Player Discussion Kyle Burroughs

[iceburg]

Rathbone's not long for this organization, IMHO. Myers either... probably... hopefully. And unless we pick up Schenn again, we're going to need a guy who can be a physical force.
Still only have him 6 or 7, at best.

Agree on Rathbone and Myers. If Myers leaves and there may be room for him but I think they'll look to upgrade. Re Rathbone, that's why I had him last. I don't think they have plans for him other than returning an asset if possible.

 

[F A N]

He's eerily similar (with a very similar development curve) to Ryan Stanton, who did a very nice low-event job on our 3rd pairing for 2 years before we ran him out of town to prioritize Sbisa and Bartkowski.

Your continued obsession with some of the fringe NHL players who have come along here is so odd given that you are generally pretty cut-throat with your assessment of other players. Stanton was much better in his first year here than in his second. Certainly he was replaceable. Bartkowski was a bad signing but the decision to sign him should be independent of the decision keep or let Stanton go. Not like Stanton got a one way contract. He got a 2 way contract. The Canucks were also bringing in Tryamkin and Corrado was waivers eligible.

I fall into the trap of wanting to bring back guys like Burroughs who has looked decent at some point in the past and generally works his ass off playing the type of low event hockey you mentioned. At the same time, the Canucks are going no where with Burroughs in the lineup and on the team.

I'm not opposed to bringing him back to be depth in Abbotsford but sometimes you just got to let go. I think Juulsen has passed Burroughs on the depth chart.

 

[MS]

Your continued obsession with some of the fringe NHL players who have come along here is so odd given that you are generally pretty cut-throat with your assessment of other players. Stanton was much better in his first year here than in his second. Certainly he was replaceable. Bartkowski was a bad signing but the decision to sign him should be independent of the decision keep or let Stanton go. Not like Stanton got a one way contract. He got a 2 way contract. The Canucks were also bringing in Tryamkin and Corrado was waivers eligible.

I fall into the trap of wanting to bring back guys like Burroughs who has looked decent at some point in the past and generally works his ass off playing the type of low event hockey you mentioned. At the same time, the Canucks are going no where with Burroughs in the lineup and on the team.

I'm not opposed to bringing him back to be depth in Abbotsford but sometimes you just got to let go. I think Juulsen has passed Burroughs on the depth chart.

I'm not 'obsessed' with fringe players.

I understand the value in filling the bottom of the roster with cheap players who can get the job done, and find it extremely frustrating when bad management overspends on filler roles.

Stanton=Burroughs=Sbisa=Bartkowski. They're all #6-7 filler. The difference is that two of those guys combined to earn $1.5 million/year and the other other two combined to earn $5 million/year for the same thing.

You're also quoting a post from me from a year ago. Right now I'm fine bringing Burroughs back and I'm fine letting him go.

 

[Shareefruck]

That seems overly charitable, if anything. In my eyes, there was quite a lot more to like about Stanton and Burroughs than there was Sbisa and Bartkowski, IMO, even cap hit aside. At no point did I think "Maybe there could be something modestly salvageable here" with the latter two.

Even though it didn't happen and may not happen, you could totally imagine Stanton turning into a reliable, relatively mistake-free #5 guy, and Burroughs a relatively solid #6.

 

[credulous]

the problem with a guy like burroughs as your #6 is that he's never going to be more than a #6. if you're a bottom feeder that's just trying to fill roster spots while you lose games that's fine but if you aspire to win you need to try to fill those spots with players with more upside

 

[Shareefruck]

edit: delete

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I like Burroughs a lot and would be happy to have him stay as a 6/7/8 type guy - but I think he’ll be gone. The organization prioritizing Brisebois, Wolanin and Juulsen telegraphs that I think.

I like cheering for the local guy, and he’s a tough mofo who plays a reasonably solid game.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Burroughs is good depth but I think I prefer seeing what we have in Juulsen and Brisbois over playing him. I'd happily have him and Wolanin back as depth stashed in the AHL but ultimately you should be able to find cheap guys to fill that roll anyway.

 

[David71]

wish we had him instead of juulsen