2009cupchamps 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. You don't even need to trade them. If they refuse to waive then send them to waivers and they won't have any say where they go. Sure van won't get any thing back other than a roster spot and cap space but the message to the rest of the group may make it worth it. For the record it would pick HANSEN since his return would be the least of any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- 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. So what's the point of a contract then? Sort of makes it pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan 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. What is the point of signing a NTC if you are going to be expected to waive it the following year? Bur loves this team (and town) and wants to be here, so it's his prerogative to do so. And there's a lot of fans out there that want him to remain a Canuck. How 'bout we see how he does this season instead of dumping on him because of one injury riddled season. He may even outperform Vrbata. You never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure to Mogilny 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 Bravo! Excellent post. End of discusion. I really cant understand the short sited attetude of some people here who are dismissing Burr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drop Em Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 What's pointless is, that the management would obviously like to move forward without him and yet Burrows would rather play here over playing somewhere else where he's actually wanted. It is totally his prerogative to do so, I just personally wouldn't want to work or play for management that is actively trying to move forward without me and is trying to replace me, as that is rarely a recipe for success...........contract or no contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 So what's the point of a contract then? Sort of makes it pointless. The team that picks the player up assumes the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 You don't even need to trade them. If they refuse to waive then send them to waivers and they won't have any say where they go. Sure van won't get any thing back other than a roster spot and cap space but the message to the rest of the group may make it worth it. For the record it would pick HANSEN since his return would be the least of any of them. This is certainly an option, but would like to think unlikely because Hansen, Higgins, and Burrows should all have enough value to at least bring back a decent pick. If not, it would be that Benning has a deal to bring in a player he really wants but needs the capspace and has no other preferred options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sokratis Papastathopoulos Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Good. He will have a spot on the 4th line and the press box. Willie plays hardball! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 One. Bad. Year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Allegedly. Burrows, according to a dimwit named Botchford, who has been wrong many, many times, remains a pretender, and postures as a valid, reliable source, is alleged to have refused to waive to go the New Jersey Devils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3aL Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I love burr but in our lineup he's a 3 million dollar player at 4.5 it changes the way he is viewed The positive for burr is that he is a fan favorite, and he was still generating chances through his injury riddled season; perhaps this yr under a new coach and healthy he will be able to finish his chances and be a 20-25 goal scorer without the sedins it really is possible. As for Vrbata I am expecting 30 minimum, 35 ideally and 40 would be amazing if playing the whole season with sedins plus pp time. Pyatt carter burrows all have carreer highs in goals while skating with them, I expect te same from a player who actually scored 20 plus a season regularly , usuallywithout star players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 What's pointless is, that the management would obviously like to move forward without him and yet Burrows would rather play here over playing somewhere else where he's actually wanted. It is totally his prerogative to do so, I just personally wouldn't want to work or play for management that is actively trying to move forward without me and is trying to replace me, as that is rarely a recipe for success...........contract or no contract. There's more to it than that. If it were just about playing somewhere where you are wanted, players wouldn't bother with NMCs. But there are other factors like uprooting your family and moving them cross continent. In many cases, a family that is thoroughly invested in the community. Kids have to change schools; wives/girlfriends may have to leave jobs behind; everyone has to leave good friends behind...adn finally, you may have to go somewhere that you'd rather not be. I don't know a whole lot about New Jersey, but when I see those "most livable" lists, I don't recall seeing mention of Newark or Hoboken on any of them. As people have stated before, Burr's attitude might change, if he's pitched a deal to a more desirable location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duc_evo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Willie doesn't want Burr on the team. Ship him out or send him to the minors. EIther way, his career is fucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Willie doesn't want Burr on the team. Ship him out or send him to the minors. EIther way, his career is fracked. I'm no Cap expert, but I don't think you can bury Cap hit in the minors anymore. Your second sentence, IMO, is a tad over dramatic and more than a tad inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2009cupchamps Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 you can bury majority of the contract in the minors, you have a percentage of the contract that counts against the contract. The key is they need to pass through waivers, which Burrows wouldn't. so technically Van can send him through waivers and if he is claimed than he has no say on where he goes and Van clears 100% of his cap. Players with NMC removes this option, so you can't even put them on waivers. If I was going to do this to any one it would be Hansen since his return would be minimal in a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 If as suggested Burrows is waived, are the Canucks responsible for half his salary and would that be against the cap as well? If so it would be silly to have a cap hit and no player.And I'd rather he stay as one bad season does not a write off make in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 only $900k or so can be buried so if burrows were to clear he'd still count $3.6m against the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2009cupchamps Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 that's if he clears waivers which he wouldn't and than there is no cap counted against us. If he clears than they can bring him back, I believe the new CBA allows this, if they clear waivers once than you can move them up and down as often as you like through out the year with out the need to clear waivers again. Like I said I would prefer to do it to Hansen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2009cupchamps Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Correction on my last post, only re-entry waivers are eliminated. So if Burrows or Hansen clears waivers than you can just bring them back up with no chance of another team claiming them, but they would need to be cleared to be sent down again. So you can send him down and if they are not claimed, instead of taking the cap penalty just bring them back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 you can bury majority of the contract in the minors, you have a percentage of the contract that counts against the contract. The key is they need to pass through waivers, which Burrows wouldn't. so technically Van can send him through waivers and if he is claimed than he has no say on where he goes and Van clears 100% of his cap. Players with NMC removes this option, so you can't even put them on waivers. If I was going to do this to any one it would be Hansen since his return would be minimal in a trade. No, you can't. You can bury only a small portion of a contract like Burrows' in the minors. Last season it was $925K max and the season before it was $900K. It should raise this year similarly to the cap, but I haven't done the math to know what it is exactly - certainly less than $1M. So Burrows in the minors (assuming he made it) would still carry a $3.5M+ cap hit on the Canucks. If as suggested Burrows is waived, are the Canucks responsible for half his salary and would that be against the cap as well? If so it would be silly to have a cap hit and no player. And I'd rather he stay as one bad season does not a write off make in my eyes. That was in the old CBA, and that was only if a player was claimed trying to pass waivers to be recalled to the NHL. There are no more waivers when a player is being recalled by the NHL team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.