To the people saying "trade Burrows" ....

[Quoted]

So when do you suggest he be traded now or later. I read a bit of hesitation in your comment as well so you have reservations too.

I was mostly questioning that "any team" would want him. I doubt it. I think he is a big question mark - right now he has very little trade value (I suspect) based on last year. It is a risk to hold on to him - if he rebounds, they will be able to trade him next year for a bit more. If not, they'll get nothing. If they trade him now, I suspect they get very little. I'd roll the dice and see how he does and if he does well, trade him first reasonable offer that comes along. I don't think he is the kind of player they should hang on to much past his prime. I really like him as a player and he has done a lot for the club but all eras come to an end; sentimentality can't come into it.

[Senpai]

It's not about just trading him, it's about getting the right assets back.

Would i trade him as a cap dump? Hell no, that's stupid. Would i trade him for the right package? Sure.

Do i hope he bounces back next year? Absolutely.

[Dogbyte]

All you are really saying it is a crap shoot with Burrows. Life is a crap shoot as well. If Vrbata cannot find his game with Hank and Dank we are all wrong. That is a crap shoot as well.

My only point is please no knee jerking until they see what they have and then decide. This is not about sentimentalism it is about looking at options first and reacting in a practical way.

I guess you are correct. I have a previous bias towards the Burrows process as I believe MG screwed that up majorily. In my opinion I would have rather had another top 6 player signed capable of playing with the Sedins and then let he and Burrows rotate for the best fit for the team. We really had no other good options if that line was slumping. As it was too much pressure and expectation were placed on an undrafted player several years removed from the EHCL. Burrows has done simply amazing from where he came from but has put up average numbers for a first liner (correct me if I'm wrong).

As I've said I am perfectly willing to let Burrows play this year and see what he can do. However, my argument is that if he were moved to make the team better I don't think that is a bad thing where as some people seem to think this is just inconceivable as if Burrows is more important than the Canucks. It is my opinion that all moves are made with the hockey club in mind and not an individual player's needs.

The reason my stance may seem stronger than I intend is because people seem to forget that it is pretty hard for a team to test out a player and then move him mid-season, or wasting a season to find that out. Unfortunately most of your moves need to be made before the puck drops, hockey is not easy and this isn't a video game. This is why Schroeder was let go this year. What do you do, sign him to another year contract and then if he doesn't work waive him, or stick him in the pressbox? If god forbid Burrows has 5 points again at Christmas what do you do then? Your options are limited.

Notice never did I say I want to run him out of town but I don't see him putting us over the top. According to my math spots on this team are going to become limited sooner than later and Burrows contract just doesn't scream good value.

If indeed he was asked to waive his NTC I can't be that crazy can I? No need to answer that.

[Gurn]

"When you've been asked to be traded, don't say no and stay there. It's better for all parties to move on"

He has a NTC so management should not have asked him to waive, it is better if all parties honour the contract. different viewpoint than yours, just as valid.

[Papayas]

It's not about just trading him, it's about getting the right assets back.

Would i trade him as a cap dump? Hell no, that's stupid. Would i trade him for the right package? Sure.

Do i hope he bounces back next year? Absolutely.

why would you think trading him with a NTC is goign to give you the right asset back? if anything, the NTC will lower his trade value a lot to the point where he will just act as a cap dump instead of a hockey trade.

[Junkyard Dog]

The thing is is that it is a business - there is no "deserve". If the club is better without a certain player, then they should move him (speaking generally). As a fan I'd rather see the team being as successful as possible than watch someone taking up a roster spot based on sentimentality.

Well Burrows said no to waiving and he has that right. That's part of the business.

If Burrows under-performs he will be bought out in a few years.

[Junkyard Dog]

I figure Burrows wants a chance under the the new coach before he even considers waiving his NTC.

[Quoted]

Well Burrows said no to waiving and he has that right. That's part of the business.

If Burrows under-performs he will be bought out in a few years.

Yup. NTCs definitely make the simple a lot harder.

[Benchsplinters]

I figure Burrows wants a chance under the the new coach before he even considers waiving his NTC.

Me too and it is certainly not a sentimental reason why I beliieve Burrows should be kept until he proves what he can do for the team.

We had a terrible year last year, it is believed we are once again years down the road from a cup, and nothing is going to change until we rebuild this team from scratch. Subsequently, we have a huge stampede taking place and in the minds of many, we need to act quickly

I am with Benning and Linden on this. We do not need a rebuild. We need to change style of play and we need to change some pieces to make that possible. We need to ask ourselves one question - what caused the massive collapse by the whole team last year? In other words, how did the play of every player go south all at once? Let's face it, the talent we have on the team from the Sedins to the water boy went went bad; talent at that level in professional sports does not do that.

So.....if the talent is still there why not examine all the pieces to see if they fit, add new ones where deficiencies are obvious, evaluate the changes still required and once again make changes where necessary. That is what training camp is all about. The cream has a way of coming to the top. Let that happen and adapt. Quit trying to reinvent the wheel when things go wrong all the time.

[cbdoubleu]

Always liked Burrows game even when he was just a pesky 4th line/PK guy purposely destroying the snow banks Marty Turco would make around the net after the whistle in the Dallas series. It was almost a joke when AV stuck him with the twins (because nothing else was working), and look at what he did with his opportunity: More than any other winger the Sedins have had. He was the most underpaid player in the NHL for several seasons, and he earned every penny he's now getting, and his NTC.

Sure his value is probably a lot higher than his actual worth now, and if he continues to struggle offensively it might be the end of him being a top 6 forward. So I understand wanting to trade him before you're just exchanging bad contracts with another team, but I put Burrows in the same category as Bieksa and the Sedins in that they are true Canucks and they can retire as Canucks if they want to.

And aside from sentimental reasons, his 4.5m for 3 more seasons isn't going to cripple us or cost us keeping our young players. He'll be have to take a pay cut or leave town after the deal, and with the cap assumed to only go up and up, there's lots of money for future RFA's. He had his struggles finishing, and with injuries, but there was no drop off in his compete level. His blocked shots, hits, takeaways, are all on par with Higgins and Hansen, and Burrows played half the games, and most of those half hurt. He still got to the net too, the puck just wouldn't go in for him.

I'd get rid of Higgins and Hansen in a heartbeat before Burrows, if it came down to having to shed 4.5 million today.

[Nino]

Always liked Burrows game even when he was just a pesky 4th line/PK guy purposely destroying the snow banks Marty Turco would make around the net after the whistle in the Dallas series. It was almost a joke when AV stuck him with the twins (because nothing else was working), and look at what he did with his opportunity: More than any other winger the Sedins have had. He was the most underpaid player in the NHL for several seasons, and he earned every penny he's now getting, and his NTC.

Sure his value is probably a lot higher than his actual worth now, and if he continues to struggle offensively it might be the end of him being a top 6 forward. So I understand wanting to trade him before you're just exchanging bad contracts with another team, but I put Burrows in the same category as Bieksa and the Sedins in that they are true Canucks and they can retire as Canucks if they want to.

And aside from sentimental reasons, his 4.5m for 3 more seasons isn't going to cripple us or cost us keeping our young players. He'll be have to take a pay cut or leave town after the deal, and with the cap assumed to only go up and up, there's lots of money for future RFA's. He had his struggles finishing, and with injuries, but there was no drop off in his compete level. His blocked shots, hits, takeaways, are all on par with Higgins and Hansen, and Burrows played half the games, and most of those half hurt. He still got to the net too, the puck just wouldn't go in for him.

I'd get rid of Higgins and Hansen in a heartbeat before Burrows, if it came down to having to shed 4.5 million today.

Well said

[coolcat13]

This is just stupid. People need to learn to move on.

[Dogbyte]

Me too and it is certainly not a sentimental reason why I beliieve Burrows should be kept until he proves what he can do for the team.

We had a terrible year last year, it is believed we are once again years down the road from a cup, and nothing is going to change until we rebuild this team from scratch. Subsequently, we have a huge stampede taking place and in the minds of many, we need to act quickly

I am with Benning and Linden on this. We do not need a rebuild. We need to change style of play and we need to change some pieces to make that possible. We need to ask ourselves one question - what caused the massive collapse by the whole team last year? In other words, how did the play of every player go south all at once? Let's face it, the talent we have on the team from the Sedins to the water boy went went bad; talent at that level in professional sports does not do that.

So.....if the talent is still there why not examine all the pieces to see if they fit, add new ones where deficiencies are obvious, evaluate the changes still required and once again make changes where necessary. That is what training camp is all about. The cream has a way of coming to the top. Let that happen and adapt. Quit trying to reinvent the wheel when things go wrong all the time.

It seems to me the major problem is that the talent has been dwlindling and nothing was done to replace it in 3 years time. Finally the wheels came off and we are left with reality.

[apollo]

Can u guys just give him a chance ffs. He had injuries and a redneck tyrant bostonian hooligan as a coach.

LEAVE ALEX BURROWS ALONE

[Benchsplinters]

It seems to me the major problem is that the talent has been dwlindling and nothing was done to replace it in 3 years time. Finally the wheels came off and we are left with reality.

Well I am just gonna sit back and watch Burrows kick Kassians butt scoring goals. Of course if they play together, Burr will make sure he sets him up for a few so the young fellow doesn't feel too bad about it.

[Gross-Misconduct]

Thank god JB doesn't think like some of the fanboys on CDC. We'd never make any progress if he did.

[Benchsplinters]

Thank god JB doesn't think like some of the fanboys on CDC. We'd never make any progress if he did.

He doesn't whine, bitch or complain about anything or everything either. A thinkin mans kinda guy wouldn't you say?

[Teen Icarus]

For a good return, I'd be ok with Burrows going...that being said, nobody's going to offer a good return for a player who was massively overpaid last season.

[Fakename70]

In hindsight, I'm wondering how realistic it would have been to acquire Evander Kane with David Booth as the centerpiece going to Winnipeg rather than being bought out? How much would Benning have been willing to "sacrifice" in order to improve the squad at LW by adding Kane? Let's be honest: Eddie Lack is likely VERY available now and the Jets probably aren't in love with Ondrej Pavelec nor Al Montoya for the long term, and I don't know anything about Michael Hutchinson, but, you'd have to think Lack would've been worthy of serious consideration as part of "the right package" to acquire Kane. Had that happened, I would've had no problem with Benning then asking Burrows to waive his NTC because this upcoming season's Canuck team is still lacking depth up the middle if they plan to go with Bonino in the #2 slot behind Hank.

I'd love to see Alexandre Burrows bounce back in 2014-2015 with Vancouver, but, not if there's even the remote possibility that he could help improve the Canucks by agreeing to a trade that gets them a solid veteran second line center. With the addition of Kane, Burrows would've been expendable at LW anyway, assuming Jensen makes the club. And, remember, Higgins also has a limited NTC that makes him unlikely to waive it in his final year unless the Canucks are totally out of it again come playoff time. Hard to say yet if Burrows will continue trending downward for the remainder of his term, but, with the addition of Kane this team would be looking so solid at LW now and for the future that I wouldn't be too haeartbroken if Benning didn't want to wait 3 more years to find out.

[EV604]

Get rid of him