[Report] Burrows' Said No To Waiving NTC

[VanGnome]

Is not like Canucks have really any options.

Sedins have their best years when Burrows are playing on their line. Without the Sedins, the Canucks don't have any players that are legitimate 1st line scoring threats. The only way the Canucks can hope to stay competitive (at that time) is to try to keep the Sedins as productive as possible and that is by continuing to give the Sedins the winger they have the most chemistry with in their careers. Also, Canucks are really lacking in Right Wingers and they have tried Hansen with him and the results are not great. Kassian is still young and didn't really do very much at that time.

Burrows is also underpaid during the last contract and it is without choice that the Canucks have to pay him. 4.5 mil is high for a 3rd line winger, but I view Burrows at the minimum a 2nd line winger with good chemistry with Sedins at the time he signed that deal. You also have to remember, at that time, we have Kesler on the roster still and Kes and Burr have some good chemistry before Burrows is promoted to play with the Sedins.

Is really easy to look at everything with stats and what not and say a player is overpaid. Sure, without the Sedins, Burrows at most might be a 2nd line winger. But if you consider the other stuff he brings to the ice, such as being an excellent PK winger and playing a 2 way game, the chemistry Burrows had with the Sedins, his chemistry w/ Kesler, the lack of available forwards to replace him on the 1st line winger. Canucks really need to sign and keep him on the roster and he demanded a 4.5mil contract and Canucks pretty much have their hands tied.

All in all, this is just another example of how the prospect pool for Canucks have been so weak for a long time that they can't produce a player good enough to play on the 1st line. Hopefully Benning can fix this problem.

I like the points you bring up, and I've concurred in the past that Burrows' value was/is not just based on offensive production, however prior to the past contract, Burrows had played 29 games with the Sedin's and ignited that line.

Going into that negotiation, he decided that at that time 2.0m was sufficient. Walking into this current contract negotiation, if his primary argument is that he is deserving of a raise of 2.25x what he made before is because of chemistry with two players and an inability to keep up his elite PK ability (which got him the opportunity to make this entire scenario a reality), then Gillis was a worse manager than I thought was even possible.

You don't overpay out of desperation of losing what might not be repeated, simply because you feel you got the best of a past negotiation. It just doesn't work that way, the game behind the game is one side asks for one thing, the other asks for something else and eventually you come to a mutual agreement.

The current contract screams "taken to the cleaners" by Burrows' agent.

As a comparable, available on the UFA market the year Burrows' contract was expiring were:

Daniel Alfredsson

Nathan Horton

Michael Ryder

Jarome Iginla

Jaromir Jagr

Damien Brunner

All would have been better options depending on the player a 1-2 year over payment deal, or a long term deal (Horton, etc)

However Gillis hampered his ability to attack the Free Agent or Trade Markets by rushing to a long term deal at an inflated price tag for Burrows.

Burrows may have deserved the money he got, but I don't think he is worth the money, big difference. And really the only thing in this thread that's about Burrows really (at least from my point of view) is his refusal to waive a NTC, which is a scenario that we have very little if any concrete information regarding.

Everything else is just griping about being left with Gillis' legacy, and potentially not getting full value from a player contract going into this year of much change.

[alfstonker]

I seriously doubt we would be having this conversation if Burr had been fit last season.

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.

[RUPERTKBD]

Sigh,

Burrows is the reason we got past the 1st round and Chicago (which we nearly didn't in large part due to some monumental collapses).

Kesler was the reason we got past Nashville in the 2nd round.

Kevin Bieksa is the reason we got past San Jose in the 3rd round.

Burrows has scored some big, clutch goals in the past, but past glories does not help the team's chances of improving or winning in the future. Players regardless of who they are, must always perform to the level their contracts dictate, otherwise they hamper the team and affect its ability to win.

Fan enamorment is all well and good, but ignorance is no excuse to misrepresent fact or believe that the past has any bearing on the future of any professional sports team.

It's funny that people give Burrows credit for beating the 'Hawks, but they tend to forget the dumb penalty in OT that almost sunk them. (Thanks to Lou for the save on Sharp)

He's been a great player and a good soldier, but if the team's moving in a new direction, it's moving in a new direction and we shouldn't be letting sentimentality cloud our opinions. Benning certainly isn't.

I understand that it's tough to see favored players move on, but think back to the Linden trade and how well that worked out for the franchise...

[SuperReverb2]

Burrow was the reason why we went to the final in 2011. Burrow scored some BIGGEST goals in team history.

Burrow is a Canucks forever!

Like Torts said though, the Canucks are stale, complacent, and living in the past. Sorry, but what has Burrows done for us lately? Like Burrows, but how does that goal help us now?

[Samuel Påhlsson]

If he can perform w/ no Sedins and live up to his contract I'm all for keeping him. If he has a season like last year I wouldn't mind seeing him moved.

[Gurn]

Well if you trade Burrows you might as well trade the Sedins, as they have proven to play their best with Alex and nobody else on the team has meshed with them. Radeem MIGHT play well with them but if not the first line is in deep trouble.

[-DLC-]

Like Torts said though, the Canucks are stale, complacent, and living in the past. Sorry, but what has Burrows done for us lately? Like Burrows, but how does that goal help us now?

You're addressing "the Canucks" collectively, as a whole but they are comprised of various individuals. If an egg is cracked in the carton you don't throw them all out, you remove it and carry on.

Torts obviously didn't have the answers either so I'm not sure I'd rely on his assessment. We got worse under him, much worse. Guys were dropping like flies and that wasn't complacency, that was fatigue and injury due to the excessive shot blocking, etc.

Not sure that past experience that can be drawn from should be considered a negative...they know what not to do and also what it takes to be on top, now it's up to them to get there. But you don't turf everyone and start fresh when you've had a fairly successful group...you could get worse, not better. Burr's a workhorse and there's a reason a league that's chastised him is now jumping on board...he's paid his dues and there is a solid hockey player there who's simply hit a rough patch via injuries.

[ocnucksfan]

Like Torts said though, the Canucks are stale, complacent, and living in the past. Sorry, but what has Burrows done for us lately? Like Burrows, but how does that goal help us now?

Burr definitely had a rough year, he did show some promise towards the end though. He finally started scoring and not hitting goal posts. I've never seen such bad puck luck. I think it was more failure to adapt to Torts' system than anything having to do with him solely. Getting rid of him would be completely jumping the gun.

I personally am very excited to see him with bonino on the second line or even with the twins a bit under WD. I see a possible rebound year.

[higgyfan]

He's not interested in waiving his NTC. He had a dreadful season last year, with some awful injuries.

He's a smart player, quick on his feet and very good defensively. One bad season doesn't change that.

He will play his heart out this year to prove himself. He may develop some great chemistry on the 2nd, or even grab his job back from Vrbata. It's the big unknown. It will be interesting to see what the posts are like this time next year.

[CanucksCup2018]

Many people here have never played hockey competitively, it is clear from the reactionary bias to many players who have one off year. It is clear from not understanding nuances of players games It is clear from not understanding output of a LINE is the result of all three players on that line not just two (ie people don't seem to realize the Sedin's BEST years have been with whom on their line? How many years did it take to find someone who fit with them? Hmm..) But of course, its much easier to look at the surface of things and not analyze them. It is clear that people don't understand much about the game in general from about 75% of the posts on this site and this thread in general.

[CanucksCup2018]

Many people here have never played hockey competitively, it is clear from the reactionary bias to many players who have one off year.

It is clear from not understanding nuances of players games

It is clear from not understanding output of a LINE is the result of all three players on that line not just two (ie people don't seem to realize the Sedin's BEST years have been with whom on their line? How many years did it take to find someone who fit with them? Hmm..) But of course, its much easier to look at the surface of things and not analyze them.

It is clear that people don't understand much about the game in general from about 75% of the posts on this site and this thread in general.

[RUPERTKBD]

Many people here have never played hockey competitively, it is clear from the reactionary bias to many players who have one off year.

It is clear from not understanding nuances of players games

It is clear from not understanding output of a LINE is the result of all three players on that line not just two (ie people don't seem to realize the Sedin's BEST years have been with whom on their line? How many years did it take to find someone who fit with them? Hmm..) But of course, its much easier to look at the surface of things and not analyze them.

It is clear that people don't understand much about the game in general from about 75% of the posts on this site and this thread in general.

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.

[Senpai]

He said no.. Big woop.

The only real "news" to come out of this is if we found out what the package was.. Now THAT would be news.

[-DLC-]

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 speak in certainties and that's a mistake. There is no written rule saying age means you can't play anymore. Teemu says hello.

[dragon4401]

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.

Without Burrows our pk is Hansen, Matthias, Richardson, Higgins...We need Burrows to keep that shored up and so the Sedins dont get overused on it again...Have to keep in mind while he had little offence last year he was still great defensively

And as per assets is it not buy low sell high? So why sell at an all time low?

[Senpai]

You speak in certainties and that's a mistake. There is no written rule saying age means you can't play anymore. Teemu says hello.

Did.. did... you just compare Burrows to Teemu Selanne?

[CanucksCup2018]

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.

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

[duc_evo]

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

[RUPERTKBD]

You speak in certainties and that's a mistake. There is no written rule saying age means you can't play anymore. Teemu says hello.

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.

[-DLC-]

Did.. did... you just compare Burrows to Teemu Selanne?

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".