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

Hindsite 20/20 Would you have rather kept Burrows?

Rate this topic


smokes
 Share

Would you have rather kept Burrows than have a prospect in Karlsson?  

97 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I still would have traded him.

 

It was time for him to move on.  Even if Karlsson doesn't turn out, Burrows was a pending UFA and the Canucks were unlikely to re-sign him as they were making room for their own prospects.  It was a no-risk move.

 

 

Edited by goalie13
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokes said:

1. Would you have rather kept Burrows than have a prospect in Karlsson?

 

1 hour ago, smokes said:

So we traded Burrows for Dahlen who now turned out to be Karlsson. Knowing what we got for Burrows now. Would you still have traded him?

A little confusing... your poll question and your post question are the opposite of each other.

 

Edit:  Thanks for fixing it.  :towel:

Edited by goalie13
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I would have still traded him.  He was an expiring asset that we converted into another asset.  No matter how it shakes out, I'd rather have a current prospect rather than a retired player.  Burrows got a nice retirement contract in Ottawa, and would not have got that here anyway.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine with the trade. We had other mentor pieces. It’s tough though. He wasn’t a star player but still very well liked. I’m honestly pissed we let Nazzy retire in another jersey :sick: Some players you just don’t let go. Not sure if I have Burr in that category. I’m conflicted. Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was the right decision to trade him. Dahlen was suppose to be a high end prospect. This was made to ensure Burrows got another payday even though he was declining and we were dealing with the expansion at the time, so to move a roster player for a player that didn't need to be protected was always going to be a solid move considering we were in a rebuild mode as well. Karlsson is still an interesting prospect as he's only 20 and his numbers continue to improve (almost the same number of points as his previous season is half the games).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trading him was the right decision tbh, at the time the consensus was that we won that trade. Dahlen was supposed to be a great prospect and we needed more of those, it just didn't work out the way we'd have liked it to. 

 

I loved having Burr here and it's a thrill seeing him from time to time, but rare is the player organizations can hold on to forever. Even KB3 was moved and while he frustrated some of the fanbase he definitely was, and still is, loved. Same goes for someone like Hansen when we moved him. 

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

It played out the way it was supposed to play out. We had to move away from the previous era, get younger, free up roster spots, and get something in return. Especially since the Sedins weren't going to be traded. We had to move an expiring asset when the opportunity came up to do so. 

 

Plus Burrows was 35 at the time, about to turn 36 that April. There was no way JB could justify resigning him. At least JB worked with Burr to find the right fit for his family in Ottawa. And there were a lot of us who were excited about Dahlen at the time. There was no way to know.

 

Hopefully Karlsson works out but in the bigger picture things have already worked out for the team and Burrows. I'm glad he was added to the ROH less than two years after he was traded. It was a memorable, beautiful moment.

 

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

Even though Dahlen didn't work out and it was sad to see Burrows leave, it was a trade that made sense for both teams at the time. It could have ended up a total steal for Benning.

 

But the actual question is would we have rather kept Burrows than have Karlsson now. No... it was still the right thing to do.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Trading him was the right decision tbh, at the time the consensus was that we won that trade. Dahlen was supposed to be a great prospect and we needed more of those, it just didn't work out the way we'd have liked it to. 

 

I loved having Burr here and it's a thrill seeing him from time to time, but rare is the player organizations can hold on to forever. Even KB3 was moved and while he frustrated some of the fanbase he definitely was, and still is, loved. Same goes for someone like Hansen when we moved him. 

I dont get the 3 part of the KB?  lol

 

Oh, it was ok to trade Burr, imo.

Edited by langlands
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, langlands said:

Shake my head (in shame)  lol

This is a fanatics’ forum.

Posters will jump at every opportunity to show their fan-knowledge stuff on any question asked about the team or its players! 

 

Never be shy to ask here, but be prepared for 20 answers in short order. 

If you want Canucks news, this is the best site going. 

Coherent thought, might want to go elsewhere, especially during the Game Day Talk threads... Mr Lahey and company are usually the sober ones there ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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