awalk Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 FWIW, Vrbata's agent claimed that the Canucks promised RV a spot with the twins, at least to start the season... Yea they promised that he would at least get a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Whether or not he gets moved depends entirely on his play vs. Jensen. If Jensen plays better than him in the preseason, does well in training camp and looks like a top 6 forward, Burrows has to be gone. It would be stupid to keep a guy making $4.5m for 3 more years as we've already got insane bottom 6 depth. If u can't trade him, send him to Utica, he can't block that. He'll probably get picked up tho and wouldn't clear, but there's an overpaid 3rd liner off the books. Now, if he beats out Jensen at training camp, looks good in the preseason and is more ready than Jensen, then keep him. If he plays as a top 6 forward, there's no need to trade or waive him. In that case, send Jensen to Utica so he can be more NHL ready next year. you... want to send Burrows down to Utica? Wow now that's a GREAT asset management right here. Summer can't end soon enough so the kids can go back to school and spend less time on internet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks35 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Who would have thought that the dragon slayer would one day have to leave us by being forced to leave and because he is no better than a very good 3rd liner in the NHL, if Burrows does in fact get traded. Damn Boston and that series... it killed this team and staff. Just imagine if we had won: -Out of all the things, Gillis would've been a hero. -Luongo would've left this franchise as not the greatest goalie ever, but as also a legend. -AV would've never been fired. -We could've started rebuilding knowing that we have a championship core leading our prospects (not in anyway saying we don't have great leadership, but it just would have been more satisfying) But then again, could've , should've and would've... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgerKing Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I think it would likely be a salary dump, we would get very little for him, I wonder if it was to create space to pick up Eriksson, smaller contract, better player. It's BS this info gets leaked, Burr has been an awesome canuck, want him to bounce back and I think he will, I have never seen a guy get so many chances without scoring, also the broken jaw put him behind the 8 ball, yuor vision is effected with the guard, you can't eat so you can't get in as many calories causing weight loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocnucksfan Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The years of being severely underpaid probably makes up for the contract. It's too early to give up on Burrows. He could be back to a 25 - 30 goal scorer next year. i hope your right. isnt arbitration an option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2009cupchamps Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 With out a significant LW pick up, we need Burrows. Higgins is a excellent third liner but not a good second liner. SEDIN SEDIN VRBATA BURROWS BONINO KASSIAN HIGGINS MATTHIAS VEY HANSEN RICHARDSON DORSETT SESTITO That's our line up as of right now, if one of the young kids come in and blow away the competetion than we will need to potentially trade someone or just increase our depth. KASSIAN, BONINO and VEY are all young as well as CORRADO who could potentially make it. In reality we do have youth on the team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Who would have thought that the dragon slayer would one day have to leave us by being forced to leave and because he is no better than a very good 3rd liner in the NHL, if Burrows does in fact get traded. Damn Boston and that series... it killed this team and staff. Just imagine if we had won: -Out of all the things, Gillis would've been a hero. -Luongo would've left this franchise as not the greatest goalie ever, but as also a legend. -AV would've never been fired. -We could've started rebuilding knowing that we have a championship core leading our prospects (not in anyway saying we don't have great leadership, but it just would have been more satisfying) But then again, could've , should've and would've... nah even if the canucks had won the cup, CDC would have turned on everyone eventually. It's a fickle bunch round' here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
touchable Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 i hope your right. isnt arbitration an option? Arbitration of what? He already has a long-term contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 i hope your right. isnt arbitration an option? i am just shock that how many people don't know how contract works, but they still decide to voice their opinion on how bad Burrows' contract is... seriously dude, arbitration? do you even know what that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHitman Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Well, at least Benning tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ride the red Pony Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Burr, always comes with his workboots on. Don't particularly like the guy, but there is no denying his work ethic. Whether he stays or not is meh........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicklas Bo Hunter Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Hate how some players handcuff our team. First edler now burrows. If you are asked to waive then waive... its obvious you are not wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 if burrows is moved its because he doesn't fit. its not because he underperformed or is too old or not worth the money or to improve the teams reputation. its simply that he just doesn't fit a role. for the last 3 years this team has been constructed horribly. wingers playing center, third liners playing on the second line, left side defencemen playing on the right side, etc. its been an absolute mess. benning has set out to fix this, it appears. by getting rid of garrison and bringing in sbisa he now has a third pairing left side guy that he doesn't have to force into playing the right side of the second pairing because of his ridiculous salary. bringing in dorsett and letting dalpe and schroeder walk means the fourth line will now be filled with guys fit to play that role instead of offensive players that aren't good enough for the top 6. bringing in a right shooting offensive player in vrbata means you don't have to keep cycling through third liners with the sedins hoping for some chemistry. so, assuming benning would optimally like to eventually plug every hole properly instead of with guys playing where they shouldn't (this likely won't be possible by training camp), your lineup looks like this: sedin-sedin-vrbata _____-bonino-kassian higgins/burrows-horvat/vey-hansen/vey matthias-richardson-dorsett sestito hamhuis-tanev edler-_____ sbisa-bieksa stanton-weber miller lack/markstrom so, ultimately, the canucks need a second line left winger (could be jensen if he looks terrific in camp, but i think he needs another year in utica) and a top 4 right side offensive defenceman. they need to get rid of one of burrows or higgins (should be burrows due to salary and the fact higgins brings more these days), one of markstrom or lack, and if horvat is good enough to make the team, hansen loses his spot to vey and needs to be moved as well. burrows, hansen, markstrom (or even lack if that's what it takes) should be used to acquire a top 6 left wing and/or top 4 right side d. This Although if Tanev pushes too hard for more than he should be paid include him in a deal for either or both of those parts as well and let Corrado/Stanton fill that hole as 3rd pairing D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Hate how some players handcuff our team. First edler now burrows. If you are asked to waive then waive... its obvious you are not wanted. He has earned the right not to waive though. It's all just business on both sides. If Burr see it as a better career option to stay at this point no one can make him waive. There are other thing the organization can do but they can't force someone out that doesn't want to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpappy Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Who would have thought that the dragon slayer would one day have to leave us by being forced to leave and because he is no better than a very good 3rd liner in the NHL, if Burrows does in fact get traded. Damn Boston and that series... it killed this team and staff. Just imagine if we had won: -Out of all the things, Gillis would've been a hero. -Luongo would've left this franchise as not the greatest goalie ever, but as also a legend. -AV would've never been fired. -We could've started rebuilding knowing that we have a championship core leading our prospects (not in anyway saying we don't have great leadership, but it just would have been more satisfying) But then again, could've , should've and would've... if we won the coin toss and got gilbert perault instead of dale tallon. thats where it starts mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Canuck Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think Jim B is challenging Burrows to make a difference . He asked him to waive Burrows said no. JB is seeing who has what it takes to WIN! Burrows is now going to show why he deserves to be our 2nd line LW. Sometimes you got to light that fire to bring out the best in people. Burrows is that guy you pick up at the deadline to win a cup. We already have him!!! KEEP HIM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyville88 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I would have been seriously pissed off if Burrows had been traded. In addition to being my favourite player, I also dished $250 for his jersey. And there's no one else on the team who I'd want to replace the namebar with. So I'd basically have a useless and very expensive item on my hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I would have been seriously pissed off if Burrows had been traded. In addition to being my favourite player, I also dished $250 for his jersey. And there's no one else on the team who I'd want to replace the namebar with. So I'd basically have a useless and very expensive item on my hands. As much as that would suck I don't think anyone would care about your jersey issue if it made us a better team to move Burrows..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He-Lord Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 This means our prospects will have to be sent down again. Right now, someone has to be traded if one of our prospects lights it up. It would most likely come down to Higgins, Burrows, or Hansen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAce Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Burrows could have handcuffed this team years ago when he scored 28 goals heading into a contract year. He took an amazingly low amount for Vancouver and never complained or griped about it. He is one of our hardest workers , an excellent penalty killer and one of the better agitators in the league, and we want to dump on him now because he had 1 bad season that was injury plagued and played under Torts ? I get the Edler hate because he has been trending downhill for a few seasons now but Burrows should be given a chance when you consider everything he has done for this organization Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.