Gump,you do not want to discuss whether Booth should have been acquired ,at all.
That has been the basis of my discussion but now you deem it to be not relevant.I see.
Due to serious medical concerns,firstly,his LARGE($4.5 million -$4.75 million in 2014) salary- considering his precarious health status - and then whether or not he even fits on this team(should he remain healthy enough to continue his career) are additional topics of conversation that are highly trade specific.
Samuelsson was paid $2.5 and is half of Booth's salary and none of the risk.
With a plethora of free agents available Gillis.org spends 4.5 million clams on a three time brain injured winger that did not compliment his centre man on many nights.Super.
The team had a solid winger that was not a medical liability as Booth is and Gillis .org went out and paid near double for a winger that also has had one 30 goal season and is arguably a similar winger for the Canucks.
There is a world of healthy free agents.Why take a large risk -at all? It is medically ignorant and irresponsible to have taken Booth on.
As long as the NHL owners and GM's remain ignorant on this subject I doubt the fan base will clue in any quicker.
I was looking to separate the various points so as to make our disussion clearer. This being said, we were discussing the Booth trade. The point which I made (which you were sort of addressing from my previous post) was that if Booth wasn't acquired, who would the Canucks have put in his spot? You kinda' passed that by.
The guys on the team, at that time, on the left wing were Sedin, Sturm, Raymond and Higgins.(plus various 4th liners).
Sturm had shown that he was no longer up to being a top-6 winger. Raymond was still in a back brace. Which would leave Higgins. If you put Higgins on the 2nd line, what would happen to the 3rd line? Pretty much it would fall apart.
On the right side, the Canucks had Burrows, Samuelsson and Hansen (plus some 4th liners). Of these three, Burrows is a great player with an even greater cap hit. Hansen is perhaps the best 3rd line right winger in the league (okay, some will disagree with me. It's my opiinion. Deal with it. ).
Samuelsson is no longer the player he once was, whenever that was. He was only sporadically good when he was with Vancouver. He had one parts of one really good season and playoff series in a Vancouver uniform, the rest of the time he tended to disappear, like in the heavy hitting series' against Chicago where a guy who is 6' 2" 218 lbs throwing his weight around would be really useful to have on your team. And (as previously mentioned) he was never really a good 2nd liner, outside of portions of one good season here.
So, I made the point that getting Booth for Sturm and Samuelsson was a good deal, financially and for hockey reasons. I pointed out that Booth had more goals than Samuelsson, played in more games than Samuelsson, and has more of a future here than Samuelsson had. And I also pointed out that he is a very low risk acquisition (even with his previous medical history), for if he does go on LTIR or is forced to retire due to injury, he's still covered and the team gets to take him off their cap, AND, the Canucks did not give up any valuable assets to get him.
Samuelsson has become injury prone. He could sustain an injury in training and retire tomorrow. Detroit would be stuck with him on their books for the next two years.
Which team is at greater risk? You say Vancouver, I say Detroit. Which player is at greater risk? Booth. These are different points of discussion.
If Booth were not acquired by the Canucks, who do you think Gillis should have tried to pick up for the 2nd line right wing? If Gillis was to pick up a UFA then who would it be? He did sign Sturm (a move which puzzled me). If he hadn't signed Sturm, who should he have gone after? How much money/term should have been offered? Strurm signed for a little over $2 million. Who do you think Gillis could have gotten for that kind of money?
Let's assume Samuelsson and Sturm weren't traded. Do you think that they were good enough to be the 2nd line wingers on this club?
Should Gillis have traded for someone other than Booth? If so, who? What do you think the Canucks would have had to give up to get this guy? And remember, Gillis likes to play close to the cap so there's not a lot of free money, so whatever you give up should come close to what the salary is of the guy coming in, kind of like what Gillis did in the Booth trade.
The above is what I was meaning when I made the comment about the "Proposals" section.
One reason you don't like the acquisition of Booth is he does not compliment Kesler (and there are some valid concerns here). Well, aside from some of his first season here (as I previously mentioned), neither did Samuelsson. You complain that Gillis traded for a guy who had one 30 goal season. Booth also broke the 20 goal mark, twice, and in half the number of seasons that Samuelsson has played, who broke the 30 goal mark here, once, and got over 20 somewhere else, also only once. In total production, Booth has about 70% the number of goals that Samuelsson has, and in only 2/3 the number of games. Not huge, but still not bad.
So, once again I have pointed out to you that Booth is a better player than Samuelsson, has more future potential and even if he should suffer from another head injury (yes, hopefully not), the team is covered. Further, as I pointed out in my previous post, the only hockey risk is the lost time and possible resources while the team tries to find a replacement, much like they were doing last year and this with Kesler out with a back injury, or Raymond starting last season with a back injury, or Malhotra starting last season with an eye injury, and so on.
You once again stress that there needs to be greater education with regard to head injury in sports. *"I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!"*
You say that, "It is medically ignorant and irresponsible to have taken Booth on." Okay. Let me pose a slightly altered version of a question I posed previously. If it was irresponsible of Gillis to acquire Booth, and then play him knowing that there is a chance that Booth could sustain a career ending and life altering concussion, why was it any less irresponsible for Florida to trade Booth in the first place? Why hasn't the NHL or NHLPA spoken up about the trading of this vulnerable player? And if Florida hadn't traded Booth in the first place, should they have played him last year knowing that he could sustain a career ending concussion? If the answer to this last part is yes, then why is it not okay for Vancouver to have acquired Booth and then play him?
If a player's doctors clear the player to play, and the team's doctors clear the player to play, and the NHL and NHLPA clear the player to play, and the guy has a valid contract, who is to say he can't play? And if the player has a valid contract and has medical clearance to play, but the team or the NHL says no, they will be in court, facing that player's lawyer.
Having said that, him and booth know and assume The risks.
Pretty much sums it up.