Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?

[keredz]

No he isn't needed at all. His game has fallen off and he needs a fresh start somewhere else. His contract and production levels would scare most teams. Canucks would have to eat salary if they were to trade him. We are most likely stuck with him until his contract is over. 

Its all good to talk about what players used to be and what they accomplished. It's amazing and he had some great years.

This team needs to leave the emotion out of it, and make some difficult moves and rid themselves of Higgins and Burrows even if they have to eat salary.

That being said, I hope both players find success on another team, but it's time this team moved in a different direction.

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by keredz

[Caknuckle Puck]

1 minute ago, Fizzure said:

Burrows got paid a lot of money to do these things. What's your excuse for being a joke?

we pay him to ruin our reputation, cant wait till he leaves.

[hammertime]

1 minute ago, Caknuckle Puck said:

yeah lets let him mentor our kids into attacking players personal issues and biting fingers... he's a joke and always has been

Hells ya thats how winning is done. Name one Stanley cup champship team that that didn't have players who crossed the line from time to time. Jam your fingers in my mouth Ill bite em too. If your beating uson the ice then someone has to get in their heads get their mind off the game and make them do something dumb. Honestly he's a hell of alot more honorable than say cheep shotters like Marchand or Scott Stevens, Pronger who damage lives and end careers.

[Fizzure]

7 minutes ago, keredz said:

No he isn't needed at all. His game has fallen off and he needs a fresh start somewhere else. His contract and production levels would scare most teams. Canucks would have to eat salary if they were to trade him. We are most likely stuck with him until his contract is over. 

Its all good to talk about what players used to be and what they accomplished. It's amazing and he had some great years.

This team needs to leave the emotion out of it, and make some difficult moves and rid themselves of Higgins and Burrows even if they have to eat salary.

That being said, I hope both players find success on another team, but it's time this team moved in a different direction.

 

Lots of tough decisions to be made that's for sure. God love the twins but lets be real here. We went to the finals because of a lot more than just hank and dank. There is a reason Burrows wears an A. Love him or hate him, he's a Canuck. I expect he will be one of the last to go. Part in due to his salary which he is basically owed. Part because he's still useful whether you accept it or. He can probably fill a spot on the fourth line and PK for a couple more years. He's the kind of guy that would do just that and not complain either. It's easy to label him for his mistakes, especially by the reddit generation with attention spans of about seven seconds, but he slays dragons, whether you like it or not.

[Fizzure]

P.S. I'd like to see an advanced stat that proves reputation has any outcome on a hockey game.

[tyhee]

1 hour ago, Fizzure said:

P.S. I'd like to see an advanced stat that proves reputation has any outcome on a hockey game.

Perhaps we need volunteers to count penalties not called against teams playing against the Canucks, penalties called against the Canucks that wouldn't be called if it weren't for the reputation brought by Burr and someone to figure out how many goals that costs in a season and convert it to wins.  Oh, I forgot-the people must be completely objective about it.

That lets out the world.  Can anyone be completely objective about Burrows?

There's no doubt Burr has been a controversial figure.  Some of the controversy is warranted, much is not.  I too would have bitten Bergeron if he deliberately stuck a finger in my mouth as an intimidation tactic-if someone is going to intimidate by sticking a finger in one's mouth, that is the obvious response.  I think Burr was telling the truth about the Auger incident and that he has been treated badly by the league for having the guts to speak out to expose a referee who had determined he would not call a game in accordance with the rule book.

There's little doubt Burrows earned a bad reputation with embellishment.

Is there a line that his words to O'Sullivan crossed?  I wasn't aware of there being such a line.  Regardless, the words as alleged were bad and I don't support saying them.  It's several years old, it was bad, it's over. 

I don't place give any credibility to Tootoo's recent complaints.

I don't believe Burrows gets the same treatment from game officials as other players and believe that hurts the Canucks, but can't quantify it.  For one recent example, I think the Canucks' win over Tampa just before Christmas was despite the refs calling the game to punish Burrows.  That might seem unlikely but the only logical explanation I've seen for the refereeing that night was Botchford's explanation at http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/12/22/the-provies-the-night-of-1000-power-plays-and-the-story-of-why-the-canucks-and-refs-had-a-falling-out/

In part that read:

" ...  it was Burrows who was rubbed out along the boards, on a play that could easily be viewed as a cheap shot. Andrej Sustr gets Burrows high, maybe in the head, catching him along the boards in a vulnerable spot.

...

You do something like this, and there is going to be a reaction, and it is that reaction the ref was waiting to call, not the hit, as he kept his eyes trained on the trailing action rather than the puck."

etc  It makes for interesting and infuriating reading.  Without knowing how Auger called that game against Burrows in January, 2010 and without knowing how the referees actually called the game between the Canucks and the Lightning last month claiming that the referees were biased seems like whining.  I believe though that the actual calls support the view that the officials were biased, had no intention calling an even game and that Burrows past transgressions are the reason the officials made the calls they did.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'm a believer.  Burrows and by extension his team will on some occasions be the subject of calls that would not be made on other players and won't get calls when offended against that other players would get.

[Fizzure]

Im a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself but my theory begins and ends with - as long as the NHL is concerned with money and nothing else = a canadian team will never win the cup : P

[Tortorella's Rant]

1 point in 18 games. He's done.

[higgyfan]

6 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

1 point in 18 games. He's done.

So you think he's going to tear up his contract and hang up his skates?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

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?

[keredz]

The NHL is changing to a younger mans game. Unfortunately for Burrows he is past his prime. Keeping a nostalgic player for what he accomplished years ago makes little sense. That is an emotional decision which will cripple the team. It makes even less sense to have a 36 year old player making 4.5 million on the bottom six, especially if his salary doesn't match his output. Sure he might be good in the room, but you can pay less money for a more effective player that can be good in the room. 

[hammertime]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

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?

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.

[Spotted Zebra]

Counting down the days till he's no longer a Canuck

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Spotted Zebra said:

Counting down the days till he's no longer a Canuck

So, you're starting at 405 days, because no team will want him until the 2017 TDL.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

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.

 

 

[hammertime]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

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.

 

 

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

[ForsbergTheGreat]

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?

 

[hammertime]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

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?

 

Woosh!

[alt kilgore]

11 hours ago, tyhee said:

Perhaps we need volunteers to count penalties not called against teams playing against the Canucks, penalties called against the Canucks that wouldn't be called if it weren't for the reputation brought by Burr and someone to figure out how many goals that costs in a season and convert it to wins.  Oh, I forgot-the people must be completely objective about it.

That lets out the world.  Can anyone be completely objective about Burrows?

There's no doubt Burr has been a controversial figure.  Some of the controversy is warranted, much is not.  I too would have bitten Bergeron if he deliberately stuck a finger in my mouth as an intimidation tactic-if someone is going to intimidate by sticking a finger in one's mouth, that is the obvious response.  I think Burr was telling the truth about the Auger incident and that he has been treated badly by the league for having the guts to speak out to expose a referee who had determined he would not call a game in accordance with the rule book.

There's little doubt Burrows earned a bad reputation with embellishment.

Is there a line that his words to O'Sullivan crossed?  I wasn't aware of there being such a line.  Regardless, the words as alleged were bad and I don't support saying them.  It's several years old, it was bad, it's over. 

I don't place give any credibility to Tootoo's recent complaints.

I don't believe Burrows gets the same treatment from game officials as other players and believe that hurts the Canucks, but can't quantify it.  For one recent example, I think the Canucks' win over Tampa just before Christmas was despite the refs calling the game to punish Burrows.  That might seem unlikely but the only logical explanation I've seen for the refereeing that night was Botchford's explanation at http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/12/22/the-provies-the-night-of-1000-power-plays-and-the-story-of-why-the-canucks-and-refs-had-a-falling-out/

In part that read:

" ...  it was Burrows who was rubbed out along the boards, on a play that could easily be viewed as a cheap shot. Andrej Sustr gets Burrows high, maybe in the head, catching him along the boards in a vulnerable spot.

...

You do something like this, and there is going to be a reaction, and it is that reaction the ref was waiting to call, not the hit, as he kept his eyes trained on the trailing action rather than the puck."

etc  It makes for interesting and infuriating reading.  Without knowing how Auger called that game against Burrows in January, 2010 and without knowing how the referees actually called the game between the Canucks and the Lightning last month claiming that the referees were biased seems like whining.  I believe though that the actual calls support the view that the officials were biased, had no intention calling an even game and that Burrows past transgressions are the reason the officials made the calls they did.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'm a believer.  Burrows and by extension his team will on some occasions be the subject of calls that would not be made on other players and won't get calls when offended against that other players would get.

 

The one good thing about that Tampa game was that we actually overcame the refs and won it. Thanks for that link. I never read that take on the game. (Another good article by Botchford.) Interesting to watch those clips.  Should have been a penalty on that high hit on Burrows, got him with a butt end of the stick in head. Pathetic display of hubris by the refs. They not only don't call that but their eyes are then focused on any player that may retaliate, and Bartkowski taps the player just to get his attention to have a bout, and he gets sent off. Incredible bias.

 

 

What is a crime is that there is no avenue to address this clear abuse of power by refs without sounding like whiners. And so every other team watches this and knows they can have their way with our #14 without consequence. The Auger curse will hang onto Alex for the rest of his career unfortunately.

That said that is not the reason to trade him. Because Alex has always found a way to fight through that BS.  At least before this season. He would score, or assist, or help our once top rated PK prevent a goal. Last season he was 6th highest in scoring, and only played 70 games. And he is also a great PK specialist of course.

But like every player, there is a time when age catches up, and this may just be the year for Alex. But every rebuilding needs a few vets for support, influence, and guidance. ie....see Edmonton. And I'd take Burrows over Higgins, Hamhuis, and even Hansen to stick around and fulfill this role along with the twins. He is the ultimate team player. But if the right deal came along for another good prospect, and especially if it involved a team favoured to be a front runner for the Cup, because Alex deserves it, I could live with that.

 

[Toni Zamboni]

if you havent watched this video posted today, it is worth checking out.