dave babych returns
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2011
- 4,977
- 1
Additionally, why move him when his value is at its lowest? He may not be 30-goal-level when he's not riding with the Twins, but he's definitely better than he's been so far in this injury plagued, curse-ridden year.
Because his value may not actually be at its lowest?
Because the team may feel it is part of a needed culture change or restructuring of payroll allocation (as with a player like Raymond who was allowed to walk for nothing - speaking of "value at its lowest")?
Because the team needs to get younger and Burrows is the worst combination of oldest/least effective per cap dollar spent right now?
Not saying they should act on those things, but there are some pretty decent reasons to "sell low" on a player. If the Canucks think the most likely outcome for Burrows is three years as a drastically overpaid third liner (which we don't need, already having middle six wingers like Kassian, Higgins and Hansen), and if they can trade him for a younger, bigger, cheaper player who projects to play a similar role - but has little or no upside as a top six player - then I think that's a reasonable decision to make.