I am growing very tired of all the media idiots who speculate that Burrows or the Twins will get traded. They obviously don’t spend any time on the West coast. Gillis has already stated that he isn’t going to dick with the chemistry of the team. Trading away any of those 3 would do just that.
Idiots.
Gillis may add a 3rd line player and that’s about it. And to all of the fans who will think he “failed” because he didn’t get someone “better”, as in a top 6 forward, needs to get their head screwed on straight.

Posted by Zanstorm from Smithers on 03/02/09 at 08:36 PM ET

“The obviously don’t spend any time on the West coast” is probably exactly it. 

Honestly, I think that’s where much of the rumor-weirdness comes from: people speculating on activity in markets they’re not intimately familiar with. Burrows is a bit of an unknown in the rest of the league, so even though people know a bit about him, I think they tend to think he’s much more expendable than he is.

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 03/02/09 at 09:12 PM ET

Please, Alex Burrows? There’s no way the Canucks would part with him. I suspect (and hope) that the team does almost nothing on Wednesday, except maybe to add a defensive-minded forward to replace Wellwood in the post-season.

I suspect that somebody else will be willing to overpay Burrows in the offseason. I suspect he’s playing above his talent level (in part because it’s a contract year). Hopefully the Canucks don’t spend stupid money to keep him.

Posted by Darren from Victoria on 03/02/09 at 09:13 PM ET

IMO, Gillis, Vigneault or someone else in the Canucks organization wanted a message sent to Burrows—and the rest of the team—and used LeBrun to send it.

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 03/03/09 at 10:31 AM ET

What gives the idiots like LeBrun, Gallagher, and Strachan any more credibility than “Eklund”? Just because somebody works for a MSM corp doesn’t mean they do anything more than pull stuff out of their pasty asses.

GM’s will talk to each other all the time and throw names about. It doesn’t mean anything until something concrete is announced.

Canucks fans should worry more about Sundin’s lack of production than stupid trade rumours.

Posted by Jes Golbez from In your pants on 03/03/09 at 10:52 AM ET

Darren -- I largely agree, but I’d only ask you, what qualifies as overpayment? My feeling is that he can fairly command a 2-year deal for between $1.5 and $1.75 million per season. That’s a fair reflection of his value, and a safe time frame to my mind.

Do others agree? I don’t know. And would someone offer more than that? Maybe… but I’m optimistic that my proposal would keep him in Vancouver. And be worthwhile for the team.

YzermanZetterberg -- You might be right. I’m a big believer that a lot of stuff that floats from the press is part of the tactics of negotiation and message-sending. Sort of like Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’… but for hockey fans.

Jes -- I agree 100%. And the msm is more inclined to float questionable rumors in these days of the internet than I think they were in the recent past.  Still, LeBrun is a credible journalist; his failing in this instance is that maybe he doesn’t understand the dynamics of the Canucks themselves as well as he should before suggesting such ideas.

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 03/03/09 at 12:28 PM ET

Golbez: agreed on the MSM thingy.
Sundin isn’t cutting it yet. 2 assists last game was good and all, but he’s not getting himself into scoring position. When he does, he passes. I think he has to stop going to Red Robin’s with Henrik. It’s rubbing off on him.

Darren: I don’t know. Burrows stated last week that he wants “checking player money”. I’m sure his agent is punching concrete walls when he hears him say that!

Posted by Zanstorm from Smithers on 03/03/09 at 03:33 PM ET