I think that what we saw is a player who was sheltered defensively in Vancouver so that his trade value could be increased. When he went to Buffalo and was thrust into a key role the results were fairly predictable. I'm not one to pile on as I think that he will be a good two way player eventually. But to pretend that he did not have glaring holes in his defensive game is glossing over the truth. The only capacity he could have helped on in the playoffs was the powerplay. And to let him play in that role you're basically requiring our gimpy Selke winning center to play huge minutes to cover up for Hodgson's shortcomings. Not a recipe for success, IMO.
I've already agreed that he has holes defensively, I just disagree that he'd be anymore a liability than several of our other players. Brayden Schenn is no defensive phenom but he still managed to produce as a rookie in the playoffs. All I'm saying is despite the defensive warts I think he could have helped a team that couldn't score for ****. Would his defensive blunders be any worse than some of the ones made by our more defensively savvy players?
Good to hear that we're working towards getting Burrows resigned, don't ever want to see him wear another jersey.
Is this the first time MG is signing a player with that player still being on the books for another year still?... Tells you something about Burrows's value to the organization, and the situation facing the canucks at the end of the year.
Is this the first time MG is signing a player with that player still being on the books for another year still?... Tells you something about Burrows's value to the organization, and the situation facing the canucks at the end of the year.
It is not. He signed Luongo prior to the last season on his contract. Same with Edler.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
Is this the first time MG is signing a player with that player still being on the books for another year still?... Tells you something about Burrows's value to the organization, and the situation facing the canucks at the end of the year.
I believe he did it with....you guessed it the other member of this clubs 'heart and soul' - Mr. Ryan Kesler.
I think you may get some disagreement on this...but not from me. This guy is one of our top heart, soul and talent guys on this team and he should be paid.
Great news - hope we can get him locked up, and soon.
Quote:
Is this the first time MG is signing a player with that player still being on the books for another year still?... Tells you something about Burrows's value to the organization, and the situation facing the canucks at the end of the year.
No, it is not.
Alexander Edler - October 10, 2008 (deal not set to expire until July 1, 2009)
Roberto Luongo - September 2, 2009 (deal not set to expire until July 1, 2010)
Also, both Burrows and Kesler signed their last deals several months before their existing ones were set to expire.
EDIT: Also, I'd love something like five years, $5m per for Burows. Lock him up. Anything less than that would be a steal.
He'll be looking for term IMO, and with the potential roll back getting proposed, the waters are real muddy now.
Thats entirely possible...but if he were to sign today under the current system, I think it would be pretty fair. If he wants term, add a couple years and reduce the cap hit by $250-$500k.
I've already agreed that he has holes defensively, I just disagree that he'd be anymore a liability than several of our other players. Brayden Schenn is no defensive phenom but he still managed to produce as a rookie in the playoffs. All I'm saying is despite the defensive warts I think he could have helped a team that couldn't score for ****. Would his defensive blunders be any worse than some of the ones made by our more defensively savvy players?
Based on what I saw in Buffalo, yes he would be the weakest defensive player on the team. He was clearly the weakest defensive player while he was a Canuck as well. Look at the soft minutes he got and the offensive starts. For the playoffs, the Canucks determined that they needed a strong defensive third line center to take some of the pressure off of Kesler. I'd certainly argue that Pahlsson was not the answer as they needed some offence from that player too. But the plan to have a strong third line that could play two way hockey was a sound one. The third line center was a very key position for the Canucks and required a player who could be sound defensively and bring some offence too. Hodgson was not that guy, IMO. At least this past year and probably this year as well.
Anyways, I've derailed the thread and should probably move on.
Hoping we lock up Burrows for four years!
He'll be looking for term IMO, and with the potential roll back getting proposed, the waters are real muddy now.
4 years is more than enough term for a player of Burrows calibre. These super long term deals are pretty crazy, before they started to get signed 4 years was considered long term for a NHL contract.
He'll be looking for term IMO, and with the potential roll back getting proposed, the waters are real muddy now.
There is no rollback being proposed. There's just a limiter being proposed that would artifically slow salary escalation in the next three seasons (up to 10% growth), with the caveat that all extra money from this "fund" be used to establish a revenue sharing program. In 3 seasons, the owners would then take over the revenue sharing program, with the players effectively having given them somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million dollars to kick things off.
The salary cap would still move up slowly to just north of 78 million in by the end of year 3.
4 years is more than enough term for a player of Burrows calibre. These super long term deals are pretty crazy, before they started to get signed 4 years was considered long term for a NHL contract.
Paul Gaustad a 4th line center just got 3 years @ 3.25...hopefully you can see why Burrows means more and should make more.
'a player of Burrows' caliber' - what exactly is that, a heart and soul, leader, playing on one of the leagues top lines, top pk's, scoring clutch goals, etc, etc,
Burrows would easily get 5 years from someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto
There is no rollback being proposed. There's just an limiter being proposed that would artifically slow salary escalation in the next three seasons (up to 10% growth), with the caveat that all extra money from this "fund" be used to establish a revenue sharing program. In 3 seasons, the owners would then take over the revenue sharing program, with the players effective having given them somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million dollars to kick things off.
The salary cap would still move up slowly to just north of 78 million in by the end of year 3.
Based on what I saw in Buffalo, yes he would be the weakest defensive player on the team. He was clearly the weakest defensive player while he was a Canuck as well. Look at the soft minutes he got and the offensive starts. For the playoffs, the Canucks determined that they needed a strong defensive third line center to take some of the pressure off of Kesler. I'd certainly argue that Pahlsson was not the answer as they needed some offence from that player too. But the plan to have a strong third line that could play two way hockey was a sound one. The third line center was a very key position for the Canucks and required a player who could be sound defensively and bring some offence too. Hodgson was not that guy, IMO. At least this past year and probably this year as well.
I disagree...if you want to base it on what you saw in Buffalo then I don't think its a completely accurate description of Hodgson as a player. And for me its really less about Hodgson as it was how they addressed the lineup beyond the trade deadline. They knew Kesler's shoulder was screwed up and they had no intention of sitting him, the offense was going downhill at the time and they decide to trade an offensively gifted center? For a rookie power forward with close to no NHL experience? I'm fine with the trade but not the timing of it...it did nothing to address scoring going forward. Trading for Samme Pahlsson did even less. I'm a big fan of Gillis but I really think he screwed the pooch at that deadline. Even if he felt he had to trade Hodgson at that point, he still didn't address the actual issue with the team. I think Hodgson had the potential to help, and even if Gillis didn't believe he could, he didn't do anything to try and solve it.
Paul Gaustad a 4th line center just got 3 years @ 3.25...hopefully you can see why Burrows means more and should make more.
'a player of Burrows' caliber' - what exactly is that, a heart and soul, leader, playing on one of the leagues top lines, top pk's, scoring clutch goals, etc, etc,
Burrows would easily get 5 years from someone.
Owners are proposing a salary roll back of 24%.
I understand what makes Burrows so valuable. I just think that 4 years is long term enough that Burrows and the Canucks would be okay with it. If you are going to talk about the owners proposed then why not talk about the 5 year contract limit they are proposing as well?
For Burrows we all now he's worth more to us then any other team. He has great chemistry with the Sedins and does all that's asked of him and more. However take him away from the Sedins and he is not a first line player unless Crosby/Malkin is feeding him the puck. I'm thinking 6 years max at 4.5 a season gets it done. He gets the security and we get a good cap hit. If we want to further drop the cap hit I'd be okay adding 2 years on top of the 6 for 2mil and 1mil to get a cap hit of 3.75 per year.
Paul Gaustad a 4th line center just got 3 years @ 3.25...hopefully you can see why Burrows means more and should make more.
'a player of Burrows' caliber' - what exactly is that, a heart and soul, leader, playing on one of the leagues top lines, top pk's, scoring clutch goals, etc, etc,
Burrows would easily get 5 years from someone.
Owners are proposing a salary roll back of 24%.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Given the number of giant, long-term contracts big-time players in the league have currently signed, I think there's about a 0% chance the players accept any rollback.
Honestly, even the casual fan I think will realize that the NHL has almost nothing to stand on this time around. They're just crying wolf -- and rather embarrassingly, as the PA demonstrated with a reasonable proposal.
Bettman and Co look like slack-jawed fools right now. How can they possibly justify asking for a salary rollback and reduced revenue sharing when the league is growing at an exponential rate? They got everything they asked for last round. The only ground they should be fighting for is maybe a roll-back of revenue sharing from 57% to something like 54%, and it would need to be done over several seasons to ensure teams near the cap aren't unfairly penalized.
Other than they should be concentrating on nuts and bolt issues like contract lengths and widening the gap between the ceiling and the floor in order to allow small market teams to remain viable. If they'd rather share revenue instead, the owners can worry about that.
So would I, but I think we can talk him into re-signing for cheaper.. so I'd excercise that option before I put a number on how much we're talking.
he's already taken a massive discount for us with his last contract. it's time for us to give him something too. on the open market he would get 5.5-6, 5 is extremely fair for a 25-30 goal scoring top 10 forward PKer who is also the heart and soul of our team.
all i know is that if we don't re-sign burrows our chances at the cup in the near future are as good as gone
he's already taken a massive discount for us with his last contract. it's time for us to give him something too. on the open market he would get 5.5-6, 5 is extremely fair for a 25-30 goal scoring top 10 forward PKer who is also the heart and soul of our team.
all i know is that if we don't re-sign burrows our chances at the cup in the near future are as good as gone
How many "heart and soul of our team" players do we have? Kesler, Bieksa, arguably the Sedins AND Burrows? Nobody in their right mind is going to pay Burrows $5.5-6m per season...which means maybe 3-4 NHL GM's...but not Gillis. If he wants to stay here he can make a very good and fair paycheck, if he wants to follow the money and be ridiculously overpaid he can go elsewhere...but I don't think that will be the case.
How many "heart and soul of our team" players do we have? Kesler, Bieksa, arguably the Sedins AND Burrows? Nobody in their right mind is going to pay Burrows $5.5-6m per season...which means maybe 3-4 NHL GM's...but not Gillis. If he wants to stay here he can make a very good and fair paycheck, if he wants to follow the money and be ridiculously overpaid he can go elsewhere...but I don't think that will be the case.
Sedin's are the 'core' but they provide no heart or soul...
Burrows, Bieksa and Kesler are the teams heart and soul. PERIOD.
