Posted 03 October 2008 - 02:14 PM
The fact that he was picked indicates that he is one of, if not the best, at what he does.
Yes there are players like Ruutu, Avery, Tucker that play a similar role however who is overall the most beneficial to their team?
Ruutu, 3 times the salary for the same player (Don't get me wrong I love Ruutu but expensive for what he does) He has more offesive talent (as seen in the shoot-out) but is more of a liability for minor penalties.
Avery, is innovative in trying to invent new ways to push the envelope of agitating however his history of antics leaves a team with too many question marks on whether he will help or hinder his team.
Tucker, Avery minus the off ice stuff, on the decline and his point totals in Toronto seem to be an aboration as he's vanished off the face of the earth. Again, a risk to take him because his salary is too much for what he "potentially" could do. Why not stick with what you have?
You know what you're going to get, 30 points 10-15 goals, 100+ pims and at fair market value.
Although the trend of toughness is further on the rise, teams still need playmaking ability at a reasonable price.
So would you rather have:
Burrows and 10 mil to spend on Free-Agents / Trade
(room to add 1st line forward ie. Gaborik at 9mil)
Avery and 6.6 mil to spend
(room to add Jeff Finger)
Thank you Lou, for all the memories