Best Canucks Free Agent Signing Ever

[The Stig]

The first 20 yes. That last 26 have been alright. Winning hockey didn't begin in 2008 or whatever some younger fans might think.

We are actually a pretty good team in the early 90's until the first lockout.

 

[denkiteki]

wait are we not talking about alex burrows, who the best defensive winger in the world in his prime? who was one half of far and away the best penalty killing forward duo in the history of the franchise? who scored 25+ goals a year while doing all of the dirty work and carrying a heavy defensive load on a line where he helped his linemates win back to back MVPs?

i don't think his contributions can be diminished to two big moments. has anyone in the history of this franchise skated as many cumulative miles and done as much heavy lifting as burrows?

He wasn't the best defensive winger, he was one of the best 2-way wingers and that basically took in account his scoring. The catch however is his prime only lasted 4 years and he true peak probably only 2 seasons (altho he was a very good 2 way forward for at least 4 seasons, he was truely one of the best for only 2).

Again my argument wasn't the 2 moments but my reply (that have been getting quoted) was a responds to someone saying 2 moments alone would make Burrows the best FA signing ever (and i quoted that), reason i repeatedly said 2 moments doesn't make a difference.

Also carrying the defensive load? I think you're forgetting who their line-mates were or how the line played. AV almost always started the line in the offensive zone and sent them out there for majority of the team's offensive faceoffs/after icing/etc (in his last 2 "prime season" he had oZS over 70%). In another word teams were more than content with the Sedins not scoring and didn't really care about scoring a ton. That was also the reason MG went after Malhotra, he wanted to free Kesler from the very same role other teams had vs the Twins/Burrows. There wasn't a lot of defensive burden when playing with the Sedins due to the simple fact they were always attacking.

Don't get me wrong, Burrows was a good defensive player but he didn't actually need to carry much defensive burden and honestly he showed his defensive skills a lot more often when he was paired with Kesler/not playing with the Sedins because those skills were actually needed more often.

Also again remember his prime basically lasted 4 full seasons. He still only has 364 career points, which translate (as a career .47 PPG) being a 2nd/3rd liner due to how quickly he regressed after his peak.

Basically i'm accounting for both his prime and his non-prime years (which actually happens to be 4 seasons already + he took 3 seasons "reaching" his prime after reaching the NHL, tho in those 3 seasons, he was a very good defensive/energy winger).

Another thing about Burrows goals during his peak - it wasn't just a result of leeching off the Sedins when we had a lethal power play (that was Kesler ). Unless I'm mistaken, his peak goal scoring reason came mostly on 5 on 5 play (even strength).

He probably would've been a 20g scorer if he didn't play with the twins. His peak season, he scored 4 PPG and 5 SHGs (out of 35). Amazingly he has 7 SHP vs 6 PPP (total 67 in his career best year).

Yep. I recall him being an option on the PP that AV never seemed to want to use, Sammy was Sedin's PP threat. Burr's 35 will probably be challenged a lot, but he earned them honestly.

No doubt he earned his career year.

Again i'm NOT arguing Burrows didn't have peak years where he was good. Difference is the impact he had and the actual affect he had on the team (in general) during those years. Even during his best years, he was probably the 4th best forward on our team... as in he probably wasn't nearly as important as Hamhuis (as shown by how we folded when he got hurt during the cup final). Tanev is basically top 2 D and likely will be for years (unless he gets traded). On top of that, he's one of the best defensive D in the leagues while pretty much never getting PIMs (32 PIMs in 295 games, 0 in 16 playoff games). The scary thing is he's just starting his prime years so odds are he'll likely be just as good or better for the next few seasons.

Another issue with Burrows that i think everyone is ignoring is the simple fact that everyone outside 'nucks fan/organization doesn't like him. Normally that isn't an issue but given the amount of issue he has with referees (maybe more than anyone in the NHL... at least during his prime), he was one of the reason we developed a poor/hated reputations. Also due to that fact, Burrows doesn't draw nearly as many calls as he should and despite not fighting much, he gets a lot of PIMs (sometime due to questionable calls). Although he has toned it down a lot since his prime years, that was an issue during his peak (PIMs during his 4 prime seasons were 179, 150, 121, 77... this from someone who doesn't fight all that often).

 

[Hit the post]

Another issue with Burrows that i think everyone is ignoring is the simple fact that everyone outside 'nucks fan/organization doesn't like him.

....signed Ron McLean.


Reminds me of an old quote...."He might be an ***-****, but he's OUR ***-****!".

 

[CanaFan]

Gelinas highly, HIGHLY debatable. He was not here for as long as Burr but he earned his stripes in his career. Smyl is basically your token Canuck. Linden is a Vancouverite through and through and Morrison was good.

It's a good list but if anything shows how much Burrows belongs in it, as opposed to being a collection of players with intention to demean him. I get that people who have only recently followed the team tend to overrate players on it currently or formerly, but there is good reason for it.

We were in the dumps 1970-91, 96-00, and 2013-now. Plenty of good players have come in during that time, but few have the success and longevity the aforementioned do, however fair or unfair that is, is. You can't possibly put a list out there like that and fail to even consider Thomas Gradin. Everything is subjective in this rating game.

There were good players, even on those bad teams. I didn't add Gradin because I didn't start watching the team until 1990 but that's sort of my point. I've watched for the last 26 years and don't think Burrows is a slam dunk as the best "heavy lifter" or whatever the criteria was. There have been other Canucks who have done what Burrows has done, though not in the exact same way. Almost no one here can speak for the 70's and early 80's (someone surely can but most cannot) so to just assume Burrows is the best is based, in part, on ignorance of the entirety of this team's history. And just because those teams weren't the 2011 version of the Canucks doesn't mean they didn't have their share of outstanding players (see Gradin, Sundstrom, Tanti, etc). They just didn't have enough of them throughout the line up.

 

[Hit the post]

There were good players, even on those bad teams. I didn't add Gradin because I didn't start watching the team until 1990 but that's sort of my point. I've watched for the last 26 years and don't think Burrows is a slam dunk as the best "heavy lifter" or whatever the criteria was. There have been other Canucks who have done what Burrows has done, though not in the exact same way. Almost no one here can speak for the 70's and early 80's (someone surely can but most cannot) so to just assume Burrows is the best is based, in part, on ignorance of the entirety of this team's history. And just because those teams weren't the 2011 version of the Canucks doesn't mean they didn't have their share of outstanding players (see Gradin, Sundstrom, Tanti, etc). They just didn't have enough of them throughout the line up.

One of Don Cherry's "favourites"...I'd give Bobby Schmautz an honorable mention - if for no other reason, we didn't have alot of even average free agent signings during the painful early years. Put up some respectable numbers. Ok, this is from the eyes of a young child (and given my years - questionable memory ) but he was sort of a Geoff Courtnell minus the speed.

 

[Jyrki21]

why do i think that quinn low-balled him? wetcoaster's fault?

Possibly. I mean, I suppose it could have happened behind closed doors, but Larionov definitely didn't cite negotiations as any reason he was leaving. It was very much Soviet politics.

 

[westvandal]

We are actually a pretty good team in the early 90's until the first lockout.

91-93 was a great team. 94 they slipped a little but got hot one last time at the right time. 95-96 was the decline.

2000-04 was also a winning era (especially 2002-03) with a decline after the lockout for only one year. 2006-07 they were back to their winning ways with only a injury riddled defense making them miss the playoffs the following season. Obviously 2008-2013 was the greatest run of winning in franchise history. But there were the other two stretches.

 

[VanJack]

Kinda surprised that posters seem to have ignored the Hamhuis signing....former Nashville first-rounder who was heavily courted as a UFA and chose to take a home-town discount to sign in VanCity....was a legitimate top-4 d-man for most of his career in Vancouver....I know lots of posters have zeroed in on Burrows and Tanev, but when they were signed as UFA's out of essentially amateur leagues, expectations were very low....Hamhuis was in his prime....gotta' be Hammer imo.

 

[ChilliBilly]

He'd be a distant 2nd to Jerry "The Shadow" Butler.

(though seriously I don't think too many here would know too much about said player - yeah, I'm old...)

Petri Skriko once scored twice on the same penalty. I was at the game. He was great defensively.

I have done a lot of searching, but can not confirm this fact, though it is etched in my rather faulty memory.

If he did, I am sure it is a record.

 

[Hit the post]

Petri Skriko once scored twice on the same penalty. I was at the game. He was great defensively.

I have done a lot of searching, but can not confirm this fact, though it is etched in my rather faulty memory.

If he did, I am sure it is a record.

Not real proof but someone else backing up your claim:

http://www3.telus.net/dmarchak/canvCGY.htm

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Well maybe I'm not totally clear on what "heavy lifting" and "skating miles" exactly means but I'm sure there's others who have done as much or more than Burr in the 46 years of this franchise.

"heavy lifting" means every job burrows had except when he took shootouts was a dirty, unglamorous one and usually the toughest one on his line. forecheck and retrieve the puck for the sedins? burrows. get back on D because the sedins are slow? burrows. PK? burrows is the guy doing the most skating. 3-on-5? burrows. shadow guys with kesler? burrows. the rare times he played on the PP? stand in front of the net and let guys crosscheck you in the back.

"skating miles" means that whenever he was on the ice, his role was the one with the most skating, especially on the PK.

"more" means he played more games than most of our dirty work guys, with the obvious exceptions of linden and smyl. linden played hard and later in his career did a lot of grinder stuff, but i don't think he cumulatively he logged as much of that yeoman work as burrows did. smyl was the team's number one offensive threat in his prime, or 1a with gradin. obviously he did a lot of dirty work, as did gradin, but fraser did the most grinding on that line.

the way i see it, if you combined morrison's and cooke's jobs, that was burrows.

He wasn't the best defensive winger, he was one of the best 2-way wingers and that basically took in account his scoring.

during burrows' 4 year peak, what winger was better than him defensively? not two-way, not anything else, just defensively?

if i'm going into a game between 2009 and 2012 and i need a winger on my checking line and PK the first guy i pick is alex burrows. who would you take?

 

[PM]

during burrows' 4 year peak, what winger was better than him defensively? not two-way, not anything else, just defensively?

if i'm going into a game between 2009 and 2012 and i need a winger on my checking line and PK the first guy i pick is alex burrows. who would you take?

Burrows is my favourite Canuck but I would take Loui Eriksson and Hossa at that time over him defensively. Would love to see purely defensive advanced stats for all three during that timeframe. My perception could very well be skewed by how good offensively those two players were. I was also a huge Hossa fan when he played for Ottawa so that definitely skews my perception, but he was amazing defensively for the Sens and then the Blackhawks. I barely watched him with Atlanta though.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Russ Courtnall had personal issues going on, which was the main problem. Trying to keep this delicate and per forum rules ... there was a reason he didn't sign anywhere until November in the 1997 offseason, and the issues being dealt in the Kordic-Courtnall trade back in the day weren't necessarily one-way.

maybe a sign that "bringing evander kane home" is maybe not a good way to get him to straighten out and fly right, as some have suggested?

 

[CanaFan]

"heavy lifting" means every job burrows had except when he took shootouts was a dirty, unglamorous one and usually the toughest one on his line. forecheck and retrieve the puck for the sedins? burrows. get back on D because the sedins are slow? burrows. PK? burrows is the guy doing the most skating. 3-on-5? burrows. shadow guys with kesler? burrows. the rare times he played on the PP? stand in front of the net and let guys crosscheck you in the back.

"skating miles" means that whenever he was on the ice, his role was the one with the most skating, especially on the PK.

"more" means he played more games than most of our dirty work guys, with the obvious exceptions of linden and smyl. linden played hard and later in his career did a lot of grinder stuff, but i don't think he cumulatively he logged as much of that yeoman work as burrows did. smyl was the team's number one offensive threat in his prime, or 1a with gradin. obviously he did a lot of dirty work, as did gradin, but fraser did the most grinding on that line.

the way i see it, if you combined morrison's and cooke's jobs, that was burrows.




during burrows' 4 year peak, what winger was better than him defensively? not two-way, not anything else, just defensively?

if i'm going into a game between 2009 and 2012 and i need a winger on my checking line and PK the first guy i pick is alex burrows. who would you take?

Sure but as far as I can tell there is no objective measure for any of that stuff. Any of those guys listed could be ahead of Burrows or behind him depending on how you view such things. I'd also lump Kesler in that list who, while Burrows was off getting favourable match ups with the Sedins, was doing the "heavy lifting" and "skating miles" on the 2nd line.

It's an interesting argument but such a subjective one esp between players who largely played in different eras to different sets of fans. Getting a reasonable estimation of who "skated more miles" or "did more heavy lifting" is almost impossible.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Sure but as far as I can tell there is no objective measure for any of that stuff. Any of those guys listed could be ahead of Burrows or behind him depending on how you view such things. I'd also lump Kesler in that list who, while Burrows was off getting favourable match ups with the Sedins, was doing the "heavy lifting" and "skating miles" on the 2nd line.

It's an interesting argument but such a subjective one esp between players who largely played in different eras to different sets of fans. Getting a reasonable estimation of who "skated more miles" or "did more heavy lifting" is almost impossible.

i'm not sure you are (still) talking about objective measures and technical definitions in response to my rhetorical question about burrows being much more than just a guy who scored two big goals


similar to this other exchange you also had:

How can you possibly arrive at this conclusion? Like, is it meant to be a real statement or just a meaningless exaggeration?

How about we call it a meaningless exaggeration for now and leave it at that?

i think we agree that he contributed a lot to this uniform. i don't think we need to quibble about my figures of speech.

 

[NoShowWilly]

Funny we have been one of the best teams heading into each lockout then **** the bucket for a few years. We are in for a world of hurt this time around unless an unforseen naslund level trade comes our way.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Tanev and Burrows are right up there. Lars Lingren was a pretty dependable defenseman for us for a long time.

 

[CanaFan]

i'm not sure you are (still) talking about objective measures and technical definitions in response to my rhetorical question about burrows being much more than just a guy who scored two big goals


similar to this other exchange you also had:






i think we agree that he contributed a lot to this uniform. i don't think we need to quibble about my figures of speech.

Sure if that's all it was. Seems either excessive tire pumping or a short history of watching the Canucks but I will agree he's been a good one. Not *the best* (IMO) but in the conversation.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Funny we have been one of the best teams heading into each lockout then **** the bucket for a few years. We are in for a world of hurt this time around unless an unforseen naslund level trade comes our way.

I'd hardly call the 2005-06 or 2007-08 campaigns ****ing the bucket.

Miles better than 2013-14 and whatever drivel this year was.

I don't think we were the best team in 2012 either. Top 5, yeah.

 

[Bougieman]

Burrows is the most clutch player this team has ever had, and that's no word of an exaggeration. He ups his game when all the chips are down, and no other Canuck on the ice can seem to get it done.

On top of his feisty (our foes would say annoying) physical play, his magic mittens, his leadership, and that aforementioned clutch factor, he also happens to be one of, if not our top defensive forward, too.

I don't see how he's not the obvious choice.

 

[MarkMM]

Going with Burrows for now, possible that in the long-term Tanev takes it, but not sure about that.

 

[Horse McHindu]

**** you Nuckles.

That said, Sundin is an underrated signing. People forget how good the RPM line was, and how much Sundin helped Kes develop into a offensive player.

I couldn't agree more with this. Not only that, but the late 30's Sundin, who was coming off a half-year layoff, started turning it up in the playoffs that year as well (he quietly was a PPG player for us in the post-season).

As far as other best free agent signings go, I think Dan Hamhuis and Alex Mogilny are front-runners. Hamhuis was an integral part of 2011, and was a star for us for a number of years, while Alex Mogilny scored 50+ goals his first year here. It's not Mogilny's fault that idiotic decisions by management (i.e. letting Ronning walk, not giving Almo an adequate replacement #1 center) hindered his effectiveness.

I'm not sure where Raffi Torres and Manny Malhottra will rank, but they have to be up there somewhere.

 

[EpochLink]

I'd hardly call the 2005-06 or 2007-08 campaigns ****ing the bucket.

Miles better than 2013-14 and whatever drivel this year was.

I don't think we were the best team in 2012 either. Top 5, yeah.

That 05/06 season was hot garbage, started out great then went to the toilet after. Same with 07/08, ugh those seasons were just awful.

 

[banme*]

Miller because it kicked Eddie ".901" Lack out of town.

 

[absolute garbage]

Has to be Lack, because his future .930 kicked Schneider and Luongo out of town.