logo
CanucksArmy has no direct affiliation to the Vancouver Canucks, Canucks Sports & Entertainment, NHL, or NHLPA
Friedman: On Burrows, Hamhuis and Ownership
alt
J.D. Burke
Feb 16, 2016, 23:50 ESTUpdated:
Comments
Elliotte Friedman dropped bombshells by the bushel on Saturday as it pertains to the Vancouver Canucks and their long-term future. In the space of three hours, Friedman reported that Burrows would be willing to his NTC and intimated that ownership and management might not be aligned in terms of their philosophy. 
And when Friedman speaks, you listen. Simple and plain. Same goes for his weekly 30 Thoughts column. This week’s edition delved into Saturday’s remarks, so let’s get into the thick of, why don’t we?
Before we get into Friedman’s expanded comments on Burrows and ownership, it should be noted that he followed up the former of those two bombshells on Saturday.
It appears as though those comments only scratch the surface, though. Apparently, Burrows had much more to say on the issue…
“Burrows had a great line in denying the report he would be willing to waive his no-trade clause, telling reporters, “Obviously, I think Elliotte had the same game as we had — not a very good night — because there’s no truth to that. I’ve never talked to management or coaches about it or to teammates.” “
On Benning’s response to this report…
“GM Jim Benning asked Burrows and agent Paul Corbeil after the game if it was true. Both said no. (It should be mentioned Burrows has a young family.) Later, he was specifically asked what would happen if the team came to him. “Then you’ve got to talk to my agent and I’ve got to talk to my wife because we love it here.” That’s a different answer.”
Where the miscommunication struck…
“My error here was using the word “willing” instead of “consider.” He continued, “I’ve always wanted to stay here, even if the team is in a rebuild mode because I want to be a part of it. When I signed my contract, I wanted to be here forever and that hasn’t changed.” No doubt Burrows loves it, and his legacy is important to him, as it should be.”
On the market for Burrows services…
“Thirty-six hours later, my sense is the Canucks have quietly explored the possibility and don’t see it happening. They offered to keep a percentage of Higgins’ and/or Prust’s salary, too. The other thing to remember here is Vancouver already retained salary on Roberto Luongo. That stays in effect until 2022, and you’re only allowed three at a time.”
Well, that doesn’t leave much to the imagination. If anything, I’m left feeling relatively confident that Burrows would – at the very least – be willing to consider a move, were he approached by management. A move could be best for both parties, but finding a suitor will prove difficult. All the more so if the Canucks are looking to extract any value out of Burrows. 
Next on Friedman’s hit list was Dan Hamhuis. Much has been made of the impending free agent defenceman and what the future will hold. Hamhuis is on the last season of his contract, which carries an AAV of $4.5-million with a full no-trade clause. The actual dollar value is $4.25-million, which isn’t much relief to internal budget clubs.
Friedman, on Hamhuis’ future and whether he would waive his NTC…
Dan Hamhuis’s decision will be interesting. Personally, you can see him saying no. Big-time family man. Professionally, does he ask himself, “Is my next contract better if I go elsewhere?”
Finally, Friedman broached the topic of ownership and their involvement in the day-to-day functions of hockey ops. 
On whether to sell or buy at the deadline…
As for ownership, we’re seeing situations (Arizona, Carolina and New Jersey) where rebuilding teams find themselves in surprising playoff contention. It’s similar to Vancouver in the sense that their management is looking at it like, “Are we really this good? Shouldn’t we acquire more youthful assets?” while also thinking, “This really drives up interest. We can sell more seats, our fans are surprised and excited. If we give up, we’re going to lose that momentum and people are going to question if we want to win. Plus, it sends an awful message to our young players.” So, you’re stuck until the deadline, at least.
On meddling ownership…
Clearly, everyone is extremely sensitive to the charge of ownership interference — the Aquilini family, the hockey operations department and the fans. Look, the Canucks have an empty seat problem. They don’t win, people don’t go. It happened with the Griffiths family and John McCaw. We’ve all wondered how Mike Gillis was instructed to solve the Luongo/Cory Schneider conundrum. But, I suspect Benning will be allowed to do as he desires. Aquilini wishes to change that reputation and this firestorm makes him more determined to let it happen.
On whether the disagreement in philosophy report was leaked to Friedman by Benning…
There’s been speculation Benning leaked an “Aquilini interference narrative” to me. For the record, that’s not true.
These next thirteen days have the potential to be the most important this franchise will endure in the next few years. They will have to decide whether they are buyers or sellers, and if so, what they can get in return for their expiring contracts.
Never a dull moment where the Vancouver Canucks are concerned. I assume the same will be true when the trade deadline passes. Whether they’re buyers, sellers or don’t make any moves at all.

Breaking News