The Optimist
Registered User
Someone please explain to me why Booth needs to be bought out. I just don't get it, try as I might.
Buyout clause - Do we use it?
- Thread starter Canucks LB
- Start date
I don't get it either. I think he might be overpaid by a little bit, but it's not worth buying him out.
He's fast as hell, physical, crashes the net, and has some very good offensive skills.
Sure, he has tunnel vision and isn't a playmaker whatsoever, but he's still a 2nd liner.
BoHorvatFan
Registered User
Because he's a terrible, clueless, heads down player that also happens to disgust a lot of people with his off ice hobbies(ie. murdering defenceless animals).
But I'd rather use it on Ballard because at least Booth can go to the net and try to jam some pucks in when he's not concussed. Ballard barely even plays.
Last edited:
this isnt true. could you come up with a thing that's not a falsehood, and also a defence of getting rid of booth?
Canucker
Go Hawks!
Freakshow
Registered User
The only person I'd buy out is Ballard, but, apparently there's a market for him so I don't really think Vancouver has anyone to buyout.
JuniorNelson
Registered User
A buy-out would be admission of error. Would Mike Gillis consent? He has a perfect record, so far, no mistakes at all.
me2
Go ahead foot
Ballard, 4.25m or whatever it is is simply to much for is to pay a guy to play 3rd pairing D if the cap is getting heavily reduced. Like.Booth or mot he'd still be s top 6 forward on a team that has no 2nd line wingers.
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
medhatcanuck
Registered User
If there were options to renegotiate contract amounts I would do that for both Ballard and Booth. They both have a place on the team, just not for their price tags. And it's not even that their way overpaid, each by 750,000 or so.
Luongo AINEC
* Assuming this is our one chance to not get that whole 'if the contract it longer than 7 years the cap hit returns to the original team once th eplayer retires even if he is traded blah blah..'
* Assuming this is our one chance to not get that whole 'if the contract it longer than 7 years the cap hit returns to the original team once th eplayer retires even if he is traded blah blah..'
Canucks LB
My Favourite, Gone too soon, RIP Luc, We miss you
- Oct 12, 2008
- 78,725
- 33,583
Even if he has that, we have to trade him, buying him out would be beyond Pejorative Slured.
Luongo has value, even if you fail to recognize it.
m9
m9
- Jan 23, 2010
- 25,107
- 15,230
We got Booth. Demitra and Samuelsson could be in the classification too, as we moved Samuelsson before his contract was up, and Demitra (RIP) wasn't even offered an extention.
Man, if we had some of the free agents Gillis brought in like...5 years earlier, we have been swimming in cups!
I was looking for the
...I think he was serious.
Agent007
Registered User
- Mar 22, 2006
- 7,718
- 46
I believe the NHL said you have until the 2013-2014 offseason to make that one buyout. If that's the case then I'd be surprised to see us buy anyone out for the short 48 game season since we should be well under the $70.2M cap.
However if the cap does indeed drop to $60.2M (and if I had to guess I'd say it'll be closer to $62.5M or so) then I think it's a safe bet that we try to move either Ballard or Booth most likely Ballard since it just doesn't make sense to have a $4.2M bottom pairing defence men with a $60M-$62M cap.
If neither player gets traded then I think Ballard is the guy that gets bought out for the final 2 years of his deal.
The other thing to note is having some cap space for the 2013-2014 offseason is going to be extremely valuable. There's going to be a lot of potential steals available in free agency due to the fact that not a lot of teams have enough cap space to add players in the offseason.
However if the cap does indeed drop to $60.2M (and if I had to guess I'd say it'll be closer to $62.5M or so) then I think it's a safe bet that we try to move either Ballard or Booth most likely Ballard since it just doesn't make sense to have a $4.2M bottom pairing defence men with a $60M-$62M cap.
If neither player gets traded then I think Ballard is the guy that gets bought out for the final 2 years of his deal.
The other thing to note is having some cap space for the 2013-2014 offseason is going to be extremely valuable. There's going to be a lot of potential steals available in free agency due to the fact that not a lot of teams have enough cap space to add players in the offseason.
y2kcanucks
Better than you
The way I look at it, Daniel Sedin is getting older so if he has a terrible season we should buy him out too.
y2kcanucks
Better than you
wow what a hypocrite. do you realize that the computer/tablet/laptop/celphone you are using to type this is made using conflict materials, and up to 20 million africans have been genocided THIS CENTURY 2000-2013 so that we can have these devices cheaper, and yet you use them to condemn someone for hunting animals?
on the topic of buyouts tho, the canucks have nobody. we could trade our higher payed players like ballard if we needed to shed cap.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
Not a big fan of hunting, but I can understand its appeal...what I don't understand is the use of bear baiting. Thats an unacceptable practice and Booth should be shamed for it IMO.
There's some humane reasons for it. You can identify if the bear is a mother with cubs or not and can get a cleaner, less painful kill.
That said, there's much less sport in bear bating, and it greatly increases the chances of a bear dying anyways (as opposed to being eluded and going home empty handed, which is often the case).
I'm not in a favour of hunting, but I enjoy my steaks enough to know I'd be a colossal hypocrite for criticizing anyone for it.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
Valid points, but I still greatly dislike the practice...I am of the opinion that its cowardly...same as sitting up in a tree to hunt. Animals should have a chance.
Proto
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2010
- 11,523
- 1
If I'm Gillis, at the draft next summer I trade for one of the worst contracts in the league (whatever that might be), preferably one on a team that has several -- or one that is bad enough a team might not want to pay it. DiPietro? Then I make that team pay through the nose with picks/prospects and buy the contract out for them. Basically the Canucks could trade tens of millions of dollars for draft picks or prospects/players.
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
$40M remaining on the contract and it's very very far away from happening. If the number is 2/3rd's then that's 27 million straight out of the owners pocket to buy out a guy he likes who will likely immediately go out and get signed to something like a 3-5 year deal for $6-7M per year.
I don't think our owners pockets are that deep. It remains to be seen if the NHL will actually go through with making the original team carry the cap hit if a player retires, but losing the cap space in 2020 something for 2-3 years isn't that big a deal. There are teams in worse cap situations today, like Montreal and Gomez.
DiPietro is pretty much in the same situation dollar wise, may be a bit too expensive to simply buy out. It's not guaranteed but the better gamble would be to hold onto him and hope he retires voluntarily. In my opinion many fans don't really have a good grasp of the value of $$$ within the NHL's cap system, where one team/owner is basically exchanging cash for something like a draft pick. Granted it doesn't happen very often, but the few times it has the rate was something like $4-7M for a late 1st round pick. Vladamir Malakhov from NJ to SJ is one, and I think there was one more but can't recall who it was.
Either way, it gets to the point where realistically it becomes to expensive for a team like the Islanders to sell off DiPietro. While many fans would do it in a second no owner is going to take that contract for a mid-late first, so in the end it's best for the Isles to simply hold onto him and hope he retires.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Player Discussion VIDEO: Swayman/Sweeney Following Contract Extension- Latest: bruinsfan1968
