Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?

[-DLC-]

42 minutes ago, desiboynux4lifee******* said:

i make bigger grammar mistakes then that, GLaD yOu nOtiCeeD KeEp iT Up! 

*than

[-DLC-]

5 hours ago, NHTyrany said:

How could anyone suggest his past performance gives him the right to produce very little today with a huge salary and outrageous cap hit? He has lived the dream and been very well compensated. The team does not owe him anything. Sentimentality is not going to improve the team's performance or win a cup. Just ask LA. Problem is, he is not worth anything to entice a trade. I'd wave him next year if he's still around.   

If you look at "producing" only in terms of scoring, sure.   The team does not owe him anything, however, he's obviously a huge factor in the room.  The guy high fiving every single player post game.  The one who lives out that "give it your all, even against the odds" deal.  That's an important part of "success"....even if the overall team isn't always finding it.  He was in a slump, happens.  But he brings a lot more to the game than many.  He will play that ugly game of slash and whack in front of the net that so many shy away from.  It's huge in allowing OTHERS to score.

He (and Hansen) have the same sort of drive and never say die thing that can turn games around.  Sure he's been waning a bit, but let's see if things aren't starting to turn around?  I think they are.

 

Past performance is important in understanding that he's "capable".....guys aren't always on.  You want heart and soul players...he is that.

[babych]

4 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

If you look at "producing" only in terms of scoring, sure.   The team does not owe him anything, however, he's obviously a huge factor in the room.  The guy high fiving every single player post game.  The one who lives out that "give it your all, even against the odds" deal.  That's an important part of "success"....even if the overall team isn't always finding it.  He was in a slump, happens.  But he brings a lot more to the game than many.  He will play that ugly game of slash and whack in front of the net that so many shy away from.  It's huge in allowing OTHERS to score.

He (and Hansen) have the same sort of drive and never say die thing that can turn games around.  Sure he's been waning a bit, but let's see if things aren't starting to turn around?  I think they are.

 

Past performance is important in understanding that he's "capable".....guys aren't always on.  You want heart and soul players...he is that.

Totally agreed Deb. Garrett and Shorty were also pointing out today that Burrows seems to have really taken some of the younger players under his wing and is being a mentor of sorts. Points aside, I think that this kind of leadership shows why Burr is still a valuable member of this team.

[NHTyrany]

1 hour ago, babych said:

Totally agreed Deb. Garrett and Shorty were also pointing out today that Burrows seems to have really taken some of the younger players under his wing and is being a mentor of sorts. Points aside, I think that this kind of leadership shows why Burr is still a valuable member of this team.

that is valuable but not at his cap hit. Get a vet 4th liner at $2M if you want leadership for youth. Plus he always gets the team in trouble with the refs., a sad reality but he is not good value for his salary. Does not diminish how great he once was. 

[Fred65]

The balance between vets and youngster...and future prospects cannot be determined by stats alone. Attitude, enthusiasim, work ethic and character are as valuable as skills. You want proof of this look no farther than Edmonton and just how much lack of leadership has had a 2-3 year negative impact on their youngsters......all those high picks does not = success. As Mr Linden is inclined to say, it's a fine line. Be careful how you develop your youngsters, they're going to be around for many more years to come....don't short circuit their development with  impatience

[babych]

23 minutes ago, NHTyrany said:

that is valuable but not at his cap hit. Get a vet 4th liner at $2M if you want leadership for youth. Plus he always gets the team in trouble with the refs., a sad reality but he is not good value for his salary. Does not diminish how great he once was. 

I do appreciate your point, and I'll admit to maybe being blinded by my "homer glasses", but I think that having a player (like Burrows) that has been with the team for a long time is different than just getting a 4th line veteran at half the price. A guy like Burrows is way more steeped in what it means to be a Canuck and thus can pass on the culture of the team.

I think we have all seen that getting a veteran player for mentoring purposes doesn't always work out (see Prust).

I do agree that Burrow's cap hit is a little large for what he might bring, but I also think that it's money well spent considering where the team is cap-wise. Another year at $4.5 is very do-able.

I would really like to see Burr extend his contract for another 2 years at a hit of around $2 million and then retire as a Canuck.

[*Buzzsaw*]

34 minutes ago, NHTyrany said:

that is valuable but not at his cap hit. Get a vet 4th liner at $2M if you want leadership for youth.

How many times is it necessary to explain:

Burrows is being paid now for the years he was underpaid... the Stanley Cup final years when he was grossly underpaid and the team was struggling to stay under the CAP.... Burrows didn't make a fuss about being underpaid because he was assured he would be compensated on the next contract.

 

[Alflives]

Just now, babych said:

I do appreciate your point, and I'll admit to maybe being blinded by my "homer glasses", but I think that having a player (like Burrows) that has been with the team for a long time is different than just getting a 4th line veteran at half the price. A guy like Burrows is way more steeped in what it means to be a Canuck and thus can pass on the culture of the team.

I think we have all seen that getting a veteran player for mentoring purposes doesn't always work out (see Prust).

I do agree that Burrow's cap hit is a little large for what he might bring, but I also think that it's money well spent considering where the team is cap-wise. Another year at $4.5 is very do-able.

I would really like to see Burr extend his contract for another 2 years at a hit of around $2 million and then retire as a Canuck.

He can't skate well enough to keep up.  It's sad to watch him play now.  I don't want to see him play here any more.  Please JB, buy Burrows out July first, and end the suffering.  It's the merciful act that is the most difficult.  

[NHTyrany]

On 24/01/2016 at 7:01 PM, *Buzzsaw* said:

How many times is it necessary to explain:

Burrows is being paid now for the years he was underpaid... the Stanley Cup final years when he was grossly underpaid and the team was struggling to stay under the CAP.... Burrows didn't make a fuss about being underpaid because he was assured he would be compensated on the next contract.

 

I suspect you are wrong. Do you have any proof? This would be a violation of CAP rules and fraudulent, not to mention stupid for both parties. A contact is a contract and if they have some informal balancing taking place I doubt you or anyone other than the 3 or 4 idiots that would have concocted such an arrangement would have any clue. More likely is that Burrows previously accepted a low cap hit so he could be with a contender. He is not worth his CAP this year and that's that. I would feel much better at 2.5 for this year. Gillis may have overpaid long term but nothing should prevent JB from doing what's best for the team, including dumping high cost investments that are not paying off. Look at the Luongo situation as an exaggerated example.   

[smokes]

How come Horvat breaks out of a slump, everyone has him as the next Canuck captain, Meanwhile Burrows breaks the slump and he's still getting ragged on?

[NHTyrany]

On 24/01/2016 at 7:01 PM, babych said:

I do appreciate your point, and I'll admit to maybe being blinded by my "homer glasses", but I think that having a player (like Burrows) that has been with the team for a long time is different than just getting a 4th line veteran at half the price. A guy like Burrows is way more steeped in what it means to be a Canuck and thus can pass on the culture of the team.

I think we have all seen that getting a veteran player for mentoring purposes doesn't always work out (see Prust).

I do agree that Burrow's cap hit is a little large for what he might bring, but I also think that it's money well spent considering where the team is cap-wise. Another year at $4.5 is very do-able.

I would really like to see Burr extend his contract for another 2 years at a hit of around $2 million and then retire as a Canuck.

Agree it would be great to keep him at 2M. It would be hard to trade him anyway so the Nucks are likely stuck with him next year unless he gets a waive....

[NHTyrany]

3 minutes ago, smokes said:

How come Horvat breaks out of a slump, everyone has him as the next Canuck captain, Meanwhile Burrows breaks the slump and he's still getting ragged on?

perhaps because Burrows makes 5M and even with the recent points, is not producing at that level. How much is Horvat making and he and Burrows are obviously trending in opposite directions?

[smokes]

Just now, NHTyrany said:

perhaps because Burrows makes 5M and even with the recent points, is not producing at that level. How much is Horvat making and he and Burrows are obviously trending in opposite directions?

5 million is less than half of what the highest paid players get. This is a different NHL where money is thrown like confetti. Look at the David Clarkson contract? Burrows got what he deserved because he was a value to the Canucks for so many years. He played many years where his play exceeded how much is cap hit was. More years than the Canucks ever overpaid him IMO. There is something to be said about loyalty. Yes Hockey is a business, but then again so is the company you work for. How would you like it if you get paid more than a new employee then the boss wants to get rid of you so that a new employee can take your spot with a lower salary? Let the kids take over, I get it but 5M is not a big cap hit compared to many overpaid players in the NHL and loyalty should mean something. If not then to be honest it's not worth watching anymore.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

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. 

[NHTyrany]

7 minutes ago, smokes said:

5 million is less than half of what the highest paid players get. This is a different NHL where money is thrown like confetti. Look at the David Clarkson contract? Burrows got what he deserved because he was a value to the Canucks for so many years. He played many years where his play exceeded how much is cap hit was. More years than the Canucks ever overpaid him IMO. There is something to be said about loyalty. Yes Hockey is a business, but then again so is the company you work for. How would you like it if you get paid more than a new employee then the boss wants to get rid of you so that a new employee can take your spot with a lower salary? Let the kids take over, I get it but 5M is not a big cap hit compared to many overpaid players in the NHL and loyalty should mean something. If not then to be honest it's not worth watching anymore.

I get what your are saying. Unfortunately when you go down the loyalty road it's really hard to judge how management and Burrows feel about the current situation and what they want to do moving forward. A spectator's idea of what loyalty looks like and is worth could be way off reality. And let's be honest, even what is reported by the player, player's agent, or management is likely some smoothed over version of true feelings. It's the exception (Sestito) that mud flies as part of the player-ream relationship game. I bet Burrows is less happy about the current situation than all of us fans. Whatever happens, he deserves to be treated with honour and respect considering his stellar tenure with the team. I have no idea what the Nucks should do to be loyal to Burrows and vice-versa. It's a two way street and I hope it ends up a win win.        

[gameburn]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 3:27 PM, NHTyrany said:

that is valuable but not at his cap hit. Get a vet 4th liner at $2M if you want leadership for youth. Plus he always gets the team in trouble with the refs., a sad reality but he is not good value for his salary. Does not diminish how great he once was. 

Team history and culture are not separable.  Fourth liners with character are actually a dime a dozen, and not enough -- e.g., look at Prust and so many others that have come in on that assumption/hope.  Even Dorsett isn't the same as what Burr has and does offer.  Burr was there for the team in the critical 2009-2012 period, he helped make the Sedins who they are.  (Not in a big way, but he was the first decent winger they ever had, remember Klatt and Carter? lol.)  But you are right about the penalties -- reckless stick in particular -- and at anything more than Dorsett's salary going forward a year or two this has to be adjusted.  The same probably holds true for Hamhuis, maybe, and Edler, less certainly.  It is more about history, and who you keep, rather than bringing in veteran leadership -- the latter never seems to work.  Interesting challenge for mgt though: I'd rather we'd kept Bieksa than either Edler or Burr -- assuming that that choice had to be made.   

[NHTyrany]

3 minutes ago, gameburn said:

Team history and culture are not separable.  Fourth liners with character are actually a dime a dozen, and not enough -- e.g., look at Prust and so many others that have come in on that assumption/hope.  Even Dorsett isn't the same as what Burr has and does offer.  Burr was there for the team in the critical 2009-2012 period, he helped make the Sedins who they are.  (Not in a big way, but he was the first decent winger they ever had, remember Klatt and Carter? lol.)  But you are right about the penalties -- reckless stick in particular -- and at anything more than Dorsett's salary going forward a year or two this has to be adjusted.  The same probably holds true for Hamhuis, maybe, and Edler, less certainly.  It is more about history, and who you keep, rather than bringing in veteran leadership -- the latter never seems to work.  Interesting challenge for mgt though: I'd rather we'd kept Bieksa than either Edler or Burr -- assuming that that choice had to be made.   

Well put, I wonder what the general feeling would have been in the room with each those 3 propositions for movement? I know pests are part of the game but I have a hard time accepting we absolutely need Burrows for leadership, history (Sedins), or loyalty. Just look at some of his blunders over the years. Those player comments, diving, biting fingers, pulling hair, Auger gate, etc. Of course not all his fault but not my idea of essential leadership. Bieksa on the other hand, comes across to me as a true and faithful warrior, respected across the league, plus his one liners in the media are legend. 

[gameburn]

2 minutes ago, NHTyrany said:

Well put, I wonder what the general feeling would have been in the room with each those 3 propositions for movement? I know pests are part of the game but I have a hard time accepting we absolutely need Burrows for leadership, history (Sedins), or loyalty. Just look at some of his blunders over the years. Those player comments, diving, biting fingers, pulling hair, Auger gate, etc. Of course not all his fault but not my idea of essential leadership. Bieksa on the other hand, comes across to me as a true and faithful warrior, respected across the league, plus his one liners in the media are legend. 

I'd forgotten about the biting... lol.  Grrr.

Bieksa was loved and admired -- and he was good with the fans and the media -- the latter has more value than we want to admit sometimes. (It matters when it comes to choosing coaches and GMs!)   He will be missed for years.  One bad playoff and a bit of rattling by Ferland and someone (maybe Bieksa?) thought a trade was in order.  A better team wanted him: hint to better self: this is a  sign of a thing's real value!

[smokes]

7 minutes ago, NHTyrany said:

Well put, I wonder what the general feeling would have been in the room with each those 3 propositions for movement? I know pests are part of the game but I have a hard time accepting we absolutely need Burrows for leadership, history (Sedins), or loyalty. Just look at some of his blunders over the years. Those player comments, diving, biting fingers, pulling hair, Auger gate, etc. Of course not all his fault but not my idea of essential leadership. Bieksa on the other hand, comes across to me as a true and faithful warrior, respected across the league, plus his one liners in the media are legend. 

You remember Burrows for all the bad, I remember him scoring important goals.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, smokes said:

You remember Burrows for all the bad, I remember him scoring important goals.

The one thing you both seem to have in common is you talk about Burr in the past tense.  With players, when we (as fans) are discussing their past accomplishments, as defense of current, or future play, that player's time is most likely done.