[Report] Burrows' Said No To Waiving NTC

[-DLC-]

Who said he couldn't play anymore? I said he's a "declining asset", which he is.

He'll have a better season than last, but it will be because the last one was so bad. At 33 years of age, his numbers will continue to trend downward, as they do for all players as the get older....including Teemu Selanne.

I'm not saying that he won't be able to contribute. He will. However, five years down the road, when the team is back in the hunt, he'll either be gone, or far less effective than he is now, which is why I'd be open to trading him for someone that will be able to contribute when the time comes.

Some of us have played hockey competitively. For many years, in fact.

The point you're missing is that some of us aren't advocating moving Burrows because he had one bad season, it's because he's a declining asset that won't be able to contribute by the time this team is in a position to contend for a Cup.

That being the case, some of us would be okay with dealing him, as long as it was to the long term benefit of the Vancouver Canucks.

The problem with some of the people on the other side of the argument is that they are still living in the past, where Burrows' OT winner against the 'Hawks is a valid argument for keeping him around, 3 years after the fact.

You did say that.

[Senpai]

No, I demonstrated that ago doesn't necessarily equate to a need to pack it in.

But way to dumb it down to that. His comment was "won't be able to contribute" (in a couple years). Not only can players contribute in their mid thirties, they can continue to have an impact well beyond that. Teemu just came to mind, as one of my favourites who continued on well past "his prime".

And Rupert: "WON'T BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE"? That part.

Well yeah, but you used one of the greatest NHLers of all time as a comparison.. That's not really "fair" is it? They don't even play the same style of game. It's like comparing apples and oranges but saying you can because they're both fruit. They play a completely different style, and style of play really dictates how long you can stay in the NHL for. (perimeter players obviously will last longer than hitters etc. etc.)

I'm not saying Burrows "cant" contribute, but STATISTICALLY, most players tend to seriously regress in their mid-30s. I don't have a magical crystal ball that can help me predict the future, but I wouldn't be surprised if Burrows seriously regressed in the next 3-5 years...

[asian player]

The strengths in Burrows' game are areas that can potentially get weaker through age. His skating and tenacity may slow down. We have to consider, when he's 36, is he still going to have the same kind of speed? Is he going to be blocking shots so fearlessly? Can he be the same agitator at the same age? If he does, that's great. If he doesn't, then we're paying $4.5 million for a mentor.

[CanucksCup2018]

Who said he couldn't play anymore? I said he's a "declining asset", which he is.

He'll have a better season than last, but it will be because the last one was so bad. At 33 years of age, his numbers will continue to trend downward, as they do for all players as the get older....including Teemu Selanne.

I'm not saying that he won't be able to contribute. He will. However, five years down the road, when the team is back in the hunt, he'll either be gone, or far less effective than he is now, which is why I'd be open to trading him for someone that will be able to contribute when the time comes.

He will contribute 5 years down the road by being here now.

He will TEACH the young players how to win, how to compete, the nuances of playing a hard 200 ft game

What it takes mentally to be able to, in a game seven, after taking a bad penalty in overtime, to overcome the error, put it behind them and have the mental toughness to take another risk and pinch, and put themselves in a position to win a series

He will teach those young players how defend on the PK like a fiend

He will teach those young players that listening to what the fans, coaches, pundits say about your ceiling does not define your ceiling, you do.

This whole Botchford thread is garbage, its a rumour that Botch (who by the way I KNOW trolls this site, and I'm sure probably posted here), likely made up, because that's what he does.

You can hope all you want that we move your so called declining asset, we're not, because Linden gets what he brings as does JB, Burrows was never asked to waive.

[RUPERTKBD]

A. your view of a 'declining asset' is primarily based on a God awful year experienced by the vast majority of the team last year, and more pronounced for Burrows - lets call a spade a spade here man.

B. You ignore, as do others that Burr broke his foot, then his jaw and never got on track -related to above.

C. You suggest trading this asset at the worst time to trade this asset - suboptimal decision

D. You don't win cups without players like Alex Burrows. Let alone this group is not winning a cup in the next 3 years anyways, so why is he here? Simple to teach.

E. You ignore leadership (yet you say you played) and the fact we are in a transition. We need players like Alex Burrow to teach the next group how to compete, how to win. You think there isn't value there? A guy who was never drafted, played his way to the NHL's top line from the ECHL? Really? you think that doesn't teach these young overpaid rookies what it takes to compete? to make it? to stick? Please

F. When people look at 'points' as their view of a declining asset, it tells me exactly what I said is correct - that they have never played the game, because that's not how you evaluate an asset. You look at everything that asset brings, and your comments suggest you have not. Sorry

A: Wrong. I say he's a declining asset because he's 33 and his best years are behind him.

B: I'm ignoring nothing. Burrows' last season has nothing to do with my willingness to see him moved.

C: Not sure what you're getting at, but I suggest trading him only if the deal is worth it. The jury is out on whether he'd be more desirable to other teams after another season.

D: I don't know what you're trying to say there. The team won't contend for three years at least. So why keep him?

E: We have veteran leadership in the form of the Twins, Hamhuis and Bieksa.

F: I played my first competitive game in the 1960's. My latest this year. In between, I played Junior and in a National Midget Championship. You?

[johngould21]

Burrows better bring out his inner "Marchand" otherwise Benning will buy him out at the end of the season.

The Canucks have used their TWO only buyouts, thats all. No one else will be bought out, unless the next CBA allows it.

[RUPERTKBD]

 

You did say that.

To clarify. He'll be able to contribute this season and probably the next couple. (although that contribution will continue to decline)

He won't be able to contribute when the Canucks are once again at the level of Cup contender.

Sorry for the confusing wording.

[-DLC-]

Well yeah, but you used one of the greatest NHLers of all time as a comparison.. That's not really "fair" is it? They don't even play the same style of game. It's like comparing apples and oranges but saying you can because they're both fruit. They play a completely different style, and style of play really dictates how long you can stay in the NHL for. (perimeter players obviously will last longer than hitters etc. etc.)

I'm not saying Burrows "cant" contribute, but STATISTICALLY, most players tend to seriously regress in their mid-30s. I don't have a magical crystal ball that can help me predict the future, but I wouldn't be surprised if Burrows seriously regressed in the next 3-5 years...

OK, let's use Cliff Ronning:

1993-94 (29 years old): 68 points

2000-01 (36 years old): 62 points

Picked him randomly. I'm just tired of this talk that a mid 30 year old is washed up. I say hogwash. Sure, likely slowing down a bit but the trade off is the hockey smarts and experience/positioning kicking in. A guy who loves hockey is driven by that love to play and these athletes stay in shape and are not like you armchair guys.

[-DLC-]

  To clarify. He'll be able to contribute this season and probably the next couple. (although that contribution will continue to decline)

He won't be able to contribute when the Canucks are once again at the level of Cup contender.

Sorry for the confusing wording.

So your crystal ball shows that? He "won't" - again, you speak in certainties and have no place in doing that. Or in predicting when we'll contend again.

[Senpai]

OK, let's use Cliff Ronning:

1993-94 (29 years old): 68 points

2000-01 (36 years old): 62 points

Picked him randomly. I'm just tired of this talk that a mid 30 year old is washed up. I say hogwash. Sure, likely slowing down a bit but the trade off is the hockey smarts and experience/positioning come in. A guy who loves hockey is driven by that.

I think this whole board understands your love for Burrows..

But how can you say no if there was a deal in place that was Burrows for a top 10 pick straight up?

I love Burrows, but honestly, if the right deal is there, i'd trade him. He's not one of those players where "you can offer the entire world but he still isn't being traded". If the right deal is there, i'm more than happy to trade him.

[CanucksCup2018]

A: Wrong. I say he's a declining asset because he's 33 and his best years are behind him.

B: I'm ignoring nothing. Burrows' last season has nothing to do with my willingness to see him moved.

C: Not sure what you're getting at, but I suggest trading him only if the deal is worth it. The jury is out on whether he'd be more desirable to other teams after another season.

D: I don't know what you're trying to say there. The team won't contend for three years at least. So why keep him?

E: We have veteran leadership in the form of the Twins, Hamhuis and Bieksa.

F: I played my first competitive game in the 1960's. My latest this year. In between, I played Junior and in a National Midget Championship. You?

trading him now makes zero sense - you say if a deal 'makes sense' well of course if a deal makes sense you move any player during this transition

the point is given he just came off his worst season in 7 years we won't see anything close to his value

I played pro in Europe and was a 4th round pick in the NHL, spent time in the ECHL, AHL and did play under 50 games in the NHL

But hey we can all say what we want on here and I can say I am PK Subban and you'd never be able to prove it either way!

My arguments are based on logic, people on here suggesting trading Burrows makes sense do not look at the whole picture, are being illogical for many of the reasons I have stated.

And as I mentioned, you can't get fair value for him right now anyways, so your whole point is moot.

[Gaudette Celly]

Everything about Burr was upside except maybe his chirping. We seem to forget that he scored a lot of clutch goals and I think under Willie and fully fit, he will score a lot more, only maybe from the 2nd or 3rd line.

I think the key to a lot of what happens next year is our new coach. I have a lot of faith in him and where as Torts divided the team into his "guys" and those he thought couldn't cut it, Willie seems to be a teacher, a mentor, someone who inspires and raises a player's performance.

I can't deny it. I'm excited. With a pro-active "get it done" guy like JB feeding him the raw materials and a cool head like Linden running the ship, I think we just might be on the verge of a dynasty.

If instead of the Torts Gongshow it had been just an "even" or "AV-coached" season, the team would likely have made the playoffs, even with all the injuries. Of course none of us know how WD will do, but just getting back to that "even" or normal production is certainly enough to restore this team's competitiveness. Yes some players are aging and losing effectiveness, but an entire team does not drop off a cliff in an entire season... and certainly not in a month's time.

Speaking of, that short clip of Willie today indicates that he's much like Linden and Benning - very down-to-earth, to the point, get the job done... yes, meat-and-potatoes. Very encouraging indeed.

Some of us have played hockey competitively. For many years, in fact.

The point you're missing is that some of us aren't advocating moving Burrows because he had one bad season, it's because he's a declining asset that won't be able to contribute by the time this team is in a position to contend for a Cup.

That being the case, some of us would be okay with dealing him, as long as it was to the long term benefit of the Vancouver Canucks.

The problem with some of the people on the other side of the argument is that they are still living in the past, where Burrows' OT winner against the 'Hawks is a valid argument for keeping him around, 3 years after the fact.

Very few if any are saying "ditch Burrows because he had a bad year", so that's simply a strawman. Someone posted Burrow's PPG since 2011 and there indeed has been a steady decline. Of course he can improve massively over last year, but that's still not the point. It's about improving the team, and doing what's best for the team to move forward. If JB has determined Burrows isn't a fit with his vision, or his contract is an albatross that can be put to better work, or he gets a great offer that will benefit the team, then he will make a move. It's not about one bad season -- if it were, most of the team would be gone!

Nostalgia is great, and who doesn't enjoy reliving memories. But the players know it as well as the team -- it's still a business. Would you prefer that the Sedins, Burrows, Bieksa, Hamhuis, etc. all stay with the Canucks until they retire, especially if it means deals and opportunities are turned down that cost the team competitiveness and even potentially a championship, just because of warm fuzzy feelings? At some point we have to step back, be rational, and make reasoned decisions. There's no hurt feelings here, it's simply business.

[Senpai]

This entire thread is pointless because we don't know what the package was lol

[-DLC-]

I think this whole board understands your love for Burrows..

But how can you say no if there was a deal in place that was Burrows for a top 10 pick straight up?

I love Burrows, but honestly, if the right deal is there, i'd trade him. He's not one of those players where "you can offer the entire world but he still isn't being traded". If the right deal is there, i'm more than happy to trade him.

Don't throw that puck bunny crap in and try to undermine me like that. So, how about the Ronning stats? He got older and still contributed.

[RUPERTKBD]

 

So your crystal ball shows that? He "won't" - again, you speak in certainties and have no place in doing that. Or in predicting when we'll contend again.

My "crystal ball" is my almost 5 decades of involvement in the game. It tells me that players with very few exceptions experience a decline in their mid-thirties.

It also tells me that 5 years is a pretty fair guesstimate of when players will go from NHL rookies to elite, or close to elite players.

OTOH, you seem to be clinging to a few examples of players who have bucked the trend over the years and are hoping that a player whom you admit to being a favorite, will do the same.

[Gaudette Celly]

I love Burrows, but honestly, if the right deal is there, i'd trade him. He's not one of those players where "you can offer the entire world but he still isn't being traded". If the right deal is there, i'm more than happy to trade him.

That's it right there, and it goes for anyone, including Crosby or Toews, or Virtanen or anyone period. If someone still says "no", then they are thinking with their heart and not their head, and essentially do not ultimately care how the team performs.

[CanucksCup2018]

If instead of the Torts Gongshow it had been just an "even" or "AV-coached" season, the team would likely have made the playoffs, even with all the injuries. Of course none of us know how WD will do, but just getting back to that "even" or normal production is certainly enough to restore this team's competitiveness. Yes some players are aging and losing effectiveness, but an entire team does not drop off a cliff in an entire season... and certainly not in a month's time.

Speaking of, that short clip of Willie today indicates that he's much like Linden and Benning - very down-to-earth, to the point, get the job done... yes, meat-and-potatoes. Very encouraging indeed.

Very few if any are saying "ditch Burrows because he had a bad year", so that's simply a strawman. Someone posted Burrow's PPG since 2011 and there indeed has been a steady decline. Of course he can improve massively over last year, but that's still not the point. It's about improving the team, and doing what's best for the team to move forward. If JB has determined Burrows isn't a fit with his vision, or his contract is an albatross that can be put to better work, or he gets a great offer that will benefit the team, then he will make a move. It's not about one bad season -- if it were, most of the team would be gone!

Nostalgia is great, and who doesn't enjoy reliving memories. But the players know it as well as the team -- it's still a business. Would you prefer that the Sedins, Burrows, Bieksa, Hamhuis, etc. all stay with the Canucks until they retire, especially if it means deals and opportunities are turned down that cost the team competitiveness and even potentially a championship, just because of warm fuzzy feelings? At some point we have to step back, be rational, and make reasoned decisions. There's no hurt feelings here, it's simply business.

A. So based on your logic, a players value is simple based on points - that is EXACTLY what you just suggested by implication

B. By implication this shows you lack an understanding of what building a winner entails.

C. You are suggesting there is no value in how Burr can teach, lead, and still contribute offensively at a 2nd/3rd line winger.

D. You are suggesting we trade a player (that if he had a normal year last year) would be in the top 25 of goal scorers in the NHL over the last 5 years (around names like Kopitar, Patrick Kane, Tavares etc), at the LOWEST POSSIBLE MOMENT of his career.

Now tell me, please, how that is beneficial to the Canucks....It is not. Regardless of how you feel about him as a player, trading him now is stupid. It's not about warm and fuzzies.

Hey if he rebounds and gets 25-30, and we aren't looking like we are going to be in the playoffs and some team throws us an offer that's really great, I don't think many here would argue.

But suggesting we trade him now, where we will be held hostage as it being a cap dump is simply ridiculous.

Look at what we got for Kesler, an ok deal with upside. You think we'll get anything near what Burrows can still bring to this team? No way...

[Gaudette Celly]

This entire thread is pointless because we don't know what the package was lol

Someone had posted that it was for a high pick and a D prospect.

Don't throw that puck bunny crap in and try to undermine me like that. So, how about the Ronning stats? He got older and still contributed.

But you cannot broadbrush that on every player. How old was Howe when he retired? Others lose effectiveness in their early or mid-30s. Not everyone has the same level of genetics, fitness, or longevity at a high level of performance. Maybe Burrows will still be going at 40, we don't know. But if JB had a deal for him, it was in his mind the right thing to do for the team and that's good enough for me!

[RUPERTKBD]

Very few if any are saying "ditch Burrows because he had a bad year", so that's simply a strawman. Someone posted Burrow's PPG since 2011 and there indeed has been a steady decline. Of course he can improve massively over last year, but that's still not the point. It's about improving the team, and doing what's best for the team to move forward. If JB has determined Burrows isn't a fit with his vision, or his contract is an albatross that can be put to better work, or he gets a great offer that will benefit the team, then he will make a move. It's not about one bad season -- if it were, most of the team would be gone!

Nostalgia is great, and who doesn't enjoy reliving memories. But the players know it as well as the team -- it's still a business. Would you prefer that the Sedins, Burrows, Bieksa, Hamhuis, etc. all stay with the Canucks until they retire, especially if it means deals and opportunities are turned down that cost the team competitiveness and even potentially a championship, just because of warm fuzzy feelings? At some point we have to step back, be rational, and make reasoned decisions. There's no hurt feelings here, it's simply business.

???? No idea why you quoted my post. This is exactly what I have been arguing.

[Senpai]

Deb, i'm not trying to call you out, I have no idea what's with all this defensive stuff lol.. Me saying "we all understand your love for Burrows" has nothing to do with "puck-bunnies".. No idea where you got that from. I love him too.. We all do, for the same reasons.

Again, you can post about as many players as you would like, that still doesn't change the fact that statistically most players drop off in their mid-30s.. I could probably double the amount of players you're posting if i bothered with the research..

You're also comparing Burrows to completely different players. Cliff Ronning did not play the same style as Burrows AT ALL, nor did Gelinas.. I'm not sure if we're discussing if Burrows can play in his mid-30s or NHL players in general, but like i said, statistically, most players probably have a significant drop in production/value in their mid-30s, and you can't tell me that's not true..