I must repeat his skill level is declining, as it does with all athletes as they age beyond their prime years; it's one of the natural progressions of time.
It's inarguable that his skill level will decline, however your matter of fact claim that it already has is what posters take issue with. Many players put up peak production in their early thirties and it's too early to say that Burrows not only won't, but can't.
Quote:
Are the Sedins the players they were 2 or 3 years ago? No they are not, but they are still great players, who could not be replaced (yet).
Well the one Sedin who played a full season still led the conference in scoring and spent much of the season producing at a similar rate to his last two seasons, then went on in the playoffs to be the most productive individual player the eventual Stanley Cup champions faced..
So again I don't agree with your matter of fact statement that these players are already in decline. The smart money is in betting that they will in the next few years but to say it's already happened is highly contentious (to say the least).
Quote:
Burrows can (and will) be replaced by a younger player. It's the way of sport.
Of course. I'd probably also agree that it should be done soon if he is not willing to sign a deal that allows the Canucks to keep their options open.
I am completely serious. No trade clauses, for players of Burrows level, are bad for the future of an organization. One of Mike Gillis' jobs is to find players who are better than the ones he currently has, and move the ones he has out to make space available for the better ones. For example Sneider and Luongo. Luongo is still great, but Snieder is better.
Nothing that I've seen indicates his skill level is declining yet. While the Sedins had lower point totals than the previous season, Burrows had a similar pace as the season before. He may not ever match his 67 point year, but there are factors other than skill level alone that contribute to those totals.
You obviously have the opinion that hockey is strictly business, which is fine, but personally, I don't feel like it should be. I value loyalty, and I would be happy to see my favourite team show it to one of the players who has worked hard for them, and would be pretty choked if they treated him the way you suggested in your earlier post.
I hope he gets a fair deal, and retires a Canuck.
Last edited by 14s incisor: 09-13-2012 at 01:43 AM.
Nothing that I've seen indicates his skill level is declining yet. While the Sedins had lower point totals than the previous season, Burrows had a similar pace as the season before. He may not ever match his 67 point year, but there are factors other than skill level alone that contribute to those totals.
You obviously have the opinion that hockey is strictly business, which is fine, but personally, I don't feel like it should be. I value loyalty, and I would be happy to see my favourite team show it to one of the players who has worked hard for them, and would be pretty choked if they treated him the way you suggested in your earlier post.
I hope he gets a fair deal, and retires a Canuck.
I would rather their is a parade in town, celebrating the Canucks winning the Stanley Cup. Who the players are riding in the convertibles picking confetti from their hair is moot. Clearly the current roster (Burrows included) could not win the cup, and now that core (excluding Luongo) is two years older. Did not Mike Gillis just state publicly the team needs to get younger?
The current roster hasn't had a chance to win a cup, or even play a game.
Nevermind that the statement 'clearly the [team] could not win the cup' - when directed at a team that got to within a single victory of doing just that - is absolutely ludicrous.
I wonder how many Penguins fans said that in 2008..
Nevermind that the statement 'clearly the [team] could not win the cup' - when directed at a team that got to within a single victory of doing just that - is absolutely ludicrous.
I wonder how many Penguins fans said that in 2008..
I guess I missed the parades in 2010, and last year too. The core group of the Canucks has not changed for several years (excepting Erhoff, and soon to be Luongo.) Even Gillis stated the team must change. I infer that to mean the core needs to change. Luongo leaving will be one change. I would not be surprised if another core member (Burrows) is moved as well.
The current roster hasn't had a chance to win a cup, or even play a game.
Point taken. The current core group has not won a cup. Making minor changes to fringe players will not significantly change the final outcome. The core (Not the Sedins, Kessler, Hamhuis, Snieder, Bieksa, Edler) should stay the same. Burrows is part of the core too, but I would not be surprised if he was traded for a younger player.
Point taken. The current core group has not won a cup. Making minor changes to fringe players will not significantly change the final outcome. The core (Not the Sedins, Kessler, Hamhuis, Snieder, Bieksa, Edler) should stay the same. Burrows is part of the core too, but I would not be surprised if he was traded for a younger player.
Barring huge over payment, and I'm talking about full retard. I don't see Burrows going anywhere.
He's too important.
I hope we sign him to a fair contract.
I'd rather sign him for 4 years at 5MM than for 6 years at 4MM.
I think once the Sedins are gone or get a new line mate that's when Burrows will need another contract to reassess his value to the team.
He's 31 now. Signing him for 4 years would put him at 35/36 the right age to get him another contract as I think he would be a suitable 3/4th liner at that time if he has regressed.
I have a hard time determining what we should pay Burrows
1) He likes the team and will probably be ok with a home town discount of sorts
2) In retrospect he was robbed on his last contract, and could probably cash in elsewhere... I think
If there wasn't a cap I could see the Canucks giving him a lucrative deal because of how underpaid he was the last 4 years, but you can't do that and jeopardize things with respect to cap space
I also don't think he should make as much as Kesler, nor do I know what the cap will be when his extension kicks in
makes it tough to formulate an opinion to be honest
His value under his current contract is ridiculous, agreed. However, he will have rapidly diminishing value under a new contract that has both term and high cost. (4 to 6 mil/season over x number of years.)
I have a hard time determining what we should pay Burrows
1) He likes the team and will probably be ok with a home town discount of sorts
2) In retrospect he was robbed on his last contract, and could probably cash in elsewhere... I think
If there wasn't a cap I could see the Canucks giving him a lucrative deal because of how underpaid he was the last 4 years, but you can't do that and jeopardize things with respect to cap space
I also don't think he should make as much as Kesler, nor do I know what the cap will be when his extension kicks in
makes it tough to formulate an opinion to be honest
Excellent post.
Do you believe Burrows' value would be more in trade (for a younger, similar style of player) or more in paying him 4 to 5 million per season over 5 years?
Point taken. The current core group has not won a cup. Making minor changes to fringe players will not significantly change the final outcome. The core (Not the Sedins, Kessler, Hamhuis, Snieder, Bieksa, Edler) should stay the same. Burrows is part of the core too, but I would not be surprised if he was traded for a younger player.
Burrows is as important as all of the other members of that core. Not sure why you chose him as the most expendable. I would trade a few of them before I would trade Burrows.
Do you believe Burrows' value would be more in trade (for a younger, similar style of player) or more in paying him 4 to 5 million per season over 5 years?
I don't think Burrows would garner more than a late first round pick, or a similarly drafted prospect in a trade. His value to/on the team is far greater than his trade value.
I guess I missed the parades in 2010, and last year too.
Well I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were saying they 'could' not hypothetically win the cup (as in they are incapable), rather than that you were making the totally obvious observation that they haven't won it yet and then the logical leap that they never will and must be changed.
Quote:
The core group of the Canucks has not changed for several years (excepting Erhoff, and soon to be Luongo.)
The core group has changed constantly over the last four years, even just two years ago this team iced a blueline with Mattias Ohlund, Sami Salo and Willie Mitchell as probably its three most important players.
Quote:
Even Gillis stated the team must change. I infer that to mean the core needs to change. Luongo leaving will be one change. I would not be surprised if another core member (Burrows) is moved as well.
Yes, the team must (continue to) change. Part of that means changes to the core which the organization has made this offseason just like it does most offseasons; Burrows might also be moved but like I said earlier that will be to reduce the liability of a future decline in Burrows game, not because of one that you claim has already happened.
why would gillis move the best linemate the sedins have ever had? how would that increase chances of winning a cup? wasn't it just this spring that burrows was selected to the Canadian team at the world championships? didn't burrows score a number of goals although he missed some games with an injury?
i feel really good knowing some of the posters here are never going to have any influence on how management acts, really good.
I don't think Burrows would garner more than a late first round pick, or a similarly drafted prospect in a trade. His value to/on the team is far greater than his trade value.
The core group has changed constantly over the last four years, even just two years ago this team iced a blueline with Mattias Ohlund, Sami Salo and Willie Mitchell as probably its three most important players.
Your points are all understandable, excepting the core comment. Salo was a member of the team in 2010 and 2011. The other two, were not. And Salo would not be considered a core player. On defense, during those two years, Bieksa, Hamhuis, Erhoff (2010) and Edler were the core defense-men. The others, including Salo, were peripheral players.
Gillis won't overpay for burrows. It's about managing the cap and from what reports I've gathered Burrows wants 5+. We could have seen Burrows play his last game as a Canuck.
Gillis won't overpay for burrows. It's about managing the cap and from what reports I've gathered Burrows wants 5+. We could have seen Burrows play his last game as a Canuck.
Excellent insight. If Doan signs, which looks likely, Could Burrows be packaged with Luongo for a bigger return?
I was bored so I came up with this crazy contract for Burrows
8 years $32M
Years 1-2 $5M Salary + $4M Signing Bonus
Years 3-4 $4M Salary
Years 5-6 $2M Salary
Years 7-8 $1M Salary
Excellent insight. If Doan signs, which looks likely, Could Burrows be packaged with Luongo for a bigger return?
I was thinking that. For example Florida, what would they have that would get them Burrows and Luongo? It'd have to be signifigant and I dont think they'd be willing to give up the prospects. Gillis would have to be asking for Gudbranson and Bjugstad to start.
