Buyout clause - Do we use it?

[Barney Gumble]

Also, since you mentioned Mason Raymond...I'm not sure why people (not saying you in particular) have completely written him off as a top 6 forward for this team? I think he has just as much ability to rebound and have a good year as Booth does...and he knows his way around the defensive end, and can PK, not to mention the wage difference.

I think people are more willing to cut Booth some more slack (despite the vast cap difference between the two contracts) since he really hasn't been effectively with the team for even one season. Raymond's been a Canuck his entire career - there shouldn't be an issue of "finding his way within the Canuck system".

 

[Canucker]

"Honestly, I don't care where the "math" says"
-Then don't use terms like "average" as they're purely mathematical.

"And so with that, I have no intention of trying to name 5 other teams that wouldn't slot Booth in, because I would like to think we are one of the 5 teams that doesn't need a sub-standard David Booth in our lineup."
-If you took the time to, I think you'd find that each of those teams simply had superior wing depth to our team. We're definitely not top-5 in that regard, but our depth in other areas is generally superior.

-Also, not sub-standard. Again, statistically above average. You can't use a term like "standard" if you're not able to identify a standard other than personal opinion.

"it might very well be "the going rate" but I'm not interested in that if there are other, better value options that might be available."

-Again, if that's "the going rate," as you have admitted, then any better value options are, by definition, bargains. Why do you think that these bargain top-6 forwards would be readily available? Do you have any actual examples? Are you particularly favourable towards trading Burrows, or even Higgins, for example? Then don't expect other teams to give away their bargains.

"Btw...I'd love to see these "statistics" that prove that David Booth is a wonderful top 6 forward because it's certainly not his goals, assists or point totals."
-They are his goals, assists, and point totals, in fact. Especially when compared league-wide to other second-line forwards. Again, he is above average, nothing more, nothing less. This is even more apparent when opportunity enters into the mix, but it doesn't have to for my statement to be true. You can look them up yourself.

"And FYI, you might want to put the calculator down, put the stats sheets away and actually watch some hockey games, I find it much more entertaining and informative. "
-This is an excellent cap to a generally ignorant post, in which you used logical fallacies like punctuation, spoke oddly emotionally, and even used profanity to try to make your point.

-This paragraph is both a strawman fallacy and a definite ad hominem. I'll let you google those.

-No calculator required, just a set of eyes and an internet connection.

-First of all, I never insinuated that my opinion was superior to yours, only different. However, when this occurs, generally people have to use objective reasoning to argue their point. The only alternative is subjective, meaning the reasoning can change from person to person, which means that such discussion is always circular, pointless, and inconclusive. If that's what you want, I encourage you to explore canucks.com. How else do you propose you are going to prove your point over mine, without using what you laughingly put in quotations as "statistics." Unless, of course, you have some proof that you are a more valid hockey opinion than myself. I can wait...

-Secondly, I did not insinuate that you did not watch enough Canucks games, but rather than you watched too many, and it has left you with a distorted view. You are expecting the Canucks' depth to be uniform, and that is not possible. Not with 30 teams in the league and a salary cap. Again, I am not stating that David Booth is the ideal second-liner for us. Better options do exist, but they are not available. I would love to point out that I am not even a fan of David Booth, and hope he can be replaced, I just think the notion of buying him out makes no logical sense. Until someone of better value becomes available, and acquirable without gutting our depth in other areas, it would be asinine to buyout Booth in anticipation of such a player becoming available. Given that you haven't presented any such options, I must assume that this is in fact what you want to do, and I believe that it is logically nonsensical. I'm sure most reading this will see that, however I do not expect you to. You seem to be relish the illogical, so I'm not sure why you don't suggest we simply wish for a better winger...

-Then don't use terms like "average" as they're purely mathematical.

> Nice to see you completely ignore the context.

-If you took the time to, I think you'd find that each of those teams simply had superior wing depth to our team. We're definitely not top-5 in that regard, but our depth in other areas is generally superior.

> No **** Sherlock. And Booth's lackluster performance is part of the reason we aren't deep on the wings.

-Also, not sub-standard. Again, statistically above average. You can't use a term like "standard" if you're not able to identify a standard other than personal opinion.

> Are you taking into account his poor defense? Do other factors count in assessing his value to the lineup, or is it just his points? And you'd be completely satisfied with a 40 point effort from Booth next season in a top 6 role? Making $4.25m and adding nothing else to the roster? I know I wouldn't.

-Again, if that's "the going rate," as you have admitted, then any better value options are, by definition, bargains. Why do you think that these bargain top-6 forwards would be readily available? Do you have any actual examples? Are you particularly favourable towards trading Burrows, or even Higgins, for example? Then don't expect other teams to give away their bargains.

>Did I say they were "readily available"? Did I say David Booth needs to be replaced toute de suite, did I say he has to be replaced at all? You seem to be the one engineering strawmen here. I am merely saying that David Booth, unless he reverts back into a solid scoring threat, isn't worthy of the $4.25m cap hit to this team and other options should be looked at.

-They are his goals, assists, and point totals, in fact. Especially when compared league-wide to other second-line forwards. Again, he is above average, nothing more, nothing less. This is even more apparent when opportunity enters into the mix, but it doesn't have to for my statement to be true. You can look them up yourself.

>I find it extremely hard to believe that there are numbers that you can procure that can accurately tell what the average 2nd liner should/does score. There are too many variables and moving parts. But if you want to hang your hat on that, be my guest.

-This is an excellent cap to a generally ignorant post, in which you used logical fallacies like punctuation, spoke oddly emotionally, and even used profanity to try to make your point.

> Wow...you nailed it. Superb deductive skills.

-This paragraph is both a strawman fallacy and a definite ad hominem. I'll let you google those.

> Right back atcha Champ.

-No calculator required, just a set of eyes and an internet connection.

> I notice you didn't mention a brain

-First of all, I never insinuated that my opinion was superior to yours, only different. However, when this occurs, generally people have to use objective reasoning to argue their point. The only alternative is subjective, meaning the reasoning can change from person to person, which means that such discussion is always circular, pointless, and inconclusive. If that's what you want, I encourage you to explore canucks.com. How else do you propose you are going to prove your point over mine, without using what you laughingly put in quotations as "statistics." Unless, of course, you have some proof that you are a more valid hockey opinion than myself. I can wait...

> I know you would "insinuate" that, because it wouldn't be right. The fact of the matter is, you haven't shown any facts or figures that prove any of the points you've feebly attempted to make. So everything you've said is pretty much a subjective load of monkey ****. And my hockey opinion is more valid than yours because its mine, your opinion means nothing to me...just sayin'.

-Secondly, I did not insinuate that you did not watch enough Canucks games, but rather than you watched too many, and it has left you with a distorted view. You are expecting the Canucks' depth to be uniform, and that is not possible. Not with 30 teams in the league and a salary cap. Again, I am not stating that David Booth is the ideal second-liner for us. Better options do exist, but they are not available. I would love to point out that I am not even a fan of David Booth, and hope he can be replaced, I just think the notion of buying him out makes no logical sense. Until someone of better value becomes available, and acquirable without gutting our depth in other areas, it would be asinine to buyout Booth in anticipation of such a player becoming available. Given that you haven't presented any such options, I must assume that this is in fact what you want to do, and I believe that it is logically nonsensical. I'm sure most reading this will see that, however I do not expect you to. You seem to be relish the illogical, so I'm not sure why you don't suggest we simply wish for a better winger.

> Once again you seem to be fabricating something where nothing exists. I'm not suggesting we buyout David Booth ASAP, I'm not even suggesting he needs to be bought out at all. I'm simply saying that if he has another crap season, where he shows he has no chemistry with Kesler, can't be moved up or down in the lineup and continues to cause a stir with his tweets, then he SHOULD be a consideration for a buyout. Especially if a better top 6 player becomes available, or perhaps if Kassian is ready for a top 6 role, or maybe Mason Raymond has a miraculous rebound season, or if Jensen looks like he's ready to make the jump next season. These would all be reasons to consider the possibility of buying out Booth if he isn't performing, or doesn't fit the structure of the team going forward. Soooo illogical.

 

[Canucker]

I think people are more willing to cut Booth some more slack (despite the vast cap difference between the two contracts) since he really hasn't been effectively with the team for even one season. Raymond's been a Canuck his entire career - there shouldn't be an issue of "finding his way within the Canuck system".

I don't think either of them are great bets to put up numbers near their career bests, but at least Raymond knows his way around the defensive zone, can play 3rd or 2nd line and PK if he's not scoring. What do you do with a non-scoring David Booth? And I'm not a big Raymond fan.

I hate coming off like I hate David Booth, because I don't...I just don't see him being an effective player on this team the way it currently stands.

 

[Barney Gumble]

I don't think either of them are great bets to put up numbers near their career bests, but at least Raymond knows his way around the defensive zone, can play 3rd or 2nd line and PK if he's not scoring. What do you do with a non-scoring David Booth?

I don't think not even one complete season is enough time to evaluate a player (he scored at a 20+ goal pace - so it's not like that abbreviated season was a complete write-off either). Think this upcoming season will tell us where he fits in the long-term plans of the Canucks. I say this to a certain extent about Edler as well.

 

[Canucker]

I don't think not even one complete season is enough time to evaluate a player. Think this upcoming season will tell us where he fits in the long-term plans of the Canucks. I say this to a certain extent about Edler as well.

I agree with the bolded...thats why I think he's a buyout consideration. If he doesn't fit, or an upgrade is available, buy him out.

 

[stevecanuck16]

> Once again you seem to be fabricating something where nothing exists. I'm not suggesting we buyout David Booth ASAP, I'm not even suggesting he needs to be bought out at all. I'm simply saying that if he has another crap season, where he shows he has no chemistry with Kesler, can't be moved up or down in the lineup and continues to cause a stir with his tweets, then he SHOULD be a consideration for a buyout. Especially if a better top 6 player becomes available, or perhaps if Kassian is ready for a top 6 role, or maybe Mason Raymond has a miraculous rebound season, or if Jensen looks like he's ready to make the jump next season. These would all be reasons to consider the possibility of buying out Booth if he isn't performing, or doesn't fit the structure of the team going forward. Soooo illogical.

Ignoring the rest of the post where you, again, simply show a lack of understanding of the difference between objective and subjective reasoning, I actually agree with what you're saying here. (In terms of replacing Booth if he does not improve). I have said as much. (I literally said that I hoped we could find a replacement for Booth without losing depth elsewhere.) However, if you look back at the thread, and some of your own posts, that isn't what was being said.

This is, after all, a thread about the theoretical one-time amnesty buyout, which would only occur before the next season or partial season is played to accommodate a lower cap. So your new point about how what you really meant was that Booth could be bought out after a very poor season is irrelevant to the thread, as this buyout would only occur before a season is played. If that's what you're arguing about, you have not been reading the thread, as I have not discussed anything beyond this off-season.

Also, it is unrealistic to even suggest that Booth could be bought out at all after a season is played, as at that point it would require a regular buyout, which would mean we would carry 2/3's of his cap hit thereafter, which is not going to happen on a team like the Canucks, and would certainly prevent us from finding an improvement. Even if that improvement were internal, such as Raymond, we would have to then fit in their earned pay raise with Booth's buyout caphit while under a reduced cap. Huh?

Also, you still haven't mentioned anyone else that would be readily available. So if I understand you correctly, you're now arguing that after a season or partial season is played, and when the cap is definitely lowered, we should buyout David Booth and carry 2/3rds of his caphit AND also acquire an improvement, WITHOUT losing depth in other areas? How, exactly? I'd like to hear one realistic proposal for this.

PS: Small point I really have to make. There is no context required for my statement on "average" or "standard." They are purely mathematical terms, you cannot have an average without using statistics. This is fact, not conjecture.

 

[Canucker]

Ignoring the rest of the post where you, again, simply show a lack of understanding of the difference between objective and subjective reasoning, I actually agree with what you're saying here. (In terms of replacing Booth if he does not improve). I have said as much. (I literally said that I hoped we could find a replacement for Booth without losing depth elsewhere.) However, if you look back at the thread, and some of your own posts, that isn't what was being said.

This is, after all, a thread about the theoretical one-time amnesty buyout, which would only occur before the next season or partial season is played to accommodate a lower cap. So your new point about how what you really meant was that Booth could be bought out after a very poor season is irrelevant to the thread, as this buyout would only occur before a season is played. If that's what you're arguing about, you have not been reading the thread, as I have not discussed anything beyond this off-season.

Also, it is unrealistic to even suggest that Booth could be bought out at all after a season is played, as at that point it would require a regular buyout, which would mean we would carry 2/3's of his cap hit thereafter, which is not going to happen on a team like the Canucks, and would certainly prevent us from finding an improvement. Even if that improvement were internal, such as Raymond, we would have to then fit in their earned pay raise with Booth's buyout caphit while under a reduced cap. Huh?

Also, you still haven't mentioned anyone else that would be readily available. So if I understand you correctly, you're now arguing that after a season or partial season is played, and when the cap is definitely lowered, we should buyout David Booth and carry 2/3rds of his caphit AND also acquire an improvement, WITHOUT losing depth in other areas? How, exactly? I'd like to hear one realistic proposal for this.

PS: Small point I really have to make. There is no context required for my statement on "average" or "standard." They are purely mathematical terms, you cannot have an average without using statistics. This is fact, not conjecture.

The amnesty buyouts are to be made prior to the 2013-14 season...so if there is a partial season players can be bought out after it. Might want to look that up.

I haven't mentioned anyone else who is readily available because I'm not privy to all that information, as I'm not a GM. However, I have named several internal candidates, and we do have assets that can likely bring back a top 6 player if necessary.

As for the bolded, I have no clue what you are suggesting here...what are you saying?

And for the "PS"...grow up.

 

[Seatoo]

I don't think not even one complete season is enough time to evaluate a player (he scored at a 20+ goal pace - so it's not like that abbreviated season was a complete write-off either). Think this upcoming season will tell us where he fits in the long-term plans of the Canucks. I say this to a certain extent about Edler as well.

Best post in the thread!

 

[stevecanuck16]

The amnesty buyouts are to be made prior to the 2013-14 season...so if there is a partial season players can be bought out after it. Might want to look that up.

I haven't mentioned anyone else who is readily available because I'm not privy to all that information, as I'm not a GM. However, I have named several internal candidates, and we do have assets that can likely bring back a top 6 player if necessary.

As for the bolded, I have no clue what you are suggesting here...what are you saying?

And for the "PS"...grow up.

You're wrong, quite simply. Every report I have seen (and that is all that we have, reports) has implied that any amnesty buyout would be put into place immediately to allow teams to fit under a suddenly much lower cap. What other reason would there be for an amnesty buyout? Can you provide a link to this information, as it is not what is being discussed in the thread. I can't "look it up," as you say, because there is no actual CBA in place yet.

As for the PS, can you explain why it was immature of me to explain to you what the words you were using meant? Do you disagree with what I'm saying, or are you now just upset that I said it?

 

[Nuckles]

You're wrong, quite simply. Every report I have seen (and that is all that we have, reports) has implied that any amnesty buyout would be put into place immediately to allow teams to fit under a suddenly much lower cap. What other reason would there be for an amnesty buyout? Can you provide a link to this information, as it is not what is being discussed in the thread. I can't "look it up," as you say, because there is no actual CBA in place yet.

As for the PS, can you explain why it was immature of me to explain to you what the words you were using meant? Do you disagree with what I'm saying, or are you now just upset that I said it?

Look again.
The amnesty buyouts are the off-season before the 2013/14 season. They wouldn't occur until June/July.

Google "NHL lockout amnesty buyouts"
First link: http://www.defendingbigd.com/2013/1/3/3832238/nhl-lockout-2013-cba-talks-nhlpa-deal-agreement

The big news of the night was that the NHL has agreed to two compliance buyouts per team following the conclusion of the 2012-2013 season.

Edit: Looking at your post, you seem to be under the impression that IF the season is saved, that the cap would be lowered. It wont be. The cap for the 2012/13 season is $70.2 mil. The talks about lowering the cap is for 2013/14, so teams wont have to panic about fitting under the new cap until the off-season.

 

[Canucker]

You're wrong, quite simply. Every report I have seen (and that is all that we have, reports) has implied that any amnesty buyout would be put into place immediately to allow teams to fit under a suddenly much lower cap. What other reason would there be for an amnesty buyout? Can you provide a link to this information, as it is not what is being discussed in the thread. I can't "look it up," as you say, because there is no actual CBA in place yet.

As for the PS, can you explain why it was immature of me to explain to you what the words you were using meant? Do you disagree with what I'm saying, or are you now just upset that I said it?

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/two-amnesty-buyouts-lets-dumb-nhl-teams-off-144131648--nhl.html

Because you are being purposely obtuse...I said I didn't care about the math as it pertains to where Booth fits amongst top 6 players. Where the "average" garbage you came up with has nothing to do with anything.

 

[stevecanuck16]

Source on the cap remaining $70.2 in the event of a half-season? I haven't seen that. Most teams did not even approach it, as the understanding was that the figure was temporary. The league did not want to play under the old CBA terms.

As for Canucker, I realize that I will not change your mind, but I do have to ask this. If you have no desire to discuss things with objective reasoning, and admit that subjective reasoning has no power to sway your or any other, what discussion is there to be had? Two people arguing subjectively will never result in a resolution, it's just circular. This is a discussion board, not an opinion corner, and there is a difference. If we cannot argue objectively, there is really no point in arguing, is there?

As well, count me out of hypothetical discussions, such as what if David Booth has an awful season. They're as pointless as arguing subjectively. The future hasn't occurred yet, so nobody is right. Pointless.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Source on the cap remaining $70.2 in the event of a half-season? I haven't seen that. Most teams did not even approach it, as the understanding was that the figure was temporary. The league did not want to play under the old CBA terms.

As for Canucker, I realize that I will not change your mind, but I do have to ask this. If you have no desire to discuss things with objective reasoning, and admit that subjective reasoning has no power to sway your or any other, what discussion is there to be had? Two people arguing subjectively will never result in a resolution, it's just circular. This is a discussion board, not an opinion corner, and there is a difference. If we cannot argue objectively, there is really no point in arguing, is there?

As well, count me out of hypothetical discussions, such as what if David Booth has an awful season. They're as pointless as arguing subjectively. The future hasn't occurred yet, so nobody is right. Pointless.

You're wrong when you suggest the cap will drop immediately for the 2012-13 season. This season will be operating under a $70.2M cap if there is a season. It's the 2013-14 season that may drop to between $60-65M.

 

[Nuckles]

Source on the cap remaining $70.2 in the event of a half-season? I haven't seen that. Most teams did not even approach it, as the understanding was that the figure was temporary. The league did not want to play under the old CBA terms.

Look on TSN or Google. We're not search engines, we've just been listening to what reporters have stated.

We've already proven you wrong about the amnesty buyouts, and they're in the off-season for a reason: to allow teams to free up cap space when the cap drops (in 2013/14).
If the cap drops right away, then half of the league is over the cap and they have no way of freeing up that space.

 

[Canucker]

Source on the cap remaining $70.2 in the event of a half-season? I haven't seen that. Most teams did not even approach it, as the understanding was that the figure was temporary. The league did not want to play under the old CBA terms.

As for Canucker, I realize that I will not change your mind, but I do have to ask this. If you have no desire to discuss things with objective reasoning, and admit that subjective reasoning has no power to sway your or any other, what discussion is there to be had? Two people arguing subjectively will never result in a resolution, it's just circular. This is a discussion board, not an opinion corner, and there is a difference. If we cannot argue objectively, there is really no point in arguing, is there?

As well, count me out of hypothetical discussions, such as what if David Booth has an awful season. They're as pointless as arguing subjectively. The future hasn't occurred yet, so nobody is right. Pointless.

The fact you think you are using "objective reasoning" and that I'm the only one being "subjective" is kind of comical. Is it because I have a different opinion than you on David Booth that you think I'm not being objective? Or is it that you don't believe you have an opinion of David Booth and you think you are just putting forth "objectively reasoned" facts about him?

Also, this might be a discussion board, but 90% of the discussion here is based on opinions and speculations. Not sure how you couldn't have noticed that?

 

[Drop the Sopel]

As well, count me out of hypothetical discussions, such as what if David Booth has an awful season. They're as pointless as arguing subjectively. The future hasn't occurred yet, so nobody is right. Pointless.

You've really lost your way in this thread. It's absolutely relevant to say if Booth has a poor season he may not be here for the '13-14 season because that's when the $60mil cap could potentially come into play - hence the Canucks would be forced to make tough roster decisions to get under the cap.

And I could give 2 thick ***** where David Booth slots in on the Columbus Blue Jackets or NY Islanders. If his salary hinders our chances of re-signing superior players on our own team or acquiring upgrades, adios. That's the math I care about.

 

[racerjoe]

Also, since you mentioned Mason Raymond...I'm not sure why people (not saying you in particular) have completely written him off as a top 6 forward for this team? I think he has just as much ability to rebound and have a good year as Booth does...and he knows his way around the defensive end, and can PK, not to mention the wage difference.

I think I may be a lone on this, (in the entire HF boards site) but I think Raymond is a very capable player. I do not think he fits with the way we are currently constructed, but IMO he is probably a 20/30 guy for about 50 points. With a really strong 2 way game.

 

[Canucker]

I think I may be a lone on this, (in the entire HF boards site) but I think Raymond is a very capable player. I do not think he fits with the way we are currently constructed, but IMO he is probably a 20/30 guy for about 50 points. With a really strong 2 way game.

Unfortunately for Raymond he's played himself out of a top 6 role, but what he has going for him over Booth is that he's actually had success playing with Kesler in the past. He's got the skills and the speed to be effective, but it remains to be seen whether or not he can take some steps forward and rekindle his offensive game.

 

[stevecanuck16]

I admit my mistake on the cap dropping. Still, that leaves the discussion to hypotheticals, which is pointless. You'll notice I never strayed from arguing about the here and now, so I'm not sure then what you were finding so objectionable in what I was saying. It seems like we agree in regards to the here and now, and that's the only thing worth discussing, to me. I stand by the statement that Booth, as of right now, does not deserve to be bought out. That seems to be agreeable. Also, as of right now, there are no better options, so your argument rests on two hypotheticals. I guess we will have to wait and see.

However, why are we discussing what we will do when Booth flames out, yet in the same thread saying "give Mason Raymond a chance"? Does it not seem obvious that there's something else at work here? When the whole Twitter thing is constantly mentioned...it seems as though a genuine dislike of him as a person is leading to these hypotheticals rather than any objective reasoning. Again, you don't think David Booth can bounce back a bit, but we shouldn't count out Mason Raymond? No bias there.

Again, as of right now, David Booth is the best option for our second line. Until that changes, hoping to see him fail so that we can justify buying him out is pointless and the sign of a spoiled fanbase. Who wouldn't want to sign here?

 

[Canucker]

I admit my mistake on the cap dropping. Still, that leaves the discussion to hypotheticals, which is pointless. You'll notice I never strayed from arguing about the here and now, so I'm not sure then what you were finding so objectionable in what I was saying. It seems like we agree in regards to the here and now, and that's the only thing worth discussing, to me. I stand by the statement that Booth, as of right now, does not deserve to be bought out. That seems to be agreeable. Also, as of right now, there are no better options, so your argument rests on two hypotheticals. I guess we will have to wait and see.

However, why are we discussing what we will do when Booth flames out, yet in the same thread saying "give Mason Raymond a chance"? Does it not seem obvious that there's something else at work here? When the whole Twitter thing is constantly mentioned...it seems as though a genuine dislike of him as a person is leading to these hypotheticals rather than any objective reasoning. Again, you don't think David Booth can bounce back a bit, but we shouldn't count out Mason Raymond? No bias there.

Again, as of right now, David Booth is the best option for our second line. Until that changes, hoping to see him fail so that we can justify buying him out is pointless and the sign of a spoiled fanbase. Who wouldn't want to sign here?

Who said anything about "WHEN Booth flames out"? It's always been "if"...you have some uncanny ability to create narratives that don't exist. And I never said David Booth CAN'T bounce back, he most certainly can...but so can Mason Raymond.

I'm not sure why you are so defensive of Booth? Do you guys go to the same church or something? I can't help but feel that you think there is some sort of unwarranted persecution because some people on Twitter bash him? Let me assure you, as vile as I find his religious views, his hunting practices and his political leanings I don't give a rats ass as long as he's earning his keep on the scoreboard. I'll cheer him until I'm blue in the face if he helps bring the Canucks a cup...but if he ***** the bed, I'm gonna express my displeasure and not have any qualms about seeing him leave...same as virtually any other player on the roster.

 

[stevecanuck16]

Who said anything about "WHEN Booth flames out"? It's always been "if"...you have some uncanny ability to create narratives that don't exist. And I never said David Booth CAN'T bounce back, he most certainly can...but so can Mason Raymond.

I'm not sure why you are so defensive of Booth? Do you guys go to the same church or something? I can't help but feel that you think there is some sort of unwarranted persecution because some people on Twitter bash him? Let me assure you, as vile as I find his religious views, his hunting practices and his political leanings I don't give a rats ass as long as he's earning his keep on the scoreboard. I'll cheer him until I'm blue in the face if he helps bring the Canucks a cup...but if he ***** the bed, I'm gonna express my displeasure and not have any qualms about seeing him leave...same as virtually any other player on the roster.

Okay, if it's hypotheticals we're talking, feel free to. The future's not ours to see. I won't be participating, and I haven't discussed the future thus far. I don't think there's any reason, however, to believe Booth won't improve with a full season, so let's discuss the here and now. Again, not interested in anything but as I personally find such discussion pointless.

As for the church comments, not doing much for the personal bias thing. Again, I'm a vocal atheist, anti-hunting, and really not a fan of Booth personally. That's why this has personally bothered me, as I dislike seeing people with similar views to myself pushing them on others. Our views are based on logic and reason, they will bear themselves out without pushing. Don't expect others to conform to your personal views on morality, that's all.

As for the original argument on whether David Booth is sub-standard CURRENTLY, his last season is sub-standard by his own standards, absolutely. But by 2nd-line winger standards? I hate breaking out statistics for people who don't seem to respect them, but here we go. Last season, on a bad season by his standard and his first on a new team, he produced at a 20 goal pace. Puts him at 55th for his position in points 47th for goals, still within the top-60, and probably closer to 40 when adjusted for time missed. Again, this is a bad year on a new team with injury problems. Was he streaky? Yes, but all 20 goal scorers are. Given his history, if he bounces back he will produce at about a 25-30 goal pace, which would instantly vault him into the top-30 for his position, which is technically first-line production. Only 26 players scored 25 goals last year. I cannot stress enough how inflated your expectations are here.

Only David Booth has shown this sort of potential amongst the various 2nd line winger candidates to reach this sort of production. And yet, we're talking about buying him out instead of his potential to the team. That's not occurring for any other player, and combined with the frequent comments on his personal life, it's troublesome to see. Again, I agree with your personal beliefs, not your application of them. Unless you think David Booth will show zero improvement or regression this year, I think I've shown that his production will definitely be up to par.

 

[Canucker]

Okay, if it's hypotheticals we're talking, feel free to. The future's not ours to see. I won't be participating, and I haven't discussed the future thus far. I don't think there's any reason, however, to believe Booth won't improve with a full season, so let's discuss the here and now. Again, not interested in anything but as I personally find such discussion pointless.

As for the church comments, not doing much for the personal bias thing. Again, I'm a vocal atheist, anti-hunting, and really not a fan of Booth personally. That's why this has personally bothered me, as I dislike seeing people with similar views to myself pushing them on others. Our views are based on logic and reason, they will bear themselves out without pushing. Don't expect others to conform to your personal views on morality, that's all.

As for the original argument on whether David Booth is sub-standard CURRENTLY, his last season is sub-standard by his own standards, absolutely. But by 2nd-line winger standards? I hate breaking out statistics for people who don't seem to respect them, but here we go. Last season, on a bad season by his standard and his first on a new team, he produced at a 20 goal pace. Puts him at 55th for his position in points 47th for goals, still within the top-60, and probably closer to 40 when adjusted for time missed. Again, this is a bad year on a new team with injury problems. Was he streaky? Yes, but all 20 goal scorers are. Given his history, if he bounces back he will produce at about a 25-30 goal pace, which would instantly vault him into the top-30 for his position, which is technically first-line production. Only 26 players scored 25 goals last year. I cannot stress enough how inflated your expectations are here.

Only David Booth has shown this sort of potential amongst the various 2nd line winger candidates to reach this sort of production. And yet, we're talking about buying him out instead of his potential to the team. That's not occurring for any other player, and combined with the frequent comments on his personal life, it's troublesome to see. Again, I agree with your personal beliefs, not your application of them. Unless you think David Booth will show zero improvement or regression this year, I think I've shown that his production will definitely be up to par.

Some views are archaic and wrong and I don't mind saying so, I feel its my duty as an evolved human stand up to those who spread ignorance...I'm not abusive or harassing about it but it won't stand with me.

On Booth himself, I have no clue as to how well he will do this season...I hope he breaks out and scores 35 goals, but after watching him last season I don't hold out a whole lot of hope for that to happen. Do you think his 2010-11 season was a bad one too? I think it seems more along the lines of normal for him (23g-17a=40pts). I don't think thats a performance that justifies a $4.25m/year contract on a contending team. Sure, if he scores like 2008-09, he's most definitely worth it, even if he scores 30g-20a he'd be worth it, but he needs to be better than 2011-12 and 2010-11 if he's not going to be talked about for buyouts in the future.

And 59 players scored over 25 goals last year, not 26.

Also...why is David Booth the only player who has shown "this sort of potential amongst the various 2nd line winger candidates"? Mason Raymond's career year was 53 points on the 2nd line, Booth's was 60 points on the top line in Florida...why do you dismiss Raymond so easily and pump Booth's tires so readily? Both could have turnaround years...the potential is there.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I agree with the bolded...thats why I think he's a buyout consideration. If he doesn't fit, or an upgrade is available, buy him out.

The evaluation of Booth that is occurring here is Booth vs. potential field. In such a scenario, there's no way to accurately "defend" Booth against that.




Keeping/Moving Booth comes down to his season, what else is available in FA, or what the return is in trade. I'm guessing that the other options won't bring a player as good, or better value, so it's likely Booth is retained. But no way to know for sure until we actually see what's out there in FA, or get a sense of what he can be traded for via rumour/report.

 

[Canucker]

The evaluation of Booth that is occurring here is Booth vs. potential field. In such a scenario, there's no way to accurately "defend" Booth against that.




Keeping/Moving Booth comes down to his season, what else is available in FA, or what the return is in trade. I'm guessing that the other options won't bring a player as good, or better value, so it's likely Booth is retained. But no way to know for sure until we actually see what's out there in FA, or get a sense of what he can be traded for via rumour/report.

I agree for the most part, but we'll see. Who knows what the future holds? I think our 2nd line runs on Kesler's engine and if he's not firing on all cylinders it doesn't really matter who else is on his line, he'll sink it.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I agree for the most part, but we'll see. Who knows what the future holds? I think our 2nd line runs on Kesler's engine and if he's not firing on all cylinders it doesn't really matter who else is on his line, he'll sink it.

I agree, and that's been part of the problem trying to find wingers to mesh with him. That line goes if Kesler goes. It sinks if Kesler sinks. Meaning, it can't do well when Kesler is just mediocre, because that requires chemistry too, something that has been difficult to maintain because he is such a solo-artist type player.