View Single Post
Old
01-04-2013, 10:51 PM
  #175
stevecanuck16
Registered User
 
stevecanuck16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,417
vCash: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post


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.
"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...

stevecanuck16 is offline   Reply With Quote