"Thursday we get on the plane and Anton's either coming or going because once we get there it's pretty hard to airlift a guy in."
Harding's injury has forced the Wild to contemplate whether they have to go outside the organization for a suitable backup goalie, such as Jose Theodore or Vesa Toskala.
"We're going to have some meetings tomorrow [Monday] and obviously Theodore's available, Toskala's available," Fletcher said. "I've had calls from several general managers who have a third goalie they'd like to move, and in some cases a second goalie they'd like to move because they've got a young guy they'd rather put on the team, so I would say there's a pool of seven or eight guys that are available."
Is where I sparked the idea of swapping Griess, but do you have any other top-4 defensman the Sharks might be interested in? Burns would be ideal IMO though. I see why you guys don't want to trade him.
Personally, no. You're offering bits and pieces for one of the most important pieces of this team. Burns won't be traded unless it's for a top 6 forward and (maybe) then some. This team has plenty of depth when it comes to 3rd/4th liners and bottom 4-pairing D-men. Quality > Quantity.
We'd be looking for guys in your top 6, or either a combination of McGinn, Couture, and picks. If we are going for swapping Greiss, I'd think it would just be picks, but I don't think they should be trading more picks away. So, Burns isn't moving unless we get a forward similar to his talent/potential, or has already eclipsed that.
I'd think we may think about trading for Greiss, but I'd prefer just picking up a goalie via FA.
The Sharks would be willing to trade anything excluding their top 6, Boyle and Vlasic.
This is where I stopped reading.
Honestly, for the life of me, I can't begin to understand some people's rational. Especially when it comes to trades for the their own team. Why would any team take multiple complimentary (at best) pieces for one of their young, impact players, with tremendous upside?
What if we proposed the same for a player like Pavelski or the like? Probably wouldn't end so well either.
There's no reason to do this deal right now as we should just see how the season goes, and I'm sure that's how things will shake out until we either need a change, or decide to go on a re-build (which I don't see happening). That would be a good package if we're trying to rebuild, but we'd probably be better off keeping Burns no matter what unless we get like a 30-50 goal scorer of similar age.
Wow, I guess that Kane and Toews' line partner, Brouwer, is joining them on the 3rd line.
Brouwer-Toews-Kane was our top line for most of last season.
And Buf was there in the playoffs. That doesn't make him a top-6 forward.
If your proposal starts with "Burns", the return starts with "Sharp", or you're offering crap. EDIT: The same goes for San Jose, if Clowe (and I really don't even want him) or Seto aren't involved, neither are the Wild.
I seriously don't get what's so hard to understand. We want someone who can either play on Koivu's wing, or give us a reason to break up Havlat and Lats.
If you're not offering that, quit offering ANYTHING. We don't want a bunch of prospects, we don't want picks, we don't want ANYTHING other than a 25+ goal top-6 forward. It isn't that hard to understand.