Okay, I think you should ask yourself a few questions when considering if this trade makes sense.
1. Are the bruins in a stanley cup contending window?
Given that they won 15 playoff games last year, and have the same team, the answer should be yes, right? okay, good. moving on.
2. What would it take for them to move their leading goal scorer in the playoffs who is on a really cheap contract?
If you answered, a crappy AHL d man and a couple lame draft picks....well, you're wrong.

So the Sharks trade Charlie Coyle as a prospect to Minnesota in a deal for Brent Burns. We won this trade.

Then, Charlie Coyle really did well with the Bruins and they want to let him go?

Also, the Sharks would be paying a lot to get Charlie Coyle back.

I don’t know why the Bruins and the Sharks would agree to either of this.

Sure, it’s been years ever since, but the Sharks probably wouldn’t have dealt Charlie Coyle in the first place if they were high on him. What I mean is they could’ve thrown a different prospect to the Wild’s way.

The Bruins finally found a 3c, they are not trading him, especially because they could use him a 2RW if need be/Young guys take major steps (I doubt that)

The Bruins organization strength is their young D and young Wings.

I agree that there is absolutely no trade to be had here, that said, I couldn't hate your logic anymore. This concept of, "oh, if team A liked player Z, they wouldn't have traded him." If players like brent burns could be had without a team giving up anyone they didn't want to trade, blockbuster deals would happen daily. "Oh hey, I'm going to trade for your awesome player, but I don't want to give up anyone I think is good." What the heck is that?

Roy’s career is over from too many injuries. It’s a shame but he is done...so no way this trade ever could work.

With all due respect, the Sharks “stole” Brent Burns from the Wild. Brent Burns has concussion issues as I can recall back then. However, he was a promising and high potential star in the making. The Sharks basically gave a Devin Setoguchi that fell off after the trade and no offense, but Charlie Coyle wasn’t much of anything in Minnesota. It was until he was traded to the Bruins where things began to click for him. It’s also a small sample size because he hasn’t been a Bruin for long yet. There are inconsistencies that may happen. I’m not too high on Charlie Coyle. Perhaps he is coming into a much better player than before (late bloomer), but I don’t think Charlie Coyle is the answer that the Sharks need at RW.

Also, Doug Wilson is quite good at trading a few mediocre players for something much better. In example, Burns and EK65. Heatley didn’t work out too well, but it was basically for Mihalek and Cheechoo. Players that weren’t was they use to be.

You entirely missed the point

If I'm correct, your point is that it takes trades of equal/fair value from both parties to make it happen correct? You're saying Devin Setoguchi, Charlie Coyle, and whatever else was traded for Brent Burns was fair for both sides, yes?

I honestly don't think the Sharks front office didn't want to trade Charlie Coyle. I think they wanted to. The way I see it, Minnesota agreed and accepted that trade. I didn't think it was fair. I felt it was to the Sharks' favor. The Sharks won that trade without even the hindsight now. I sense that the Sharks wanted to dump Charlie Coyle. That's just my opinion.

I suggest you read my post again. It’s very clear. This was not the message

I think you're very high on Charlie Coyle. At least right now. I'm not. I would need to see more from him. His playoff performance last season could've been a peak.
Also, it's not Doug Wilson's fault if the other party is willing to take "lesser value" for what they're trading for. It's not Doug Wilson's fault for "trading up." Blame their front office, not the guy who's offering. Sorry, the Brent Burns trade was NOT an equal trade. No way.

I think you’ve missed every single point I’ve made. Did you read anything I said?

This is the main quote from you where we differ, yes?

Yes, well, one of two.

This is your second?

That’s two of two that you seemed to misunderstand, yes.

What is the point you're trying to make then? We are going in circles. This is what I recollected:

Point #1: "The Bruins are in contention for a cup. They want to keep him. Nobody is going to take that junk for Charle Coyle!"
Point #2: "Trades need to be of equal/fair value from both parties to accept."

I elaborated clearly as well.

1. The bruins aren’t going to make a trade that makes them worse now. They are in win now mode. They’ll trade futures for immediate help. In what universe would they do the opposite?
2. No. Just because a team trades a player doesn’t mean they don’t really like the player. It shows no insight on how much they like the player.

1. It will take a lot for the Bruins to have someone pry their hands off Charlie Coyle. Like you mentioned, they are in "win now" mode. I do not disagree here. They are not trying to dismantle/rebuild.
2. I believe that if a team likes a player a lot, they are less incline to trade him/her away. If a player is doing great, producing, and performing well under their system, they do NOT wish to trade that player away. It screws up a lot of aspects such as team chemistry. Why ruin a good thing?

If a team doesn't like a player very much. I believe they are more incline to trading that player away. For example, the player isn't fitting in well and not performing as anticipated. You always try to improve your team and that usually means getting rid of players you're not fond of due to SUCKING.

Ever think that the other team doesn’t want the players that suck? Because, you know, they don’t want to suck. Who’s your favorite player? Think if your team traded him for McDavid it insinuates they think that player stinks? Maybe they just wanted the other player?

No, it does not insinuate that the player stinks. Yes, they may just want the other player. That's fair and reasonable. I never said that cannot/never happens.

From what I sense and from what I have speculated the reasons may be of why Charlie Coyle was dealt away is this:

He was the Sharks first draft pick in the 2010 NHL Entry draft. That means a lot. Even if it's 28th overall, it's still a first round draft pick and quite high. The Sharks must've saw something in him to draft him even if 27 other players were taken before him. I honestly believe that he wasn't developing or perhaps not what the Sharks expected. I believe they were optimistic about this prospect, but perhaps they saw something they're weren't fond of or inefficient enough in. I think it led to him being dealt away. I think that's fair to say as harsh as it may be. Of course, we may never know. It's not like we can listen/read what the management thought about Coyle at the time. However, even if it's Brent Burns (a future star that came true), I don't think they would have dealt Coyle if they saw something more positive from him to keep him.

Maybe Minnesota was like, "You want Brent Burns? I want Charlie Coyle in the trade then. We like Coyle." Who knows?

I read the first line. If you’re that simple, I hope you have a good summer.
Cheers

I missed a word. What I meant was "No, it does NOT insinuate that the player stinks." I was typing fast and missed a word.
Anyways, I'm pretty bored debating this.

1) Roy is a throw-in. He's never making the NHL. So the trade is pretty even.
2) Coyle's projected ceiling was a second line C, which the wild wanted. He's the only reason the Burns trade happened. The Sharks were high on him, but werent going to get Burns without him in the trade.
3) Bruins probably don't agree to trade, but they might because McAvoy needs an extension and the Cap space would be helpful. It is absolutely a trade that can happen.
4) You reported me after being a complete jerk on my thread then deleted all your comments so you would get reported back? Pro bro. Pro.

I didn't delete my comments. I wasn't the one who deleted them. I don't know what's necessary to prove that, but I left my comments as is. Contact Capfriendly if you want.