Bryan Murray Vs Dany Heatley: Who Blinks First?

davetherave wrote:

hemlock wrote:Heatley + crapola for Bieksa, Burrows and Hodgson. K thanks.

Hemmy> Hypothetical: Gillis offers BM Bieksa and Burrows for Heatley. Right now. Do you do that deal?

I'll tell you my answer to that...

Spez> Burrows is one tough, effective mofo, scored 28 goals, a plus 23 and 150 PIM. Bieksa gives the Sens a true top 4 d-man. The transaction leaves BM with some cap room.

So...do you send DH to VanCity for that hypothetical deal?

SpezDispenser wrote:

davetherave wrote:MOI, if you assume BM doesn't want DH going to an Eastern team, who, apart from San Jose (who don't seem serious) and LA (who have said they're not interested), makes sense as a logical and credible destination?

I see two...Vancouver and Anaheim.

Gillis likes dramatic moves...and he's a BIG spender. He's loaded with d-men, and has a few extra forwards. You know he wants to take the Nucks to the next level, and he won't get there with the crew he has now.

Bob Murray has rebuilt the Ducks into a dangerous team. He has tradeable assets and cap space.

Whatty'all think?

I agree. Bieksa and Kesler has to be close right now. Sure, they lose two pieces, but gain an intimidating partner for the Sedins.

I see Minny in here as well. I have no idea why they don't do what it takes to get Heatley. With their new coaching staff, new philosophy and emphasis on a faster, offensive game - Heatley should be their target. Plus they have the pieces and they have the cap space.

Wish I could remember where (could even have been here, but I'm thinking Chirp), but I read that BM wanted Havlat + and Minny wasn't willing to give up a newly signed player.

davetherave wrote:Spez> Burrows is one tough, effective mofo, scored 28 goals, a plus 23 and 150 PIM. Bieksa gives the Sens a true top 4 d-man. The transaction leaves BM with some cap room.

So...do you send DH to VanCity for that hypothetical deal?

Me personally? No, I wouldn't. Burrows isn't enough coming back at forward, I don't think the deal works personally. If that's the transaction, I would hope for a 1st round pick as well - at the least.

spader wrote:
Wish I could remember where (could even have been here, but I'm thinking Chirp), but I read that BM wanted Havlat + and Minny wasn't willing to give up a newly signed player.

Yeah, you can't really do that. Burns and Bouchard for Heatley and Lee/Campoli, straight up, done and done. Easy as 1-2-3.

davetherave wrote:Spez> Burrows is one tough, effective mofo, scored 28 goals, a plus 23 and 150 PIM. Bieksa gives the Sens a true top 4 d-man. The transaction leaves BM with some cap room.

So...do you send DH to VanCity for that hypothetical deal?

Add to that that Bieska is signed for two years at 3.75 and Burrows for 4 years at 2 million.

Frees space, two quality players...I say pull the trigger if that ever gets on the table.

davetherave wrote:Spez> Burrows is one tough, effective mofo, scored 28 goals, a plus 23 and 150 PIM. Bieksa gives the Sens a true top 4 d-man. The transaction leaves BM with some cap room.

So...do you send DH to VanCity for that hypothetical deal?

Nope. What does Murray do with the blueline when he adds another D man and can't ship one back to Vancouver with DH?

Burrows is great, but IMO you'd have to throw in a great prospect AND a pick to even get Murray to listen.

SpezDispenser wrote:

spader wrote:
Wish I could remember where (could even have been here, but I'm thinking Chirp), but I read that BM wanted Havlat + and Minny wasn't willing to give up a newly signed player.

Yeah, you can't really do that. Burns and Bouchard for Heatley and Lee/Campoli, straight up, done and done. Easy as 1-2-3.

Ahh...Burns. That would be sweet. I think I like the hypothetical Vancouver deal better, but Burns is amazing.

Also, I personally would consider Lee a flop at this point. If a trade scenario comes up and the dance partner wants a D-man from the Sens, I say put Lee at the top of that list.

Snuh wrote:

davetherave wrote:Spez> Burrows is one tough, effective mofo, scored 28 goals, a plus 23 and 150 PIM. Bieksa gives the Sens a true top 4 d-man. The transaction leaves BM with some cap room.

So...do you send DH to VanCity for that hypothetical deal?

Nope. What does Murray do with the blueline when he adds another D man and can't ship one back to Vancouver with DH?

Burrows is great, but IMO you'd have to throw in a great prospect AND a pick to even get Murray to listen.

I think, at that point, San Jose becomes a trade partner for one (or two) cheaper D-men. I'm thinking Lee and Schubie. Take back a thank you note and a bag of pucks. That still leaves us with 8 D-men (if Karlsson is ready and Smith is playing), but most of the discussions seem to have D coming back in any trade proposal and Bieska is good times.

spader wrote:Ahh...Burns. That would be sweet. I think I like the hypothetical Vancouver deal better, but Burns is amazing.

Also, I personally would consider Lee a flop at this point. If a trade scenario comes up and the dance partner wants a D-man from the Sens, I say put Lee at the top of that list.

The problem with the Vancouver deal is that Burrows had one heck of a career year. He might get back to that number if on the top line in Ottawa, but there's the same chance that he produces less and our offence takes a rather large hit.

Bieksa's a nice add on, but not the true centerpiece that Burns is.

As for Lee...I know what you mean, but he's still so unbelievably young at this point - and Doughty/Bogosian he ain't, so I would say, give him this year to show you how good he can be. I think we're all likely to be a little surprised.

I really hope you're right. I didn't get to watch too many games last year (the timing sucks in South Korea), but the games that I did see he looked out of place.
In his first NHL game (against Buffalo I believe), I was impressed. He made a lousy play and got beat the first play, then calmed down and looked solid, but a little out of place. I figured he'd grow out of that but he hasn't yet.

Oh, regarding SDs last post, I think getting Burrows (and his 2 mil) would also serve to spread out the scoring:salary ratio nicely. He's a solid player with a great salary and term (IMO). I personally don't think we're gonna get back equal value for Heatley. I think that too many people (probably including BM) are undervaluing the cap space that you get in a trade like that.

Spez>if you think so little of Burrows, I doubt you've watched him him play very often. This kid is meaner than Chris Neil and scored 28 goals last year, four of them shorthanded. Tough to play against? One of the most irritating players in the NHL. Sens could use someone like him.

spader wrote:Oh, regarding SDs last post, I think getting Burrows (and his 2 mil) would also serve to spread out the scoring:salary ratio nicely. He's a solid player with a great salary and term (IMO). I personally don't think we're gonna get back equal value for Heatley. I think that too many people (probably including BM) are undervaluing the cap space that you get in a trade like that.

I suppose...just like to see a guy like Michalek or Burns be the centerpiece. A nice, young stud of a player who's value will soon be close to Heatley's. Bieksa could be that guy I guess. Maybe a part of me just wants to wait until Heatley's value increases, he's due to have a big year - as are most of the Sens you'd have to figure.

And he's signed for the same money as Neil. Would make amends to those who believe Neil was signed for too much.

davetherave wrote:Spez>if that's what you think of Burrows, I doubt you've watched him him play very often. This kid is meaner than Chris Neil and scored 28 goals last year, four of them shorthanded. Tough to play against? One of the most irritating players in the NHL. Sens could use someone like him.

I do like him as a player, but if we're giving up 40+ goals on a team that doesn't score much at the moment, we'd better be making it up somewhere. Is it possible that Burrows had a career year last year? And that he's more like a 20 goal guy on a 2nd line? And if so, did we spread the scoring around, or spread it pretty thin?

These are the questions that define a GM. I wouldn't do it, but luckily for all of us, I'm not the GM. :^^^^:

20 goals plus Kovalev= DH's production. Add to that Foligno and Shannon picking up where they left off, Fisher (hopefully) improving on last year, Campoli continuing on the PP, and Spezza being forced to shoot more and we are now much deeper offensively.

There's no question that the trade wouldn't be ideal, but I think it would be good.

Spez, BM signed Kovalev to make up part for what he might lose by dealing Heatley.

Do you really think DH's value is going to 'increase' over the course of the season?

The perception about Dany is already set among the NHL's GMs (much of that due to the avalanche of negative press and Heatley Hate in Ottawa BTW).

...if it were otherwise...DH would already have found a new home.

And aren't you engaging in a just a little 'wishful thinking'?

IMHO if BM can get a Top 4 d-man, which Bieksa is; and a solid 20-goal forward--which Burrows is, and more--for DH, he's well rid of The Heatley Problem, and improves the Sens in the process.

Again, this is purely a hypothetical...but I sense Mike Gillis is, logically, the man to make a move for Dany.