ForsbergTheGreat
-
Posts
12,354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by ForsbergTheGreat
-
-
18 minutes ago, kilgore said:
I understand your logic, but adding to what Clam said, if Benning is truly serious about making the playoffs being his #1 concern. ie...that he thinks the experience gotten by whatever young guys are on the team is more important than the amount of young guys on the team...then we do need some proven playoff grit and heart to not only win games, but to help as a mentor in the playoffs, not just the regular season. And there is no one that fights harder in the playoffs than Burrows.
Now with the latest rash of neverending injuries, the playoffs may be a moot argument.
I don’t think we could look at moving him this year, I don't think there's a market for him, not with that extra year on his contract. But I think by draft, it’s open market for Burrows similarly to what we did with Juice. Burrows with one year left and us possibly retaining some cap looks appealing to some teams. Add the fact that he’s making less salary than his actually cap hit would be appealing to some salary conscious teams, Ie Florida, Ottawa, Nashville.
We have to remember that next year we won’t be so inexperienced. Horvat will be in his third year. McCann and Virtanen will be looking to be full time players with a full year under their belt. Etem, Baertschi, and Vey as well. We will have a few players that will no longer be waiver exempt, Grenier, Kenins, and a few players who seem to be on the cusp of making the NHL in Shinkaruk and Gaunce. Not to mention the possibility of bringing Rodin over. That doesn’t even consider the option of signing UFA’s like Okposo or Lucic. There’s simply too many players and not enough spots. And sadly I’d rather move on from Burrows for 80 games than to risk loosing a future youth piece for nothing. Especially when at this point, that future youth piece could very well contribute as much if not more on the ice at a fraction of the cost.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Yotes said:
never clued in to the 6.06, i just presumed it was 6'6'' as why the heck would the measure 6' .6'' haha, maybe I am way off then...
33 minutes ago, Wild Sean Monahan said:Pretty sure it means 6 feet and 6 inches. Markstrom is listed as the same.
He is 6'6", hockeyDB lists things as in 6(feet) and the next number total inches, ignore the (.)
06 equals 6 inches, that's why when you see players listed as 5.11 you know their not saying the player is 5 foot and, .11 of an inch.
QuoteThe first thing that grabs one’s attention about Paigin is his immense size, currently listed at 6’6, 209 pounds.
-
50 minutes ago, bp79 said:
Well I don't disagree with you I think Lindens a god example more to my point.. he had lost what made him the star that he was, but they kept him around until he decided it was time I still get goosebumps thinking how iginla (one ofd thr true classy players brought his team to centre ice to shake lindens hqand adter his last game ) Doubt burr would get the same reaction but at least let him play out his final year with us. he still had 20 goals last year ands could still get close to that this year. Not saying he;s top 6 anymore but has looked good on the bottom 6 still goes to the dirty areas and is still good on the defensive side of thing while still being able to contribute in his lesser role with the team. Without once being a negative in the locker room.. and theres no denying he still makes guys around him play harder and can still be a great shutdown guy on the third or 4th linebottom line is hes worth more t5o uis then some high pick or b prospedct he would fetch while having to retain salary who better to mentor rthe likes odf virt or mcann then a guy who has done nothng but be a class acxt on and off the ice. id keep him over cracknel or lalewski anyday . thanks for the open honrst dialogue rather then the normal idiotic comment one would excpect from some of these cdc tards that have no clue who linden or smyl are plus 1 2 u my malmacian friend
Completely different situations, Linden in his final year was earning 600k. Burrows will have a cap of 4.5. Linden was also scratched 23 times in his final year, not exactly how you want to go out.
Canucks in 2008 weren’t a team overfilled with young talent ready to make the jump. Most of that young talent next year (Baertschi, Vey, Grenier, Etem, Kenins) are no longer waiver eligible. So now we risk losing some of those players or if Burrows gets outplayed, he risks getting the Higgins treatment.If Burrows really does believe that next year could be his last, I doubt he wants to finish it playing second fiddle to the youth movement. If he’s got some gas left in the tank, I would expect him to want one more kick at the can and sadly, that’s not in Vancouver.
As much as everyone would love to give Burrows the final send off in Vancouver, this is a business first and the pros of moving Burrows greatly outweigh the pros of keeping him. Financially, short term and long term.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, J.R. said:
I guess...
*Enthusiasm highly tempered*
Yeah, I mean if he turns out great, if not it’s not the end of the world. It could be another Brunstrom or Cervenka type situation. Both of which are back in Europe playing. Or he could turn out to be an effective NHL player. Not really holding my breath, but you never know.
-
1 hour ago, J.R. said:
I'm not convinced he makes the Canucks out of the gate. Seems he's going to need some time and coaching to adjust to North American ice/hockey. Never mind that even without signing any UFA forwards, he'll be in tough for a top 9 role (don't see him fitting a 4th line role).
Sedin, Sedin, Sutter
Baer, Horvat, Hansen
Shink/McCann, Vey, Etem
Dorsett, Zalewski, Virtanen/GaunceGrenier, Kenins
Not a lot of room there... And a two of four good, NHL ready players in Gaunce, McCann, Shink or Virt will be sent to Utica. I'd also LOVE for us to sign Okposo.
Sedin, Sedin, Okposo/Sutter
Baer, Horvat, Sutter/Okposo
Etem, Vey, Hansen
Dorsett, Zalewski, Virtanen/GaunceYou could argue that would allow us to sell high on Hansen (if we chose to) but I'm not convinced he'd beat out Shink/McCann (or possibly Virt) for that 3rd W role either...
IMO, it's FAR more likely he heads to Utica and works towards a call up.
Also, is there some reason we're unable to sign him to a 2 way deal? Something like $900k NHL / $300-400k AHL? Still pays him well in either league (not that i care, it's not my money...just curious).
I would assume it’s because he’d rather not come over if he gets put into the AHL, Whether he’s right or not he likely feels he’s past that stage in development. Very similar to Tryamkin. It’s not so much as the money as it’s not worth their time to work their way up through the ranks. And in Rodins case has already played in the AHL and knows the level quality. The NHL to a lot or Europeans and Russian isn’t the end goal, it’s just a different option at playing hockey for a living.
It would be a one year deal with big bonus’, it if works out he’d stay and be a member of the team in the NHL, if it doesn’t he’s be right back heading to SEL. He’s 25, the last thing he’d want is to spend the next 2 years as a bubble player when he could a star in his home town (getting paid handsomely). At this point it’s either he is an NHLer, or he isn’t. I think there is very little chance he comes to over to Canada only to spend more time in the AHL.
As for the Canucks it’s a free asset. If he comes over and plays well, then we just acquired more talent to build with or use to trade. If he doesn’t, all he’d taken up was a roster spot, and some money. But you have to give him a fair shake, and if one year is all were going to get to look at him, then if better be in some impact situation, not in the AHL
He is a left handed shot, but he does play RW, which makes him an attractive piece for the team, if we don’t fill a RW UFA piece (okposo) then his only real competition is Virtanen, Grenier, Hansen, Dorsett, and Etem. The fact that sending Virtanen to the AHL for a half(or full) season, probably doesn’t hurt him. I’d think Rodin would fit in the top 5 spots. Likely him Etem and Grenier rotating.
-
13 minutes ago, Gstank29 said:
Well may as well post our versions of next years lineup
Sedins-Hansen
Baertschi-Horvat-Burrows
Rodin-McCann-Virtanen
Etem-Helm (UFA signing)/Vey- Dorsett
Somehow make room for Gaunce and or Shinkaruk
And sutter
Sedins-Hansen
Lucic Sutter Etem
Baertschi-Horvat-Rodin
Gaunce Vey- Dorsett
Grenier/Kenins
Move Burrows, Start Virtanen and McCann in the AHL to tear things up playing big offensive minutes.
-
3
-
-
23 minutes ago, kilgore said:
You make some good points. But what about injuries? For this team it seems to be a right of passage for each season to have significant injuries. I would like to see the youth get more of a shot as well, but Willie has shown he is cautious with inserting them into the lineup every night (and rightly so). So there would most likely be a spot available either due to this or injuries. But I also think that Burrows being the consummate team player would not have a problem being used as a depth player for his final year if it came down to that. Hey, if Alex is not playing better than the other forwards available, he deserves to be sat. But there is a reason why Burrows has never been a healthy scratch. I googled this, and yes there was one time: I found this tweet from 3 years ago:
http://www2.dailyfaceoff.com/players/news/1461/alexandre-burrows?page=3
Daniel and burrows also not playing.
Burrows will be a healthy scratch tonight with the Canucks locked into the playoffs.
Brad Ziemer
So I'm happy either way. But it would be damn difficult, more than any other past Canuck, including Bure and Linden, to watch Alex playing for another team.
Well the way I see the lines going next year would be….
Sedin Sedin Hansen
Lucic Sutter Etem
Baertschi Horvat Grenier
Gaunce Vey Dorsett
Kenins
Zalewski
That would mean Shinkaruk, McCann, Virtanen, start the year in the minors. It’ll help them develop at the pro level playing meaningful minutes. But since they are waiver excempt, they could be brought up in case of injuries.
There was a quote not too long about when Higgins got waived, where Burrows said he basically understands that it’s a young mans game and the direction the team seems to be heading. I think he’s already mentally preparing himself. Personally I’d like to see him on a playoff team in his final year, a last stop for him to be giving the opportunity to be clutch again. NYR or FLA so I could actually cheer for them.
-
26 minutes ago, clam linguine said:
You should be begging for us to dump the guys over 30 who have not taken a step down yet. BEGGING. But you wont...will you. You know why? Because you haven't learned from Higgins...Bieksa.....Hamhuis. Alex is redundant. We can get assets for the Sedins, Hansen, Edler. There...lotsa room. I would much rather be watching Matthews 2 years from now then Henrik and Danielle rolling around the ice in their wheel chairs...lol. You are worried about losing Vey, lol?
Yay Alex!
? I think in the midst of your rambling you failed to make a point..I have know clue what you were trying to say there..
-
37 minutes ago, kilgore said:
You're right, not too many would call him a bust. But some fans here would call him a bum.
I agree that we have younger, cheaper options but like I said, this happens on every team. We simply cannot waive every vet on the team ie. Higgins. And Higgins is no Burrows. We need at least a small core of vets unless you want to go the Edmonton route. And there is no one better than Burrows to help raise the kids. Its one more fricken year @ 4.5. I think we can absorb that for what he still brings to the table.
And yeah, it is inevitable he will be gone. I have said in this thread that I'd be happy for him if he was traded to a cup competitive team, and we got a great return. I'd also be happy with him staying. Even re-signing for a short cheaper extension.
We have enough vet's and leadership with the Twins, Sutter, Hansen and Dorsett
I'll post this again, Where does Burr fit next year?
Sedin, Sedin, Sutter
Baertschi, Horvat, Hansen
Etem Vey Virtanen
Gaunce McCann Dorsett
Who does Burrows replace? Which non waiver elidgable player to we risk sending back, all for that one "fricken" year? Grenier, Kenins. Is it worth risking losing a young asset for nothing, all for a player who's likely giving less on ice value? Do we also delay another year of Shinkaruk NHL development, There's also the possibility Boeser or Rodin competing for a spot. That lineup is also assuming we doesn’t make any UFA signings (lucic, Ladd, or Okposo) and we let go of Cracknell. With the way Benning talked about us having cap, it sure seems like will will be in the mix of things, meaning that another less roster spot open.
Does it really benefit Burrows or the team to have him as a depth player rotating in an out of the line up with younger players and injury relief. Less be honest, next year is likely his last year, he will be 36 and a lot of wear on his body, is that really how Burrows is going to finish his career?
I’d be willing to find a team for him in the summer and even retain cap (50%). We should be able to find a playoff team that could use his skills. Give him one last real kick at the can, and still be player that has impact. It’s that compared to rotating in and out of the lineup in Vancouver.
overall I wouldn't be shocked if jb put burrows name out there this TD. But likely no deal due to his term. I expect JB will push hard to move burr around draft day and this offseason. It's the not the end of the world if he's on the roster next season but he won't finish the year with the team.
-
1
-
-
dbl post
-
8 minutes ago, kilgore said:
Whats your point?
The Sedins being talked about in the past tense is the exact reason some discuss Burrows that way. Obviously their best days are behind them as well. This happens every year, on every team...especially with 30+ players on the tail ends of their contracts. Its not like we have a Lecavalier contract on our hands.
Not saying you do but it seems like some fans want to hold Burrows to higher standards and if he is not playing like the 2009 - 2011 Burrows until the final day of his contract, then he's a bust.
It's not that he's a bust, it's that we now have younger, cheaper, higher upside options that can replace the current play off Burrows. No one on this team can replace the offense that the twins bring.
It's the reason Higgins got waived, it's the reason Hamhuis and Prust are heading out the door and it's the reason discussion is being brought up about Burrows. This is team is in a transition, moving out aged vets for younger pieces is part of the process.
It’s inevitable that one day Burrows will no longer be on this team. We need to decide (in best interest for the team) when that part is to happen? End of current contract? After an extension contract? This trade deadline? This off season? Next year’s trade deadline?
-
2
-
-
To me, as I’ve said before it’s not even cap space, (it doesn’t hurt) it’s where does Burr fit next year?
Sedin, Sedin, Sutter
Baertschi, Horvat, Hansen
Etem Vey Virtanen
Gaunce McCann Dorsett
Who does Burrows replace? That line up still leaves out Grenier, Kenins, Shinkaruk, and possibly Boeser and Rodin out of the lineup. That's also That’s assuming we doesn’t make any UFA signings (lucic) and let go of Cracknell. And with the way Benning talked about us having cap, it sure seems like will will be in the mix of things, meaning that another less roster spot open. Does it really benefit Burrows or the team to have him as a depth player rotating in an out of the line up with younger players and injury relief. Less be honest, next year is likely his last year, he will be 36 and a lot of wear on his body, is that really how Burrows is going to finish his career? Canucks are in transition, it’s more important to have young players getting experience then it is to have a (still serviceable) vet playing all the key minutes.
I’d be willing to find a team for him in the summer and even retain cap (50%). We should be able to find a playoff team that could use his skills. Give him one last real kick at the can, and still be player that has impact. It’s that compared to rotating in and out of the lineup in Vancouver.
Burrows at 50% retained with one year left, might have some interested suitors. NYR, ANA, CHI, DET, PIT, FLA, OTT, MTL. And it’s not about the return, it’s about doing what best for a player that gave his heart and soul to a team.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, tas said:
you either get traded a hero or stay long enough to become a villain.
Because he's the hero Canucks deserve, but not the one it needs right now.
-
8 minutes ago, tyhee said:
No, it wasn't. I firmly believed Markstrom was ready if given a reasonable chance.
I thought going last season with Lack/Markstrom would better for Lack, better for Markstrom, better for Eriksson, better for Cannata, about the same for the Canucks last year while better for this and future years. I'm not asking you to agree, just saying you can't assume that your view is held by "everyone."
Based on what? I've been one of the biggest Markstrom supporters since the trade but it was pretty obvious that markstroms confidents at the NHL level needed to be rebuilt. Playing the year in the ahl last year was huge for Markstrom and he credits to learning a lot, especially the playoff run. Markstrom was kept and resigned to be the goalie of the future based on his play in the ahl last year. A lack/Markstrom combo last year wouldn't have giving him that opportunity. signing Miller allowed us to get asset since it allowed us to move a goalie. Miller was a huge reason we made playoffs last season and got us off to a good start eliminating doubt that we'd continue where we left off with gillis.
-
14 minutes ago, J.R. said:
There was risk either way. I'd simply have preferred to go with the younger, cheaper guys given the team direction and spend that money elsewhere (defense). There's always veteran, journeyman guys you can sign if they felt it was needed still this season (I didn't personally).
One, IMO wins/losses don't hugely matter this season short of team morale.
Two, I honestly don't think we'd have lost much/any more if we'd spent Miller's money on defense instead. Making point one somewhat moot.
Lack + Markstrom + better D vs Markstrom + Miller + worse D...pretty much a wash IMO but one sets us up better moving forward.
We’ve argued over this prior to the trade and all summer, I think we even argued about Juice being dealt as the cap space. but I said it then and I’ll say it again, Miller – Markstrom combo was the best plan we could have went with. Miller is the big contract, he’s the experienced vet, his status, lets Marky slip under the radar with way less pressure, just as Lack was able to do. Markstrom’s development is the most important factor. He’s not stupid, he see’s when Millers contract is over, he knows if he plays good enough the starting role is his in 2 years. With Lack, that light at the end of the tunnel isn’t so clear.
In terms of D last summer, Franson/Green were all there were for players available and I don’t think either greatly improve our defense. Green could have been nice, but he would have been locked up for longer and thus not let us be in on the market for this year upcoming UFA D crop. Franson well he went for the price of Weber, we technically could have chosen him over Franson without needing extra cap.
We will never really know the outcome of a Lack/Markstrom combo, it’s all just speculation, but I can easily get on board with the logic behind why Miller was kept.
-
22 minutes ago, hammertime said:
Virtanen should play in the AHL next year. Jensen will clear waivers, Vey isn't that experiment over yet? Trade him if we can or waive him if he clears great if not meh. Rodin is playing in his home town he's happy and finally playing well he's 25 and he's reached his potential which isn't an nhl 2nd liner btw. Hunter is developing just fine in the AHL let him cook for another season under Green and call him up as needed he's still protected from Waivers
the way I see it
Sedins Okposo
Lucic Sutter Hansen
Baer Horvat Burr
Gaunce Mcann Dorsett
Grenier
Rodin is a stud and could easily fill into our roster, he's said he wants to play in the NHL. Even still. So good bye kenins? I'm sure Shinkaruk will be happy having to staying in the ahl another year. He could be growing in NHL development. Give up on vey, give up on Jensen. We're going way out of our way here letting young assets walk
For What? All for keeping a 35 year old, declining vet at an inflated cap hit. For ONE more year before he retires
The pros of moving burrows greatly out number the cons.
His play can easily be replaced and surpassed by youth. His cap hit can be spent elsewhere.
Other then sentimental reasons is there a positive to keeping burrows on the roster for the final year of his contract. How's burrows going to feel about being a healthy scratch for a younger player like grenier next season. As long as he retires a Canuck right?
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, hammertime said:
I see where your coming from and I don't disagree however the return for Burr would likely be a low pick that likely would never play an NHL game unless we eat 50% cap in which case were handcuffing ourselves in terms of landing a big ufa. In my opinion paying guy a lil too much for something is better than paying less for nothing at all ofcourse neither are ideal. In terms of the roster spot Vrbata Higgins Prust Cracknel (though he's been great) all likely wont be coming back so there will be room for Shink Gaunce on the wings and money leftover to splash out on two big ufa's Okposo, Lucic(wouldn't be my choice but it seems like it is Bennings). We probably won't be getting any offers for "hamhoose" after his injury so my hope is that he is resigned at a discount Sbisa money ish with the cap going up might even have some extra flow to spend on another depth D or package Edler for an upgrade.
I'd say prust and Higgins are replaced by gaunce and lucic. Meaning if the only other player being moved out is vbrata the we have, Rodin, grenier, Virtanen vey, Jensen shinkaruk, kenins are competing for only one spot 5 of those players being subject to waivers. In my opinion that's why it's worth moving burr so that youth can make the next step
Even with a line up of
sedin sedin hansen
lucic sutter (Rodin)
baertschi horvat (grenier)
gaunce McCann Dorsett
Kenins
That still leaves Jensen, vey, shinkaruk, Virtanen, and possible boeser out of the line up. That's without any other ufa signings or trades.
-
15 hours ago, hammertime said:
I don't think next year will be his last. Has he declined sure absolutely but he's still an nhl caliber player, I would bet $10 if we waived him he wouldn't clear. I hope we re-sign him for a mill or so and he finishes his career here, he's a good mentor for the kids on how to claw your way into the league and stick.
The issue with burrows isn’t whether or not he’s done. The issue with Burrows isn’t about the amount of effort he’s put into this team. The guy has done it all for this franchise, and he’s currently getting paid handsomely for it.
Burrows is on the wrong side of a team in transition and he’s frankly getting in the way, simply by taking up a roster spot. There is only a limited number of spots on a team. We have a number of youth pushing for his spot. They not only are cheaper, they can also provide the same production. Would we rather see Shinkaruk and Gaunce spend another year in the AHL (even though they likely are NHL ready) just so Burrows can play his final year of his contract. Would we rather risk losing Grenier, Jensen, Kenins all to waivers for 1 more year of 35 year old Burrows. Do we hold off on signing a (or two) big name UFA’s this summer because there’s no roster spot or extra cap to go around.
If we want to make this team better in the now and the future, it involves sending Burrows packing over the summer.
If we want to worry about Burrows feelings then we keep him. Maybe even give him an extension as a good gesture.
We talk about needing a change, an improvement from our stale core. But then people get all emotional when anyone brings up trading a Burrows, or Hamhuis, or even a Bieska. Should we just put our transition on hold while we wait for these declining vets retire?
-
32 minutes ago, smokes said:
I don't know how Burrows ended up being the whipping boy on this forum but he doesn't deserve it. He got us the 2-1 shootout and when he is not producung, he is not necessarily hurting us either. I personally hope that Burrows retires a Canuck. When you think about important goals, he has always among the ones who scores when it matters most. Burrows was never projected to be a top six player he was just there because he worked well with the Sedins and in today's NHL his cap hit is not too bad for a third or fourth line player. He has a higher salary that many yes but did anyone remember the low ball contracts he played out when he was younger and with the Sedins? I tend to think that he deserved the contract even based on service to the company. I personally don't think Burrows will be traded because you don't want to get too young too fast as with what's going on in Vancouver right now. Burrows is still effective on the defensive end and an invaluable mentor as a career long Canuck and he was mentored by Linden when he was first breaking into the league. Linden has his favorites, the Sedins, Edler, Burrows is definately one of them.
So, Yes, I as a Canucks fan, really need him.
It’s not whipping boy, it’s called asset management. Burrows is 35 at the end of this year and will be on his last year of his contract turning 36 at the end of next. All likely hood is that he retires.
At the same time we have Jensen, Grenier, Kenins, and Vey who all that have to clear waivers next season, with only one opening spot available (since currently only Vbrata is the only UFA). Even if you someone get rid of Higgins to open up another roster spot you still have Virtanen, Shinkaruk, Gaunce and possibly Boeser and Rodin fighting for a roster spot as well. That doesn’t include any potential UFA signings.
So it really comes down to, do we really want Burrows for one more year and risk losing some youth to waivers (who at this point can provide almost the same level of play). And that’s without thinking of an asset (be it a 3rd or 4th round pick) coming back in. Add in the cap spaced saved that allows this team to be in play for two big UFA’s.
It just seems like a no brainer for him to be moved, Just as Bieska was also moved. The pro’s far outway the con’s. We still have the twin’s for leadership, his play is replaceable from our youth, his cap hit can be spent on better areas and his roster spot opens up room for our youth to move up in the system. There is really only one reason we keep Burrows, and that’s out of sentimental reasons for all he’s put into this team.
At the same time, who’s to say that Burrows wants to spend his final year on bubble playoff like canucks, for all we know he’s want to take one more crack at the cup. I can easily see the NYR and MTL being good spots for Burrows, a draft day deal involving a pick coming back, possibly some salary retained.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, J.R. said:
I think we're moving Jensen anyway (or hoping to sneak him through waivers like Markstrom last season) and there's already room for Grenier/Kenins IMO so long as all the Vrbata's and Higgins get cleared out. Again, cap is not remotely a concern.
Like I said, I'm neither here nor there either way. Move him or not...it makes very little difference IMO. It's not something I'd be overly concerned about.
I get what your saying and I agree with Jensen. I'm thinking even swap for a D man in the same waiver position.
That's if Higgins is moved out. and that's also assuming we don't sign any UFA's or have any standouts at training camp. Personally I think Gaunce is NHL ready and would provide as much output as Burrows will next year. It's time we get on with the youth movement so that our players can start developing at the NHL level.
-
15 minutes ago, J.R. said:
Wouldn't be shocked to see him traded, wouldn't be shocked to see him retire here. Honestly, I'm fine with either as his value is likely pretty equal (leadership to prospects, PK etc vs probably a late 2nd/early 3rd pick) either way.
I could really give 2 poops about his cap hit. Cap is REALLY not a concern moving forward and if we have an overpaid vet or two on the roster it's pretty 'meh' on my care-o-meter.
It's more about roster spots than cap. Is it really worth one more year of burrows and risk loosing player to waivers.
But then again a burrows and Higgins cap him combined could equal the salary for a player like yandle or lucic.
-
To be taking up a cap hit of 4.5, you have to expect a more consistent effort, most nights you don’t even notice him, followed up with the odd night of him scoring a goal. At this point you have think what’s the best value canucks can get out of Burrows?
Is it the leadership and hard work for our youth, or is it through a trade with a returning asset?
If Canucks were willing to retain some salary, I could see a few teams looking at Burrows for a playoff push, after all Burrows is Clutch in OT.
In my honest opinion, he will be moved out during the summer or next trade deadline, but wouldn’t be shocked if he was moved out this year. There are too many youth pushing for his role at a much cheaper cost, some who won’t be waiver exempt next season (Kenins, Grenier, Jensen). What are we more concerned about loosing next year, a 35 year old turning 36 year old who likely retires at the end of his contract, or young assets that we've been spending time and money on developing the last 3 years.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
How come every prospect, someone has to bash, because of their love fest for another choice
Nichushkin vs Horvat
Nylander, Ehlers vs Virtanen
Konecny vs Boeser
It’s quite sad really. I’ll admit I was a huge advocate of canucks drafting Nylander with our 6th overall prior to the draft. Canucks didn’t, but does that mean that I all of the sudden need to hate and bash Virtanen because ownership decided go a different route. After all Virtanen is a “Canuck”, and because I’m a “Canucks” fan, I’ve now only wanted success for him. Virtanen being successful equals Canucks being successful.
But for some reason people think that because they didn’t get their way, instead of being a fan, they’d rather cry and take their frustrations on the player, it’s not like Boeser was the one who made the pick but none the less bash the kid. People like chilliwiggins are hoping for failure on these prospects, just to justify their opinion. How childish is that, he sat in this thread today like a drooling dog, just waiting for an opportunity to jump on the kid.
The sad part for him is that he didn’t even show up in this thread till a month + post draft. For someone that has such a rager for Konecny you would think he’d be in this thread day one complaining about the selection. He’s a troll and nothing more. When Boeser becomes an impact player in this league, he’ll just create a new account and begin trolling another prospect.
-
7
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
WJC... in 7 games, prospects can become busts or gods in the minds of fans.
-
6
Anton Rodin | RW/LW
in Alumni
Posted
He’s going to be giving every chance possible to succeed with our team. He’s an offensive player, he’s going to be put in offensive situation. Similarly to if Shinkaruk wanted to crack our roster, it would have been in a top 6 role. He may not turn out and there are lots of players that don’t (majority don’t’), but that doesn’t mean that we should write him off as an asset.
Next season Rodin will be given a ton opportunity, if he works out, awesome we just gained a huge asset. If not he will likely be back in Europe before the season is over. But it’s a low risk, high reward situation. I don’t think people are banking on him to be our savior, more of, here’s a young guy with a high potential that may or may not turn out. But that potential is too great to pass up on, in seeing what you got. Even if he turns into just a top 9 guy, that's still an asset that could be used in trade value.