Canucks' Burke may skate
Jammers
in delaying BB's contract extension. I mean, have we all forgotten what
a mess this franchise was in back in the late nineties when he took over?
Now before you people jump all over with nonis this and tambellini that,
remember one thing: they are NOT proven GM's. Burke has taken a team
and really molded them into a team that is the envy of most GM's in the
league, with a PAYROLL that is the envy of most owners in the league!
You all remember when the Canucks were losing money hand over fist
and there was actual talk they could leave town? Imagine if we had the same
type of situation now where the team was losing barrels of money and there
was uncertainly surrounding the team. Put someone new in charge and it could
happen!
To sum it up, BB has resurrected this team and made them one of the most
entertaining
teams to watch. Why the delay in re-signing him?
My $0.02
JC
Bryce Fountain
wrote:
>To sum it up, BB has resurrected this team and made them one of the most
>entertaining
>teams to watch. Why the delay in re-signing him?
I suspect it has a lot to do with the impending labour dispute. McCaw
is cheap and doesn't want to pay Burke's salary for a year or two
withno hockey. He probably wants to leave his options option in the
event of a lockout.
bob
wrote:
maybe they had a five year plan or something like that and they want
to see how things go in the playoffs this year. Every year has been an
improvement under burke, but if they don't get past the second round
this year maybe they will reevaluate... playing a bit of devil's
advocate here, what's really wrong with waiting until after the trade
deadline or after the contract expires (end of the season) to decide
on his next contract? Don't many of us in here comment ruthlessly on
his lack of trades or change or actual success? I like him but maybe
they only like him because of increased success, if the increase
stops......
feeniks©
can't be backpeddaling from here on out... You've drawn your line in the
sand, now toe it... Unless, of course, your post begins, "...I was so wrong,
and I'm sorry...."
;]
(Seriously, I think this is all smoke and mirrors; I'm not going to put any
weight in the rumors. I don't always agree with the big furball, but if he
walks, it will be one of the stupidest things Orca Bay ever did. )
OTOH... Wouldn't it be fun to watch Burke take on Jeremy Jacobs and his
yapping little lapdog Harry Sinden?
"ajh" <see...@your.leisure> wrote
> Canucks' Burke may skate
> Savvy GM could be a valuable free agent
> The Boston Globe
> http://tinyurl.com/2vrsa
> --
> Andy
> aNO-SPA...@ajh.ca
>
Pik
> they only like him because of increased success, if the increase
> stops......
What? What happens? I need closure to this anecdote...
Jammers
you have never heard me complain about BB. he is a respectable GM who should
be commended for his no BS approach. gone are the days when ppl like Sather
could look good and get in the hall of fame based on a tenure with, arguably
the most talented team ever to play the game of hockey, without the
financial burden to go along with it.
having said that, Burke has done a great job of entertaining the
knowledgeable, and once again, arguably the best hockey fans in North
America. He has put a great product on the ice that is the envy of every
owner, GM, and fan in the league.
Will that correlate into post season success? I certainly hope so, because I
enjoy the speed and offence game the Canucks play so well. if another team
that employs the trap gets to the finals this year, I think I'm gonna take a
serious look at curling as my #1 pastime.
J5
"feeniksŠ" <dontb...@doesntwork.com> wrote in message
news:c1uio3$1n3j7g$1...@ID-192689.news.uni-berlin.de...
Fried Liver
that....so maybe they just want to wait and see what happens to hockey
overall.
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:44:55 -0330, "Jammers" <nos...@please.com>
wrote:
>y'know, I just can't understand the line of thinking ownership is taking
db
"feeniksŠ" <dontb...@doesntwork.com> wrote in message
news:c1uio3$1n3j7g$1...@ID-192689.news.uni-berlin.de...
> can't be backpeddaling from here on out... You've drawn your line in the
> sand, now toe it... Unless, of course, your post begins, "...I was so
wrong,
> and I'm sorry...."
I still think he's an asshole but I like the way he's built the team to
date, and have said so.
Now innerestingly enough, not only is Burke without a contract this summer,
but the same is also true for Nonis and Tambellini.
http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp
Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.
Angus Thermopyle
"db" <d...@hdtv.com> wrote in message
news:c20gv0$1ni2d6$1...@ID-120173.news.uni-berlin.de...
New owners.
Dennis Prouse
"Angus Thermopyle" <angu...@audiohighway.com> wrote in message
news:I3Q0c.41026$A12.17564@edtnps84...
>
> New owners.
This is an angle that hasn't been discussed enough. McCaw is clearly
looking to sell, at the right price, and may well be close to a deal with
someone. Having a GM on a new long term contract, while not a deal breaker,
would certainly make a sale less enticing. Besides, why not just let the
new owners deal with the heartache and difficulty of negotiating new deals
with these guys?
The other possibility, with the lockout looming, is that McCaw is simply too
cheap to pay a GM during a time when only a caretaker is needed. Hell, they
may sign only one of Nonis or Tambellini for that caretaker role, and hire
more staff when the lockout finally ends. I don't think any of us have
quite come to terms with the fact that we simply aren't going to have any
NHL hockey for at least a year, perhaps longer. If you know the league is
going to be shut down for an extended period of time, why bother having an
expensive GM playing computer solitaire?
foamy
>Now innerestingly enough, not only is Burke without a contract this summer,
>but the same is also true for Nonis and Tambellini.
>
>http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp
>
>Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.
Hmmm, that sounds more and more like new owners with their
own management team.
Jim
Joe Mildenberger
Further speculation: I would assume that the (alleged) sale must in some sense
be contingent on what happens next year vis a vis strike/lockout: either the
sale price would depend on whether there was going to be a season, or maybe the
deal period is contigent it.
Joe
.
foamy
Joe.Mild...@triumf.ca wrote:
>Further speculation: I would assume that the (alleged) sale must in some sense
>be contingent on what happens next year vis a vis strike/lockout: either the
>sale price would depend on whether there was going to be a season, or maybe the
>deal period is contigent it.
>
> Joe
One thing which puzzles me is if McCaw was actively engaged in a deal
to sell, why wouldn't he tell Burke something to the effect if the sale
goes down the new owners want to make the decision on the team's
management, but if it doesn't we'll work out your deal. They could have
had their public position set far in advance of any questions which might
pop up, and this wouldn't be an issue today.
Jim
Jammers
> The other possibility, with the lockout looming, is that McCaw is simply
too
> cheap to pay a GM during a time when only a caretaker is needed. Hell,
they
> may sign only one of Nonis or Tambellini for that caretaker role, and hire
> more staff when the lockout finally ends. I don't think any of us have
> quite come to terms with the fact that we simply aren't going to have any
> NHL hockey for at least a year, perhaps longer. If you know the league is
> going to be shut down for an extended period of time, why bother having an
> expensive GM playing computer solitaire?
>
>
Dennis is making a very valid point here, that has not really been
discussed. Maybe Mr. McCaw is
getting ready for the reality of a strike/lockout that could be devastating
to the Vancouver Canucks
should the labour disruption last any length of time.Why pay out labour when
you don't need to?
From a business and dollars standpoint, it makes sense.
The other point about selling the team ,etc, i'm not sure I buy that.
J5