The Final Buyout

[ESQ]

The free agents this year.

I can't think of anyone on that list who will be better than Burrows and sign for less than a $4.5 million cap hit.

What's a guy like Jussi Jokinen going to get this off-season? Probably over $5 million with his post-season - so $5 million for a 45-point guy who's great in the shootout.

The 2015 free agents

A guy like Dubinsky will probably get $7 million+. Heck, Booth will probably get a raise in 2015 if this season isn't a total disaster.

So I voted trade the Buyout - even the worst contract (Burrows) won't be a disaster in a year's time, and will be a bargain by the time it ends in a $80 million cap world. Buyouts are for the special kind of terrible contracts, not just slightly overpaid or underperformed.

Canucks have plenty of cap space, and even have room to sign Brodeur to a bonus-laden contract

If the Canucks don't get bounce-back years from every key player, one buyout won't save the kind of trouble they'll be in.

[Chef Boi RD]

You buyout the holy roller Booth not because of budget issues, you buy nutcrackers out just to get the air cadet off this hockey team.

Doc loves Boothy

[Betamax]

You buyout the holy roller Booth not because of budget issues, you buy nutcrackers out just to get the air cadet off this hockey team.

Doc loves Boothy

You have to wonder who on the Pro Scouting Staff made the recommendation to trade for Booth. Similarly, those Amateur Scouts that wanted to draft Kyle over Cody should be boom ... outta here or at least re-assigned to the Canucks' Hospitality or Foods and Drinks division.

[Jim Benning]

I guess I need to be the one to state the obvious here, we will use the final compliance buyout only if it provides an opportunity to make our team better not worse!

[Arachnid]

You buyout the holy roller Booth not because of budget issues, you buy nutcrackers out just to get the air cadet off this hockey team.

Doc loves Boothy

Yep, he does, he'd rather have a whole team of burn-agains pray'n and hope'n to just make the playoffs...he probably secretly talked to the big guy to have Naslund as our new GM

I prefer the Devils we know...16 & Jim Beam! (<<<see wot i did that BD! An alcoholic ref so you can relate!)

Are you my friend?!

[Canuck-One]

Wow that's kind of a weird man love thing you've got going for Strangelove there Arachnid. Such obvious fawning is a tad embarrassing. I also am not getting all this talk about Booth being a Christian. Why does that bother people? I guess not being able to live up to Booth's Christian standards must being very weighing on some people.

Back to hockey. I don't see any reason to simply buy anybody out. I prefer to think that last year was an aberration due to a system not in synch with the personnel. If Stevens had been hired I wonder if the result would have been different.

[Betamax]

Amnesty buyouts (CBOs) begin 48 hours after the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Finals. So by Monday Morning, we might see the Axe drop on certain contracts.

Still not completely sold the Canucks' will use it on one of their own players. But Booth would be a popular candidate if they feel they will be up against the cap, which they may not if they start unloading the contracts of their NTC players (i.e. Kesler, Garrison/Edler etc..)

[The Brown Knight]

My vote is for a buyout of Booth, and a compliance buyout of Burrows.

I love Burrows and respect what he did for us, but the 4.5 million price tag is far too much. I also suspect that if you part ways with Burrows, the Canucks' reputation and respect in the eyes of refs would increase favorably. You combine this with the inevitable Kesler trade, and the Canucks pretty much have a new clean slate with Kesler, Burrows, Lapierre, Torres, etc., all gone.

Booth has had an unlucky bought with injuries, but I don't think he'd be worth anywhere near 4 million even at full health.

I'd keep Garrison since his presence allows the Canucks to have depth on defense (even if he is overpaid).

[Betamax]

My vote is for a buyout of Booth, and a compliance buyout of Burrows.

I love Burrows and respect what he did for us, but the 4.5 million price tag is far too much. I also suspect that if you part ways with Burrows, the Canucks' reputation and respect in the eyes of refs would increase favorably. You combine this with the inevitable Kesler trade, and the Canucks pretty much have a new clean slate with Kesler, Burrows, Lapierre, Torres, etc., all gone.

Booth has had an unlucky bought with injuries, but I don't think he'd be worth anywhere near 4 million even at full health.

I'd keep Garrison since his presence allows the Canucks to have depth on defense (even if he is overpaid).

What's the point of buyout of Booth and/or Burrows, unless you think the Canucks would be active in the trade of UFA market that they need the cap space and/or roster spots?

[The Brown Knight]

What's the point of buyout of Booth and/or Burrows, unless you think the Canucks would be active in the trade of UFA market that they need the cap space and/or roster spots?

Good points.

I think it just gives Benning a "fresh start" in terms of getting rid of bad contracts, and having more flexibility and possible options to sign the right players at the right cap hits. By getting rid of a guy like Booth, you give the message to the team that sub-par performances will not be tolerated.

As much as I like Burrows and respect his past contributions, I don't think he's worth the 4.5 million cap hit. By getting rid of Burrows, you also in turn, clean up the Canucks' tarnished reputation around the league.

Last but not least, I'd also be open to the option of overpaying someone (within reason) if said player filled a major need for the Canucks. Someone like Paul Stastny for instance.

For example - if the Canucks bite the proverbial boner and trade Kesler to Anaheim for Etem, Theodore, and the 10th overall pick (or something to that effect), then we'd be lacking a 2nd line center. Enter Paul Stastny.

[Betamax]

What's the point of buyout of Booth and/or Burrows, unless you think the Canucks would be active in the trade of UFA market that they need the cap space and/or roster spots?

Good points.

I think it just gives Benning a "fresh start" in terms of getting rid of bad contracts, and having more flexibility and possible options to sign the right players at the right cap hits. By getting rid of a guy like Booth, you give the message to the team that sub-par performances will not be tolerated.

As much as I like Burrows and respect his past contributions, I don't think he's worth the 4.5 million cap hit. By getting rid of Burrows, you also in turn, clean up the Canucks' tarnished reputation around the league.

Last but not least, I'd also be open to the option of overpaying someone (within reason) if said player filled a major need for the Canucks. Someone like Paul Stastny for instance.

For example - if the Canucks bite the proverbial boner and trade Kesler to Anaheim for Etem, Theodore, and the 10th overall pick (or something to that effect), then we'd be lacking a 2nd line center. Enter Paul Stastny.

Don't like the idea of The Son of Peter signing long-term with the Canucks. You'd probably be looking at 5 years+ at 6M+. The Canucks already are committed long-term to an average speed skater in Hank and to have two of them as your top 2 occupying that amount of cap space for the foreseeable future is not the mix I'd like to see.

According to Eklund, he's probably going to re-sign with the Avs:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/O ... ny/1/60616

[The Brown Knight]

What's the point of buyout of Booth and/or Burrows, unless you think the Canucks would be active in the trade of UFA market that they need the cap space and/or roster spots?

Good points.

I think it just gives Benning a "fresh start" in terms of getting rid of bad contracts, and having more flexibility and possible options to sign the right players at the right cap hits. By getting rid of a guy like Booth, you give the message to the team that sub-par performances will not be tolerated.

As much as I like Burrows and respect his past contributions, I don't think he's worth the 4.5 million cap hit. By getting rid of Burrows, you also in turn, clean up the Canucks' tarnished reputation around the league.

Last but not least, I'd also be open to the option of overpaying someone (within reason) if said player filled a major need for the Canucks. Someone like Paul Stastny for instance.

For example - if the Canucks bite the proverbial boner and trade Kesler to Anaheim for Etem, Theodore, and the 10th overall pick (or something to that effect), then we'd be lacking a 2nd line center. Enter Paul Stastny.

Don't like the idea of The Son of Peter signing long-term with the Canucks. You'd probably be looking at 5 years+ at 6M+. The Canucks already are committed long-term to an average speed skater in Hank and to have two of them as your top 2 occupying that amount of cap space for the foreseeable future is not the mix I'd like to see.

According to Eklund, he's probably going to re-sign with the Avs:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/O ... ny/1/60616

Fair enough about Stastny, but I still like the idea of the Canucks ridding themselves of bad contracts. That way, it sets the precedence for the team that poor performances will not be tolerated, while also giving the chance for ?Benning to build the team the way he wants it to be built, while also giving him flexibility in bringing in different players with potential................like our boiii Tyler Myers instance.

[Betamax]

So some of the fanbase here isn't that keen on keeping Burrows. So, what say you about packaging him with Kesler to the NYR, since he was one of AV's boys?

The NYR send back Nash (and his hefty contract) and two prospects JT Miller and Dylan McIlrath? Maybe the NYR can retain some of Nash's AAV.

For reference:

Nash @ 7.8M AAV for next 4 seasons, age 29

Burrows @ 4.5M AAV for next 3 seasons, age 33
Kesler @ 5M AAV for next 2 seasons, age 29

[Betamax]

via: https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/stat ... 4469648384

Bob McKenzie Verified account ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
VAN puts David Booth on unconditional waivers for purpose of buyout.

9:03 AM - 17 Jun 2014

[ClamRussel]

Leino on waivers as well.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=455023