Quoted

And if he said that people would start speculating on a rift between him and the coach. It's really a no win question.

We need the Burrows of a couple of years ago, not so much the Burrows of today. That said, if he can get back even remotely close to form, the team needs his (and Kelser's and Sedins and...) production.

I'm not throwing him under the bus, but doesn't it say something when pointing out a single assist in the middle of a major slump says something? There was a time when "Burrows is back" meant a couple of assists and a goal or two. A faily routine PP assist is not going to get too many people excited. (Yes, I know you were just answering a question, but I have seen that from a bunch of other posts).

To be fair, some people post intending sarcasm, some are just that stupid. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which!

"Over-rated"??? He gets universal praise from teammates, fans, and media for a reason (and it's not for his scoring)

Haven't heard anything other than the speculation here so I am going to say he's fine.

I always laugh when people talk about bag skating or benching stars. Humilitating struggling professionals isn't going to somehow magically make them play better. They know they are playing like crap and don't need someone to tell them that. Or, that is simply as good as they are. What the coaching staff needs to do is build/rebuild the system around the players to maximise their success. Is that happening under the current coaching scheme? Hmm...sometimes, but often not.

Bigger question: are they playing like crap or this is really just as good as they are? Like crap to me would imply they are playing below their abilities. I am not so sure anymore.

So a couple of weeks away maybe?

Edmonton has a better line up than the Ducks????

I suspect that's part of the problem - there are no very clear guidelines to follow. To be fair, every incident is different, but the rulings are all over the place. One thing that's maddening is that though injury isn't supposed to factor in, it does sometimes for sure. Pick a lane on this stuff!

And why when the antics in this game hit the press so many casual or non- hockey fans merely shrugged and said " see, what a stupid league". Why the NHL doesn't seem concerned that they are becoming a laughing stock is beyond me.

Cheers. To be fair others may see bias and it may be there to some degree as the Canucks do have some history. I just don't see it personally. I truly believe that the league needs to get some fresh blood in and revamp a lot of these processes. There are too many old school NHLers in the head office that are resistant to change (same with the NHLPA really). They need a pretty serious make over if they don't want to fall even further down the ladder of respectable professional sports. Any discussion that doesn't end with a Picard face palm or "haters gunna hate" is a good one.

There are a myriad of bad/mysterious/ inexplicable discipline decisions around player's on ice infractions. But, this happens to every team. I am sure over the last five years there are plenty examples of where other teams feels the Canucks got away with something or the suspension wasn't enough. Yes, it's inconsistent and the league needs to fix it but is just don't see conclusive evidence that this is just a vancouver thing. I also don't think it's possible to equate something like an on ice slash by a player to off ice actions by a coach. They just are too different to compare directly.

Yeah, what more would calgary have tried if all the tougher players had been ejected after 2 sec?

He forced the league to act the minute he took the altercation off ice. I actually think the league got this one pretty close to right: fine for Hartley for the line up and the suspension for Torts for the actions on the intermission.

Still just can't buy into the biased treatment theory. Every team feels they get screwed by the refs and league. This comes from the inconsistency and incompetence of the head office not from any targeted plot.

Working for Hartley deemed punishment enough by NHL

Fair points. In some ways the league acts like refs that screw up a game and it gets out of hand - do nothing, cause problems, then overreact to the results. They really need some outside consultants here I think - old school NHLers in exec positions are not going to make meaningful changes or even see the problems.

2nd time for Torts.

Exactly. If Burke, then Gillis as well. This was a coaching issue.

It's hard to compare to the Roy incident as Tort's was off the ice (bench) which is a huge no no.

Too much IMO. Oh well.

Wishful thinking. Hard to see him escaping with nothing and honestly he should get something.

I thought it was just a number. A percentage would be more fair but too sophisticated for the NHL I think.