Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Burke works to revive the blockbuster

DAVID SHOALTS

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 4:47 PM EST 10/01/08

Anaheim GM feels the lack of big trades is hurting the sport ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver and Elsewhere, Canada writes: If Brian Burke thinks the salary-cap system works against the Ducks, then why is he paying Todd Bertuzzi only $250,000 less than Kevin Lowe's infamous offer for Dustin Penner? Idiot. Blow-hard.
  2. Terry Quinn from A proud free Canada, Canada writes: Hey Jasper... did that "idiot" win the cup last year or ws he an also ran?

    Bertuzzi is damaged goods but a great player; I say Burke is smarter than you.
  3. Thumb Sucker from Toronto, Canada writes: The only way a reporter from Canada's 'National Paper' can write a sports story about the west coast is if the leafs are on a road trip there?
  4. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver and Elsewhere, Canada writes: Burke is (or was) known as a great deal-maker, and that is how he got a championship last year. But I certainly do not see him building a dynasty or a long-term top-tier contender. As one example, the Canucks drafting has improved about 1000 percent since he got booted out of here.

    Recently, players, agents and rival GMs have certainly gotten the best of him in several deals.
  5. Andrew Perry from halifax, Canada writes: From the article:

    "The problem Burke ran into with his trade proposal was that too many clubs wanted to use it to fix what they see as a flaw in the collective agreement. They want to close the small loophole that allows a player's salary to come off the salary cap if he is sent to the minor leagues. Several GMs told Burke they would vote for his proposal, but only if one-way NHL contracts in the minors would then count against the cap."

    Are these people stupid? This is one of the few options GM's have available to help themselves out of a problem and they want to get rid of it?
    While it may benefit big more than small market teams, an intelligently run team with good ownership will still be competitive, and the richest team in the league will still be the pathetic Fleas.
  6. j.r ewing from Canada writes: jasper, where do you get the 1000% number? Most players in the pipeline are several years away before their career in the NHL starts. With the same scouts and only 2 drafts where the current GM was picking, seems like your statement is a little far fetched.
  7. Michael Canzi from Canada writes: "the lack of buzz hurts our business" - pity that the product on the ice can't create that buzz. No, we need to switch players around 6 and 8 at a time to get people to notice us? C'mon, Brian, just because you think you're smarter than everyone else and could pull off a Cliff Fletcher vs. Doug Riseborough deal twice every year, doesn't mean it's a great idea.

    Why not just improve the on-ice product. Does your drafting and player development suck so badly that you need to ship out 3 and 4 players at a time? IMO, I'd rather the league be known for the cake, not the icing.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top