Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

Just trade em already....


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#61 LeanBeef

LeanBeef

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,214 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:26 AM

Yeah he was struggling but come on.

I was looking at Florida's boards last summer and I remember reading a thread about the Booth trade and a fan said that "we traded our best winger".

So if they considered him there best, I do too. Yes he was struggling but in his overall time there he was probably there best.

He was "there" best winger until they acquired Fleischmann and Versteeg.

Oh, and how were you able to read about the Booth signing during the summer? He was traded a few games into the season.

Not taking anything away from Booth, he's a great player and is a very good second liner, but he lacks some hockey sense and defensive ability. His numbers were inflated by a great playmaker in Weiss and one of the best powerforwards in Horton.

Not saying he can't reach his previous point totals, but he just needs to be comfortable playing in Vancouver's lineup.

I hope that he'll have a James Neal type of year this season... That is if there is a season
  • 0
Sig too big.
"Being a Canuck fan, maybe sometime down the road be a Vancouver Canuck.... that would conquer all my dreams"
-Milan Lucic

#62 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,139 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:37 AM

You are nuts if you think that Booth wasn't a cap dump. If Booth was so valuable, you really think that Tallon couldn't have found something better around the NHL than 2 veterans on expiring contracts - the definition of a cap dump? He had no interest in retaining either Sturm or Samuelsson, from the get-go, which is obvious to all that aren't biased Canuck fans who view this as a "hockey trade".

"Balancing his lineup with veterans" is funny, seeing as in the summer added Jovanovski, Upshall, Campbell, etc. The goal was to get rid of David Booth's bloated contract, an objective very obvious to anyone but the biased Canuck fan like yourself.


You can sure be dense at times. Earlier you defined dumping a player for prospects as by definition a cap dump.
You've also been arguing that we should have kept Samuelsson and re-signed him instead of trading him for Booth. Now here you are implying that he was disposable and that Tallon had no real interest in him other than to get rid of Booth. As usual, you are speaking for someone else, and imo failing as usual. You have no idea whether Tallon intended to re-sign Samuelsson or not.

You also jump all over the place contradicting yourself and still make unlimited posts claiming other people don't know what they're tallking about. From one post to the next you have no idea what your own position is.

Adding veteran guys like Campbell and Jovo is exactly what I was talking about king. Tallon was adding players at positions they needed more experience to mix into the young makeup of that franchise.
Do I need to spell it out to you? Without those two veterans, their blueline had a 26, 21, 20, and 23 year old - with one veteran, MIke Weaver. Evidently you don't bother to think before you argue.
  • 0

#63 frazzY

frazzY

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,390 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 09

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:03 PM

Booth hunts for sport. Shane obrien likes to drink n party and skip practices. Patrick kane likes to bang sloots. Players are people too, they can do whatever they want in there free time
  • 0

#64 komodo1970

komodo1970

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:52 PM

Roberto Luongo- doesn,t matter what,s being said publicly; the goalie contraversy is going to be a huge distraction.
David Booth- never really found a home in Vancity. He;s gotta go
Mayson Raymond- needs to be on a run and gun style team not a puck posession one.
Jordan Schroeder- don,t think he gets a real shot in Vancouver for same reasons for trading Raymond.
  • 0

#65 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:42 PM

You can sure be dense at times. Earlier you defined dumping a player for prospects as by definition a cap dump.
You've also been arguing that we should have kept Samuelsson and re-signed him instead of trading him for Booth. Now here you are implying that he was disposable and that Tallon had no real interest in him other than to get rid of Booth. As usual, you are speaking for someone else, and imo failing as usual. You have no idea whether Tallon intended to re-sign Samuelsson or not.


It's pretty simple to understand, actually. David Booth has a long-term, big-money contract that is not deserved. Florida knows this, so their goal in moving him was to acquire cap space that could be allocated elsewhere - which they accomplished, by acquiring veterans on expiring contracts. You're right that I don't "know" that Tallon didn't want to sign either Samuelsson or Sturm, but you also don't "know" that this wasn't a straight-up cap dump, which I feel that it was (something that I would guess that fans of 29 other teams would agree with me on). So howcome you can berate me for "speaking for someone else", when, in effect, you're doing the exact same thing, by saying that Dale Tallon badly wanted Mikael Samuelsson and Marco Sturm for the Panthers?

As for what's best for the Canucks, I would've rather kept Samuelsson and Sturm. Sammy was an excellent fit - a guy that could be counted on to score big goals. He was a surprisingly good fit, at that. I'm pretty sure that he would've been a lot more useful in the playoffs than Booth was. Sturm could've spent the year eating popcorn in the press box.
  • 0

#66 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,139 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:57 PM

B.S. ES. First you don't seem to be able to comprehend the simple fact that the Panthers don't need cap space - they always have 20+ million to work with.
Booth has three years, your long term big money contract is embellishment - and I've gone over the numbers - 25 goals a year, 100+ hits, top six player with speed and grit = market value. Tallon may have been concerned about concussion issues - we simply can't speak for Tallon, but you cap dump claim is typical of your devaluation of virtually every player on the roster.
Go ahead and tell yourself the fans of 29 other teams would agree with you - your straw claims have become exceedingly predictable.
Misquote me if you want. Tallon said at the time that he wanted Samuelsson - Gillis confirmed that Samuelsson was the player Tallon named and wanted for Booth.

Edited by oldnews, 14 October 2012 - 02:08 PM.

  • 0

#67 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,199 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:01 PM

He was "there" best winger until they acquired Fleischmann and Versteeg.

Oh, and how were you able to read about the Booth signing during the summer? He was traded a few games into the season.

Not taking anything away from Booth, he's a great player and is a very good second liner, but he lacks some hockey sense and defensive ability. His numbers were inflated by a great playmaker in Weiss and one of the best powerforwards in Horton.

Not saying he can't reach his previous point totals, but he just needs to be comfortable playing in Vancouver's lineup.

I hope that he'll have a James Neal type of year this season... That is if there is a season


There boards have many members, and new threads seem to rarely be created so it wasn't hard to find.

I think he is better than both, when he is on his game, and has his best game going it is better than Flesichmann and probably Versteeg too, its just to tough to say with the injuries he has gone through but he will prove people wrong.

I just dont see any reason to trade him since he is something we don't have, and is better than any other options that are available to us if we trade him as a cap dump.
  • 0

zackass.png


#68 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:08 PM

B.S. ES. First you don't seem to be able to comprehend the simple fact that the Panthers don't need cap space - they always have 20+ million to work with.


Your plays on my name are both original and humourous.

And not needing cap space doesn't mean that you don't want to improve it. Maybe they'll need it in two years, and they're striking pre-emptively.

Booth has three years, your long term big money contract is embellishment - and I've gone over the numbers - 25 goals a year, 100+ hits, top six player with speed and grit = market value.


25 goals a year? Or 25 goals once? Booth has scored 25 as many times as Grabner has. And Grabner had 3 more goals in his best year than Booth had in his, which led to the contract that he has.

And BTW, again I will ask, if he's "market value", then why was Florida only able to get two veterans on expiring contracts for him? Why couldn't they get something better? Was Tallon offering payback to Gillis after the Keith Ballard raping from Draft Day 2010? Unlikely.

Misquote me if you want. Tallon said at the time that he wanted Samuelsson - Gillis confirmed that Samuelsson was the player Tallon named and wanted for Booth.


Gillis said that he wanted Gragnani, too. GMs tend to say things like this.
  • 0

#69 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,139 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:24 PM

Your plays on my name are both original and humourous.

And not needing cap space doesn't mean that you don't want to improve it. Maybe they'll need it in two years, and they're striking pre-emptively.

25 goals a year? Or 25 goals once? Booth has scored 25 as many times as Grabner has. And Grabner had 3 more goals in his best year than Booth had in his, which led to the contract that he has.

And BTW, again I will ask, if he's "market value", then why was Florida only able to get two veterans on expiring contracts for him? Why couldn't they get something better? Was Tallon offering payback to Gillis after the Keith Ballard raping from Draft Day 2010? Unlikely.

Gillis said that he wanted Gragnani, too. GMs tend to say things like this.


You must be a real Bernier fan as well...

It wasn't a play on your name - I was calling b.s. ES.
Yes, wanting to improve, which is presumably what they were trying to do. Which would mean that it was not a cap dump. How hard is that to comprehend? You don't seem to realize that in claiming that Booth is better than a few mere veterans, you are contradicting your cap dump claim, and contradicting the pumping of Samuelsson's tires that you are engaging in. Once is also how many times Samuelsson topped 23.

25 goals is what Booth has averaged - you can split hairs and say he only scored more than that once, which also shows he is always in that ballpark 22, 31, (24 pace), 23, (24 pace).

Your loyalty to former Canucks is touching. Your loyalty to existing Canucks....not so much.

Edited by oldnews, 14 October 2012 - 02:25 PM.

  • 0

#70 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:39 PM

Yes, wanting to improve, which is presumably what they were trying to do. Which would mean that it was not a cap dump. How hard is that to comprehend? You don't seem to realize that in claiming that Booth is better than a few mere veterans, you are contradicting your cap dump claim, and contradicting the pumping of Samuelsson's tires that you are engaging in. Once is also how many times Samuelsson topped 23.


But how can it possibly be thought-of as an improvement when they're parting ways with the great David Booth, who's also very fairly compensated, according to you?

And hold up - I've never said that Booth was better. I've said that two older guys with expiring contracts, 1 of which who was injured at the time, are of negligible value on the trade market. Which further agrees to my notion that from Florida's perspective, it was a cap dump. What do you think Sturm and/or Samuelsson would've got if they were instead traded at the deadline? A 3rd round pick, maybe?
  • 0

#71 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,139 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 03:05 PM

But how can it possibly be thought-of as an improvement when they're parting ways with the great David Booth, who's also very fairly compensated, according to you?

And hold up - I've never said that Booth was better. I've said that two older guys with expiring contracts, 1 of which who was injured at the time, are of negligible value on the trade market. Which further agrees to my notion that from Florida's perspective, it was a cap dump. What do you think Sturm and/or Samuelsson would've got if they were instead traded at the deadline? A 3rd round pick, maybe?


Good question. I'd imagine Tallon has an answer or two as to why he thought Samuelsson would improve the Panthers.
From where I sit, I can see a few possible reasons - aside from Versteeg, the Panthers don't really have another top 6 RW. Perhaps Tallon didn't see Booth being a good fit with Matthias, Goc, Kopecky, Skille.
Perhaps, as mentioned before, he wanted more veteran presence on his top lines - he clearly did the same with his blueline.
Really, it's not hard to make the case that this was a regular old hockey trade, and that the reason you are flopping between contradictions is because Booth is pretty good, Samuelsson is pretty good, and aside from the fact that Samuelsson chose to go to Detroit, it wasn't a bad trade, particularly when you consider, as I mentioned before, that they had 15 million in left wings and not much depth on the right side. I realize you don't think these things matters, but somehow I suspect GMs of NHL teams do.
  • 0

#72 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 15 October 2012 - 12:20 AM

Booth should be given the CoHo treatment. Build up his stats and get something good in return.
  • 0

#73 kacvan

kacvan

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Posted 15 October 2012 - 04:51 PM

How are you grading players on there playing abilities when they haven't played since the playoffs?

How can you trade players when they are locked out?

Where is the poll?

This thread of killing time is killing brain cells.


How to trade players during a lockout you ask?
Well it is called NHL 2012 or NHL 2013! This solves all problems!
  • 0
Posted Image

Keep The Faith The Canucks Will Win!!

#74 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 15 October 2012 - 04:55 PM

Another poll to kill time during the lockout: who do you think should be traded from the roster already based on previous past couple seasons/playoffs? Could be due to poor play, too many missed chances or overrated, etc. anyone from current roster or ahl farm team.

For me it's a close tie between Raymond and Booth. Raymond due to poor very poor play, booth for his overratedness and untimely antics.


David Booth - just trade em already....


Antics?

Pray tell.
  • 0

/=S=/





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.