Forwards - 2014/15

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13355
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Meds »

ORCA wrote:I'd have asked for a do-over on letting Santorelli go. I dunno if it is just a bit of Kool-Aid talking from back in the early season last year... but I think the guy is a fire cracker and completely pumped to play in his hometown. This was a mistake I think.

I'd give Hansen until Christmas to rebound. He was on pace for 50-55 points in the Lockout half season, and looked ridiculous most of last season. (Like everyone else).

I'm optimistic for everyone to be better than last year, but if that rebound everyone is expecting just doesn't happen... a couple of slippery moves at the deadline for more youth would go a long way.
Didn't Santorelli reject an offer made by the Canucks and elected to test the UFA waters?

He ended up on another 1 year deal, albeit at a higher salary, I am curious about how much the Canucks offered. I can't see it being less than $1M.
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 19129
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Hockey Widow »

Mëds wrote:
ORCA wrote:I'd have asked for a do-over on letting Santorelli go. I dunno if it is just a bit of Kool-Aid talking from back in the early season last year... but I think the guy is a fire cracker and completely pumped to play in his hometown. This was a mistake I think.

I'd give Hansen until Christmas to rebound. He was on pace for 50-55 points in the Lockout half season, and looked ridiculous most of last season. (Like everyone else).

I'm optimistic for everyone to be better than last year, but if that rebound everyone is expecting just doesn't happen... a couple of slippery moves at the deadline for more youth would go a long way.
Didn't Santorelli reject an offer made by the Canucks and elected to test the UFA waters?

He ended up on another 1 year deal, albeit at a higher salary, I am curious about how much the Canucks offered. I can't see it being less than $1M.
Ya that was the story. He wanted a 2-3 year deal and the Canucks were only offering a one year. Don't know how much they offered but his agent said money wasn't the issue, term was.

I didn't get the feeling he was high on Benning's list anyway. If he was they would have found a way to make it work. If all he got were offers for one year, and that was all that was standing in the way of a return to the Canucks, then he would have been back. It's too bad for him he got injured. Had that not happened he probably would have gotten a 2-3 year deal somewhere but coming off that injury means he still has to prove he belongs in the NHL and can play a full season.

Once he said no to a one year deal with the Canucks they said good bye. If he wanted to be here he should have taken the deal. Who knows, I bet Benning wanted a two way as well :mrgreen:
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13355
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Meds »

Hockey Widow wrote:
Mëds wrote:
ORCA wrote:I'd have asked for a do-over on letting Santorelli go. I dunno if it is just a bit of Kool-Aid talking from back in the early season last year... but I think the guy is a fire cracker and completely pumped to play in his hometown. This was a mistake I think.

I'd give Hansen until Christmas to rebound. He was on pace for 50-55 points in the Lockout half season, and looked ridiculous most of last season. (Like everyone else).

I'm optimistic for everyone to be better than last year, but if that rebound everyone is expecting just doesn't happen... a couple of slippery moves at the deadline for more youth would go a long way.
Didn't Santorelli reject an offer made by the Canucks and elected to test the UFA waters?

He ended up on another 1 year deal, albeit at a higher salary, I am curious about how much the Canucks offered. I can't see it being less than $1M.
Ya that was the story. He wanted a 2-3 year deal and the Canucks were only offering a one year. Don't know how much they offered but his agent said money wasn't the issue, term was.

I didn't get the feeling he was high on Benning's list anyway. If he was they would have found a way to make it work. If all he got were offers for one year, and that was all that was standing in the way of a return to the Canucks, then he would have been back. It's too bad for him he got injured. Had that not happened he probably would have gotten a 2-3 year deal somewhere but coming off that injury means he still has to prove he belongs in the NHL and can play a full season.

Once he said no to a one year deal with the Canucks they said good bye. If he wanted to be here he should have taken the deal. Who knows, I bet Benning wanted a two way as well :mrgreen:
And then he ended up taking a one-year deal from Toronto. Dumb-ass.
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 19129
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Hockey Widow »

Mëds wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:
Mëds wrote:
ORCA wrote:I'd have asked for a do-over on letting Santorelli go. I dunno if it is just a bit of Kool-Aid talking from back in the early season last year... but I think the guy is a fire cracker and completely pumped to play in his hometown. This was a mistake I think.

I'd give Hansen until Christmas to rebound. He was on pace for 50-55 points in the Lockout half season, and looked ridiculous most of last season. (Like everyone else).

I'm optimistic for everyone to be better than last year, but if that rebound everyone is expecting just doesn't happen... a couple of slippery moves at the deadline for more youth would go a long way.
Didn't Santorelli reject an offer made by the Canucks and elected to test the UFA waters?

He ended up on another 1 year deal, albeit at a higher salary, I am curious about how much the Canucks offered. I can't see it being less than $1M.
Ya that was the story. He wanted a 2-3 year deal and the Canucks were only offering a one year. Don't know how much they offered but his agent said money wasn't the issue, term was.

I didn't get the feeling he was high on Benning's list anyway. If he was they would have found a way to make it work. If all he got were offers for one year, and that was all that was standing in the way of a return to the Canucks, then he would have been back. It's too bad for him he got injured. Had that not happened he probably would have gotten a 2-3 year deal somewhere but coming off that injury means he still has to prove he belongs in the NHL and can play a full season.

Once he said no to a one year deal with the Canucks they said good bye. If he wanted to be here he should have taken the deal. Who knows, I bet Benning wanted a two way as well :mrgreen:
And then he ended up taking a one-year deal from Toronto. Dumb-ass.
Ya that was sorta my point. He and his agent miscalculated that he had shown enough to earn a 2-3 year deal. Obviously the market said differently. He got a million bucks though and another chance to show he belongs. Maybe Calgary signs him next year for 3 years at 3.5 per :mrgreen:
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13355
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Meds »

Hockey Widow wrote:
Mëds wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote: Ya that was the story. He wanted a 2-3 year deal and the Canucks were only offering a one year. Don't know how much they offered but his agent said money wasn't the issue, term was.

I didn't get the feeling he was high on Benning's list anyway. If he was they would have found a way to make it work. If all he got were offers for one year, and that was all that was standing in the way of a return to the Canucks, then he would have been back. It's too bad for him he got injured. Had that not happened he probably would have gotten a 2-3 year deal somewhere but coming off that injury means he still has to prove he belongs in the NHL and can play a full season.

Once he said no to a one year deal with the Canucks they said good bye. If he wanted to be here he should have taken the deal. Who knows, I bet Benning wanted a two way as well :mrgreen:
And then he ended up taking a one-year deal from Toronto. Dumb-ass.
Ya that was sorta my point. He and his agent miscalculated that he had shown enough to earn a 2-3 year deal. Obviously the market said differently. He got a million bucks though and another chance to show he belongs. Maybe Calgary signs him next year for 3 years at 3.5 per :mrgreen:
Badly miscalculated! If I was Santorelli I would fire the agent and look for someone smarter. Santorelli is has 87 points in 257 games and is a career -43. He had a decent breakout year with Flordia, since then a couple of dismal years before landing in Vancouver where he was playing some solid hockey, then he got hurt and missed almost half of the season. The Canucks obviously wanted to keep him, but they needed to see consistency, something he's never shown throughout his career.

A savvy agent should have seen this coming.

I hope Calgary does just that.....LOL!
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by mathonwy »

Island Nucklehead wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:Why do we need the cap space? We got enough of that.

Burrows is going to get the Hodgson treatment, and will have a great bounce back year and the 33 year old will get traded at the 2015 trade deadline to a contender as Benning stealthily continues with the rebuild
A viable possibility, and likely the best one for the franchise moving forward.
I concur.

Edit.

With the caveat that we are not trading Burr for a sack of potatoes (IE the Garrison treatment).

The number one skill that Alex Burrows has is his speed. His speed is what makes him our best forechecker, our best penalty killer and our best shut down forward (now that Kes is gone). It also makes him our fastest winger.

And that number one skill was taken away from him early in the season with a busted ankle. I don't think its a stretch for people to try to understand that a broken ankle doesn't just heal up 100% after missing 12 games. And then he gets his bell rung with a broken jaw and is off his skates for 20 additional games.

I Believe in Burrows

:)
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by mathonwy »

Hank wrote:
So what? Lots of Canucks had injuries last year. Is having a broken bone easier to come back from than a concussion? Is a broken finger worse than a shoulder or rib? A healthy Burrows was still not very good and his contract is still bad. It was bad the day Gillis offered it.
Hank, I encourage you to look into the details before making sweeping statements.

Your example of broken bone versus concussion versus broken finger etc... I don't know where you're going here. The bottom line with Burrows last season was his number one skill of speed was taken away from him early in the season and he really didn't recover until it was too late.

Hank wrote: Woo! Big fuckin' deal. A bunch of goals against crappy teams when the season was pretty much decided. Wow look at those stats! That projects to Burrows scoring 50 goals a season for the next 3 years!

There was stretch where Richardson, Kassian and Booth was doing all the scoring as the 3rd line. Does that mean we should have kept Booth, make Richardson the 1st line center and play Kassian 20+ minutes a game now?

Cherry pick any stretch and a player will look good.

If you were the owner who spent that much money on ex-employees already, would you buy out 1 year or 3?

That doesn't mean management hasn't approached the long-term core with the NTCs. From all accounts, they all refused with Garrison finally giving in.

Yes we all honestly watched Mathowny. This team was bad and needed drastic changes. Keeping what looks to be a role player, while there are better and younger alternatives, for $4.5 million for 3 more years is a BAD investment.
Hey.. its Mathonwy. Ok? Or Math for short. Spell it right please. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like me referring to you as Frank.

I'm not cherry picking any player. I'm looking at Alex Burrows and what he has shown himself to be capable of. And I saw that player finally putting up points (like his old self) after getting healthy.

If I were the owner, I'd look at several factors before buying out players
- is that player taking up a spot that younger players could be filling?
- what roles does that player fill. The more the better obviously.
- and finally, how will the market react to the buy out.

Alex is more useful than David Booth across the board and we're not exactly overflowing with talented wingers. David is also a weird dude that never fit versus Alex who is (like it or not) a big time fan favorite.

So regardless of the money, I'd buy out David Jesus Booth every time. The team burnt a lot of good will last year and buying Alex out would be pouring gasoline on a fairly good size fire.
Last edited by mathonwy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by mathonwy »

Mëds wrote:
Badly miscalculated! If I was Santorelli I would fire the agent and look for someone smarter. Santorelli is has 87 points in 257 games and is a career -43. He had a decent breakout year with Flordia, since then a couple of dismal years before landing in Vancouver where he was playing some solid hockey, then he got hurt and missed almost half of the season. The Canucks obviously wanted to keep him, but they needed to see consistency, something he's never shown throughout his career.

A savvy agent should have seen this coming.

I hope Calgary does just that.....LOL!
I think the situation sucks as a whole for both the Canucks as well as for Santo.

I think one thing Santo's camp overlooked was the regime change. All the good will that he generated through his hard work last season was ultimately thrown out the window when both Gillis and Torts got shitcanned.

It's too bad that we weren't able to resign him as I was looking forward to seeing Santo on the ice again as a Canuck.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31126
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

Hockey Widow wrote:If Burrows doesn't have a respectable bounce back year he may be un tradable until the tdl of 2016' at which point he will only have two years of term left. And at that point the return would be minimal but he may be more willing to waive for a chance at the cup.

If he has a good year he may be moveable next off season if that's the direction the team wants to go in. I am fine keeping him around this year and only advocate trading him now if we need the cap space OR if at camp he loses his spot to a player or players that we really want to keep on the big club. Otherwise he isn't preventing the team from getting better.

My problem is if he sucks testicles like he did last season , he will be impossible to trade. I expect this team to take some serious steps towards a playoff spot in 2015-16 so having a millstone like that around is not a good thing. Play him, prop him up and shop him at the deadline for whatever picks/prospect he can fetch. Having him retire here is hopefully not an option for GMJB.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
Posts: 3992
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by ClamRussel »

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:If Burrows doesn't have a respectable bounce back year he may be un tradable until the tdl of 2016' at which point he will only have two years of term left. And at that point the return would be minimal but he may be more willing to waive for a chance at the cup.

If he has a good year he may be moveable next off season if that's the direction the team wants to go in. I am fine keeping him around this year and only advocate trading him now if we need the cap space OR if at camp he loses his spot to a player or players that we really want to keep on the big club. Otherwise he isn't preventing the team from getting better.

My problem is if he sucks testicles like he did last season , he will be impossible to trade. I expect this team to take some serious steps towards a playoff spot in 2015-16 so having a millstone like that around is not a good thing. Play him, prop him up and shop him at the deadline for whatever picks/prospect he can fetch. Having him retire here is hopefully not an option for GMJB.
Your dislike for this player clouds your judgment. If he does bounce back he's exactly the player we need here for playoff success. There's a lot of players on this roster w/ something to prove.
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8392
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Island Nucklehead »

ClamRussel wrote: If he does bounce back he's exactly the player we need here for playoff success. There's a lot of players on this roster w/ something to prove.
If he does bounce back that's great for us this season. My concern is that Burrows will be 36 at the end of his deal and there is no guarantee that he gets any healthier. He plays a very demanding style, physically. That style is also the reason he's so valuable. I worry that if/when Burrows begins to break down (which he may have already), his style goes out the window, along with his value to the Canucks.

I guess I'm in the group that says if the Canucks get a reasonable offer for Burrows they should take it. It's part of the "bigger, younger, faster". Teams can ill afford "dead" or "wasted" cap space. So it wouldn't seem to matter this season, or while we struggle, but having Burrows eating $4.5M as a third-liner is unacceptable, imo. When the Canucks were at their peak, they had almost everyone playing at, or above, their cap-hit. It shouldn't surprise anyone that our decline came about at the same time as people's cap hits became larger than their contribution (Ballard, Booth, Burrows, Luongo, Sedins, Edler etc. etc.)
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 19129
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Hockey Widow »

Island Nucklehead wrote:
ClamRussel wrote: If he does bounce back he's exactly the player we need here for playoff success. There's a lot of players on this roster w/ something to prove.
If he does bounce back that's great for us this season. My concern is that Burrows will be 36 at the end of his deal and there is no guarantee that he gets any healthier. He plays a very demanding style, physically. That style is also the reason he's so valuable. I worry that if/when Burrows begins to break down (which he may have already), his style goes out the window, along with his value to the Canucks.

I guess I'm in the group that says if the Canucks get a reasonable offer for Burrows they should take it. It's part of the "bigger, younger, faster". Teams can ill afford "dead" or "wasted" cap space. So it wouldn't seem to matter this season, or while we struggle, but having Burrows eating $4.5M as a third-liner is unacceptable, imo. When the Canucks were at their peak, they had almost everyone playing at, or above, their cap-hit. It shouldn't surprise anyone that our decline came about at the same time as people's cap hits became larger than their contribution (Ballard, Booth, Burrows, Luongo, Sedins, Edler etc. etc.)

I hardly think Luongo declined to this point at all. Others granted. And I agree re Burrows. If we are re-building/re-tooling /re-anything then if you can get some value for Burrows, greater than his contribution, you should look at moving him. But if you are serious about making the playoffs and then hoping to catch a wave and go deep, you keep him.

If making the playoffs is the goal and you know you are a few years away from catching that wave, be done with him as soon as his value goes back up.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8392
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Island Nucklehead »

Hockey Widow wrote: I hardly think Luongo declined to this point at all.
Perhaps I should have been more fair to Lou, but my thinking was more his position/role on the team was diminished related to his "starting goalie" status. Having him and his $5.3M on the bench really hurt our ability to improve the roster elsewhere.
But if you are serious about making the playoffs and then hoping to catch a wave and go deep, you keep him.

If making the playoffs is the goal and you know you are a few years away from catching that wave, be done with him as soon as his value goes back up.
Yep. I guess I'm taking a longer term view of it. If he bounces back this year, that's great. I still hope they deal him. I don't forsee Burrows being an $4.5M NHLer at 36. I think this contract was payback for his last sweatheart deal. The good thing for Burrows is that these contracts are (pretty much) guaranteed. He'll get his money. The trick for GMJB will be to maximize Burrows' value for the Canucks.
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 19129
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Hockey Widow »

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote: I hardly think Luongo declined to this point at all.
Perhaps I should have been more fair to Lou, but my thinking was more his position/role on the team was diminished related to his "starting goalie" status. Having him and his $5.3M on the bench really hurt our ability to improve the roster elsewhere.
But if you are serious about making the playoffs and then hoping to catch a wave and go deep, you keep him.

If making the playoffs is the goal and you know you are a few years away from catching that wave, be done with him as soon as his value goes back up.
Yep. I guess I'm taking a longer term view of it. If he bounces back this year, that's great. I still hope they deal him. I don't forsee Burrows being an $4.5M NHLer at 36. I think this contract was payback for his last sweatheart deal. The good thing for Burrows is that these contracts are (pretty much) guaranteed. He'll get his money. The trick for GMJB will be to maximize Burrows' value for the Canucks.

At the summer summit Willie D said his goal was to win a cup. If the Canucks seriously think if they make the playoffs they have a legit shot at a cup run players like Burrows will be valuable.

If they privately are saying 3-4 years before we have a legit shot then trading any of the older players while you can is the way to go. That includes Hamhuis, Bieksa, Hansen, Burrows, Higgins, maybe Miller, even Richardson at the tdl. Not all at once but if you can trade these guys over the next 1-3 tdl you can get a few picks, maybe a prospect or two, along the way. The Canucks will always say publicly that the cup is the goal but it's what they think privately that will dictate their course.

All of the players named, at the right time or the right tdl day, and to the right team, will have value. No home runs for us for sure but if JB is a good wheeler and dealer he may be able to snag a few picks or prospects rather than lose all those players for nothing when their contracts are up.

I don't put the twins in there because 1) they would want to go together and 2) I doubt they wave. But stranger things have happened and maybe the lure of a cup would make them wave, for the right team, in the last year of their deal, I just don't count on that.

Like I said though, not all at once, over the next 1-3 years, allowing some of our younger players to get some experience first.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Zamboni Driver
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:24 pm

Re: Forwards - 2014/15

Post by Zamboni Driver »

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:If Burrows doesn't have a respectable bounce back year he may be un tradable until the tdl of 2016' at which point he will only have two years of term left. And at that point the return would be minimal but he may be more willing to waive for a chance at the cup.

If he has a good year he may be moveable next off season if that's the direction the team wants to go in. I am fine keeping him around this year and only advocate trading him now if we need the cap space OR if at camp he loses his spot to a player or players that we really want to keep on the big club. Otherwise he isn't preventing the team from getting better.

My problem is if he sucks testicles like he did last season , he will be impossible to trade. I expect this team to take some serious steps towards a playoff spot in 2015-16 so having a millstone like that around is not a good thing. Play him, prop him up and shop him at the deadline for whatever picks/prospect he can fetch. Having him retire here is hopefully not an option for GMJB.
It seems like everyone is busy making trades with Burrows, :? supposedly he's already refused to waive his NTC.
I don't think he's going anywhere soon, and after last season, what would he bring anyways?

If they don't want him they could just waive him I suppose. :hmmm:
Post Reply