Kraken70 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 As sad as it is to say, I think Burrows time as a Canuck are numbered. He's been a great team guy and put it all on the line for them and the fans, but it's becoming more obvious by the game that he needs a change as does the organization. The one guy on that list I want to keep is Hamhuis. He may not be a big scoring threat but he is still very dependable on the defensive side of the puck and has great veteran leadership for our young defencemen and makes a great mentor. I think he's still a great asset to this team but only at a reduced salary. I think he'd be the one guy who would take a decrease in pay to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsedin33 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, D-Money said: I don't think teams are lining up for a guy with 1 point in his last 24 games. Not to mention someone who may affect the view of your team among the refs (sad, but true). I think Burrows will probably be bought out at the end of the season. It probably makes more sense to Benning to take a 1.5 hit for 2 years, rather than retaining 2.25 for 1 to find a taker, since this offseason is the one where he wants to land some FA's. We don't have any buyouts left do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, hsedin33 said: We don't have any buyouts left do we? You can buy out all the players you want. You just have to pay 2/3 the salary spread out over double the remaining term on the cap. You are thinking of the amnesty buyouts. Each team had 2 buyouts that didn't count against the cap. Those were years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 41 minutes ago, The Weasel said: I think it's going to be really tough to move Burrows based on his current play and how much the refs have it out for him since the Auger incident. I think a lot of teams would pass on him because of it. He might be ok going to an original 6/'darling' team. Montreal, Chicago, L.A., Detroit, Boston, Washington, NYR etc. Ref's would be less likely to target him in those locations and he's likely be less of a prominent figure on those teams. 50% retained salary for say a 3rd or a soon to be waiver eligible prospect... If not, I'll not be surprised to see him bought out this summer either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliboy Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 37 minutes ago, Lord Wolf said: I echo Boudrias. Alex Burrows has played solidly for the Canucks his entire career. Even now, while his scoring is down, his contributions to the team still make him valuable. Personally, I'd like to see him retire as a Canuck, but in these days of hockey as a business rather than a sport, his time may be limited. It would be strange to see him agitating against the Canucks for another team. Burrows would definitely still have value, especially if we retain some salary. He's an established player who has scored some big goals, could be of interest to some teams looking to make a run. Or, if Montreal gets really desperate, Vrbata and Burrows to the Habs for something good, a 1st and some good prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Just now, aliboy said: Vrbata and Burrows to the Habs for something good, a 1st and some good prospects. Cap space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I'd hesitate to really even call that speculation. I mean, we know anyone could be moved, but there isn't really much to indicate that any of the players mentioned will be in motion at the deadline. Benning just recently talked about how important Vrbata and Hamhuis are to the team, and Weber holds little to no value in the trade market while Burrows' contract and declining play make him hard to move as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Pretty soft, even for a blog. They used a quote by Burrows in which he's essentially just saying he's trying to enjoy his time here while it lasts, and turned that into a blog of how all of our vets are on the move. Terrible. With everything that's actually been reported on the top of the TDL, it appears Benning hasn't decided if he's keeping Vrbata yet. Hamhuis is out another month injured, i think he's doubtful to be moved. Canucks are still contending for a playoff spot, tank nation can suck it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ossi Vaananen said: Canucks are still contending for a playoff spot, tank nation can suck it. Can you not hope to see Vrbata, Hamhuis etc moved and not be a part of "tank nation'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said: CDC must have written it. Or any Canuck fan, for that matter. Benning hasn't said he's been getting calls on vets; to the contrary, other teams always ask for the young players. If need be, we should retain on Vrbata to maximize his trade value. It's only for this year, so we can retain on Burrows or even Higgins next year if required, or one of them this year too (since we can only retain on up to 3 players at once). Suck it up, Sir Aqua, so Bossman JB can gitterdun! I'd be surprised if at least a couple of teams weren't calling about Vrbata. Hamhuis could have some interest as well, depending on his injury recovery. Burrows, Higgins and Weber, I doubt it, so we'd have to be selling them pretty hard to want to make a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Just now, elvis15 said: I'd be surprised if at least a couple of teams weren't calling about Vrbata. Hamhuis could have some interest as well, depending on his injury recovery. Burrows, Higgins and Weber, I doubt it, so we'd have to be selling them pretty hard to want to make a deal. There's still a slim chance Higgins now that he's waived (or even Burrows for that matter) could be moved at the deadline with salary retained. Particularly if a team has injuries etc. A contender could do worse than having a guy like Higgins at ~$1.25m sitting in the minors and available for call up during a playoff run should the need arise. Burrows would be a tougher sell and might require both salary retained AND salary coming back but if we can get something we need like a depth D it could make sense. Still think he's a buyout candidate this summer though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 As much as I don't want the Canucks to tank trading Vrbata at the deadline is easily in the best interest of the team. The only player listed here I think the Canucks should try to re sign is Hamhuis. That's an easy decision if we can get him for a short term and a moderate cap hit. Best case scenario he gets healthy and 100% finally and gets back to form otherwise he's still a solid top 4 option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Profanity Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 If they are to be traded, I hope they win a cup with their new team. Even though they might not be part of the Canucks' future plan, and their play have been in decline, they have been nothing but loyal to the Canucks organization. I would be especially sad to see Burr go if that day comes. He might be a donkey in many's eyes, but he is a true Canuck, and bleeds blue and green no matter where he goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 24 minutes ago, J.R. said: There's still a slim chance Higgins now that he's waived (or even Burrows for that matter) could be moved at the deadline with salary retained. Particularly if a team has injuries etc. A contender could do worse than having a guy like Higgins at ~$1.25m sitting in the minors and available for call up during a playoff run should the need arise. Burrows would be a tougher sell and might require both salary retained AND salary coming back but if we can get something we need like a depth D it could make sense. Still think he's a buyout candidate this summer though. Totally agree. Not likely to get many calls on them like we would with Vrbata at least, but I'm sure Benning is still going to ask about them with other GMs to see if there's a spot somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierdaddy Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Boudrias said: Quite possible. The Auger incident was a serious black eye for the NHL and for CBC HNIC via the MacLean smear job. They tried to run Burrows out of the NHL but failed because of Burrow's continued fine play and because Van fans stood by him. That said a change of venue could lessen that history. When you talk about Burrows play it has slid. He still has value as a 3rd line option with a great PK history. Add his superior shoot out skill. Burrows has a solid rep with NHL gm's. Yzerman picked him up for the World Cup a couple of years ago where he played great after an injury. I think there would be a market. I think there's more of a market for Burr than Higgins. While I respect and admire his story I think it's time to move on if possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatedkid666 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 2 hours ago, MJDDawg said: Speculation would be if Bob Mackenzie or Elliotte Friedman were doing the speculating, not some blog that tells you the obvious... that UFA's might possibly be moved at the deadline. We shall see but this is why trade deadline day is like Christmas for me. Trade deadline>Christmas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilya Mikheyev Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Burrows' value is pretty low right now. I think it'd be a worthy gamble to hold onto him until next TDL then either move him with salary retained, or, if the Canucks want to make a small run in the playoffs, letting him play out his contract. His career is basically taking the route most people thought: a useful, but overpaid grinder near this stage of his contract/career. Then, a bottom six role player on small contracts until he retires. But the Canucks have a lot of young wingers ready to step into the top-9 next year: Baer, Shink, Etem, Virt, Gaunce, perhaps Grenier. Plus, the vets: Daniel, Hansen, Sutter might be moved to wing. Plus any UFAs. The writing is on the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Glad to see we go and trade for Prust only to want to get rid of him lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks Prophet Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 17 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said: Glad to see we go and trade for Prust only to want to get rid of him lol. That's just the way it goes, sometimes newly added players fail to live up to expectations set by the GM. That said, I don't think Prust is as bad as some people around here are claiming. He's still fairly reliable defensively, and he's been a solid Playoff performer for the Canadiens. If Canucks look like they'll make the playoffs, then keep Prust because the playoffs are normally a tough and dirty war, and we need tough veterans like him. If Benning isn't confident that the team will make the playoffs, then we might as well see what the trade value is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 25 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said: Glad to see we go and trade for Prust only to want to get rid of him lol. UFA traded at the deadline spend 20 games with their new team and playoffs and usually sign somewhere else in the summer. We have no intention of re-signing prust in the summer, but will still have spent 50-60 games with us, if he's traded at the deadline. Basically, the same thing as signing Santorelli for a year and letting him walk after that, or what were about to do with Bartkowski, Prust was brought in as insurance for the case where Virtanen and McCann were not ready for the NHL....and to get rid of Kassian while getting something serviceable in return. not the end of the world. Happens to every team, every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.