Strangelove wrote:These "two seasons" you are referring to amount to just 75 games played Dave.
75 GP for Burrows. 107 games in which the team needed contributions from everyone if it was going to win consistently.
I would point out that Burrows was coming back from serious injury for a good chunk of those 75 games.
Sure. Fair enough. If we're going to give everyone as much leash as our bleeding hearts lead us to believe they deserve, then sure.
But it reaches a point where a franchise can no longer make moves based on good will and past glory. Are we there with Burrows? I don't know. Personally I doubt his trade value is high (with a season where he's paid $5m cash left on the books) so I could see taking a gamble that he will be neither injured, nor "coming back from serious injury" nor any other excuse for middling-to-poor production for his cap hit.
Mason Raymond was recovering from a serious injury when the Canucks took him to cut down arbitration, too.
I would also point out that he led the team in goal-scoring last season (hey, he's usually right up there).
This despite the fact he spent a good chunk of that season away from the Sedins.
Sure his production is going to tail off in his old age.
I don't know if leading the 2012-13 Canucks in goal scoring is a feather in anyone's cap, but he was pretty adequate last year. Certainly well worth the $2m spent.
But I'm looking for a sucker who'll bet he won't improve on this particular season going forward.
Keep looking - I don't know of anyone off hand who cares about the content of the posts attached to their name who'd make a bet like that. (So, try RoyalDude?)
If I'm Gillis, I bet on Burrows turning it around.
Hey if he loses that bet, he's still got one of the best penalty-killers in the game on his 3rd line.
Sure he might be one of the highest paid 3rd-liners in the league, but what's a million dollars or so.
Personally I'd be okay with that, but I don't think Gillis loses that bet...
Well what's "turning it around" though, right? You can bet on Burrows "turning it around" (ie. blowing his 0 goal pace this year out of the water) and still lose another bet wherein Burrows has to deliver sufficient value for his paycheque.
With this player I'm of the mind that "sure his production is going to tail off in his old age" and that he's certainly been a key part of the team in the past - I doubt his trade value is anywhere near what it would have to be for him to be the type of guy you deal to kickstart a rebuild anyway, but if this team is looking to address some major issues and needs cap space to do it, Alex Burrows at $4.5m with declining production is probably pretty replaceable when you have guys like Chris Higgins and Jannik Hansen making nearly half as much and offering similar contributions.
Furthermore if you're looking to get bigger and younger in the offseason, Mr. "sure his production is going to tail off," at six years older than the league average for forwards, 1" shorter and 15 lbs lighter, sure seems like low hanging fruit to me.
He's hanging a lot lower than our other smallish old guys anyway.
Ultimately, my bet: unless he's one the guys who waives his NTC, Burrows is here next year and the team is betting he bounces back high enough to contribute meaningfully. Hell if they can find a way to address the top six I'd love to have Alex as the two-way conscience of a third line featuring a promising young player or two.