Player Discussion Kyle Burroughs

[MS]

That's the most hilarious list of shitty players you think were 'held back'.

They weren't held back they were just never good enough.

Except they were constantly better (and cheaper) than the guys the team played ahead of them.

Guys like Granlund, Vey, Sbisa, Schaller, Pouliot, Bartkowski were just total trash. Not NHL calibre-players. Outside of Sbisa (who needed a PTO to stay in the NHL as an 8th defender) they were instantly out of the NHL as soon as we released them. Garbage. And yet stapled to the lineup as regulars ahead of guys in the system who weren't given a chance. The only reason they played was because management had money and assets invested in them. Not a meritocracy. And that's before getting into the ridiculousness of guys like Sutter and Gudbranson and how they were used.

 

[strattonius]

Except they were constantly better (and cheaper) than the guys the team played ahead of them.

Guys like Granlund, Vey, Sbisa, Schaller, Pouliot, Bartkowski were just total trash. Not NHL calibre-players. Outside of Sbisa (who needed a PTO to stay in the NHL as an 8th defender) they were instantly out of the NHL as soon as we released them. Garbage. And yet stapled to the lineup as regulars ahead of guys in the system who weren't given a chance. The only reason they played was because management had money and assets invested in them. Not a meritocracy. And that's before getting into the ridiculousness of guys like Sutter and Gudbranson and how they were used.

If Chiasson gets a spot ahead of Gadjovich that would be upsetting.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Except they were constantly better (and cheaper) than the guys the team played ahead of them.

Guys like Granlund, Vey, Sbisa, Schaller, Pouliot, Bartkowski were just total trash. Not NHL calibre-players. Outside of Sbisa (who needed a PTO to stay in the NHL as an 8th defender) they were instantly out of the NHL as soon as we released them. Garbage. And yet stapled to the lineup as regulars ahead of guys in the system who weren't given a chance. The only reason they played was because management had money and assets invested in them. Not a meritocracy. And that's before getting into the ridiculousness of guys like Sutter and Gudbranson and how they were used.

None of the players you thought should be getting a chance instead have played a full NHL season anywhere, nearly all of them are out of the league, and several were given more chances and playing time in Vancouver than they had anywhere else afterward. Two of them, Tanner Kero and Alex Biega, were in the NHL last season, as a 13th forward and a 7th defenceman on non-playoff teams. They played 52 games between them and scored 3 goals.

 

[MS]

None of the players you thought should be getting a chance instead have played a full NHL season anywhere, nearly all of them are out of the league, and several were given more chances and playing time in Vancouver than they had anywhere else afterward. Two of them, Tanner Kero and Alex Biega, were in the NHL last season, as a 13th forward and a 7th defenceman on non-playoff teams. They played 52 games between them and scored 3 goals.

All of that means ... nothing?

They were better and cheaper than guys who were ridiculously played ahead of them while they were here. If you're trying to argue that this team has been a meritocracy under Jim Benning, I question whether you've actually been following this team.

Who played better in 17-18 as a Vancouver Canuck, Markus Granlund or Darren Archibald? How were they treated comparatively in the following training camp?

 

[strattonius]

All of that means ... nothing?

They were better and cheaper than guys who were ridiculously played ahead of them while they were here. If you're trying to argue that this team has been a meritocracy under Jim Benning, I question whether you've actually been following this team.

Who played better in 17-18 as a Vancouver Canuck, Markus Granlund or Darren Archibald? How were they treated comparatively in the following training camp?

They WERE NOT better. You have absolutely no point other than trying to say our organization isn't a meritocracy. Maybe that's true but you're using horrible examples to convince.

 

[mathonwy]

Except they were constantly better (and cheaper) than the guys the team played ahead of them.

Guys like Granlund, Vey, Sbisa, Schaller, Pouliot, Bartkowski were just total trash. Not NHL calibre-players. Outside of Sbisa (who needed a PTO to stay in the NHL as an 8th defender) they were instantly out of the NHL as soon as we released them. Garbage. And yet stapled to the lineup as regulars ahead of guys in the system who weren't given a chance. The only reason they played was because management had money and assets invested in them. Not a meritocracy. And that's before getting into the ridiculousness of guys like Sutter and Gudbranson and how they were used.

And people wonder why Jake checked out of this cluster.

 

[MS]

They WERE NOT better. You have absolutely no point other than trying to say our organization isn't a meritocracy. Maybe that's true but you're using horrible examples to convince.

Abso-f***ing-lutely they were better.

Did you actually watch the games?

Do you actually think that Granlund outperformed Archibald in 17-18?

Do you actually think that Schaller in 18-19 brought more than Gaunce in 17-18?

Do you actually think that Tanner Kero - a guy we now know is better than Markus Granlund - was given the slightest shot of beating him out for a roster spot?

Do you think that Gudbranson and Sbisa performed better than Biega?

 

[Melvin]

I mean what is the point of this. Does anyone seriously believe the team would go with Burroughs over Schenn if Burroughs plays better in pre-season? Anyone want to put any money on it? There is zero chance it will happen, and, no, the Canucks don't do this to veteran players whom they just signed. Tim Schaller was a completely useless plug right out of the gate who looked like a crappy AHL player in camp and still was gifted a spot on the roster and played about 25 terrible games before he was finally scratched. After getting him in the Toffoli trade, the Kings played him 2 games and then sent him to the AHL, from which he never returned.

 

[Lindgren]

I mean what is the point of this. Does anyone seriously believe the team would go with Burroughs over Schenn if Burroughs plays better in pre-season? Anyone want to put any money on it? There is zero chance it will happen, and, no, the Canucks don't do this to veteran players whom they just signed. Tim Schaller was a completely useless plug right out of the gate who looked like a crappy AHL player in camp and still was gifted a spot on the roster and played about 25 terrible games before he was finally scratched.

I get your argument, but I have to wonder about the pressure to make the playoffs. Perhaps that pressure will lead to the decision making of this sort making more sense. Green and Benning have to believe that a few points either way could make the difference between either a playoff spot and continued employment, or an uncertain future. Will they keep an underperforming vet like Schenn over someone like Burroughs if they see the latter as one small move that might contribute to them keeping their jobs?

I know, there's no precedent for that kind of rationality. But still, I wonder if we'll be surprised ...

 

[MS]

I mean what is the point of this. Does anyone seriously believe the team would go with Burroughs over Schenn if Burroughs plays better in pre-season? Anyone want to put any money on it? There is zero chance it will happen, and, no, the Canucks don't do this to veteran players whom they just signed. Tim Schaller was a completely useless plug right out of the gate who looked like a crappy AHL player in camp and still was gifted a spot on the roster and played about 25 terrible games before he was finally scratched. After getting him in the Toffoli trade, the Kings played him 2 games and then sent him to the AHL, from which he never returned.

There have been so many examples of this. I can't believe people are actually arguing it.

Under Jim Benning, there are three classes of player :

1) 'NHL PLAYERS' who the team has invested money and assets in.

2) Prospects that management feels emotionally invested in.

3) 'Minor leaguers' who they don't have anything invested in more than a two-way contract.

Guys from group (3) will never play ahead of or be promoted ahead of guys from group (1) under any circumstances. It does not happen. Players from group (1) may only lose their jobs at the end of a season.

Again, Darren Archibald is the prime example. Markus Granlund filled a 3rd line roster spot for 2/3 of 17-18. Then he got hurt, and Darren Archibald was parachuted into his exact roster spot next to Brandon Sutter for the final 1/3 of the season. Archibald was just comically better than Granlund. He scored at more than double the rate at ES (25 points/82 vs. 11/82), threw hits at a rate that would have led the team's forwards by over 100, won fights, generated better PK results, worked his ass off, and was just better at absolutely everything. It wasn't even close. It was a huge, huge upgrade.

The following training camp, Archibald gets 1 preseason game with the B squad and is off to Utica. Completely pre-ordained that he had zero chance of making the team and keeping the roster spot he had rightfully taken the previous year. Granlund immediately back to sucking ass in his old roster spot.

As you say, Schaller getting outplayed by Gaunce in camp and then being handed Gaunce's roster spot and performing at a far lower level than Gaunce had the previous year is another one.

 

[MS]

I get your argument, but I have to wonder about the pressure to make the playoffs. Perhaps that pressure will lead to the decision making of this sort making more sense. Green and Benning have to believe that a few points either way could make the difference between either a playoff spot and continued employment, or an uncertain future. Will they keep an underperforming vet like Schenn over someone like Burroughs if they see the latter as one small move that might contribute to them keeping their jobs?

I know, there's no precedent for that kind of rationality. But still, I wonder if we'll be surprised ...

I think they're too arrogant to ever think that an 'AHLer' could actually out-play one of the 'QUALITY NHL VETS' that they've invested money and assets into.

They might have made the playoffs in 18-19 if they had the sense to pull the chute on Gudbranson earlier and give him minutes to Biega (we had a positive goal differential that year at ES with Gudbranson off the ice, and Gudbranson was not playing terribly tough minutes). They did not do that.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Abso-f***ing-lutely they were better.

Did you actually watch the games?

Do you actually think that Granlund outperformed Archibald in 17-18?

Do you actually think that Schaller in 18-19 brought more than Gaunce in 17-18?

Do you actually think that Tanner Kero - a guy we now know is better than Markus Granlund - was given the slightest shot of beating him out for a roster spot?

Do you think that Gudbranson and Sbisa performed better than Biega?

There's zero daylight between any of these players at any time. They all suck. Gaunce wasn't an NHL player and had already been given a million chances. Granlund and Archibald were about equally ineffective most of the time although Granlund was conspicuously slow, soft and annoying -- Archibald made noise on the boards and was otherwise mostly useless while Granlund at least showed some hands and promise, and was younger with more control. Schaller was a new signing and the team probably hoped he'd improve over the course of the season. Tanner Kero isn't meaningfully better than anyone in the NHL.

 

[Melvin]

There have been so many examples of this. I can't believe people are actually arguing it.

Under Jim Benning, there are three classes of player :

1) 'NHL PLAYERS' who the team has invested money and assets in.

2) Prospects that management feels emotionally invested in.

3) 'Minor leaguers' who they don't have anything invested in more than a two-way contract.

Guys from group (3) will never play ahead of or be promoted ahead of guys from group (1) under any circumstances. It does not happen. Players from group (1) may only lose their jobs at the end of a season.

Again, Darren Archibald is the prime example. Markus Granlund filled a 3rd line roster spot for 2/3 of 17-18. Then he got hurt, and Darren Archibald was parachuted into his exact roster spot next to Brandon Sutter for the final 1/3 of the season. Archibald was just comically better than Granlund. He scored at more than double the rate at ES (25 points/82 vs. 11/82), threw hits at a rate that would have led the team's forwards by over 100, won fights, generated better PK results, worked his ass off, and was just better at absolutely everything. It wasn't even close. It was a huge, huge upgrade.

The following training camp, Archibald gets 1 preseason game with the B squad and is off to Utica. Completely pre-ordained that he had zero chance of making the team and keeping the roster spot he had rightfully taken the previous year. Granlund immediately back to sucking ass in his old roster spot.

As you say, Schaller getting outplayed by Gaunce in camp and then being handed Gaunce's roster spot and performing at a far lower level than Gaunce had the previous year is another one.

Apparently I still have the capacity to be surprised by the positions some people are willing to take in defence of St Jim.

like Jesus Christ there can’t honestly be someone daft enough to deny such a simple and obvious thing, but here we are.

To be fair, most teams are not pure meritocracies and no team would cut a player they just invested a ton of money in based on preseason, but that someone is actually arguing that the Canucks do this is frankly baffling.

Some people will argue that the sky is gold if it somehow serves Benning. Unreal.

The Canucks a meritocracy, lol. K

 

[MS]

There's zero daylight between any of these players at any time. They all suck. Gaunce wasn't an NHL player and had already been given a million chances. Granlund and Archibald were about equally ineffective most of the time although Granlund was conspicuously slow, soft and annoying -- Archibald made noise on the boards and was otherwise mostly useless while Granlund at least showed some hands and promise, and was younger with more control. Schaller was a new signing and the team probably hoped he'd improve over the course of the season. Tanner Kero isn't meaningfully better than anyone in the NHL.

You clearly didn't watch the games or didn't understand what you were watching based on your assessment of Archibald's performance when he was given a run of games on a high-leverage 3rd line.

Markus Gralund was an absolute sack of shit. One of the softest, slowest, laziest players I've ever had the misfortune of watching in a Canuck uniform. Totally ineffective. Not an NHL-calibre player.

Schaller was a new signing - exactly. He stunk but played over guys who were better because he was a new signing that the team had money invested in. This is not a meritocracy.

 

[MS]

Apparently I still have the capacity to be surprised by the positions some people are willing to take in defence of St Jim.

like Jesus Christ there can’t honestly be someone daft enough to deny such a simple and obvious thing, but here we are.

To be fair, most teams are not pure meritocracies and no team would cut a player they just invested a ton of money in based on preseason, but that someone is actually arguing that the Canucks do this is frankly baffling.

Some people will argue that the sky is gold if it somehow serves Benning. Unreal.

I absolutely agree that most teams are not meritocracies but the Canucks under Benning are about as far the other way on the spectrum as it's possible to go.

It's absolutely insane that anyone is arguing this. It's like the sun rising in the east. If you're arguing the opposite, you either don't follow the team or don't know what you're watching.

 

[Melvin]

The only counterexample that comes to mind is maybe Emerson Etem? He was a bit of a surprise cut after he’d scored some goals at the end of the previous year. But he was not a veteran player really and lost his spot to Jack Skille if memory serves.

 

[F A N]

I mean, really?

You've had guys like Sutter and Gudbranson who have consistently been played way above their station based on veteran status instead of results.

You have guys like Vey/Pouliot/Granlund/Schaller/Sbisa who have been welded onto the roster ahead of better players solely because the organization was trying to pump their acquisition (and all given huge raises by this GM) and then immediately out of the NHL. The hapless Granlund got injured one year, had his roster spot taken by Darren Archibald for 30 games who was better at absolutely everything ... and then Archibald got 1 preseason game the next year as they rushed to give the spot back to Granlund.

Holtby was for some reason the opening day starter last year ahead of Demko.

Basically nobody who wasn't a name drafted prospect has been given a chance to play themselves up from the minors as a system guy. Biega was probably the closest and he was still constantly benched in favour of players who are worse than him.

None of that answers the question. You were talking about there being zero chance Burroughs is kept on the roster over Schenn no matter how well he plays in the preseason because of what this organization does. My question to you is what glaring cuts you remember.

Did Tanner Kero clearly earn a spot at training camp/preseason? I don't remember him being a standout at camp/preseason. I can name guys that played their way onto the team. Cracknell beat out Vey. Hutton (who was waiver exempt) beat out Corrado and they made the team. If anything, this regime has the reputation of allowing guys to made the team out of camp. You seem to disagree so who were the glaring cuts? Who clearly earned a spot if we were to judge solely by camp and preseason performance but was ultimately cut before opening night? I don't remember any but I know you have a much better memory than I do when it comes to this stuff.

 

[BrilliantBroReferee]

Apparently I still have the capacity to be surprised by the positions some people are willing to take in defence of St Jim.

like Jesus Christ there can’t honestly be someone daft enough to deny such a simple and obvious thing, but here we are.

To be fair, most teams are not pure meritocracies and no team would cut a player they just invested a ton of money in based on preseason, but that someone is actually arguing that the Canucks do this is frankly baffling.

Some people will argue that the sky is gold if it somehow serves Benning. Unreal.

The Canucks a meritocracy, lol. K

Most people who defend Jim are not doing it because they belive it. I don't want to get banned again for pointing out the obvious. Just put them on the ignore list. It's better for your mental health.

When Jimbo leaves in 2 years, you will find out some interesting things about some people who post here. Just have a little patience.

 

[Lindgren]

I think they're too arrogant to ever think that an 'AHLer' could actually out-play one of the 'QUALITY NHL VETS' that they've invested money and assets into.

They might have made the playoffs in 18-19 if they had the sense to pull the chute on Gudbranson earlier and give him minutes to Biega (we had a positive goal differential that year at ES with Gudbranson off the ice, and Gudbranson was not playing terribly tough minutes). They did not do that.

You may very well be right. The difference this time is that they have to believe they'll be fired if they don't make it. But even that may not be enough to overcome a certain kind of prejudice.

 

[Hit the post]

I mean what is the point of this. Does anyone seriously believe the team would go with Burroughs over Schenn if Burroughs plays better in pre-season? Anyone want to put any money on it? There is zero chance it will happen, and, no, the Canucks don't do this to veteran players whom they just signed. Tim Schaller was a completely useless plug right out of the gate who looked like a crappy AHL player in camp and still was gifted a spot on the roster and played about 25 terrible games before he was finally scratched. After getting him in the Toffoli trade, the Kings played him 2 games and then sent him to the AHL, from which he never returned.

Lol. Schaller was such a piece of garbage, he made Loui E as a Canucks like an all-star by comparison.

 

[krutovsdonut]

when Jimbo leaves in 2 years, you will find out some interesting things about some people who post here. Just have a little patience.

uh huh

 

[wonton15]

Not sure why this thread derailed this hard, but Burroughs is a legitimate first call up this season. Looks very steady and better than our past call ups e.g. Sautner, Bweezbwois

 

[Tinhorn1]

There have been so many examples of this. I can't believe people are actually arguing it.

Under Jim Benning, there are three classes of player :

1) 'NHL PLAYERS' who the team has invested money and assets in.

2) Prospects that management feels emotionally invested in.

3) 'Minor leaguers' who they don't have anything invested in more than a two-way contract.

Guys from group (3) will never play ahead of or be promoted ahead of guys from group (1) under any circumstances. It does not happen. Players from group (1) may only lose their jobs at the end of a season.

Again, Darren Archibald is the prime example. Markus Granlund filled a 3rd line roster spot for 2/3 of 17-18. Then he got hurt, and Darren Archibald was parachuted into his exact roster spot next to Brandon Sutter for the final 1/3 of the season. Archibald was just comically better than Granlund. He scored at more than double the rate at ES (25 points/82 vs. 11/82), threw hits at a rate that would have led the team's forwards by over 100, won fights, generated better PK results, worked his ass off, and was just better at absolutely everything. It wasn't even close. It was a huge, huge upgrade.

The following training camp, Archibald gets 1 preseason game with the B squad and is off to Utica. Completely pre-ordained that he had zero chance of making the team and keeping the roster spot he had rightfully taken the previous year. Granlund immediately back to sucking ass in his old roster spot.

As you say, Schaller getting outplayed by Gaunce in camp and then being handed Gaunce's roster spot and performing at a far lower level than Gaunce had the previous year is another one.

So much this. The Canucks under JB and MG have been the opposite of a meritocracy. I'm having trouble thinking of an example where that hasn't been the case.

 

[Tinhorn1]

So much this. The Canucks under JB and MG have been the opposite of a meritocracy. I'm having trouble thinking of an example where that hasn't been the case.

Edit: I see FAN came up with a couple, though I would certainly argue that Vey got a ridiculous number of chances before finally, finally being turfed.

 

[Melvin]

Edit: I see FAN came up with a couple, though I would certainly argue that Vey got a ridiculous number of chances before finally, finally being turfed.

What are the examples he came up with?