bigbadcanucks Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Zack had 29 points in 73 games, that's a point every 2.5 games. Bur had 15 points in 49 games that's a point every 2 games. Bur was coming off an injury and was having a verrrrry bad year, now your saying that he's ready for second line mins but bur shouldn't even be on the team???? Kass shouldn't even be able to shower in the same locker room as bur to this point. Kass needs another year to develop on a non critical line. To top it off bur seamed to suffer under torts and kass found some grove with a hard nose coach (we don't have a hard nose coach anymore), under a new coach there is far more concern that kass would suffer then bur after all kass has had 4 coaches in a row that he couldn't play for and bur has worked with about everyone. You might want to brush up on your math there^^^^. Burrows PPG is 0.3; inverse that and it's a point every 3.3 games. What's your point again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 You might want to brush up on your math there^^^^. Burrows PPG is 0.3; inverse that and it's a point every 3.3 games. What's your point again? Lol, apparently I don't have a point. Brain fart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweathog Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Zack had 29 points in 73 games, that's a point every 2.5 games. Bur had 15 points in 49 games that's a point every 2 games. Bur was coming off an injury and was having a verrrrry bad year, now your saying that he's ready for second line mins but bur shouldn't even be on the team???? Kass shouldn't even be able to shower in the same locker room as bur to this point. Kass needs another year to develop on a non critical line. To top it off bur seamed to suffer under torts and kass found some grove with a hard nose coach (we don't have a hard nose coach anymore), under a new coach there is far more concern that kass would suffer then bur after all kass has had 4 coaches in a row that he couldn't play for and bur has worked with about everyone. Like what bigbadcanucks said, your math is wrong. Yes, Burrows has accomplished more than Kass at this point, but we eventually need to make room for the younger players on the top 6. Burr is 33, and his production is likely to decline in the coming years, so the smart move is to move him while he has value, whether its right now or at the deadline. Kassian on the other hand, is just coming on. The new coach might hurt Kassian's development, but that is unlikely. Willie has a reputation of being able to work with any kind of player, why should Kass be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 It's already been mentioned but yeah that's horrible when Burrows is your leading scorer. I hate to say it but Burrows has done jack squat without the Sedins offensively. He is non-existent without Henrik and Daniel in the points category, he is a tenacious 3rd line checker/PK'er, not a top 6 player. To the people that talk about chemistry blah, blah, blah, with the Sedins that's a downright freaking joke. The only reason that Burrows has had any success is our management has had their collective heads up their asses for 10 years now. How you have the best passer of the last decade in the world on your team as a first line center and you give him the following wingers to work with defies logic: Klatt Krog Arvedsson Carter Pyatt King Bernier Burrows really not that much of an accomplishment considering they have never played for any period of time with a skilled player. A true first line sniper would have been scoring 50+ goals a year with Sedins, unfortunately that time is probably over as the Sedins are getting up there in age. At least Benning knows what he is doing and he will actually try to put capable players in that position. The idea of giving him a year to bounce back is laughable as well. Bounce back to what? With the Sedins slowing down there is no way he's scoring 25+ goals again. I would love to eat my words but I see Burrows getting maybe 14 goals and 35 points this year if he's extremely lucky and he gets time with the Sedins. If he plays on the third line he might have trouble cracking 30 points, which is pretty much his average over the last 14 years of hockey. So its show-me-what-you've-done-lately ....and when I point out Burrows was our leading scorer in the season before his last injury riddled one, you change your tune and now its horrible that he actually did outperform everyone on the team in goals...its everyone else's fault for making Alex look so good! LOL And the jack squat comment...seriously? Up the thread were three playoff OT goals without Danny or Hank for your esteemed edification. And he's scored many more without them. Besides that, if you don't understand the value of a relentless work ethic with or without the puck and the value of such a versatile player..who can be plugged into almost any forward position, then you don't understand the value of a player like that in a team game. It makes zero sense not to give him most of the year at least to prove he can bounce back. If he can play even at 80% of how he has in the past, he is worth the money. This. Thanks for saving me the energy of typing it out. Burr had an injury riddled season. Get off his back you unappreciative jerks I third this. I'm appalled and embarrassed as a fan at some of these posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Trade Burrows asap. There comes a time when a player starts his descent into the valley of diminishing returns. At 33 Burrows is not washed up, but he has passes the event horizon. He has ceases to improve and it is only a matter of time - 2-3 years - before he is actively weighing this team down. Why wait until that happens? Why wait until the house catches fire before filling the bucket with water? Why not fill a bucket now so when you hear the crackling you're able to put it out before it's a threat? Burrows was a real contributor to the succes this team used to have. He got his make-up contract. Now it's time for him to bring back a nice return. I'd rather remember his heroics than wish I could forget his mortality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
250Integra Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I see Burrows as a player like Draper, Maltby, Cleary, etc. Players that understand their role in the bottom six and play it effectively. I also think it's time to rejuvenate this team with young blood, but I believe he's still a key part that will contribute from the bottoms 2 lines and specialize on the PK. He's also so versatile that he could slot on to play with the twins at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I'd love to give Burrows another chance, because I believe most players with off-seasons bounce back well, especially under new coaches, but he has to work his way up the lineup, starting from the 4th line. We can't have him taking the minutes of someone like Vbrata, Kassian, Jensen or heck even Shinkaruk (last player cut from camp last year, he's going to make a serious push) who deserve the time to develop and show us what they've got. Start him on the 4th line with Richardson and Matthias (or Vey/Fox/Horvat if Matthias is our 3C), with 2nd unit PK time. He should get about 12 minutes a game, no more. That's decent 4th line duties. If he scores some goals and plays well defensively, he can get promoted to our 3rd line and 15 minutes a game and so forth. Obviously a trade would be ideal to get rid of a 4.5M 4th liner and Benning explored that option, but his hands are tied with this full NTC that Burrows won't waive. Either this entire situation gets very awkward once Burrows starts getting press box duties and he is forced into a trade or Burrows finds a way to score around 15 goals and be a little bit more worth his hefty contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Scrolling through the posts I have this to add about Burrows: To those whom say he gets his point because he plays with the Sedins - of course..but the Sedins have traditionally never being able to produce at a high level without Burrows either - which is why he always gets put back on the first line when they juggle things around and it isn't working long term. Aside from Anson Carter one year, a long time ago, no other line mate has worked out with the Sedins. Also Burrows gets most of his points even strength, his 50 pt seasons would likely be 70pt seasons if he got the 1st unit pp time the Sedins and Kesler. In fact Kesler owes Burrows his big point years, as undoubtedly if the ice time was the other way around Burrows would have had close to the same production. Burrows intangibles and scoring ability make his wage fair, if not good value for the Canucks, and if Vrbata doesn't work out with the Sedins, which history shows there is a good chance he won't and Burrows will be back on the first line, NOT trading him makes more sense right now. If Vrbata works out and Burrows doesn't bounce back, then trade him. Otherwise the team needs the insurance and owes him the chance to re-bound injury free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 http://s6.tinypic.com/5nvx1j_th.jpg What do you mean "you people"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 ^^^ Don't you guys think at least he deserves a chance to play under the new coach??? Perhaps Burrows thinks that as well. Maybe. And maybe he does have a better season under Willie. In fact, I believe he will. But the issue (for some of us least) is that by the time Horvat, Virtanen, Shinkaruk and co. are leading this team, Burrows will be either gone, or a shadow of his former self. It makes sense to move him now, as long as there is a deal available that will provide a useful player (or players) that are close to the same age as the current crop of prospects. It's not about thinking Burrows sucks, or dumping him for a bag of pucks. It's about the long term health of the franchise and the hope that the team will once again contend down the road, instead of being locked firmly into the middle of the pack, year after year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 If he does get traded, who would have thought Luongo, Kesler and Burrows would all get traded in the same year, three years ago? Not to mention, Schneider too a year back. But I agree with the OP, don't trade him and see how he performs under Desjardins in his first year. It seems like not only did Burrows didn't do well under Torts as Head Coach but every other player too. Bringing in Willie will give everyone a fresh start and hopefully most of players will have rebound year. Who on our team is ready to take him out of the top six? If you say kass I'm going to puke. He is a top six player in our team like it or not, there are youngsters ready to step up but the third line is better training grounds then second line mins. I think he should be playing on our second line next year and if players have developed to the point that there ready to take his spot then and he's still underperforming then we look at a trade. We just need to move away from Burrows in the top 6. It might make you puke but playing a young player that has room to grow is far better at this point that sticking that lame old line-up back out there. We know one thing, we're going nowhere fast with that attitude. ^^^ Don't you guys think at least he deserves a chance to play under the new coach??? Perhaps I don't really think so. He's been living on the best lines in hockey, where he doesn't belong by the way, for several years now collecting a gravy contract. It should be about the team and this nonsense that MG instilled in some of our fans that players have the god given right to play despite their production is garbage. This is a professional hockey team not a support group. You can't just give every player a chance. Unfortunately in hockey their are a lot of rules like how many players you can have, how many players are on the ice at one time, the amount you are allowed to play them, etc., so no Burrows shouldn't be gifted a spot and 82 games to try to prove that he is anywhere near as valuable as the dollars he earns. Some people get so attached, Burrows doesn't suck but the second you insinuate that he's not Guy Lafleur or Joe Sakic kids get the panties all bunched and start whining about this, that, or the other. The facts are MG signed him to a terrible contract and that is problematic for teams that want to win hockey games. Bad contracts are never good to have. Especially the pricey ones with unrealistic expectations. So its show-me-what-you've-done-lately ....and when I point out Burrows was our leading scorer in the season before his last injury riddled one, you change your tune and now its horrible that he actually did outperform everyone on the team in goals...its everyone else's fault for making Alex look so good! LOL And the jack squat comment...seriously? Up the thread were three playoff OT goals without Danny or Hank for your esteemed edification. And he's scored many more without them. Besides that, if you don't understand the value of a relentless work ethic with or without the puck and the value of such a versatile player..who can be plugged into almost any forward position, then you don't understand the value of a player like that in a team game. It makes zero sense not to give him most of the year at least to prove he can bounce back. If he can play even at 80% of how he has in the past, he is worth the money. I third this. I'm appalled and embarrassed as a fan at some of these posts. Unfortunately, hockey is pretty much a what have you done for me lately business. Don't you think? Again, I don't dislike Burrows but he wasn't and never will be a genuine first line player. Those are just facts, and therefore the contract is a bad one. Yeah, he can play almost any position but he is not that good at the top 6. That's not where you put pluggers and guys with hard work ethic, that's where you put your scorers and puck drivers. Back in that shortened season Burrows was 71st in the league in scoring with 13 goals. 19 goals behind the leaders. David Legwand also lead his team with 12 goals that year. Should he be in our top 6 as well? That's like when Torts said "David Booth was our best player tonight ... and that's a problem". He had to clarify for guys like you as well that didn't get it. No knock against David and good for him but your team isn't going to be that good when these guys are leading the charge offensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcfly Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I agree with OP on this one. The guy is a classic. Scored our most classic goal EVER. He had a bum year, and folks want to ship him out with a "what have you done for us lately" attitude that is always common. I would love to see what he brings this season with new talent and a coach that can utilize individual talents. If he goes next season instead, I think it would feel like we gave him a fair shake instead of unfairly offload him. 1 MORE YEAR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 He has had great chemistry with everyone he's played with, he's just a smart player that reads players and plays well. He's a player that will fit into the top six without a problem, I will agree with the posts that he's overpaid but the fool MG is gone and if we were to overpay any player on the team I'd have to pick bur after all he took a huge pay cut on his contract before. I don't really understand why people believe this. Burrows earned his 2.0m cap hit contract with the play that he provided, the year his first contract ended was a "career year" in points. He could have easily regressed or simply stayed at a 30-40pt pace for the duration of the contact, and that would have been fine. Burrows exceeded the value of his previous contract, however that is no legitimate reason to overpay on the next contract expecting the same level of performance, especially for a player in their mid 30's when most players begin to decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcfly Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 We just need to move away from Burrows in the top 6. It might make you puke but playing a young player that has room to grow is far better at this point that sticking that lame old line-up back out there. We know one thing, we're going nowhere fast with that attitude. I don't really think so. He's been living on the best lines in hockey, where he doesn't belong by the way, for several years now collecting a gravy contract. It should be about the team and this nonsense that MG instilled in some of our fans that players have the god given right to play despite their production is garbage. This is a professional hockey team not a support group. You can't just give every player a chance. Unfortunately in hockey their are a lot of rules like how many players you can have, how many players are on the ice at one time, the amount you are allowed to play them, etc., so no Burrows shouldn't be gifted a spot and 82 games to try to prove that he is anywhere near as valuable as the dollars he earns. Some people get so attached, Burrows doesn't suck but the second you insinuate that he's not Guy Lafleur or Joe Sakic kids get the panties all bunched and start whining about this, that, or the other. The facts are MG signed him to a terrible contract and that is problematic for teams that want to win hockey games. Bad contracts are never good to have. Especially the pricey ones with unrealistic expectations. Unfortunately, hockey is pretty much a what have you done for me lately business. Don't you think? Again, I don't dislike Burrows but he wasn't and never will be a genuine first line player. Those are just facts, and therefore the contract is a bad one. Yeah, he can play almost any position but not he is that good at the top 6. That's not where you put pluggers and guys with hard work ethic, that's where you put your scorers and puck drivers. Back in that shortened season Burrows was 71st in the league in scoring with 13 goals. 19 goals behind the leaders. David Legwand also lead his team with 12 goals that year. Should he be in our top 6 as well? That's like when Torts said "David Booth was our best player tonight ... and that's a problem". He had to clarify for guys like you as well that didn't get it. No knock against David and good for him but your team isn't going to be that good when these guys are leading the charge offensively. Did you just compare Burr to Booth? Yeesh. And honestly who cares what Torts thought. ... what's this about "Burr won't ever be a genuine top line player?" Probably not, but you can't win cups with 1 line, amigo. The guy is arguably the best player to click with the Sedins on a constant basis for us. In all likeliness the organization will probably tell him that it's time for a change and he'd better have a good year so he can go to a good team and we can get something decent in return. Sedins got 2 years left or whatever... Either way it works for us, because it equates to Burr playing his socks off this season now that he doesn't have to be one of Torts whipping boys. Burr's a classic I say. Let's let him leave on a good note here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I don't really understand why people believe this. Burrows earned his 2.0m cap hit contract with the play that he provided, the year his first contract ended was a "career year" in points. He could have easily regressed or simply stayed at a 30-40pt pace for the duration of the contact, and that would have been fine. Burrows exceeded the value of his previous contract, however that is no legitimate reason to overpay on the next contract expecting the same level of performance, especially for a player in their mid 30's when most players begin to decline. To be fair, at the time Burrows signed his extension for 2013-14 through 2016-17 ($4.5 million AAV), he had also earned that contract and he wasn't really "overpaid" by NHL market standards. Burrows had just put-up 117 goals (102 regular season and 15 playoffs) over 4 seasons (and for a total salary of only $8 million). That's a scoring rate (prorated) of 30 goals per 82 games. And while he'd had a drop-off in 2012-13 (13 goals in 46 GP), he was still scoring at a 23 goal pace (over 82 games) during the lockout shortened season. The market dictated that Alex Burrows was worth around $5 million per season. And he'd have likely been able to easily get that kind of money if he'd tested the open market as a UFA (rather than re-sign in Vancouver). Gillis had clearly decided that he was going to pay Burrows something close to his market value, as a demonstration of loyalty to a player who'd been a crucial member of the Canucks core and a key contributor to Vancouver's unprecedented run of success in the league (compared to past Canucks teams). He'd also been widely considered to be one of the league's better bargains on his previous contract (his dollars per goal scored was less than half of the price that most teams were willing to pay for players in comparable roles). So Burrows was due for a very big raise and a $4.5 million AAV was not an unreasonable number. Where Gillis blundered, IMHO, was on the term. Locking Burrows in for another four seasons, on a deal where he'll be 36 when it expires, and at an AAV that was pretty close to his 2013 market value, was not a good management decision. While most people were thrilled to have the roster certainty of another four seasons with Alex Burrows in Canucks colours, almost from the start, there were people in this fanbase who were very concerned about that contract term. Would Burrows still be a 25-30 goal player in 2-3-4 years? How much might he decline during his 30s? How much did he depend on the Sedins (and what was his value if he didn't play with the twins)? Next season will give us a better idea of how those questions will be answered. Last season was clearly a "write-off" year for Burrows, largely due to his horribly bad luck with injuries and the specific challenges of his recovery (that face shield took away a big part of Burrows' bread-and-butter game). But Burrows' 2013-14 season was also a frightening reminder of the potential risks Gillis took on when he committed $18 million in salary and 4 years of term to an aging veteran forward whose "best years" might have been already behind him in 2013. I'd have been much happier (both now and back in 2013) if Burrows have been given a Vrbata-type of deal on his last extension. Re-signing Burrows for two years (instead of four) would have taken him to age 34 (and thereby allowing for one more extension before the 35+ clause kicks in). It would even have been a better decision to pay him a higher AAV (maybe around $5 million) over two years and then negotiate another extension in 2015 (based on where Burrows is at when he's 34). Most likely, his market value will be much lower in 2015 than it was in 2013, so the net cost of two contracts (let's say a couple of two-year deals) would likely have been less than that of a single contract over four years. And it would have been far less of a risk for the club. It's not like Gillis really needed to lock Burrows in for that long anyway. While I'm sure his agent pushed hard for that four-year term (and the NTC), I'd have been very surprised if Burrows actually turned down a final (as in the Canucks "walk-away" if he doesn't accept it) offer of $10 million (over two years) in 2013. Both sides knew that Burrows wanted to stay in Vancouver and that playing for the Canucks (and with the twins) was his best choice career-wise. He just needed to be paid fair value based on the free agency market, and I believe a shorter term deal (at something like a $5 million AAV) would have accomplished this. TL;DR: I really don't believe that the $4.5 million AAV was an overpayment for Alex Burrows. He probably could have gotten more at the time on the open market. The issue was (and still is) the four-year contract term. EDIT: typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Did you just compare Burr to Booth? Yeesh. And honestly who cares what Torts thought. ... what's this about "Burr won't ever be a genuine top line player?" Probably not, but you can't win cups with 1 line, amigo. The guy is arguably the best player to click with the Sedins on a constant basis for us. In all likeliness the organization will probably tell him that it's time for a change and he'd better have a good year so he can go to a good team and we can get something decent in return. Sedins got 2 years left or whatever... Either way it works for us, because it equates to Burr playing his socks off this season now that he doesn't have to be one of Torts whipping boys. Burr's a classic I say. Let's let him leave on a good note here. Well if you read the context it's a valid comparison. I didn't compare them as players mano vs mano I just stated that if either one of them is leading your team offensively it means you're not a good team. Plain and simple. Of course you don't win with one line but $4.5 m/year is getting pretty pricey for a third or fourth liner. I think a lot of you guys are being overly sentimental. If he comes back and scores 25 goals this year I will eat my old Canucks shirt and get a new one. My biggest fear is he scores around 10-12 goals and 25 points this year if he doesn't get gift wrapped points playing with the Sedins. I'm just being realistic but if you guys want to believe he is a top 6 player and you want to see the year play out by all means who am I to stop your delusions. Bottom line if he fits under the cap I have no problem with him being on the team I just see it as self-defeatist if WD tries to force him into the top of the line-up. We'll see, hopefully I'm wrong but this is what common sense is telling me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Well if you read the context it's a valid comparison. I didn't compare them as players mano vs mano I just stated that if either one of them is leading your team offensively it means you're not a good team. Plain and simple. Of course you don't win with one line but $4.5 m/year is getting pretty pricey for a third or fourth liner. I think a lot of you guys are being overly sentimental. If he comes back and scores 25 goals this year I will eat my old Canucks shirt and get a new one. My biggest fear is he scores around 10-12 goals and 25 points this year if he doesn't get gift wrapped points playing with the Sedins. I'm just being realistic but if you guys want to believe he is a top 6 player and you want to see the year play out by all means who am I to stop your delusions. Bottom line if he fits under the cap I have no problem with him being on the team I just see it as self-defeatist if WD tries to force him into the top of the line-up. We'll see, hopefully I'm wrong but this is what common sense is telling me. first, no, you won't eat your shirt if he score 25 goals this year. Your replies on this topic is as ridiculous as this statement. Seems like grossly exaggerate you type is what you do. second, Burrows did NOT get gift wrapped points from the Sedins. It really hurts my brain that there are still idiots here thinking Burrows is just another Anson carter. Did he get benefit from playing with the Sedins? yes of course! but hte same thing can apply the the Sedins and they benefit a lot from playing with Burrows too. Just how many times did we try a new linemate with them but fail to click? I swear, do you suffer from some sort of memory lost or something? It's funny how someone without common sense is telling others their action is base on common sense huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Absolutely NOT to those talking about moving Burrows. As has already probably been echoed: 1) He had a crap year. We can all admit that and he would too, I'm sure. But near the end of the season he showed some of his former self. I *strongly* believe he will have a bounceback year- albeit still likely with less points being that he may not be playing with the Sedins. 2) While likely starting a decline, he's a clutch player who is still very, very useful. Good on shootouts too - which is bound to gain a few points. 3) If Vrbata doesn't gel with the Sedins, we have a backup plan 4) His trade value is at an all-time low right now. We'd get far under value for him 5) His NTC makes him difficult to move anyway If he does manage to have a comeback year, THEN I can see a case for moving him if he's willing to waive. By that point, players like Horvat (who is a centre but can play wing), Jensen or Hunter are one year more experienced and possibly in a position to move up, and Burrows trade value will be (somewhat) repaired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan90 Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Give him 1 more season and see what he does. If he still plays poorly, then yes consider trading him. Like others said he has had injuries that slowed him down and litterally the entire team did bad last season. There's really no point in trading him now because the return won't be good anyways. And we're not like up against the salary cap or anything so keep him. Basically this season is a do or die for Burrows in terms of his future with the Canucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadcanucks Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 This whole Burrows conundrum is not that complicated. One thing that is clearly evident with JB's philosophy is that regardless of where the players are slotted on the depth chart on the opening day of training camp, everyone is going to earn their: place on the roster, place on the depth chart; and ice time. I don't think the rules will be any different for Burrows as it will be for any other player in camp...if Burrows deserves to be on the second line and gives the team the best chance to win playing in that role, then that's where he'll be. If not, then he'll be moved down the depth chart, with less ice time thereby making him less important/valuable to the team. Common sense dictates that if Burrows gets pushed down the depth chart, he'll likely be moved. In spite of banging the "trade Burrows" war drum, I'm all for giving Burrows the chance to earn his second line duties. At the most, that is what Burrows has earned based on his history with the team. I like the fact that there is true depth/competition for roster spots (as opposed to the lip service we got from Gillis the past few years about depth)...everyone will have to work their sacks off to be part of the team...nice change from what appeared to be a culture of entitlement that seemed to be pervasive with the previous regime (and that change began when the malcontent Kesler was shipped out). I have heard the basic term "working hard" revived through TL/JB/WD...I don't recall hearing these words from previous management and coaching staff in the past 3-4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.