Alex Burrows - Where does he fit in 2016/17?

[Fakename70]

8 hours ago, JCM7 said:

I agree completely.  The only problem is that when you have several young/unproven players all you have is question marks and interchangeable parts.  Bo and Baer really showed some promise last year and I think they'll be given a longer leash as a result.  They will almost definitely be given middle 6 spots out if camp.  That said, the Canucks have Hansen, Sutter and Burrows who have all proven that they are more than qualified to play in key situations.  That means that there would only be one spot to fill in the middle 6.  Assuming that JB makes the trade that he has talked about, that will fill those lines.  The worst thing for the Canucks to do would be to pull one of those proven players out of that mix to take a gamble on another young player who may or may not crash and burn.  Barring injury, if one of the other young guys earns a spot higher up in the line up Burrows would most likely be the guy to slide into a 4th line roll.  If this were to happen, everyone (Burr included) would see this as a great thing as it would make the team that much more competitive.  But this will be a gradual move.  It is good for the team that we have a solid pro like Alex Burrows to help this transition.

 

Given that Bo and Baer are still young and improving, if they struggle out of the gate the other middle 6 line has to be solid enough to take some of the pressure off.  If you throw more unproven guys on to that line there is no real insulation.  We could get lucky and it could exceed anyone's expectations but that would be a miracle.

Burrows is where we disagree. I don't see him - if 3 of his last 4 seasons are an indication - playing a top-6 role, nor do I want him taking up a roster spot in the bottom half and cap space in favour of any of the youngsters who just might pan out in that role instead. 

And, your points about Horvat and Baertschi are exactly why I think the acquisition of someone like Hartnell is so crucial:

 

D. Sedin-H. Sedin-Ericsson 

Hartnell-Sutter-Hansen

Baertschi-Horvat-TBD

 

If Burrows can beat out Grenier and Virtanen for that TBD spot, fine. But, that's a lot of money for a 3rd-liner who isn't good enough anymore for the top-6. I'm actually excited to see if Grenier can earn it outright. 

[Fakename70]

On July 24, 2016 at 11:31 AM, the harry said:

Burrows will play pk and mentoring the 4 line. That makes Dorsett the odd man out..

"Mentoring", to me, is just a cute way of saying that the team won't be good enough for a playoff spot. Playoff teams don't have time for "mentoring" younger players. 

[Fakename70]

On July 24, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Vanisleryan said:

From the start of his NHL career nobody thought he belonged in the league until he proved everyone wrong.  Most people think he's done....I expect him to prove everyone wrong again.  Also I bet he signs with the Habs next year at small cap hit. Id imagine that would be a special place for him to play.

I would also say the exact same about a certain ex-Canuck RW who just completed a 2-year contract. 

[harrytoolips]

I see him being the 12-13th forward on this team this season, there of course for his strong PK and defensive game, as well as for leadership....this is the last year of his contract, whereas they're going to give some of the younger grinder types a really solid look this season to see where they fit into the future of this team, guys like Gaunce and Etem, so it will be hard for Burrows to get consistent ice time I believe..

[nazzymx]

A warrior like Burrows fits anywhere. He never complains and fights hard every single shift.

We are lucky to have a guy like him in the team.

 

[nazzymx]

4 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

"Mentoring", to me, is just a cute way of saying that the team won't be good enough for a playoff spot. Playoff teams don't have time for "mentoring" younger players. 

You truly don't understand what mentoring means... Even playoff teams have strong leaders and mentors for their prospects.

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, nazzymx said:

A warrior like Burrows fits anywhere. He never complains and fights hard every single shift.

We are lucky to have a guy like him in the team.

 

TL just said exactly the same thing about Burrows on TSN 1040.  Burr will play any role, and give his all.  

[Fakename70]

36 minutes ago, nazzymx said:

You truly don't understand what mentoring means... Even playoff teams have strong leaders and mentors for their prospects.

We'll have to agree to disagree on exactly who does and doesn't understand what. 

The difference between the Canucks and, say, the Blackhawks is while the Canucks (CDC, especially) blame vets like Vrbata for not "mentoring" pups like McCann - who was traded, remember - Baertschi, Horvat and whomever else - other teams that have every expectation and intention of making the playoffs every year, regardless who's on the roster, fully expect their younger players to already know what they need to do in order to contribute and keep a job at the NHL level before they even get there. Isn't that what the AHL is for?

Like Willie D said, "this isn't the try league".

[kingofsurrey]

Burrows as a  9 goal per season has no value on our roster. 

Too slow on the forecheck. Not intimidating.  

 

Never much of a playmaker but had a knack for the net for sure.

New NHL is all about speed now.  We need faster  / younger  players. 

 

We signed him for about 2 yrs too long on his contract.

 

 

As a rebuilding club, we don't need him.  Time to develop the next core group for our team. Give ice time minutes to the kids and lets develop new top 6  forwards for the future.  

[Ronaldoescobar]

I dont quite get why they are holding on to Burrows aside from not wanting to buy him out and no one willing to trade for him. While not in the room myself, I find it hard to believe, work ethic aside, that arguably the most hated player in the NHL (by opposing players, fans, media, etc) over the last decade, makes for a good role model for the young guys.

[JCM7]

13 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

Burrows is where we disagree. I don't see him - if 3 of his last 4 seasons are an indication - playing a top-6 role, nor do I want him taking up a roster spot in the bottom half and cap space in favour of any of the youngsters who just might pan out in that role instead. 

And, your points about Horvat and Baertschi are exactly why I think the acquisition of someone like Hartnell is so crucial:

 

D. Sedin-H. Sedin-Ericsson 

Hartnell-Sutter-Hansen

Baertschi-Horvat-TBD

 

If Burrows can beat out Grenier and Virtanen for that TBD spot, fine. But, that's a lot of money for a 3rd-liner who isn't good enough anymore for the top-6. I'm actually excited to see if Grenier can earn it outright. 

Fair enough.  Lol.  I do agree that Burrows best offensive days are behind him, but I think he can still be valuable.  Maybe this is wishful thinking but I think he will exceed most people's expectations this year.

 

The thing is that Burrows is being paid now for what he did a few years back.  He could have walked for more, but he wanted to be here and be a part of this team.  If he hadn't maybe the run in 2011 doesn't happen.  

 

It would have reflected terribly on management if they had bought him out.  In terms of work ethic and heart you couldn't ask for more than what he has put into the team.

 

At this point, like him or not his cap hit will be there.  Even if he is a healthy scratch he gets paid.  I think the best thing to do is forget about his salary and pretend that he makes 1mil.  The fact is that he basically loaned the Canucks that money several years ago.  

[JCM7]

10 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Burrows as a  9 goal per season has no value on our roster. 

Too slow on the forecheck. Not intimidating.  

 

Never much of a playmaker but had a knack for the net for sure.

New NHL is all about speed now.  We need faster  / younger  players. 

 

We signed him for about 2 yrs too long on his contract.

 

 

As a rebuilding club, we don't need him.  Time to develop the next core group for our team. Give ice time minutes to the kids and lets develop new top 6  forwards for the future.  

 

7 hours ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

I dont quite get why they are holding on to Burrows aside from not wanting to buy him out and no one willing to trade for him. While not in the room myself, I find it hard to believe, work ethic aside, that arguably the most hated player in the NHL (by opposing players, fans, media, etc) over the last decade, makes for a good role model for the young guys.

Ok. I'm going to help you out.  

 

After Alex's breakout year (2008-2009) he signed a 4 year deal for 2mil per season.  He could have easily made double this amount on the open market but he wanted to stay in Vancouver and help the team that took a chance on him win a cup.  At the time things looked very good for the Canucks and as it turns out they came very close to winning a cup in 2011.  The thing is that in 2009, the Sedins were also free agents and there wasn't enough cap space to keep the team together without some players making sacrifices.  Burrows made the biggest sacrifice by far.  The agreement between Canucks management and Burrows at the time was that they would do whatever they could to make it up to him on his next contract.  

 

Alex's current contract is a loan repayment. I think it's very safe to say that a buyout would have been not only a slap in the face to Alex, but an embarrassment to the organization.

 

In regards to him being hated throughout the league.  He did what made him successful.  He went from undrafted to ECHL to 30 goal scorer in the NHL.  That is amazing amd extremely rare.  I can't say that I completely agree that his agitator persona was necessary, but you can't argue with the results.

 

Alex has had some major injuries in the last 3 years.  He did look slower last year than he has ever looked in the past however I am hopeful that he comes into camp in the best shape he's been in since his injury woes began.  Even if he plays a good 2-way game and chips in with 10-15 goals he will benefit the team.

 

Alex Burrows never gives up.  He never hangs his head or shows any sort of negative attitude.  He has always done anything asked of him to help the team.  These are definitely traits you want to have around young developing players.  

 

I think that Alex will have a better year than last year.  His days of 20-30 goals are almost certainly over, but he will still find ways to contribute.

 

His $4.5mil cap hit will be on the books as well it should be.  It is the last debt owed for 2011.  

[kingofsurrey]

10 minutes ago, JCM7 said:

 

Ok. I'm going to help you out.  

 

After Alex's breakout year (2008-2009) he signed a 4 year deal for 2mil per season.  He could have easily made double this amount on the open market but he wanted to stay in Vancouver and help the team that took a chance on him win a cup.  At the time things looked very good for the Canucks and as it turns out they came very close to winning a cup in 2011.  The thing is that in 2009, the Sedins were also free agents and there wasn't enough cap space to keep the team together without some players making sacrifices.  Burrows made the biggest sacrifice by far.  The agreement between Canucks management and Burrows at the time was that they would do whatever they could to make it up to him on his next contract.  

 

Alex's current contract is a loan repayment. I think it's very safe to say that a buyout would have been not only a slap in the face to Alex, but an embarrassment to the organization.

 

In regards to him being hated throughout the league.  He did what made him successful.  He went from undrafted to ECHL to 30 goal scorer in the NHL.  That is amazing amd extremely rare.  I can't say that I completely agree that his agitator persona was necessary, but you can't argue with the results.

 

Alex has had some major injuries in the last 3 years.  He did look slower last year than he has ever looked in the past however I am hopeful that he comes into camp in the best shape he's been in since his injury woes began.  Even if he plays a good 2-way game and chips in with 10-15 goals he will benefit the team.

 

Alex Burrows never gives up.  He never hangs his head or shows any sort of negative attitude.  He has always done anything asked of him to help the team.  These are definitely traits you want to have around young developing players.  

 

I think that Alex will have a better year than last year.  His days of 20-30 goals are almost certainly over, but he will still find ways to contribute.

 

His $4.5mil cap hit will be on the books as well it should be.  It is the last debt owed for 2011.  

Sorry but if our club owes money to Burrows...

 

Then buy him out.  Move on. 

 

We need to develop a new young Core.  Giving icetime to declining vets is a wasted opportunity to develop players .

Teams that are rebuilding do not follow this approach.

 

 

[kingofsurrey]

4.5 mil for 9 goals

 

That is easy to calculate  

 

500,000 per goal.

 

That my friend is a crappy investment.

 

But i guess Van city home owners are big spenders....

 

After all Prust did get 2.5 mil last year for his 1 goal.

 

Canucks management has  had some under achievers  as of late on contract. This has to change.

We need players that out perform their current contracts....

 

[JCM7]

11 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on exactly who does and doesn't understand what. 

The difference between the Canucks and, say, the Blackhawks is while the Canucks (CDC, especially) blame vets like Vrbata for not "mentoring" pups like McCann - who was traded, remember - Baertschi, Horvat and whomever else - other teams that have every expectation and intention of making the playoffs every year, regardless who's on the roster, fully expect their younger players to already know what they need to do in order to contribute and keep a job at the NHL level before they even get there. Isn't that what the AHL is for?

Like Willie D said, "this isn't the try league".

Lol.  Really?  If you were to poll 100 veteran NHL players with the following question:

 

"Who is generally more likely to make mistakes?  A young player or an experienced player?"

 

100% would answer, "the young player".  The AHL is great, but it is a long way from the NHL.  

 

It is true that players 19-23 have played hockey for a long time and have been in competitive situations.  The difference is that now it's happening twice as fast and there is twice as much pressure.  The vast majority of prospects don't make it as full time NHL players.  They have a very small window of opportunity and then it's gone.  Do you honestly think that the experienced players around them don't have the ability to influence this situation?

[JCM7]

11 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Sorry but if our club owes money to Burrows...

 

Then buy him out.  Move on. 

 

We need to develop a new young Core.  Giving icetime to declining vets is a wasted opportunity to develop players .

Teams that are rebuilding do not follow this approach.

 

 

Not how a buyout works.  He would be paid a percentage of remaining contract value and it would still count as a cap hit.

 

He has one year left and the team has to pay him.  If he doesn't play well and the spot is better filled by one of the young guys the by all means cut his ice time or make him a healthy scratch, but he gets paid regardless so might as well give him a shot.

 

Rebuilding teams don't follow this approach because this is an extremely rare situation.  I can't think of a single example where another player took such a massive pay cut to help their team... 30+ goals for $2mil per year!  

[Fakename70]

1 hour ago, JCM7 said:

Lol.  Really?  If you were to poll 100 veteran NHL players with the following question:

 

"Who is generally more likely to make mistakes?  A young player or an experienced player?"

 

100% would answer, "the young player".  The AHL is great, but it is a long way from the NHL.  

 

It is true that players 19-23 have played hockey for a long time and have been in competitive situations.  The difference is that now it's happening twice as fast and there is twice as much pressure.  The vast majority of prospects don't make it as full time NHL players.  They have a very small window of opportunity and then it's gone.  Do you honestly think that the experienced players around them don't have the ability to influence this situation?

Maybe you didn't understand what I said. While this non-playoff club is focused on who'll "mentor" its younger players - during the losing/rebuilding years, no doubt - other teams seem to be past that and fully expect theirs to already be able to step in and contribute once they make it to The Show. 

And, you keep going on and on and on about Burrows as if he HASNT been trending downward 3 of the last 4 seasons. If he were as valuable at this career stage as you think he is, would Benning still be looking to add another top-6 winger? I mean, there's a hole on the roster on Sutter's line - assuming he's centering the 2nd - at LW. I'd have no issue with Burrows being that guy...if this were 2012. Maybe he fills the RW spot on Horvat's line. If so, should it really be because of all he's done for the organisation in the past? What if both Grenier and Virtanen outplay him in camp? Then what? Still think he's owed a roster spot in that situation? I'm not saying he's a bum, but, in terms of production, what separates him from Chris Higgins?

 

You saw what the organisation did with him. Why should Burrows be exempt? Sentiment is nice, but, in reality, it's also a business. Ask a Habs fan about that. I just can't endorse keeping a player around if they aren't cutting it anymore. If Burrows earns it in camp, fine. I'm wrong about the guy. But, if he's outplayed by Grenier and Virtanen and Benning adds that top-6 LW? I refer you back to the Higgins example. 

[JCM7]

3 hours ago, Fakename70 said:

Maybe you didn't understand what I said. While this non-playoff club is focused on who'll "mentor" its younger players - during the losing/rebuilding years, no doubt - other teams seem to be past that and fully expect theirs to already be able to step in and contribute once they make it to The Show. 

And, you keep going on and on and on about Burrows as if he HASNT been trending downward 3 of the last 4 seasons. If he were as valuable at this career stage as you think he is, would Benning still be looking to add another top-6 winger? I mean, there's a hole on the roster on Sutter's line - assuming he's centering the 2nd - at LW. I'd have no issue with Burrows being that guy...if this were 2012. Maybe he fills the RW spot on Horvat's line. If so, should it really be because of all he's done for the organisation in the past? What if both Grenier and Virtanen outplay him in camp? Then what? Still think he's owed a roster spot in that situation? I'm not saying he's a bum, but, in terms of production, what separates him from Chris Higgins?

 

You saw what the organisation did with him. Why should Burrows be exempt? Sentiment is nice, but, in reality, it's also a business. Ask a Habs fan about that. I just can't endorse keeping a player around if they aren't cutting it anymore. If Burrows earns it in camp, fine. I'm wrong about the guy. But, if he's outplayed by Grenier and Virtanen and Benning adds that top-6 LW? I refer you back to the Higgins example. 

There is NO team in the League who doesn't want veteran players on the ice with young players.  Obviously you don't keep any player in the lineup just to be a mentor. Everyone on the team has to be able to contribute.  It is however to keep enough veteran players in the lineup to limit the damage.

 

Who are these other teams you are referring to?  People get worked up whenever Edmonton gets brought into this conversation.  The reason why no other team is used as an example is that no other team in recent history has been stupid enough to handle so many great young prospects so poorly.

 

"I think that Alex will have a better year than last year.  His days of 20-30 goals are almost certainly over, but he will still find ways to contribute."

 

At no point did I say they should keep young players out and keep him in just because he's Alex Burrows.  If they earn more playing time and Alex's role is reduced as a result that is great!  It means that they are moving forward.

 

Last year was a bad year and without some improvement he isn't likely to stay in the lineup.  Two years ago he scored 18 goals playing less minutes than he has since his 2nd year.  It will be interesting to see how he looks this year.

 

The team owes Alex nothing as far as ice time or where he sits in the depth chart.  They just can't buy him out however.  Hockey is a business.  Within this business, the Canucks made a promise to Alex Burrows that they now have to stand by.  If you make business deals in a dishonest manner, pretty soon no one is interested in doing business with you.  

 

Chris Higgins didn't give up millions of dollars to help the team as a part of a business deal.  What part did you miss?

[Fakename70]

2 hours ago, JCM7 said:

There is NO team in the League who doesn't want veteran players on the ice with young players.  Obviously you don't keep any player in the lineup just to be a mentor. Everyone on the team has to be able to contribute.  It is however to keep enough veteran players in the lineup to limit the damage.

 

At no point did I say they should keep young players out and keep him in just because he's Alex Burrows.  If they earn more playing time and Alex's role is reduced as a result that is great!  It means that they are moving forward.

 

Last year was a bad year and without some improvement he isn't likely to stay in the lineup.  Two years ago he scored 18 goals playing less minutes than he has since his 2nd year.  It will be interesting to see how he looks this year.

 

The team owes Alex nothing as far as ice time or where he sits in the depth chart.  They just can't buy him out however.  Hockey is a business.  Within this business, the Canucks made a promise to Alex Burrows that they now have to stand by.  If you make business deals in a dishonest manner, pretty soon no one is interested in doing business with you.  

 

Chris Higgins didn't give up millions of dollars to help the team as a part of a business deal.  What part did you miss?

So, he should be kept around because he volunteered to take a pay cut? Actual production numbers be damned! What the hell "promise" are you talking about? ANY contract can be bought out. You, for some reason, still think I'm against having a mix of veterans and younger players. No. What I'm against is keeping an older player who isn't producing. And, I think you need to re-read the comments in this forum. Plenty of CDC'rs think Burrows will be best utilised next season as a mentor, and some even go as far as to use Vrbata as an example of a player not suited for that role, yet omitting that that likely isn't why he was even offered a contract in the first place. It hasn't been just 1 bad year for Burrows. It's been 3 of the last 4. What part of that did you miss?

[kylecanuck]

How the mighty burrows has fallen since grabbing that puck out of the air, charging across the blue line and ripping a fluttering puck top corner on the hawks to snap our curse.... That memorie right there still gives me shivers

 

is Burrows the same player, hell no but he will be solid in a fourth line roll for one more year. Im more than happy to pay him 4.5 million for one more year after all he has given this team. To anyone expecting to win the cup, we aren't. Let burrows play out his contract, even as a 13th forward and then next year he is off the books. 

 

Blah blah rebuild, bring up every rookie, get rid of every old player.... We aren't the deepest team and need good leaders like burrows to help our younger players.