-Vintage Canuck- Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireGillis Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 The tank sure doesn't need him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K PureCool Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Legendary thread need to reach 500 pages before Burrow leaves. Just going to post to pad. pad. pad. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weasel Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Burrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwssssssssssssss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 woop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Burrows. He started in the ECHL you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 One goal on a goalie in 40 home games will be quite an accomplishment for Alex this season... Woohoo ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Interesting discussion on the radio post-game show tonight, post last Chicago game. One of the radio guys -- can't remember which one -- made the point that buying out Burr this summer only makes sense if you have a better player available to take his minutes. I just thought he wasn't worth the money, but his point is valid: you're going to pay the money anyway whether he is bought out or stays, so the decision comes down to whether you have one or more players who can not only replace him, but surpass him. He then went on to argue that Etem, Granlund, Grenier, Gaunce and possibly Vey are not noticeably better. So we may keep him because although over-paid, he is better than any replacement so far (this year anyway) and we're going to be paying him anyway. He has a point. Burr scored 9 goals at this point and does pk at a decent level -- he also looks to be trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo fan Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Alex Burrows will always be one of my favourite Canucks - will hate to see him go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Zamboni Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Burr baby Burr, Disco inferno! Burr baby Burr, Burr that mutha down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spotted Zebra Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 56 minutes ago, gameburn said: Interesting discussion on the radio post-game show tonight, post last Chicago game. One of the radio guys -- can't remember which one -- made the point that buying out Burr this summer only makes sense if you have a better player available to take his minutes. I just thought he wasn't worth the money, but his point is valid: you're going to pay the money anyway whether he is bought out or stays, so the decision comes down to whether you have one or more players who can not only replace him, but surpass him. He then went on to argue that Etem, Granlund, Grenier, Gaunce and possibly Vey are not noticeably better. So we may keep him because although over-paid, he is better than any replacement so far (this year anyway) and we're going to be paying him anyway. He has a point. Burr scored 9 goals at this point and does pk at a decent level -- he also looks to be trying. The point isn't do we have a better player now. It's how much worse will Burrows be next year. He was actually okay to start the year and regressed and regressed and regressed some more. With another year under his belt, and more miles under his legs there's a good chance he will be even worse next year. Plus with Rodin coming here and hopefully one free agent, there just isn't room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Buzzsaw* Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Burr usually plays well vs Hawks. He was offensively positioned as good as he has been all season in this game. In his prime he would have had 3 goals in this game and an assist... he got one. Still finding ways to contribute though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Spontaneously Unceremoniously Pondering Burr's fate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 8 hours ago, Spotted Zebra said: The point isn't do we have a better player now. It's how much worse will Burrows be next year. He was actually okay to start the year and regressed and regressed and regressed some more. With another year under his belt, and more miles under his legs there's a good chance he will be even worse next year. Plus with Rodin coming here and hopefully one free agent, there just isn't room. I hope you're right, Burr is a ghost of his old self, and can only imagine how far he slips next year. I'm starting to worry a bit more about the Sedins now too: a big regression over the course of this year. No cheating Father Time I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 11 hours ago, gameburn said: Interesting discussion on the radio post-game show tonight, post last Chicago game. One of the radio guys -- can't remember which one -- made the point that buying out Burr this summer only makes sense if you have a better player available to take his minutes. I just thought he wasn't worth the money, but his point is valid: you're going to pay the money anyway whether he is bought out or stays, so the decision comes down to whether you have one or more players who can not only replace him, but surpass him. He then went on to argue that Etem, Granlund, Grenier, Gaunce and possibly Vey are not noticeably better. So we may keep him because although over-paid, he is better than any replacement so far (this year anyway) and we're going to be paying him anyway. He has a point. Burr scored 9 goals at this point and does pk at a decent level -- he also looks to be trying. Waive him. We shave roughly $1m off our cap and he continues to mentor our youth in Utica and be available as depth for call ups if the injury bug strikes like this year. Could also call him up for the last couple home games next year so he can retire a Canuck. Then offer him a coaching gig. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, J.R. said: Waive him. We shave roughly $1m off our cap and he continues to mentor our youth in Utica and be available as depth for call ups if the injury bug strikes like this year. Could also call him up for the last couple home games next year so he can retire a Canuck. Then offer him a coaching gig. He doens't deserve to be waived. Up-root his family? No, that's just not how you treat players. If they don't think he can spend the full year on the team - then buy him out. I would prefer keeping him over Dorsett to be honest and hope they consider that option. Edited March 28, 2016 by mll 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spotted Zebra Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 23 minutes ago, mll said: He doens't deserve to be waived. Up-root his family? No, that's just not how you treat players. If they don't think he can spend the full year on the team - then buy him out. I would prefer keeping him over Dorsett to be honest and hope they consider that option. Dorsett for one year considering cap hit is better than Burrows would be next year. The only positive in keeping Burrows is that his contract would be over in a year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 29 minutes ago, mll said: He doens't deserve to be waived. Up-root his family? No, that's just not how you treat players. If they don't think he can spend the full year on the team - then buy him out. I would prefer keeping him over Dorsett to be honest and hope they consider that option. He's not trade-able. And buying him out we're paying him to play for another organization and spreading his cap for an additional year. Possible, but less likely (and less preferable) IMO. This is pro hockey. When you become an old, highly paid vet no longer worth your contract and blocking the path of younger, faster players with upside, things like this can and do happen. See: Higgins, Chris. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 11 minutes ago, Spotted Zebra said: Dorsett for one year considering cap hit is better than Burrows would be next year. The only positive in keeping Burrows is that his contract would be over in a year. Burrows buy-out is 2.5M in 2016/17 and 1M in 2017/18 Dorsett is 2.65M for 3 more years Burrows at 4.5M for 2016/17 + getting an asset by trading Dorsett vs Dorsett at 2.65M + Burrows buyout 2.5M is a total of 5.15M for next year / 3.65M the year after 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 9 minutes ago, mll said: Burrows buy-out is 2.5M in 2016/17 and 1M in 2017/18 Dorsett is 2.65M for 3 more years Burrows at 4.5M for 2016/17 + getting an asset by trading Dorsett vs Dorsett at 2.65M + Burrows buyout 2.5M is a total of 5.15M for next year / 3.65M the year after Dorsett is a great 4th line role player, hits,speed and battles hard and most of all he's been a great mentor to our youth. I'd rather have dorsett at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now