Buyout clause - Do we use it?
View Single Post
01-04-2013, 10:20 PM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Originally Posted by
Get out of here with your logic and mathematics!
Seriously, the Booth thing has been done to death, and the statistics have shone through in his favour each and every time. Booth is statistically an above-average second liner, and is fairly paid for his contributions. As Wisp said, higher expectations are solely due to being spoiled as a Canucks fan. Not just in having a great deal of discounts around the roster, but also in having one of the better second-liners in the NHL in Ryan Kesler.
It's very frustrating to see the same opinions proven wrong statistically, namely that David Booth is a sub-standard second liner, and then parroted again in each thread as if the individual posters lose their memory from thread to thread. But I guess if I don't want to see that, I'd better get off the internet.
In the main board, the league roster thread just got updated. Canucker, Sopel, go look at that thread and find me 5 other rosters on which Booth would not instantly slot into one of the top two lines. It will be difficult, and that should clue you in to why people are shaking their heads at your opinion.
Is there a better option out there than David Booth for our second line? Absolutely. But to use that as a reason to buy him out, with no real prospects of acquiring a replacement, would be piss-poor asset management on Gillis's part.
Also, Canucker, I have to point out how stupid your comment of "Maybe thats the going rate these days but its overpaid IMO" was. The "going rate" is the only objective measure of whether a player is paid fairly or not, anything else is, by definition, a result of your personal bias. In this case, I think it's simply that you haven't come to terms with the rapid salary inflation that has occurred in recent years.
Where did I say Booth is going to be bought out, or even should be at this point? I think your indignant outrage at this is quite humorous.
Honestly, I don't care where the "math" says David Booth fits amongst top 6 players around the league. Anyone who actually watches the game with any sort of discerning eye can tell that David Booth is a one dimensional scorer, who when he isn't scoring (which is all too often recently) isn't adding anything of value to the roster. I'm sure there are 20 or so teams that would love to have David Booth in their top 6...hell I'd like to have 2008-09 David Booth in our lineup, the point is there are a lot of ****** teams in this league, and a lot of average teams in this league and thats where David Booth (in his current form) is a great top 6 forward...not on a team that wants to contend. 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 he isn't substandard this season (hopefully), then its a moot point.
As for your ignorant attack of my comment, it's called an "opinion"...I believe that $4.25m/year spent on a one dimensional, 40 point winger is an overpayment, 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.
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.
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.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Canucker