RHD is already strong and scratching Grizz is hurting the left side. So pretty counter intuitive

1. why tf is coyle 2nd line over krejci
2. Taking a defenseman/right wing off SJS's hands who got 83 pts last season and is on pace for 52 (!) points this season.
3. If you actually pull this off, Burns could become the 2RW that BOS has always been looking for

Just doesn’t really make sense

Either way you look at it Burns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grizz

Boston would be doing San Jose a favor taking that horrid contract away from San Jose. Unless the Sharks are going to retain significantly more salary, Boston shouldn't be sending back a 1st in this trade.

how are you justifying that this trade is bad for the bruins, like what

such a joke

people call leafs fan delusional meanwhile there are bruins fans are here justifying that this is a bad trade for the bruins, laughable

This is pretty funny. 8/10.

It is a bad trade for the bruins. they would be adding soon to be 35 year old defenseman with 5 years left on his deal at 8m per (1m retention) He isnt great defensively it doesnt fit the bruins style of play etc.

youre getting rid of the worst contract in the nhl and a late first round pick for burns, im baffled rn

Backes' contract is far from the worst in the NHL.

Well see it’s like this. Backes is gone next year one way or the other. Problem solved. I’d rather carry him for 1 more year than Burns for 6 at 8 til he’s 40. B’s are set on D. Don’t need him. Puts them over the cap when Miller returns and prevents them from being able to acquire what they DO need. So there’s that. Now if you want to do a 3 way where someone else gets Burns and B’s get a RW.....sure.

sorry, one of the worst, guy cant crack a lineup, bottom line this is a great trade for the bruins, and anyone who thinks otherwise is dumb, especially the guy who thinks they dont need to add a first and backes for burns 1 for 1 is fair

Boston is essentially taking on another contract which could end up being more of the same. Backes is up after next year and won't be an eyesore should they buy him out.

Seabrook, Lucic, Quick and Jones are all undisputedly worse.

i see what ur saying, but you also gotta think, berg is turning 35 this year, krejci is declining, you gotta think this true contender window is only open for another 3-4 years with their forward core aging, not saying they will go ****, but they wotn be as good as they are now. youre adding burns for a low first round pick, chara is leaving, adds veteran presence back there, and lets not kid ourselves, brent burns can still play good hockey . san jose is just awful this year.

how is the backes contract "the worst contract in the nhl"? Burns is a great pp scorer, a great offensive dman. Im telling you he doesnt fit the bruins scheme or list of needs. Ide rather mcavoy carlo and whoever at 3 rd. Talk about worst contract? what Burns contract going to look like when hes 37 or 38. yeah no thank you at all. we have plenty of capable dmen.

lucic and backes are so close that is not even worth arguing whos is better, they both signed during a summer of all those big wingers signing those big deals, backes is an awful one, when youre paying a guy 6m and you put him on waivers, thats all that needs to be said.

so what your saying is we should do exactly what put san jose in their predicament to begin with? Brent burns is not good on defense. You dont add more veterans signed to term to an aging group. that makes zero sense.

Ok, but understand this. Our D is fine. And will be for years. Problems are elsewhere. Burns is a hinderance.

Lucic is signed for another 3 years. Backes is signed for another year. There is a major difference in these contracts.

now youre just nit picking, easily ONE of the worst contracts, no questions asked

I listed two other contracts in my post that you just ignored, but yes I am the one nitpicking because I don't think a guy with less than two years left that can easily be bought out is the worst contract.

then i corrected myself and said one of the worst which it is, he sucks ass and is getting paid 6 mil to do it

It is a horrible trade for the Bruins.

Backes' contract is bad, but Burns' is equally as bad. He is not a 70/80pt dman anymore. It will be 50 this year, 40 next, and so on. NOT WORTH 11M. Adding him at twice as much as Backes means they lose Krug.

The Bruins don't really need a RHD - Carlo and McAvoy are just fine as 1&2. No need to trade a #1 for a 3rd pairing RD. He's not, but he would be in Boston because you are not pairing him with Chara or Krug.

If this was 2014-15 It's a great deal. It's not. Burns is old and it shows. Bruins would be in the exact same situation they've been in with Backes for last 2.