Who Won the David Booth Trade?

[Pears]

Not even close...lol

What did we get out of the Ballard trade? We got an underperforming/mis-used defenceman for a top six forward and one of Quinton Howden, Emerson Etem, Evgeny Kuznetsov, or Charlie Coyle, all of whom are much more valuable than Ballard at this point.

[aGENT]

Even with Booth's MANY issues, we got more out of him than we would have got out of Samuelsson/Sturm. That's a win (albeit marginal) right there even if your name is Aqualini and you were footing the bills (which it isn't and you're not).

Cassels makes this a landslide in our favour IMO. He's also the reason I have trouble taking anything posters say seriously after they remark how bad the Booth trade was. You're clearly a clueless maroon.

[nuck nit]

$14.5 million for 26 goals says hello.

A prospect that might begin to play in the NHL in another three seasons did nothing to keep the cup contending window open.

Samuelsson was gone six games into the 2011 -12 season while Cassels might make the roster in 2017-18.

[Noseforthenet]

Can't be Captain Hindsight on this. No one could have predicted David Booth's time here would be THAT plagued with injuries or that 3rd would turn out to be a decent 2 way center.

The only one thing I can say for sure about that trade is it would have been nice to have Samuelsson in the playoffs because he knows how to ratchet up his game. Booth had never been when we got him and so far there is no reason to think he will ever be good in the playoffs (lol Leafs.)

Say Samuelsson would have made a difference and we beat LA...that's a BIG if. Then we would have played Nashville, beat them, then St Louis or Phoenix. That's a coin flip, then probably beat New Jersey too if the team got that far.

All in all though, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. I am happy with what we got out of it. Aq is probably not so happy as he paid out approximately 14 mil for about 100 games out of Booth and a 3rd round pick.

[oldnews]

12.75 nucknit. 3 years at 4.25 = 12.75.

Additionally, Booth only played 132 games, and being under 35 years of age, his cap didn't apply when he was injured, so in reality Booth cost the Canucks $6.78 million in cap space in the time he was here - the rest was available to be used when he was injured.

On the other hand, for people harping on Booth's cap space, 1 goal and 2 assists for $6 million say hello right back.

That's what Samuelsson provided in the next two years of his 35+ contract.

If MG had kept and re-signed Samuelsson, that cap space would have applied regardless. Folks trying to dramatize this are more bent on their MG hate than level-headed reality.

Booth's production wasn't what was hoped of him, but wasn't that horrible either (26 goals, 51 points in 134 games) particularly coming off the injuries he did, and in any event, his underlying numbers were consistently strong. He didn't hurt the team as much as is being implied. He just didn't fit very well with Kesler, who was likewise injured half the time in any event.

Cassels is a pretty good sweetener regardless.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Have to admit I ignored the warnings on the guy and him not being worth his cap hit and was excited at the prospect of getting him because he did look good once upon a time in Florida. Not to mention Sammy and Sturm were spent forces, so wtf?

However, my viewed on trades involving Canadian teams and southern US teams have become a lot more jaded since. There has been an ongoing trend of 'Subsidize the South' trades going on over the years and this was just another one of those. It's basically our job to take on crap contracts.

If Cassels turns into a good one, then that's definitely a positive though.

[Noseforthenet]

12.75 nucknit. 3 years at 4.25 = 12.75.

Additionally, Booth only played 132 games, and being under 35 years of age, his cap didn't apply when he was injured, so in reality Booth cost the Canucks $6.78 million in cap space in the time he was here - the rest was available to be used when he was injured.

On the other hand, for people harping on Booth's cap space, 1 goal and 2 assists for $6 million say hello right back.

That's what Samuelsson provided in the next two years of his 35+ contract.

If MG had kept and re-signed Samuelsson, that cap space would have applied regardless. Folks trying to dramatize this are more bent on their MG hate than level-headed reality.

Booth's production wasn't what was hoped of him, but wasn't that horrible either (26 goals, 51 points in 134 games) particularly coming off the injuries he did, and in any event, his underlying numbers were consistently strong. He didn't hurt the team as much as is being implied. He just didn't fit very well with Kesler, who was likewise injured half the time in any event.

Cassels is a pretty good sweetener regardless.

Add the money we took back for Reinprecht.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Add the money we took back for Reinprecht.

Yup. We paid him $2mil in 11-12 to play for the Wolves. He was done the season prior, in which Florida loaned him to the Mannheim Eagles.

If Booth was the top-6 forward he was supposed to become, we would not have been able to trade for him. Florida's problem was that Booth got substantially hurt and hurt again right away after signing his post-ELC deal that would take him through his prime years. Fine for a 'have' franchise, but that's not Florida. Somebody had to come to their rescue.

While Gillis was pulling the wool over our eyes saying that he targeted Booth for awhile, etc. it was quite plainly another STS cap dump deal. We took on 20.25mil in junk contracts and Florida took back 4.75mil.

[oldnews]

Add the money we took back for Reinprecht.

Who cares? He was buried in the A. There was no cap hit. If you're an owner you might care about such things - I sure as hell don't.

[GreyHatnDart]

Serious question here: who was out there that the Canucks could have spent this $4.25 million on? I'm assuming a UFA signing rather than a trade. And it would have to be a guy who was available in 2012 as otherwise Samuelsson and Sturm would still be here taking up space.

regards,

G.

Jagr signed for a 1 year deal of 4.5 in 2012-2013.

Jokinen signed for a cap hit of 4.5 in 2012-2013.

Hudler signed with Calgary for 4 years at 4 per.

PA Parenteau for the same.

Chris Kelly at 12m/4 year term.

Benoit Pouliot at 1.8m per. Worth noting cuz he hit his stride that year but was a question mark at that point.

Anyways that's all of them near or around that cap hit that are worth noting as far as I can see.

[Noseforthenet]

Who cares? He was buried in the A. There was no cap hit. If you're an owner you might care about such things - I sure as hell don't.

That's the idea. I guess as far as who won the trade, it depends on who you ask. Don't as Aq about that. He would say the team lost it. Plus if you add the possibility that maybe MG might have went to Aq later in that season for a trade and he vetoed it because MG had basically thrown away 6 million of his money that season. You notice the rest of that season in trades we didn't take on any more salary? All trades were pretty much lateral moves money wise.

[Sergei Shirokov]

Have to admit I ignored the warnings on the guy and him not being worth his cap hit and was excited at the prospect of getting him because he did look good once upon a time in Florida. Not to mention Sammy and Sturm were spent forces, so wtf?

However, my viewed on trades involving Canadian teams and southern US teams have become a lot more jaded since. There has been an ongoing trend of 'Subsidize the South' trades going on over the years and this was just another one of those. It's basically our job to take on crap contracts.

If Cassels turns into a good one, then that's definitely a positive though.

I dunno about these conspiracy theories.... Don't forget, Florida took on a lot of salary in the Luongo deal for a goaltender that was 34 yrs old and on the decline.

I understand why MG made the trades for Ballard and Booth.

After losing to Chicago for 2 straight years, it was clear Vancouver needed to upgrade the speed of their D.

I'm going to say the Booth trade was a draw. We unloaded two aging veterans for a 26 year old power forward. I thought Booth played well in his first season, and played well again in the final weeks of his time in Vancouver.

I recall almost everyone praising Gillis as the time for the Booth trade. The Ballard trade, was actually fairly unpopular because the fan base still really liked grabner.

[oldnews]

That's the idea. I guess as far as who won the trade, it depends on who you ask. Don't as Aq about that. He would say the team lost it. Plus if you add the possibility that maybe MG might have went to Aq later in that season for a trade and he vetoed it because MG had basically thrown away 6 million of his money that season. You notice the rest of that season in trades we didn't take on any more salary? All trades were pretty much lateral moves money wise.

Reinprecht was one year at $2.175 million - subtract the average AHL salary and 6 million were not thrown away in that deal.

Samuelsson 2.5 and Sturm 2.25 sent 4.75 back the other way - two guys who did not outproduce David Booth (who had 16 goals in 56 games - not exactly 'money thrown away').

The Canucks had also spent to the Cap that year. What moe salary could be proposed they take on?

[Noseforthenet]

Reinprecht was one year at $2.175 million - subtract the average AHL salary and 6 million were not thrown away in that deal.

Samuelsson 2.5 and Sturm 2.25 sent 4.75 back the other way - two guys who did not outproduce David Booth (who had 16 goals in 56 games - not exactly 'money thrown away').

The Canucks had also spent to the Cap that year. What moe salary could be proposed they take on?

some other asset to be buried in the AHL? And the money sent back to Florida could have been used on someone who doesn't get hurt. You gotta know owners don't like paying players to sit and rehab. They want results on the ice and who can blame them?! Booth did okay pre injury, but it's kinda why Sami was also let go. You need players playing, not licking their wounds often. That money could have been used on players who can play often.

[Baggins]

What did we get out of the Ballard trade? We got an underperforming/mis-used defenceman for a top six forward and one of Quinton Howden, Emerson Etem, Evgeny Kuznetsov, or Charlie Coyle, all of whom are much more valuable than Ballard at this point.

We got Ballard for a waiver eligible prospect who couldn't show up to camp game ready, a bottom end first, and a cap dump. What did Florida get out of that trade? Grabner was lost to waivers (as he would have been here), they ate Berniers contract, and Howden who, after 4 years, has 34 NHL games and 6 points. Did anybody win that trade? Nope.

Btw, how was Ballard 'misused'? He couldn't play right side, Edler was better offensively, and Hamhuis was better defensively. That only left bottom pair left side. A role he couldn't seem to adapt to. Ballard was awful here. Even when opportunities arose he played awful beside Bieksa and he played awful beside Ehrhoff. He got the ice time/opportunities he earned. The truth is Salo was better playing the left side (his off side) than Ballard was. We certainly didn't get what we expected.

[Noseforthenet]

What did we get out of the Ballard trade? We got an underperforming/mis-used defenceman for a top six forward and one of Quinton Howden, Emerson Etem, Evgeny Kuznetsov, or Charlie Coyle, all of whom are much more valuable than Ballard at this point.

I never thought of it like that!!! Thanks scouting dept....

[cbdoubleu]

It's hard to say we won the trade based on getting Cassels down the road when David Booth was brought in to play a major role on a team that was a serious cup contender and he was terrible. He was a major let down, and it was a big misfire by Gillis that left us so weak up front. We would have been better off with Samuelsson that year. He's a big part of what went wrong with this team in it's attempt to get back to the Cup finals. He made us a worse team. Period.

[TOMapleLaughs]

I dunno about these conspiracy theories.... Don't forget, Florida took on a lot of salary in the Luongo deal for a goaltender that was 34 yrs old and on the decline.

I understand why MG made the trades for Ballard and Booth.

After losing to Chicago for 2 straight years, it was clear Vancouver needed to upgrade the speed of their D.

I'm going to say the Booth trade was a draw. We unloaded two aging veterans for a 26 year old power forward. I thought Booth played well in his first season, and played well again in the final weeks of his time in Vancouver.

I recall almost everyone praising Gillis as the time for the Booth trade. The Ballard trade, was actually fairly unpopular because the fan base still really liked grabner.

It's not so much a conspiracy as it is what's clearly been happening for years. It's really for the betterment for the league as a whole, so I get the reasoning.

Since Vancouver takes on 15% of Lu's contract as well as the lion's share of cap recapture penalties after watching him play in Florida at a pretty good cap hit, it doesn't exactly look like anything but subsidizing them even further.

We took on Booth's contract just after they signed it and had gotten injured, big-time.

Same thing with Ballard. He lasted one season in Florida at $4.2mil. Ballard sustaining a career-impacting injury late in that season meant that we had to swoop in and take that contract on.

Not that we haven't benefitted from our transactions with Florida. We did fleece them of Luongo in the first place. And the Canucks weren't always this 'rich' franchise either. We handed them Bure largely because his salary was getting too inflated and they wanted a ticket draw.

[Canorth]

It's not so much a conspiracy as it is what's clearly been happening for years. It's really for the betterment for the league as a whole, so I get the reasoning.

Since Vancouver takes on 15% of Lu's contract as well as the lion's share of cap recapture penalties after watching him play in Florida at a pretty good cap hit, it doesn't exactly look like anything but subsidizing them even further.

We took on Booth's contract just after they signed it and had gotten injured, big-time.

Same thing with Ballard. He lasted one season in Florida at $4.2mil. Ballard sustaining a career-impacting injury late in that season meant that we had to swoop in and take that contract on.

Not that we haven't benefitted from our transactions with Florida. We did fleece them of Luongo in the first place. And the Canucks weren't always this 'rich' franchise either. We handed them Bure largely because his salary was getting too inflated and they wanted a ticket draw.

Not too sure if your serious or not.

Not too sure if I am amused or confused by this reasoning. Ha ha, I wonder where Jessy Ventura stands on this issue.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Not too sure if your serious or not.

Not too sure if I am amused or confused by this reasoning. Ha ha, regardless, you should give Jessy Ventura a shout and see what he thinks.

Cap dumps happen all the time around the league. What's so confusing about that?

Given the visible trends the team has been in for quite awhile, I think we need to smarten up as a fanbase and start recognizing what's actually happening when we take on the bloated contracts of injured players. Or when we shuffle decent players down south for miniscule returns. We don't even have to dive into a 'the league is out to get us' context, because why would they be? (That's the ref's job, right CDC?) But a simple acknowledgement of what's going on at the time may lead to a better understanding of what the expecations of the players and team should very well be. Basically, what's wrong with a fanbase learning? That will only lead us to wanting, demanding a better team, that doesn't want a repeating pattern of ongoing mistakes. After all, we're at the end of the day paying for this outfit.

Or not. We could just complain later on when the moves don't pan out instead, because that counts as 'entertainment.' Whatever.