B
dim jim
 
K2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: United States
Posts: 47,832
vCash: 50
As a Canucks fan Burns is far from overpaid, he surprised me at how good he was as a forward. You have to give up a valuable piece for San Jose to even consider moving him like Pacioretty+/Galchenyuk/Subban or you aren't getting Burns.

K2B is online now  
Old
08-16-2013, 02:16 PM
  #48
Sharks4Life
Registered User
 
Sharks4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Bay, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kesler2Burrows View Post
As a Canucks fan Burns is far from overpaid, he surprised me at how good he was as a forward. You have to give up a valuable piece for San Jose to even consider moving him like Pacioretty+/Galchenyuk/Subban or you aren't getting Burns.
This. It doesn't matter if fans of other teams don't agree and you can go ahead and act how ever you want stating that sharks fans are crazy or saying "wow lolz super overpayment" but if you don't want to pay it then there's no point in talking about it cause that's what he is worth.

Sharks4Life is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 02:18 PM
  #49
Intangiblezzz
Price is God
 
Intangiblezzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Laval
Country: Italy
Posts: 2,406
vCash: 500
Brendan Gallagher + Nathan Beaulieu + Davis Drewiske + 1st round pick for Brent Burns + Tommy Wingels/Raffi Torres + 2nd round pick?

I think Gallagher and Beaulieu should be very interesting pieces for San Jose. A first round pick is always good and Drewiske is depth.

Intangiblezzz is offline  
Old
08-16-2013, 02:22 PM
  #50
junyab
Registered User
 
junyab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 479
vCash: 500
If it's an overpayment that's required, Habs move on. No reason to discuss this further.

junyab 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 10:24 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.