Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Olli Juolevi | #48 | D


b3.

Recommended Posts

On 1/26/2019 at 6:04 PM, Borvat said:

I tried to find anything regarding which knee was surgically repaired.  Do you know if it is the same one that was previously repaired or is it the other knee?

 

If it's the same knee as before I am more concerned.

You came to the wrong place to ask.  This thread is only about educating and psychoanalysing each other. And to discuss the Tkachuk family.

Edited by joe-max
grammar
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

They held our team hostage for 4 years, because we couldn't truly embrace a rebuild while they were here wrapping up their careers.

 

It makes me want to vomit whenever I hear someone praise a players community work. As a fan I couldn't care less what a player does in the community. They get paid to play the game, produce and try to win championships.  

What a disgusting post. Like most of your posts, it makes me want to vomit. Back under your bridge, and onto the ignore list for you.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

How so?

 

Burrows made $2 million while he was scoring 25-35 goals

(28 years old) 2009-10 - 35 goals - $2 million 

(29 years old) 2010-11 - 26 goals - $2 million

(30 years old) 2011-12 - 28 goals - $2 million

(31 years old) 2012-13 - 13 goals in 47 games - $2 million (strike shortened season)

Signed a 4 year deal with a $4.5 million AAV with a NTC

(32 years old) 2013-14 - 5 goals in 49 games - $4.5 million

(33 years old) 2014-15 - 18 goals - $4.5 million

(34 years old) 2015-16 - 9 goals - $4.5 million

(35 years old) 2016-17 - 9 goals in 55 games for Vancouver - $4.5 million

 

You don't give someone who's 32 years old, their production already waning a 250% raise to go along with a NTC. Albatross contract for his production.

 

The Sedin's are obviously not as bad but their production had already been waning prior to them signing their last contract. Then at 33 years old they inexplicably got a raise and a full NMC, they had 1 more good year where they were worth the money and then they regressed like old players tend to do.

Yes, Burrows got a raise at the end, to compensate him for the reduction he took during his prime, that allowed the team to keep it's players for the Cup window.

I'll also mention that the cap had gone up so Burrow's salary was not a huge  jump as a percentage of cap space.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

They held our team hostage for 4 years, because we couldn't truly embrace a rebuild while they were here wrapping up their careers.

 

It makes me want to vomit whenever I hear someone praise a players community work. As a fan I couldn't care less what a player does in the community. They get paid to play the game, produce and try to win championships.  

I don’t understand this at all.  

 

We scraped the bottom of the barrel, traded away a ton of vets and landed 5 top 10 picks during that stretch.  We also ended up moving Burr for a pretty nice piece in Dahlen.

 

I understand JB didn’t publicly call for scorched earth and we didn’t set out to “tank” an entire season away... but we certainly rebuilt over that time.  

 

What we missed out on slightly higher draft picks I think we’ve made back in a young, high character, no-drama core we’ve seen come into its own.  Having that old guard Canuck leadership undoubtedly helped.  Players rave about the Sedins and it’s no coincidence Bo turned the corner playing that season with Burrows.  

 

To tie it all into this thread, it’s the reason I’d like Edler and Tanev to be with the club when Juolevi and Hughes make the jump.  

 

Having quality vets on the team doesn’t stall a rebuild.. it helps facilitate it.  

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know how contracts work, but our management team at the time got to sentimental when dealing with players like Burrows.

 

All of you defending the 2nd Burrows contract, are too sentimental as well, because he “slayed the dragon”. He simply did not produce according to what he got paid. 

 

Anyways I’ll keep it short and leave it at that. So that this can get back to Juolevi talk. 

Edited by TheRealistOptimist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

How so?

 

Burrows made $2 million while he was scoring 25-35 goals

(28 years old) 2009-10 - 35 goals - $2 million 

(29 years old) 2010-11 - 26 goals - $2 million

(30 years old) 2011-12 - 28 goals - $2 million

(31 years old) 2012-13 - 13 goals in 47 games - $2 million (strike shortened season)

Signed a 4 year deal with a $4.5 million AAV with a NTC

(32 years old) 2013-14 - 5 goals in 49 games - $4.5 million

(33 years old) 2014-15 - 18 goals - $4.5 million

(34 years old) 2015-16 - 9 goals - $4.5 million

(35 years old) 2016-17 - 9 goals in 55 games for Vancouver - $4.5 million

 

You don't give someone who's 32 years old, their production already waning a 250% raise to go along with a NTC. Albatross contract for his production.

 

The Sedin's are obviously not as bad but their production had already been waning prior to them signing their last contract. Then at 33 years old they inexplicably got a raise and a full NMC, they had 1 more good year where they were worth the money and then they regressed like old players tend to do.

While I get what you are saying, real hockey people do pay stars for there past performance.

 

You don't have to like it but that is how the NHL and other pro sports operate. You can continue to dislike it but it means nothing lol.

Edited by Kanukfanatic
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

I don’t understand this at all.  

 

We scraped the bottom of the barrel, traded away a ton of vets and landed 5 top 10 picks during that stretch.  We also ended up moving Burr for a pretty nice piece in Dahlen.

 

I understand JB didn’t publicly call for scorched earth and we didn’t set out to “tank” an entire season away... but we certainly rebuilt over that time.  

 

What we missed out on slightly higher draft picks I think we’ve made back in a young, high character, no-drama core we’ve seen come into its own.  Having that old guard Canuck leadership undoubtedly helped.  Players rave about the Sedins and it’s no coincidence Bo turned the corner playing that season with Burrows.  

 

To tie it all into this thread, it’s the reason I’d like Edler and Tanev to be with the club when Juolevi and Hughes make the jump.  

 

Having quality vets on the team doesn’t stall a rebuild.. it helps facilitate it.  

I don’t totally disagree with you. But their contracts were bad. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheRealistOptimist said:

I know how contracts work, but our management team at the time got to sentimental when dealing with players like Burrows.

 

All of you defending the 2nd Burrows contract, are too sentimental as well, because he “slated the dragon”. He simply did not produce according to what he got paid. 

 

Anyways I’ll keep it short and leave it at that. So that this can get back to Juolevi talk. 

Don't stop now you're on a roll! Juolevi is injured, no need to worry.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, logic said:

Yeah makes you wanna vomit when they donate millions of their own money to childrens hospitals, and give their own time just to try bring joy and happiness to people. Ya people like you make me vomit, you must be not be a very good person to not appreciate what guys like the Sedins have done for Vancouver 

I like that, judging a person on a chat room, having never met them. You must be a great person to judge people that quickly. 

 

I’m guessing what didn’t come through in my post after having read it back - is that when I say it makes me vomit when someone mentions a players community work - I mean when the fans and people use that as a reason why we can never trade a player or when they rate how good a player was during his career. 

 

IMO community work should not be attached to any hockey discussion about said player. 

 

Obviously donating money is a good thing. But personally, I don’t let it affect my feelings towards the player’s performance on the ice.

Edited by TheRealistOptimist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2019 at 4:54 AM, TheRealistOptimist said:

How so?

 

Burrows made $2 million while he was scoring 25-35 goals

(28 years old) 2009-10 - 35 goals - $2 million 

(29 years old) 2010-11 - 26 goals - $2 million

(30 years old) 2011-12 - 28 goals - $2 million

(31 years old) 2012-13 - 13 goals in 47 games - $2 million (strike shortened season)

Signed a 4 year deal with a $4.5 million AAV with a NTC

(32 years old) 2013-14 - 5 goals in 49 games - $4.5 million

(33 years old) 2014-15 - 18 goals - $4.5 million

(34 years old) 2015-16 - 9 goals - $4.5 million

(35 years old) 2016-17 - 9 goals in 55 games for Vancouver - $4.5 million

 

You don't give someone who's 32 years old, their production already waning a 250% raise to go along with a NTC. Albatross contract for his production.

 

The Sedin's are obviously not as bad but their production had already been waning prior to them signing their last contract. Then at 33 years old they inexplicably got a raise and a full NMC, they had 1 more good year where they were worth the money and then they regressed like old players tend to do.

If they didn't pay Burrows, someone else would...

Hindsight binoculars are brilliant, but there would have been a scream from the fan base, had Burrows left for nothing, to sign for someone else.

Edited by spook007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:

While I get what you are saying, real hockey people do pay stars for there past performance.

 

You don't have to like it but that is how the NHL and other pro sports operate. You can continue to dislike it but it means nothing lol.

It sure doesn’t happen but it’s a downfall in a team. I was listening to Robin Regehr talk about this a few weeks ago and he feels that GM’s need to take a harder approach on these types of contracts.  GM’s are signing players to deals where they know they final few years of the contract are going to be albatross years and it’s hurting the team’s ability to compete. On one hand you want to be loyal to the players that have worked hard for you but the other hand you need to always focus on what’s best for the team.

 

He feels that GM’s need to be willing to move out these players while they still have high value, rather than holding on to them and then bleeding more assets in order to support an aging core.  He also felt that players get over from being moved, they all know it’s part of the business of playing in the NHL.  At the end the day the GM’s role is to put butts in the seats and that involves making those hard decisions which limit the amount of time a team spends in the rebuilding phase. 

 

LA is in a very similar spot, where they rewarded players at the back of their primes, held on to aging contracts, and have wasted picks trying to prop up a core that should have been dismantled in 2016.  Now they are a bottom 5 team in the league with 35% of their cap going to players 33+, who are all locked up till 2021+ and that’s not including kopitar’s 10 million contract…..or the Richards contract they fluked out from having to pay.  The future isn’t bright for the Kings and instead of starting a soft transition 3 years ago (where some of those returns could have now been joining the roster) they are burdened with overpriced anchor contracts crossing there fingers Jack Hughes can save them. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...