75 replies to this topic

[jollymania]

You'd have to overpay to get Clutterbuck. He's a cult player and a fan favorite, they're not gonna give up on him easily even though he isn't anything THAT special.

1 hitter in the league who can score more than hudler? yeah it would be a decent price but totally worth it

[rrasco]

@DirtyDangles: Who is the chick in your avatar?

Kristen Bell

[Opie]

Did you see at all what teams were getting at the trade deadline for crappy players?

^ This ^, and with the cap going up, crappy players are going to get more and more and thus demand more and more on the trade market.

Look at the signings and the trades since the Summer of Finger. I know he was the odd deal that was the most outrageous over payment. But since that summer what player wasn't overpaid for $$ or player in trade wise.

3rd liners are costing a lot, Burns would take at least two roster spots, a top 9 forward (more than likely a top 6 winger) and a top 4 dman to get. Not to mention probably a pick and a prospect.

Look at what Boston paid for Peverly **(Wheeler and Stuart) and Kelly (2nd round pick, not expensive, good deal, but I couldn't leave it out because it didn't help my argument) and Kaberle (2 first rounders*, and Colborne). Or just look at what Tor paid for Kessel!!!
* second one was conditional on them making scf or signing Kaberle.
**EDIT: Boston also got Valabik.
Detroit very rarely overspends, ROI is huge for this org, and shipping Mursak, Hudler, a pick, and anything else short of D or Z will not get this deal done.

UNLESS.. Fletcher is super desperate to build his own team, then maybe he lets them go cheap, but I doubt it highly. Remember there is always a Hossa err umm chance!

Edited by Opie, 20 June 2011 - 10:20 AM.

[Finnish Wing]

1 hitter in the league who can score more than hudler? yeah it would be a decent price but totally worth it

Overpaying is never worth it. The fact is he's like Lundqvist to Rangers. You'll never get a player like that with a reasonable price.

[Majsheppard]

Burns is available. However, he is an inconstant player. He might turn that around or we might overpay to get someone who never turns into a top tier guy.

I never have been sold on Burns, but if Holland wants him he can get him and when Holland wants someone I am usually sold on him.

[jollymania]

Overpaying is never worth it. The fact is he's like Lundqvist to Rangers. You'll never get a player like that with a reasonable price.

i never used the word overpay, it would take a lot to overpay for clutterbuck

[South Dakota wings fan]

crymson has shut me down on multiple occasions for suggesting a trade for burns. He claims that Burns will walk the next year when he becomes a UFA and that we shouldn't give up assets for a one year rental. I think he'd resign, but hell, crymson's opinion seems to be the only one that matters.

Nevertheless, I want him more than anything this offseason. really truly a rafalski replacement and potential to help with the transition for life after nic. Imagine having something like this for the next 5 or so years:

Kronwall - Burns
Smith - Wisniewski
Kindl/UFA - Stuart

Thats pretty bullet proof imo without nic (if smith is really the stud we think he is). I think its important to have at least one rookie in the D lineup all the time, as 1) helps with cap, 2) prevents us from getting old and keeps guys that know the system going. The only reason i write "Kindl/UFA" is that i doubt if we traded for Burns that kindl wouldn't be going the other way in a package.

Don't feel bad, Crymson shut me down for suggesting that the Wild were interested in possibly trading Burns this summer. Then I was also told by someone I didn't understand the business side of the NHL. I'm not sure where the litmus test is on this site to qualify to post something you read on reputable sources (not Ecklund) without being called stupid for suggesting it.

I do think Brent Burns would be a good addition to the Red Wings. It would be nice to think we could package one of our under achieving forwards with smaller cap hits than Burns (Hudler or Filppula) has to replace Rafalski. This would then allow them the money and roster spot to possibly add a top six forward to the lineup. To me, the question becomes whether or not you think Burns is better than any option on this year's UFA list (Wiesniewski, Bieksa, Pitkanen) and if it is worth trading now to get him or try to wait a year and hope someone else hasn't locked him up for the future. I don't know the answer, but it is a fun question to ask.

[Crymson]

Don't feel bad, Crymson shut me down for suggesting that the Wild were interested in possibly trading Burns this summer. Then I was also told by someone I didn't understand the business side of the NHL. I'm not sure where the litmus test is on this site to qualify to post something you read on reputable sources (not Ecklund) without being called stupid for suggesting it.

I do think Brent Burns would be a good addition to the Red Wings. It would be nice to think we could package one of our under achieving forwards with smaller cap hits than Burns (Hudler or Filppula) has to replace Rafalski. This would then allow them the money and roster spot to possibly add a top six forward to the lineup. To me, the question becomes whether or not you think Burns is better than any option on this year's UFA list (Wiesniewski, Bieksa, Pitkanen) and if it is worth trading now to get him or try to wait a year and hope someone else hasn't locked him up for the future. I don't know the answer, but it is a fun question to ask.

My point was more along the lines of Minnesota being unwilling to trade him unless they received a very solid return. They're currently rebuilding, and he's effectively the franchise defenseman. If they were to let him go, they'd want some serious assets in return. Hudler and/or Filppula would not be enough.

As such, we'd be giving up numerous valuable assets for a player who might bolt at the end of the season. That's not a good idea.

[SwedeLundin77]

Hudler & Emmerton for Havlat and a 5th round pick.

Done.

[Bannedforlife]

My point was more along the lines of Minnesota being unwilling to trade him unless they received a very solid return. They're currently rebuilding, and he's effectively the franchise defenseman. If they were to let him go, they'd want some serious assets in return. Hudler and/or Filppula would not be enough.

As such, we'd be giving up numerous valuable assets for a player who might bolt at the end of the season. That's not a good idea.

Couldn't you make part of the trade conditional on him re-signing with us?

Hudler & Emmerton for Havlat and a 5th round pick.

Done.

I don't think he'd get along with Kronwall

[Never_Retire_Steve]

But what number would he wear? Abdelkader is already #8, would we have to trade him to get Burns?

[Crymson]

Couldn't you make part of the trade conditional on him re-signing with us?

That's not legal. It would constitute a re-negotiation of his existing contract, and that's prohibited by the current CBA.

[Datsyerberger]

That's not legal. It would constitute a re-negotiation of his existing contract, and that's prohibited by the current CBA.

Actually, you can do that. You can say, okay, we'll trade you this and this and this for Burns, and if he re-signs with us in the '12-'13 offseason, we'll throw in that and that too.

Trades with conditional assets (usually picks) based upon a player signing/re-signing with a team happen fairly often.

Edited by Datsyerberger, 21 June 2011 - 01:34 AM.

[Opie]

Actually, you can do that. You can say, okay, we'll trade you this and this and this for Burns, and if he re-signs with us in the '12-'13 offseason, we'll throw in that and that too.

Trades with conditional assets (usually picks) based upon a player signing/re-signing with a team happen fairly often.

Exactly, conditional picks is common place in the NHL, just recently in the Kaberle deal another pick was conditional on the B's either being in the SCF or re-signing Kaberle.

[South Dakota wings fan]

That's not legal. It would constitute a re-negotiation of his existing contract, and that's prohibited by the current CBA.

It would probably have to be conditional draft picks. I don't think the NHL does the "player to be named later" like the MLB does. Also, I think you could get permission to speak with the player about possible contract expectations. I remember Holland saying that he had allowed Hossa permission to speak with teams about contracts as a courtesy when they knew they wouldn't be re-signing him. If this were to happen, it any trade would probably have to be completed after July 1 when he would technically be in his contract year.

To me, if the Red Wings decided that they thought Burns was heads and shoulders above any UFA, making a trade that requires giving up assets may not be a bad idea.

[TheDetroitRedWings]

I would love to have Burns on this team. He's relatively cheap for what he brings to the table. His plus/minus isn't usually that great, but that would surely change for him in Detroit. Really hope this happens.

[Crymson]

Actually, you can do that. You can say, okay, we'll trade you this and this and this for Burns, and if he re-signs with us in the '12-'13 offseason, we'll throw in that and that too.

Trades with conditional assets (usually picks) based upon a player signing/re-signing with a team happen fairly often.

Yes, but you can't throw in a clause that says, "If we trade for you, you're required to re-sign with us."

[dirtydangles]

it would make sense to have future considerations in picks as burns cant be traded before the draft anyways. this means that if detroit makes the playoffs or something, then they have a s***ty first rounder next season and then they would be obligated to add another pick to that to sweeten it up and bring the value back up.

[Nevermind]

To me, if the Red Wings decided that they thought Burns was heads and shoulders above any UFA, making a trade that requires giving up assets may not be a bad idea.

I think he's head and shoulders above any UFA. So will Minnesota want to trade him? And what's the price?

Yes, but you can't throw in a clause that says, "If we trade for you, you're required to re-sign with us."

I don't think that's what he meant at all.

[dirtydangles]

I think he's head and shoulders above any UFA. So will Minnesota want to trade him? And what's the price?

Id give up Fil, Kindl, 2012 first rounder for Burns + 2012 3rd rounder
OR
Franzen, Kindl, future considerations for Burns + 4th rounder 2012

I'd also try to work Hudler into both of these deals. I think a dman must go back and kindl is best option with smith almost ready.

Once again, I'm not saying this will happen, ahhemmmm crymson, im just answering his question about the price we could offer.