To Bert or not to Bert update.
foamy
-- yes 67%
-- no 5%
-- no with a qualifier to wait and see what happens
as the season unfolds 28%
Looks like the yessers are in the majority.
Personally I can't see it. I think signing him now for that
amount of money is dumb. Bert has yet to demonstrate
he can take this team anywhere, in fact he's demonstrated
just the opposite. What was he, 3 goals in his last 22 games
or something ? A span covering the end of the season and
the playoffs. Two goals in 14 games in the playoffs, ain't exactly
awe-inspiring.
Bert is a horse who doesn't play like a horse. He rarely uses
his size and strength, with one exception, the PP. A power play
which is designed for him to score by taking advantage of how
difficult he is to move once planted in the deep slot.
As a result he led the league in PP goals, yet was even bested in
even-strength goals by Dave Scatchard.
Each year the number of times he will take it to the net on the rush
has diminished. Rarely do we see him do it any more. The Minny fans
gave up booing him the other night after they found it difficult to find
him. He's playing more on the perimeter, and less where the action is,
or creating the action. He's showing me symptoms of the Brashear
syndrome.
I think signing him now is the worst move possible. It adds 4 mill to
this years payroll. Money prevented BB from adding the needed
piece[s] at the deadline last year, what's the chance he'll spring this
one ? The uncertainty of next season also is a factor in my thinking.
If I thought for a moment BB would even consider moving him, I
could justify the signing, but that appears to be a no-go as BB
foolishly, either stated or implied, has Siamesed Bert to Naslund
and a core group of players.
Jim
bob
I agree!! I hate that you can't even tell anymore if he (and naslund
too for that matter) is a fast skater or not... He never moves
quickly. Sure he can play 24 minutes or whatever but his intensity
(verbal/emotional notwithstanding) is down near mine in over 30s
soccer... I don't see a benefit in signing him now... unless there is
a REAL fear of losing him after this year because of all the
oddness...
bob
kim
Well, I was one of the 5% and voted no. It looks like the offer is
close to 8mil/y and as a benchmark I used Peter Forsberg (10 mil/yr?)
and then adjusted (an 8 mil/yr Forsberg).
Because Bert is poor defensively whereas Forsberg (and the elder
Federov) are excellent two way players, I would figure him at around
5-6 mil/yr max.
Very rarely have I seen Bert go into corners to dig and push around.
He is usually wandering around center ice waiting. Not that it is a
bad thing. Bure used to do the same. However, in Bure's case he
would bury the puck if he ever got it.
I'd like to see Bert stay, but I think close to 8mil/yr is quite hefty
for someone who is poor defensively.
Besides, I saw in the paper that Cooke makes only $525k.
What's up with that???????????
Kim
R Green WoWsat.com
length of time, I look to see him cough it up... He's more effective NOT
handling the puck when he does a give and go kind of deal.
Bert used to be a horse out there on the ice where he'd make things happen
handling the puck for *any* length of time... is it his big head getting in
the way of his peripheral vision? Hmmm..
Anyway, like I said before, any amount in excess of 6.5mill/yr payable to
Bert is a waste of money in this day and age...
R Green
"foamy" <fo...@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:9vVkb.135317$pl3.129772@pd7tw3no...
Asianflow
jumping on the bandwagon. Burkie has no choice but to sign Bert because if
he doesn't and the new CBA kicks in and makes him a UFA he will head for
greener pastures. And if this happens Naslund will bolt. Also if they trade
Bert Burkie will be blasted by the fans and media.
Personally I would be shopping him around right now, heck I would also be
shopping Naslund around too. Our two best players play terrible defence, and
no show when it really counts ie. the Playoffs. Bert's constant abuse of the
officials have made him blackballed and he never gets the benefit of the
doubt anymore.
If I was Burkie I would be calling Sinden up and asking him if he wants
Bertuzzi, Sopel, 1st rounder, a Sedin, and a prospect for Joe Thorton.
Then Burkie should all up Muckler and ask if he wants Naslund for Spezza and
Chara.
Lonnie
"Asianflow" <rmc...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:VVWkb.135566$pl3.6505@pd7tw3no...
> I've been preaching since last year Bert is over-rated now people are
> jumping on the bandwagon. Burkie has no choice but to sign Bert because if
> he doesn't and the new CBA kicks in and makes him a UFA he will head for
> greener pastures. And if this happens Naslund will bolt. Also if they
trade
> Bert Burkie will be blasted by the fans and media.
Flow, how the fuck do you say something like this AND post shit like " it's
the owners fault they pay so much for players - no one is sticking a gun to
their heads ".
YOU'RE ADMITING THEY HAVE TO SIGN HIM , FLOW - YOU ARE STICKING A GUN TO
THEIR HEADS.
Do you notice how often you contradict yourself ? Do you care ?
Asianflow
> > I've been preaching since last year Bert is over-rated now people are
> > jumping on the bandwagon. Burkie has no choice but to sign Bert because
if
> > he doesn't and the new CBA kicks in and makes him a UFA he will head for
> > greener pastures. And if this happens Naslund will bolt. Also if they
> trade
> > Bert Burkie will be blasted by the fans and media.
>
> Flow, how the fuck do you say something like this AND post shit like "
it's
> the owners fault they pay so much for players - no one is sticking a gun
to
> their heads ".
> YOU'RE ADMITING THEY HAVE TO SIGN HIM , FLOW - YOU ARE STICKING A GUN TO
> THEIR HEADS.
>
> Do you notice how often you contradict yourself ? Do you care ?
Yes I still say it's the owners fault, but at the same if Bert just leaves
for nothing, the franchise will take a step back, thus must be signed. But
don't confuse "must" with "absolute". The final decision is still the owner
and not the player.
There in no gun towards any owners head in the NHL saying they must pay X
amount of dollars for Bert.
Lonnie
Flow, your like a conjoined twin when you post - it's like two people
battling over half a brain, and you can almost see them fighting for
control. Must sign Bert or team dies - no one can force you to do it - sign
Bert or Nazzie goes - can't increase the ticket costs - sign Bert or the
team folds- trade him for rookies, don't give in - sign him or die - must
find precious, master says find precious - kill master.
Seriously, I have a hard time just figuring out where you stand, let alone
actually debating with you.
So please explain - if the owner does not sign Bert you say the media will
crucify the team, the fans will stop going to games, the better players will
bolt to teams that actually pay their stars what their worth and the team
will end up moving to Portland. Bert isn't worth what he's asking, but if
the owner doesn't give in he will lose the media fans and players ? But the
owner isn't being forced to do anything ?
>
>
Asianflow
> Seriously, I have a hard time just figuring out where you stand, let alone
> actually debating with you.
> So please explain - if the owner does not sign Bert you say the media will
> crucify the team, the fans will stop going to games, the better players
will
> bolt to teams that actually pay their stars what their worth and the team
> will end up moving to Portland. Bert isn't worth what he's asking, but if
> the owner doesn't give in he will lose the media fans and players ? But
the
> owner isn't being forced to do anything ?
>
leave....) because if he doesn't resign him, Bert could leave for nothing
which would hurt the club, but at the same time if he does sign him, this
doesn't automatically mean we will sell more seats or Bertuzzi will take
himself or the club to the next level. The root of the problem is the other
owners that are willing to overpay these players. Nobody forces the owners
to give out these huge contract, yet they have the big dick syndrome and
want to flash their wad ... of cash around.
foamy
"Asianflow" <rmc...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Basically I'm saying McCaw is in a bad position (only if fans and sponsors
>leave....) because if he doesn't resign him, Bert could leave for nothing
I'm so sick of hearing this. Just how is he going to walk away for nothing ?
You think the owners are going to sign a new CBA which makes their
restricted free agents unrestricted ?
Jim
Asianflow
> >Basically I'm saying McCaw is in a bad position (only if fans and
sponsors
> >leave....) because if he doesn't resign him, Bert could leave for nothing
>
> I'm so sick of hearing this. Just how is he going to walk away for nothing
?
>
> You think the owners are going to sign a new CBA which makes their
> restricted free agents unrestricted ?
>
> Jim
I believe the owners would do this if it meant a hard cap (not like the NBA
where you can still resign your own players for 20+ mil a season like what
the TWolves did with KG this summer). Let's face it, the players aren't just
going to give and expect nothing in return. Goodnow has been on record
saying the NHLPA would never agree to a cap, but I'm sure he will budge from
this.
But if the new CBA includes a cap or perhaps a luxury tax they better do it
right. What's amazing is the MLB almost had a lockout last season, so they
came up with a new Luxury Tax which was suppose to help small market clubs.
And the Tax threshold turned out to be almost 110 Million Dollars, what a
freaking joke. That only effected the Yanks, and they went on to have a 182
million dollar payroll, so much for the tax stopping their spending. Either
the owners were lieing about the losses or they were on drugs when they
signed the deal. I thought the tax would be set at something like 70 mil.
That is like the NHL setting a luxury tax once a teams payroll excedes 75
million dollars.
Angus Thermopyle
I said "Yes" without qualifications although you've given me good reason to
rethink my position. It could well be the reason why a deal hasn't already
been done too. Still, the way the market tends to wag the dog, I wouldn't be
surprised if Burke was under orders by the owner to bring any deal close the
dollars talked about to him for his ultimate approval. It may even be
against Burke's better judgment but, if McCaw said that he wanted final
approval, Burke may not have a choice (a la the Messier signing). It seems
odd to me that no other deal "publicly" gets put into the hands of the owner
for approval.
The one variable that may be the crux of the deal is the risk of losing Bert
to free-agency after next year's lock-out. Maybe they are hedging that
Bertuzzi is a more valuable asset to the team under contract post CBA than
as a UFA.
Angus
Nitram
The Canucks have to deal with Bert based on the current CBA. If Bert doesn't
sign he will be a restricted free agent next year and I believe eligible for
arbitration. His restricted free agency and arbitration will follow the old
CBA rules. Based on recent history the arbitrator will base the award on the
old market value and award him a ton of money. That's assuming he has
another career year. The only way the Canucks can lose him for nothing is if
they choose not to accept the arbitrator's award.
Bert could gamble and not go for arbitration and sit out for awhile hoping
that the new CBA retroactively makes him a free agent but that's unlikely to
happen.
If I was him and the Canucks were offering anything near 6-7M a year I'd
take it because there will be some kind of a cap and Jagr money will never
happen again.
"foamy" <fo...@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:pxYkb.135242$6C4.20438@pd7tw1no...
Angus Thermopyle
My understanding is that it is possible the NHLPA will ask for a lowering of
the UFA age limit from 32 down to 29 or 28 in exchange for some sort of
salary control concession to the owners. It is mere speculation of course
but the potential is there. If that does happen and the lockout has been
protracted, Bertuzzi could all of a sudden be a UFA. I believe this was also
the reasoning behind Kariya's low-ball one-year deal with Colorado (wasn't
it?).
Angus
foamy
"Angus Thermopyle" <angu...@audiohighway.com> wrote:
I wouldn't be
>surprised if Burke was under orders by the owner to bring any deal close the
>dollars talked about to him for his ultimate approval. It may even be
>against Burke's better judgment but, if McCaw said that he wanted final
>approval, Burke may not have a choice (a la the Messier signing). It seems
>odd to me that no other deal "publicly" gets put into the hands of the owner
>for approval.
That's the problem, McCaw is such an enigmatic owner we have no clue
what he thinks, level of involvement etc. All of a sudden we hear one day
he's got Messier on his boat, or he's told Quinn to go after TGO, all after
the fact.
My guess is he's set limits within which BB can operate freely, but any
deal of Messieranic proportions has to receive the green light from him.
I assume this deal puts the team over budget.
>The one variable that may be the crux of the deal is the risk of losing Bert
>to free-agency after next year's lock-out. Maybe they are hedging that
>Bertuzzi is a more valuable asset to the team under contract post CBA than
>as a UFA.
The only thing is I can't see RFA's becoming UFA's. If it was a lockout, it
could be argued the players might have a case, but with the CBA simply
expiring without a new one to replace it, what side is responsible ? How
do players claim the high ground if they haven't signed a deal. Owners
could negotiate it away, but would any break rank and sign players who
obtained their free agency that way ?
Jim
foamy
"Nitram" <nit...@telus.net> wrote:
>If I was him and the Canucks were offering anything near 6-7M a year I'd
>take it because there will be some kind of a cap and Jagr money will never
>happen again.
Yep. I agree. I'd also like to know what his contract calls for should there
be no new CBA in place for next season, and no hockey ? In fact,
I wonder what all players contracts signed through 04 call for.
Jim
foamy
"Angus Thermopyle" <angu...@audiohighway.com> wrote:
>My understanding is that it is possible the NHLPA will ask for a lowering of
>the UFA age limit from 32 down to 29 or 28 in exchange for some sort of
>salary control concession to the owners. It is mere speculation of course
>but the potential is there. If that does happen and the lockout has been
>protracted, Bertuzzi could all of a sudden be a UFA. I believe this was also
>the reasoning behind Kariya's low-ball one-year deal with Colorado (wasn't
>it?).
I think there's a good chance that will happen, but one thing I wouldn't
expect is for it to be grandfathered for guys who it would affect immediately.
For example Bert, he couldn't claim UFA in 04, but his eligible year would be
say 05, if wasn't signed.
Jim
Angus Thermopyle
Makes sense (as did Nitram's earlier reply in this thread).
Angus
dew
average to ensure he could not be qualified by Colorado and be an
unrestricted free agent again after the season.
"Angus Thermopyle" <angu...@audiohighway.com> wrote in message
news:3e_kb.17321$i92.10241@clgrps13...
Angus Thermopyle
"dew" <dean...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wLdlb.140778$pl3.54287@pd7tw3no...
> I don't think Kayria's contract was due to CBA04, he signed below the
league
> average to ensure he could not be qualified by Colorado and be an
> unrestricted free agent again after the season.
I believe you are right . . . he'd be making less than the League Minimum at
age 30.
Angus
<snip>
foamy
"Angus Thermopyle" <angu...@audiohighway.com> wrote:
>I believe you are right . . . he'd be making less than the League Minimum at
>age 30.
Angus, think about what you just wrote. :-)
Jim
Angus Thermopyle
OOPS! AVERAGE . . . I meant AVERAGE salary!!!!!!!
Nice catch!
:-I