Alex Burrows breaks his Jaw, Out 4 Weeks

Patrick Johnston
December 03 2013 11:07AM

Oh boy. Alex Burrows' season from hell continues on in the worst way. After being sidelined for 12 games following the opener back on October 3rd, Burrows failed to find the back of the net in 17 games (despite a healthy dose of chances and opportunities). Now, he'll have to wait at least 4 weeks to get his 1st of the year..

It's being speculated that it happened on this play: 

According to Botch, Burrows seemed to think something was amiss, at the time of the injury, anyway.

Alex Burrows knew something was wrong Sunday when he skated off the ice after getting hit in the jaw with a puck on a Chris Tanev clearing attempt.

He did return, and talked about it, laughing after the game.

If it is true, well that's a heavy blow to a player who'd been played pretty well but was having trouble putting the biscuit in the basket.

Obviously Zack Kassian would draw back in the lineup, but don't expect him to be an ice-time beneficary, even if it seems like Torts should really give the big guy the chance. We know he'll do better than Dale Weise - at least he's got a bigger upside anyway - but being in the dog house usually means you don't get the benefit of the doubt. 

David Booth could move up, but given that Torts would probably see he and Mike Santorelli as having that elusive 'chemistry' - which would be mostly anecdotal. They've barely spent any time together. Given that Ryan Kesler had a run of success with the Sedins, might we see him bumped up, Santorelli re-instated as number 2 centre, with Booth and either Higgins or Hansen riding shotgun? That would leave Brad Richardson as 3C, Kassian as one winger and the remaining Higgins or Hansen on the other flank. The threatening Sestito-Welsh-Weise line might make its threatening return, or perhaps Weise and Kassian would be swapped.

Or, I suppose you could go a little off of centre and pull up Darren Archibald or Nick Jensen from Utica.

But any way you shake it, this news sucks.

1f92153409d9b33c123e47094f0ac4b6
Patrick Johnston is a Vancouver journalist. In addition to regular contributions here at Canucks Army, his work has appeared in The Province, Hockey Now and on the CBC. Check out his blog and other writing at http://johnstonwrites.wordpress.com or follow him on twitter: @risingaction
Avatar
#1 Kyle
December 03 2013, 05:35AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
0
props

Or he might play through it, no?

Avatar
#2 JFR
December 03 2013, 07:38AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

I thought he broke his jaw when he skated off the ice. If it is broken then I don't believe there is a great chance he could play. If it has to be set, there will be no solid foods for a while and if not then he could injure himself worse. I'm hoping it was just stitches and he got lucky. Would be as unlucky a first half as any player that just signed a 4 mil contract could have.

Avatar
#3 pheenster
December 03 2013, 08:12AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
10
props

Wait, what? Chris Tanev shot the puck hard enough to break somebody's jaw?

Avatar
#4 MaxPower
December 03 2013, 09:17AM
Trash it!
17
trashes
+1
7
props

Karma is a b*tch.

Avatar
#5 Ruprecht
December 03 2013, 10:04AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
4
props
pheenster wrote:

Wait, what? Chris Tanev shot the puck hard enough to break somebody's jaw?

Torts must have sprinkled some fairy dust on his stick before the game.

Avatar
#6 NM00
December 03 2013, 11:10AM
Trash it!
14
trashes
+1
4
props

Just as David Booth begins to work himself into buyout territory, Alex Burrows takes his place...

Avatar
#7 NM00
December 03 2013, 11:13AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
3
props

@Ruprecht

Torts isn't a very good fairy dust administrator if he deemed Chris Tanev as the best recipient of the gift...

Avatar
#8 Nat
December 03 2013, 11:53AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
6
props
NM00 wrote:

Just as David Booth begins to work himself into buyout territory, Alex Burrows takes his place...

Sure, lets discount his previous years of consistent production and buy him out based on one injury affected 1/3 of a season (where he's actually playing well but not getting the results, I might add).

/howls with laughter

Avatar
#9 Ted
December 03 2013, 11:58AM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
5
props
NM00 wrote:

Just as David Booth begins to work himself into buyout territory, Alex Burrows takes his place...

Are you actually saying Burr is a possible candidate to be bought out or there should be consideration he be bought out? You're the gift that keeps on giving hahaha. Classic NoMind00!

I believe Kassian draws back in for Burr. That benching should be the wake up call for Kass. I think Booth got the picture and Torts was pretty direct about it all. Hopefully Kassian gets it now - can't be more direct than being a healthy scratch.

Avatar
#10 Ted
December 03 2013, 12:01PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
2
props
Nat wrote:

Sure, lets discount his previous years of consistent production and buy him out based on one injury affected 1/3 of a season (where he's actually playing well but not getting the results, I might add).

/howls with laughter

Honestly, I think Sh!tForBrains00 is just messing with us. Even he can't be THAT stupid. I don't think anyone would buyout Burr based on his current body of work. Now, if Burr comes back and can't score for the rest of the season then the talks could begin.

At the end of the day, I don't like Burr's contract. If he performs the way he can then it isn't so bad. I only question the ability because he is 32. Honestly, I was wanting him to be dealt at the trade deadline (a package Nash gave for Erat would've been great for Nucks).

Avatar
#11 PB
December 03 2013, 12:08PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@Ted

It's hard to imagine getting the package that Nashville got for Erat; Forsberg is miles better than Erat will ever be, especially now that he wants out of Washington. I don't know what McPhee was thinking but hard to imagine anyone else offering so much for so little (and Burrows is a far better player than Erat).

As for Kassian getting this benching as a wakeup call, I seriously doubt it. I really like him but he's got a long ways to go -- this is a very small blip on the radar given that he's been previously benched, sent to the AHL, suspended, and given fourth line minutes. I don't think this will turn his head, it's going to take something else. He doesn't play hard or consistently enough to deserve time on the top two lines and managed to play himself off the third as well. I think fourth line crash and bang shifts are about the best he can hope for for the moment.

Avatar
#12 NM00
December 03 2013, 12:12PM
Trash it!
10
trashes
+1
4
props

@Nat

Alex Burrows has three more years (ages 33-35) of a bad contract .

David Booth has one more year (age 29/30) of a bad contract.

But, please, tell me more...

Avatar
#13 NM00
December 03 2013, 12:26PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
4
props

@PB

The expectations for Kassian really need to be reset.

Fellow 2009 1st rounders Joe Colborne & Peter Holland were given away for relative peanuts and are currently playing limited roles for teams that are weak down the middle.

Kassian is in a similar boat trying to establish himself as a low end NHL regular on his second team.

If Kassian's acquisition cost was a midround draft pick or two, nobody would think twice about him...

Avatar
#14 Senrik Hedin
December 03 2013, 12:42PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
5
props

Is Burrows' contract that egregiously bad?

Sure you have Marchand, Backes, Pacioretty, Callahan type of sweet deals at around 4.5M, but you also have Laich, Whitney, Erat, Cole, Jokinen, Legwand, Leino, Fleischmann, Malone, Michalek, Little, etc. It's not the best deal, but it's far far from what you're making it out to be.

Avatar
#15 Nat
December 03 2013, 12:51PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
4
props
NM00 wrote:

Alex Burrows has three more years (ages 33-35) of a bad contract .

David Booth has one more year (age 29/30) of a bad contract.

But, please, tell me more...

What is your definition of bad? The cap was expected to go up significantly after this year, and that was before this monster Rogers deal was announced which will push it even higher. So "high" contracts in previous years aren't necessarily so high in a high cap world. His cap hit is only $4.5 per year anyways.

It was also said when this contract was signed last year that it was also somewhat of a thank you to Burrows - he was paid a measly $2 million per year on his last contract while producing 25 goals on average per year.

I will also reiterate that Burrows has been a consistent producer for years. He has only played 17 games this season. And you're just going to focus on 17 games of poor production?

Okay...

Avatar
#16 NM00
December 03 2013, 01:21PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
3
props

@Senrik Hedin

Is Booth's contract so egregiously bad?

"It's not the best deal, but it's far far from what you're making it out to be."

The only thing you should infer from my comment is that Burrows is, at the least, working his way into the conversation of which Canuck should be bought out.

The Canucks have one compliance buyout remaining and it expires before free agency opens up next summer.

It's entirely possible that Burrows' contract will look scarier than Booth's contract in a few months...

Avatar
#17 Ruprecht
December 03 2013, 01:23PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
5
props
NM00 wrote:

Just as David Booth begins to work himself into buyout territory, Alex Burrows takes his place...

Smartass, not a chance. The fact that the guy came back and played the rest of the game after breaking his jaw should raise his stock if anything. Either way, show a little more respect. The guy is going to be eating through a straw because he was out there battling for a win when most guys would have headed to the hospital. Props to Burr for showing heart.

Avatar
#18 Senrik Hedin
December 03 2013, 01:28PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
8
props

@NM00

i will give you 1000 bucks if burrows gets bought out in exchange for you to never bring up this nonsense.

Avatar
#19 NM00
December 03 2013, 01:33PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
4
props

@Nat

"The cap was expected to go up significantly after this year, and that was before this monster Rogers deal was announced which will push it even higher."

The Rogers deal won't affect the salary cap until 2015-2016. There's a Mirtle article on it floating around the interwebs.

"It was also said when this contract was signed last year that it was also somewhat of a thank you to Burrows - he was paid a measly $2 million per year on his last contract while producing 25 goals on average per year."

The best thank you this organization could give Burrows would be to buy him out. He'll quite likely make more money as a result of being bought out.

Also, paying for past performance is poor cap management.

"I will also reiterate that Burrows has been a consistent producer for years. He has only played 17 games this season. And you're just going to focus on 17 games of poor production?

Okay..."

Strawman #2

His ppg has been going down for years. He has 13 goals & 14 assists since the beginning of 2012-2013 and that's nearly a full NHL season.

And, realistically, what can be expected of Burrows from his age 33-35 years if he isn't riding shotgun with the Sedins on a regular basis?

Much like Booth, I don't dispute that Burrows is a useful player in the middle of the roster.

However, the Canucks have plenty of these complimentary players (Burrows, Booth, Hansen, Higgins, Santorelli) and allegedly some young players they'd like to integrate into the top 9 (Kassian, Jensen, Schroeder, Horvat, Gaunce, Shinkaruk).

If Luongo's deal is too big of a bailout for Aquillini, management should be pushing for approval to buyout Burrows' inefficient contract for the long term health of the organization...

Avatar
#20 NM00
December 03 2013, 01:38PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
6
props
Ruprecht wrote:

Smartass, not a chance. The fact that the guy came back and played the rest of the game after breaking his jaw should raise his stock if anything. Either way, show a little more respect. The guy is going to be eating through a straw because he was out there battling for a win when most guys would have headed to the hospital. Props to Burr for showing heart.

1. Why would being injured for the next 4+ weeks raise his stock?

2. Burrows was a buyout candidate prior to his injury. The fact that you are offended by the realities of his contract are your own problem.

3. He's a millionaire who sustained a non-life altering injury doing his job. We can feel bad for him without the hyperbole.

Avatar
#21 NM00
December 03 2013, 01:39PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
4
props
Senrik Hedin wrote:

i will give you 1000 bucks if burrows gets bought out in exchange for you to never bring up this nonsense.

Why not give the $1,000 to a worthy cause and simply get over yourself in the process...

Avatar
#22 Senrik Hedin
December 03 2013, 01:56PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
6
props
NM00 wrote:

Why not give the $1,000 to a worthy cause and simply get over yourself in the process...

ok i will give 1000 bucks to a worthy cause and get over myself in the process in exchange for you to never bring up this nonsense.

Avatar
#23 Senrik Hedin
December 03 2013, 01:58PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
0
props

@Senrik Hedin

dp

Avatar
#24 Ted
December 03 2013, 02:34PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
1
props
Senrik Hedin wrote:

ok i will give 1000 bucks to a worthy cause and get over myself in the process in exchange for you to never bring up this nonsense.

Don't bother trying to reason with P.O.S.00. It isn't possible. If it wasn't for his mental health issues, his conduct would be seen as inexcusable. Anyway, let's wait until the end of the year to see what Burr has left. That might be fair and a bit more reasonable.

Avatar
#25 PB
December 03 2013, 02:36PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

You're either paying for past or future performance so not sure how either is poor cap management. Poor management (cap or otherwise) tends to be trading players who've signed long term deals with you (if they don't have an NTC) and/or NOT rewarding players that show loyal service. Even with a creaky Marco Sturm, jettisoning him the way he did got Gillis some bad press around the league.

None of this is to say that Burrows is playing up to his contract right now but as many others have said he's had an injury plagued and snakebit season. To say that he should be jettisoned because of it seems premature at best.

Shea Weber has 12 points and is a -2 this season AND has an eye injury. Should he be a target for a Predators buyout?

Avatar
#26 Ruprecht
December 03 2013, 02:42PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
2
props
NM00 wrote:

1. Why would being injured for the next 4+ weeks raise his stock?

2. Burrows was a buyout candidate prior to his injury. The fact that you are offended by the realities of his contract are your own problem.

3. He's a millionaire who sustained a non-life altering injury doing his job. We can feel bad for him without the hyperbole.

1. Because it's just as ridiculous to think he's lowered himself to buyout status based on the same rationale. A little tone matching on my part. I do that from time to time.

2. No he wasn't. Just your opinion, and no I'm not in the least offended by it, pretty strong word to put into my mouth. He just got a justifiable raise, ran into injuries and bad luck while the ink was drying on the contract, it happens.

3. You obviously have never stood in the way of a puck. A couple inches one way or another and things can get more or less serious. Try thinking a little beyond inflamed hemorrhoids from sitting on your ass all day passing judgements, and just think of the risks involved short and long term once a puck hits your head area...it may just knock some sense into you.

Avatar
#27 Matt
December 03 2013, 02:46PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
1
props

Effective troll is effective.

Avatar
#28 NM00
December 03 2013, 03:05PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
2
props

@PB

Was Burrows living up to his contract last season?

What can Burrows do that Hansen, Higgins & Santorelli cannot?

What can Burrows reasonably be expected to do in the next 3 years?

Where are the top 9 roster spots going to come from to integrate at least a couple of Kassian, Schroeder, Jensen, Gaunce, Horvat & Shinkaruk in the next few years?

And where is the roster spot/cap space going to come from to acquire, at minimum, one established frontline player to improve the forward group?

Taking off the shackles of Burrows' contract opens up many possibilities...

Avatar
#29 NM00
December 03 2013, 03:08PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
2
props
Ruprecht wrote:

1. Because it's just as ridiculous to think he's lowered himself to buyout status based on the same rationale. A little tone matching on my part. I do that from time to time.

2. No he wasn't. Just your opinion, and no I'm not in the least offended by it, pretty strong word to put into my mouth. He just got a justifiable raise, ran into injuries and bad luck while the ink was drying on the contract, it happens.

3. You obviously have never stood in the way of a puck. A couple inches one way or another and things can get more or less serious. Try thinking a little beyond inflamed hemorrhoids from sitting on your ass all day passing judgements, and just think of the risks involved short and long term once a puck hits your head area...it may just knock some sense into you.

Most of this nonsense has little to do about the relative contracts of Booth & Burrows.

There are cheaper ways to replace what Burrows can do in the lineup.

The organization would do well to explore them.

Avatar
#30 NM00
December 03 2013, 03:09PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
2
props
Matt wrote:

Effective troll is effective.

Troll = anyone with whom you disagree...

Avatar
#31 NM00
December 03 2013, 03:10PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
3
props
Ted wrote:

Don't bother trying to reason with P.O.S.00. It isn't possible. If it wasn't for his mental health issues, his conduct would be seen as inexcusable. Anyway, let's wait until the end of the year to see what Burr has left. That might be fair and a bit more reasonable.

Ted is to ad hominem as Rob Ford is to...

Avatar
#32 Senrik Hedin
December 03 2013, 04:54PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
Ted wrote:

Don't bother trying to reason with P.O.S.00. It isn't possible. If it wasn't for his mental health issues, his conduct would be seen as inexcusable. Anyway, let's wait until the end of the year to see what Burr has left. That might be fair and a bit more reasonable.

trust me i'm not trying to reason. with a stranger. online. anonymously. over a game of hockey.

just trying to infuse some sense of humor in this i'm-right-you're-wrong type of crusade over a hockey team for which you have next to zero control.

while we're on the topic of not being reasonable, i'd like to add that unless anyone can guarantee that this team will win a stanley cup if we buy out alex burrows, i'm going with "pay the man whatever he wants because he slayed the dragon" mantra.

Avatar
#33 Ruprecht
December 03 2013, 06:07PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props
NM00 wrote:

Ted is to ad hominem as Rob Ford is to...

Sexy?

Avatar
#34 Ruprecht
December 03 2013, 06:18PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
NM00 wrote:

Most of this nonsense has little to do about the relative contracts of Booth & Burrows.

There are cheaper ways to replace what Burrows can do in the lineup.

The organization would do well to explore them.

Where would you rate that on Gillis' list of priorities? I'm hoping it's pretty low as there are much bigger holes to fill. But getting back to it, buyout? Not freaking likely. Trade, possible.

Avatar
#35 acg5151
December 03 2013, 07:21PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

Now that Burrows is out with an injury maybe he has time to clean the Canucks closed windows, right NMOO?

Avatar
#36 NM00
December 03 2013, 07:24PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
3
props

@Ruprecht

I'm not sure Gillis is willing to buyout Burrows considering he just signed him to that contract.

Sure, if anyone is willing to take on 100% of Burrows' contract the trade route is preferable to a buyout.

Same goes with Luongo and Booth.

However, is anyone going to take on Burrows' contract?

Without the Canucks retaining some salary, I'd be surprised.

Avatar
#37 Ruprecht
December 03 2013, 11:05PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
NM00 wrote:

I'm not sure Gillis is willing to buyout Burrows considering he just signed him to that contract.

Sure, if anyone is willing to take on 100% of Burrows' contract the trade route is preferable to a buyout.

Same goes with Luongo and Booth.

However, is anyone going to take on Burrows' contract?

Without the Canucks retaining some salary, I'd be surprised.

Depends on where the cap goes next year. Some of this might be slightly easier to digest when the spenders have more money to spend.

Comments are closed for this article.