Maybe. I'm just saying that when you trade an expensive guy when you're in Cap jail you can't just look at the player return when assessing it.

The very fact that Burrows still has value (although it's diminishing at the same rate as the Sedins'...odd, eh?) makes his trade an option. Likely? No.
- djamon

The Canucks aren't in "cap jail"

Oh I've read the takes of Canuck fans regarding their Cap situation. I just don't agree with you. lol

This summer will be painful for 'Nuck fans, Gillis and especially Canuck Ownership.
- djamon

It all depends on what the actual market decides, not a bunch of fans hiding in a chat room. Did you expect Gonchar to get a two year $10m contract?

that's only 21 players, you still need two more.
- 1970vintage

Actually, no, my math includes Cannata as 2nd goalie at $900k. Unlikely it'll be him, but cap hit for backup will likely be the same. That's 22. You don't need 23, you have room for 23 if you want. Usually filled with an injured player or 2.

Not a coincidence only because of how it was dealt with, not who was missing. Musical chairs pairings, Ballard in the press box, AHLberts paired with a rookie.

Hamhuis was already missing when a fringe NHLer knocked Horton out for the series. We killed off a 5min PP, went to the dressing room, and came out with our tails between our legs... scared to incite any more chaos. In the 2nd & 3rd periods of that game, Edler was -4 & Ehrhoff was -3.

On another note, Bylsma & Granato should be fired in Pittsburgh.
- DrChristianTroy

I blame Shero. Defence and goaltending win championships. Pittsburgh's suck.

Actually, no, my math includes Cannata as 2nd goalie at $900k. Unlikely it'll be him, but cap hit for backup will likely be the same. That's 22. You don't need 23, you have room for 23 if you want. Usually filled with an injured player or 2.
- KB3Point0

Not accounting for 23 players AND having wiggle room is a huge mistake.

Cannata

The return is Cap relief.
- djamon

At the cost of the team's hardest worker, and one of their best players?

That's like saying NYR should should trade Calahan for cap relief, or CHI should trade Bolland for cap relief, or BOS should trade Marchand for cap relief...

It doesn't make any sense...

Not a coincidence only because of how it was dealt with, not who was missing. Musical chairs pairings, Ballard in the press box, AHLberts paired with a rookie.

Hamhuis was already missing when a fringe NHLer knocked Horton out for the series. We killed off a 5min PP, went to the dressing room, and came out with our tails between our legs... scared to incite any more chaos. In the 2nd & 3rd periods of that game, Edler was -4 & Ehrhoff was -3.

On another note, Bylsma & Granato should be fired in Pittsburgh.
- DrChristianTroy

Agree, it's probably time to take that team in a different direction.

The Canucks aren't in "cap jail"
- KB3Point0

we might not be in "cap jail" which would indicate we couldn't get out, but Gillis has his work cut out for him to ice a competitive team while staying under the cap this summer. He will need to be at the top of his game.

Maybe. I'm just saying that when you trade an expensive guy when you're in Cap jail you can't just look at the player return when assessing it.

The very fact that Burrows still has value (although it's diminishing at the same rate as the Sedins'...odd, eh?) makes his trade an option. Likely? No.
- djamon

It's not diminishing to the Canucks if his play isn't diminishing, which it's not.

He had a slightly lower point/game pace than previous years, but it's not all about point production with Burrows.

The guy still brings it every shift, every game.

This is a fallacy. When Gillis took over the team, they had just missed the playoffs.

In fact, the Canucks only have 8 players from the team he inherited......at the time the core was not considered to contain Kesler, Burrows, Edler or Bieksa who are part of those 8. Nonis had actually been shopping Kesler, Burrows and Edler in order to bring in some scoring.....you are way off dude.....
- chompsey

The core didn't contain two 20+ min/game defensemen? Or their #2 C? That's ridiculous. Their core was Sedin/Sedin/Kesler/Burrows/Bieksa/Edler/Ohlund/Luongo. They were transitioning Naslund and Morrison out already at this point.

Their core today is virtually identical...and has been for pretty much all of Gillis' tenure. He made some nice additions to help get them to the Finals, but due to his own mistakes he's got his hands full fixing things this summer.

The core didn't contain two 20+ min/game defensemen? Or their #2 C? That's ridiculous. Their core was Sedin/Sedin/Kesler/Burrows/Bieksa/Edler/Ohlund/Luongo. They were transitioning Naslund and Morrison out already at this point.

Their core today is virtually identical...and has been for pretty much all of Gillis' tenure. He made some nice additions to help get them to the Finals, but due to his own mistakes he's got his hands full fixing things this summer.
- djamon

To be fair to Gillis, we'd be in a far more manageable position if the cap didn't drop $6m this summer, the first time in history.

At the cost of the team's hardest worker, and one of their best players?

That's like saying NYR should should trade Calahan for cap relief, or CHI should trade Bolland for cap relief, or BOS should trade Marchand for cap relief...

It doesn't make any sense...
- Fosco

I'm not advocating it...I'm merely saying trading Burrows for 60c on the dollar still has value in that it saves the team a big chunk of cash.

The Hawks had to do it after their Cup win and they were ripped for it. But they had no choice. They basically gave players away that summer.

It's not diminishing to the Canucks if his play isn't diminishing, which it's not.

He had a slightly lower point/game pace than previous years, but it's not all about point production with Burrows.

The guy still brings it every shift, every game.
- Fosco

Hey...you're a fan...I expect no less. But his VALUE is diminishing, whether you like that or not.

The core didn't contain two 20+ min/game defensemen? Or their #2 C? That's ridiculous. Their core was Sedin/Sedin/Kesler/Burrows/Bieksa/Edler/Ohlund/Luongo. They were transitioning Naslund and Morrison out already at this point.

Their core today is virtually identical...and has been for pretty much all of Gillis' tenure. He made some nice additions to help get them to the Finals, but due to his own mistakes he's got his hands full fixing things this summer.
- djamon

They were not part of the core....they are now. This isnt the same team.

Yzerman's team is far more in tact than Gillis' team. They were not a Stanley cup team man. You are wrong - plain and simple.

To be fair to Gillis, we'd be in a far more manageable position if the cap didn't drop $6m this summer, the first time in history.
- AlexF

Very true.

The core didn't contain two 20+ min/game defensemen? Or their #2 C? That's ridiculous. Their core was Sedin/Sedin/Kesler/Burrows/Bieksa/Edler/Ohlund/Luongo. They were transitioning Naslund and Morrison out already at this point.

Their core today is virtually identical...and has been for pretty much all of Gillis' tenure. He made some nice additions to help get them to the Finals, but due to his own mistakes he's got his hands full fixing things this summer.
- djamon

Except he added the team's two best D in Hamhuis and Garrison.

You're also missing a few pieces who were crucial in the cup run from your list above.

Very true.
- djamon

When you play close to the margins as a cap team will, sometimes you will find yourself in tough spots such as this. This is where Gillis earns his paycheck or stops collecting one from the Canucks ownership. He's on a year's leash IMO.

Hey...you're a fan...I expect no less. But his VALUE is diminishing, whether you like that or not.
- djamon

His trade value is diminishing, but IMO it's not high enough to warrant trading him in the first place.

His value to the Canucks on the ice is not diminishing yet, and is more valuable to the team than his trade value has been and will ever be.

When you play close to the margins as a cap team will, sometimes you will find yourself in tough spots such as this. This is where Gillis earns his paycheck or stops collecting one from the Canucks ownership. He's on a year's leash IMO.
- AlexF

Agreed.

They were not part of the core....they are now. This isnt the same team.

Yzerman's team is far more in tact than Gillis' team. They were not a Stanley cup team man. You are wrong - plain and simple.
- chompsey

They WERE part of the core - plain and simple.

Yzerman's only been on the job for 3 years as opposed to Gillis' 5...so his turnover is likely to be lower. But when he took over TB was coming off 3 poor years in a row, their farm was terrible and they were trotting out Nittymaki as their goalie. This year was surprisingly bad, but they're definitely on the right path.

Maybe Vancouver wasn't a top contender, but they were coming off an 88 points season as opposed to TB's 80. The Canucks had also had 3 out of 4 seasons with over 100 points prior to that. They weren't in any way a rebuilding team when Gillis took over.

Except he added the team's two best D in Hamhuis and Garrison.

You're also missing a few pieces who were crucial in the cup run from your list above.
- Fosco

Hamhuis was an excellent addition. Garrison? Not so much. Terrible signing. Garrison should send Brian Campbell a Chriistmas card for helping him get that contract.

Hamhuis was an excellent addition. Garrison? Not so much. Terrible signing. Garrison should send Brian Campbell a Chriistmas card for helping him get that contract.
- djamon

Are you kidding?

Garrison was the Canucks best D this season, and not by a small margin. Clearly you didn't watch too many games.

Excellent signing.

His trade value is diminishing, but IMO it's not high enough to warrant trading him in the first place.

His value to the Canucks on the ice is not diminishing yet, and is more valuable to the team than his trade value has been and will ever be.
- Fosco

You're probably dead right here.

Hey...you're a fan...I expect no less. But his VALUE is diminishing, whether you like that or not.
- djamon

To who? He's just as valuable to the Canucks as he's always been!

Are you kidding?

Garrison was the Canucks best D this season, and not by a small margin. Clearly you didn't watch too many games.

Excellent signing.
- Fosco

I watched most of them. he was much better late in the year, but it took him a while to get there. And I thought he was always awful in his own zone.

I stand by it...it was a terrible signing. They didn't need any more 4.5m defensemen.