[Report] Torts wanted to buy out Alex Burrows

[Snake Doctor]

I'm going to say it. I never wanted AV fired and there is not a single post of mine that you will find that supported the decision. However, when we hired Torts I thought this could be the change that this team needs. Then hearing this news I'm glad he is gone. Why would he not talk to his coach in Utica? Does not make sense. Buy out Burrows? Are you serious.........

I don't think Torts will be coaching in the NHL next year.

[RUPERTKBD]

to be fair burrows didn't do much... he was not worth the money THIS year. I wouldn't mind the canucks trading him

To be fair, he spent most of the season recovering from injuries. One of them a result of Torts' emphasis on shot-blocking.

In addition, when he returned from the broken jaw, he spent several games playing with the vision impairment that accompanies wearing a face shield.

If Tortorella had done his homework on the Canucks, rather than coming in with his "new sheriff in town" mentality, he'd know what a heart and soul guy Burrows is and he'd have realized what a ridiculous idea buying him out is.

I can't believe how much this place hates Brad Marchand and loves Alex Burrows.

In my mind, they are interchangeable.

Yes. I brain farted. Actually, I brain sharted. Brad. Brad.

I hate Brad Marchand, but you're absolutely correct. If you talked to virtually any other fan of a team outside of Vancouver and Montreal (and maybe Buffalo) they'd tell you that Burrows is no better.

For that matter, I don't see a huge difference between the two of them and Gallagher, either.

[cdgraham]

anyone saying buy out burrows or trade burrows is a dingus and knows nothing, after everything this guy has done for the canucks, all those 20 goal seasons, 2 series winnings goals, an ot goal in the stanley cup finals, a 30 goal season, led our team in goals last year, and do you guys know hes second all time in canucks history for shorthanded goals?? but no, he had one bad season so buy him out, ridicules and bipolar, maybe wait for the next couple seasons before you even consider that, and btw trading him would be even dumber, because of the season hes had is value is at a all time low, you dont sell low, so dumb to treade burrows, you guys know what hes wroth right now? maybe a 3rd round pick, this guys has been one of the most valuable guys for ever and because he had an injury plagued season lots of people want him gone? absolutely outrageous!

[WillyFox]

What a ass burr was snake bitten and was working hard but injuries killed his year

[Robongo]

Burrows hurt his knee today at the WHC

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

anyone saying buy out burrows or trade burrows is a dingus and knows nothing, after everything this guy has done for the canucks, all those 20 goal seasons, 2 series winnings goals, an ot goal in the stanley cup finals, a 30 goal season, led our team in goals last year, and do you guys know hes second all time in canucks history for shorthanded goals?? but no, he had one bad season so buy him out, ridicules and bipolar, maybe wait for the next couple seasons before you even consider that, and btw trading him would be even dumber, because of the season hes had is value is at a all time low, you dont sell low, so dumb to treade burrows, you guys know what hes wroth right now? maybe a 3rd round pick, this guys has been one of the most valuable guys for ever and because he had an injury plagued season lots of people want him gone? absolutely outrageous!

For the record, after weighing the pros and cons, I came to the conclusion a while back that we should stick things out with Burrows, even if he never bounces back. But I do think he'll bounce back.

At the same time, given everything that's happened with this team, I think you'd be more of a "dingus" if you didn't at least consider the available options for most of the players on this roster, including trades and buyouts.

There's a significant portion of this fan base that believes the current core is stale, aging, and in serious decline. I think that's a pretty reasonable position, given what we've seen. I also think it's incorrect.

But if you're looking for real change and roster turnover that would help re-create this team's identity and reputation (which many people seem to want), then you have to at least consider moving Burrows.

Again, that's not my feeling on the matter, but it's something that I seriously considered a while back when I was weighing the various options on this team.

As for the idea that trading Burrows "would be even dumber" than buying him out, I trust that statement was more about getting a little excited and carried away than anything else?

It's always better to trade a player than buy him out.

A trade, even for next to zero return, will clear the player off the books. This accomplishes the same salary cap effect as a compliance buyout, but the team doesn't have to pay out any money (unless they retain salary--which would be very "dumb"). Therefore, a trade (without retention) is, by definition, always better than a buyout (even if you only get "maybe a 3rd round pick").

As far as waiting for "the next couple seasons before you even consider [a buyout]," the problem is the last compliance buyout can only be used this offseason (IIRC the window opens 48 hours after the 2014 Stanley Cup Final is completed), so waiting "a couple seasons" means that you're stuck with using a normal buyout (which counts against the salary cap). Plus, after a couple more seasons, Burrows will have been paid $15 million of his $18 million contract and will only have the 2016-17 season remaining on his deal. If you want to get any real benefit from moving his contract, it would have to be done now.

So you have to at least consider all the options for using the compliance buyout.

Like I said at the top, from my perspective, after weighing these options pretty carefully, I think we're best served by keeping Burrows. But that decision was far from a no-brainer. Depending on how deep you want to cut into the core, there are several scenarios where a Burrows buyout (or trade) makes a whole lot of sense.

As for me, I don't think this core is as bad as many people make it out to be. I believe that we have a solid group of players who have been made to look slow and ineffective because this team is missing a couple critical pieces (and has been for the past two seasons).

I'm of the opinion that this group is redeemable with only a couple of very targeted additions (plus working in the prospects as they become ready) and a change in system/approach (which the upcoming GM and coaching changes should hopefully accomplish). Looking long term, this team needs to get younger and start replenishing depth and eventually replace the core but I think we already started going in this direction under Gillis and there are still a few seasons left to accomplish this goal (and we can still be competitive during the process).

I don't believe we need deep cuts, like moving Burrows, but I also don't think the people who feel that we do are "dinguses"--changing over most of this core is certainly an option and one that could yield excellent results (although I think it would be an extremely challenging process and one that would be very easy to screw up).

What we do need, IMHO, is very specific, targeted, "laser-precise" change (which I've discussed numerous times in great detail) or else this current group will continue to struggle and this organization will have failed to get even adequate value out of their best players.

[RUPERTKBD]

FTR Sid, I agree that the team would be wise to at least consider moving Burrows, (we're probably in trouble with Deb now ) depending of course, on the return.

However, for anyone to suggest buying him out, that would be a colossal waste of a valuable asset, IMHO.

[Tre Mac]

Buy out? I have a hard time believing that. Every playoff team would of inquired about him if he was made available so why the eff would the owners be talked into buying him out? No wonder this team sucked, they probably tuned him(Torts) out after December.

[CroSen]

Maybe Booth was wearing camouflage? lol sorry, couldn't help it. Hiring Torts was a huge risk, and unfortunately it caused things to get much worse for the Canucks, and likely cost Gillis his job. I wonder if anyone gave Torts a reference, and if so what was it like. As much as Gillis was frustrating, I would imagine that he was sold a "bill of goods." I hope for Gillis's sake he did his homework as much as possible on hiring Torts.

[westcoast]

I don't think I'd buy out Burrows,but I'm surprised people are shocked it's being talked about.Of course it's being talked about.Burrows and Booth are prime candidates to be replaced by youth ,they make too much for the numbers they produce.

[DrChill]

TEAM 1040 Report:

That would have been stupid. Weird. I thought Burrows was exactly the type of player Torts would love

Also being reported that:

Sooo he really didn't care about how the farm was coming along eh? Guess he had no plans of giving young players a chance

Full audio of the interview

https://m.soundcloud.com/team-radio-interviews/gary-mason-on-tortorella-may15th-2014

Another couple nails in the Coffin . Hope the torts keepers are getting more silent

[DrChill]

I don't think I'd buy out Burrows,but I'm surprised people are shocked it's being talked about.Of course it's being talked about.Burrows and Booth are prime candidates to be replaced by youth ,they make too much for the numbers they produce.

Your right. Burrows year was terrible. But not everything is numbers.

Booth has 1 year and buyout would be a waist.

[wai_lai416]

nothing wrong with wanting to buy out Burrows especially at his ridiculous contract.. yes Burrows is a serviceable player, and will get you the points here and there, but he's not worth 4.5mil for 4 years along with the sedins at 7mil each for 4years. 18.5mil invested in our so call top line that we want to demote as our 2nd line is overpaid and ridiculous

[TheAce]

So if there were early detections of Torts causing problems then why not remove him before the Heritage/Luongo debacle happened. Sure we got rid of Torts but we have now lost both of our star goalies and going into next season 'hoping' Lack can carry the load is a major problem for this team.

[nuckster33]

Interesting...

Have to say if Torts wanted Burr out, I can see why the players turned on him, along with how he treated Lou.

I get he felt change was needed but he clearly was too much of a bull in a china shop. Sure there is complacency in this group but getting rid of 2 of your best competitors is not the way to solve it.

The issue with this group is mental not physical, they have talent but have to get their heads straight and some young blood needs to be inserted (ie I'd love to see Shink get a shot if healed next year, his speed, talent and enthusiasm especially could be infectious (he has that Bure love of the game, that can make a big difference).

As for Burr, people here the more I read, tend to turn on players so quickly, then complain he's overpaid but he was underpaid for 5 years. He is a 20-30 goal guy who plays with a ton of heart, gets in other teams faces, can play the pp (even though he gets no time there, look up his even strength stats folks one of the best in the league), pk etc, and a HUGE playoff performer. This is the kind of player you NEED to win.

This year the guy broke his foot, comes back, and breaks his face and people bark? He comes back into the season pretty much 1/2 - 2/3 of the way through when the rest of the league is in mid season form physically and MENTALLY (TIMING) and couldn't get on track, take a look at most players coming of long injuries folks, look at how most of them perform, poorly, think a bit.

If anyone deserved a pass this year it was Burr, he EARNED IT....Thank God MG never moved him, one of the better decisions MG made/didn't make.

Look forward to all the Burr haters praising him next year when he gets back to a 25-30 goal pace.

WOW

[nux4lyfe]

Burr has been nothing but a consistent player and clutch playoff performer until this season, Gee, I wonder why..Good riddance to Torts, never liked him in the 1st place.....oh, not to mention that Burr had to deal with a gang of injuries, shame on the people who agree with Torts..

[nuckster33]

The other thing people should think about, is called succession

You need vets to teach young players how to compete in this league, the attitude you need to win.

Do you want a guy who was never drafted, worked his way from an ECHL contract to an AHL contract, to a 6 game shot in the NHL, then never turned back teaching players what it means to compete?

A guy who was never supposed to be in the NHL, then never more than a 3rd/4th liner, then a consistent 25-30 goal guy who plays hard every night teaching them? maybe? ya that matters

oh ya, and a player who will come off a terrible season and show what a competitor does

Look at 1 year of stats

Ignore the past

Ignore his character

And you make stupid deals

Character means he finds a way to find his game again next year, character says he competes to find his game, character says he never gives up. He hasn't slowed down, so do you think his hands just disappeared? its called timing it was off

Never bet against a guy who fought, scratched and clawed his way to where he is, in any sphere, because that character is part of them, they don't know quit.

Alot of people here have very little understanding of what competition is by the way they judge so quickly

[Nino]

So if there were early detections of Torts causing problems then why not remove him before the Heritage/Luongo debacle happened. Sure we got rid of Torts but we have now lost both of our star goalies and going into next season 'hoping' Lack can carry the load is a major problem for this team.

I think the reason Lou didn't play was because they were looking to trade him and wanted to give lack a run of games to get a good look at him before the trade. Don't think it was a coaches call and don't think torts had anything to do with the Lou trade. Lou wanted out and it was only a matter of time, MG's screw up was the flip flop that sent Cory packing and left us with a goalie that was not happy and a distraction to the team.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Buying out Burrows instead of Booth would have been hilarious, but I think Gary Mason is just trolling us.

[bigbadcanucks]

The other thing people should think about, is called succession

You need vets to teach young players how to compete in this league, the attitude you need to win.

Do you want a guy who was never drafted, worked his way from an ECHL contract to an AHL contract, to a 6 game shot in the NHL, then never turned back teaching players what it means to compete?

A guy who was never supposed to be in the NHL, then never more than a 3rd/4th liner, then a consistent 25-30 goal guy who plays hard every night teaching them? maybe? ya that matters

oh ya, and a player who will come off a terrible season and show what a competitor does

Look at 1 year of stats

Ignore the past

Ignore his character

And you make stupid deals

Character means he finds a way to find his game again next year, character says he competes to find his game, character says he never gives up. He hasn't slowed down, so do you think his hands just disappeared? its called timing it was off

Never bet against a guy who fought, scratched and clawed his way to where he is, in any sphere, because that character is part of them, they don't know quit.

Alot of people here have very little understanding of what competition is by the way they judge so quick

It's called the parabolic effect of a player's career. Burrows had three seasons where he was on an upward trajectory...he spent three more years at his peak...over the last two seasons, he's been on a downward trajectory, which may have been accelerated/exposed because of what appears to be a strained relationship he shared with Tortorella. While his game was ascending, Burrows was a solid third/fourth liner (check out his TOI). Now that he's on the decline, IMHO, the expectation would be that he's back to being a third/fourth liner. Does having a 33 year old 3rd/4th liner taking up 4.5M of cap space make sense to anyone? Doesn't to me. Canucks have enough vets outside of Burrows to bring on the younger players.

Burrows has given us his heart and soul...he scored arguably the biggest goal of the modern era...made the most of his opportunities...but here's what he got back in return: (1) a $2M contract extension at a time when it was entirely uncertain that he'd turn out to be the perfect fit with the Sedins -- this gave him, who at the time was a third/fourth liner serious sense of security, which I'm sure was of great importance to him; (2) the opportunity to play with the Sedins (earned, mind you) which gave him a chance to elevate his game (and also the play of the Sedins).

I like Burrows, but I love the Canucks. Players are interchangeable and evolutionary parts of the team that I love. Burrows, as useful as he may still be, is a depreciating asset. If Linden is serious about giving the fans a team with long term prospects of success, players like Burrows have to be moved at the appropriate time...IMHO, the appropriate is now. If Linden wants to give us a team that will consistently be slightly above average, then he and the new GM will keep Burrows. I'm hoping that Linden has greater aspirations for the Canucks than year-after-year of playoff mediocrity.

I'm happy Tortorella is out, but one thing I agree with him is that we have to let go of 2011...it's in the past...we didn't achieve the ultimate goal, so we need to stop celebrating making it to the 7th game of SCF by hanging onto certain players who took oh so close, but did not close out the deal.

As far as Mason's comments, something doesn't compute...if Tortorella really had such a hate-on for Burrows, why give him 17+ minutes of ice time when Burrows was clearly struggling?

2013-14 Vancouver NHL GP:49 G:5 A:10 TP:15 +/-:-9 PIM: 71 PPG:2 SHG: 0 GWG: 0 TOI:17:49 S: 104 PPG: 0.31

2012-13 Vancouver NHL 47 13 11 24 15 54 1 0 2 18:54 140 0.51

2011-12 Vancouver NHL 80 28 24 52 24 90 3 2 7 18:28 198 0.65

Canada WC 5 3 0 3 5 2 0 1 0 11:19 7 0.60

2010-11 Vancouver NHL 72 26 22 48 26 77 1 1 4 17:01 152 0.67

2009-10 Vancouver NHL 82 35 32 67 34 121 4 5 3 17:51 209 0.82

2008-09 Vancouver NHL 82 28 23 51 23 150 0 4 3 16:50 175 0.62

2007-08 Vancouver NHL 82 12 19 31 11 179 1 3 3 15:05 126 0.38

2006-07 Vancouver NHL 81 3 6 9 -7 93 0 0 1 11:26 70 0.11

2005-06 Vancouver NHL 43 7 5 12 5 61 0 1 1 10:24 49 0.28