Mason Raymond appreciation thread!

[Bleach Clean]

Then you agree with me. Gillis didn't buy low.

Oh I see, you wanted a top6 forward for peanuts in a trade _AND_ you wanted him to have an excellent contract, instead of average?

 

[604]

Because in my opinion, he can re sign Higgins and Raymond for basically the same combined price of Booth. We have serious cap issues in the off season.

Trade Booth. Trade Luongo / Schneider. Trade Ballard.

I'd rather have Booth than Raymond...I think you could afford Higgins either way after losing Luongo + Ballard.

If we keep Luongo over Schneider then there will have to be a decision regarding Lapierre vs Higgins IMO.

 

[Fat Tony]

Oh I see, you wanted a top6 forward for peanuts in a trade _AND_ you wanted him to have an excellent contract, instead of average?

I guess that means you're saying that Booth is the best value in the league when you said the trade was "as buy low as it gets" (insert sarcastic smilie).

I'm saying getting Booth was not buying low. His contract is par for the course, at best. And no where did I say what I wanted from him.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I guess that means you're saying that Booth is the best value in the league when you said the trade was "as buy low as it gets" (insert sarcastic smilie).

I'm saying getting Booth was not buying low. His contract is par for the course, at best. And no where did I say what I wanted from him.

"Buy low" is in reference to trades is it not? Not signing contracts. That's what the term is referencing in this thread.


Your definition of it doesn't have anything to do with trades. Which makes me wondering you chose to comment at all?

 

[Fat Tony]

My definition of "buying low" is attaining something perceived incorrectly as having low value or something that has value that can be increased. Booth appears to be neither.

 

[Bleach Clean]

My definition of "buying low" is attaining something perceived incorrectly as having low value or something that has value that can be increased. Booth appears to be neither.

How do you attain players on contract if not through trade? Ergo, buy low with regards to this thread refers to trades. Why make it about the contract itself? Especially when it's average and doesn't skew value either way?



Perceived incorrectly as having low value = Booth.

Something that has value that can be increased = Booth. He can definitely improve from his last season in FLA.




A forward that scores at a first line rate, G/60 minutes, traded for 35 year old injured top6 and a marginal NHL cast-off is the definition of buy low. I'm not sure why this is hard to follow? Others have acknowledged the same.

 

[Fat Tony]

Initially, I was in favour of the trade. In retrospect:

Broken down Samuelsson+washed up Sturm > Booth

In fact, you could argue FLA bought low. They got an old, oft-injured player that wound up producing as well as the player they gave up and they got out of a contract. I know you don't want to discuss contracts but that's a very important point for a team like FLA.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Initially, I was in favour of the trade. In retrospect:

Broken down Samuelsson+washed up Sturm > Booth

In fact, you could argue FLA bought low. They got an old, oft-injured player that wound up producing as well as the player they gave up and they got out of a contract. I know you don't want to discuss contracts but that's a very important point for a team like FLA.

The contract was and remains average 2nd line salary. FLA just paid Kuba 4m over 2 years. Money better spent?


If you think Samuelsson and Sturm was/is worth more than Booth, then I'm not sure what to say to you. I guess it would be time for me to ask if there are comparable deals where a team gave up less for a 26 year old top6 forward? Is there? Did any go for less within the last 3 years? 5 years?


I'm actually interested to know. My assessment is based on the fact that there hasn't been a comparable value trade within the last 5 years. Maybe there has been?

 

[Fat Tony]

If you think Samuelsson and Sturm was/is worth more than Booth, then I'm not sure what to say to you.

Samuelsson was worth the same as Booth last year. He and Sturm would have been off the books this year so their value now is irrelevant.

I guess it would be time for me to ask if there are comparable deals where a team gave up less for a 26 year old top6 forward? Is there? Did any go for less within the last 3 years? 5 years?


I'm actually interested to know. My assessment is based on the fact that there hasn't been a comparable value trade within the last 5 years. Maybe there has been?

You're proceeding on the premise that Booth is a top 6 forward. Hansen deserves a spot on the second line more than he does and I don't think Hansen is a second line player.

 

[arsmaster*]

You're proceeding on the premise that Booth is a top 6 forward. Hansen deserves a spot on the second line more than he does and I don't think Hansen is a second line player.

Why does Hansen and his career high of 16 goals deserve to be on the 2nd line ahead of a guy who came to a new team, suffered a bad injury, and learned a new system yet still had the same amount of goals, in 26 less games?

David Booth for his career scores 0.28 goals per game. Every season he has played, whether he's missed time or not, every season he's right around that 0.28g/game.

That is 23 goals. That is 2nd line production.

Hell in a game last night with significant rust, chemistry factors he created two semi-breakaways (fitness and rust contributed to him not getting a scoring chance), but he's still there, taking the puck from the wing to the crease.

The Canucks still don't have enough players who do this. David Booth hasn't even had a chance to show what he can do while healthy yet as a Canuck and he has still scored at the 0.28 goals per game pace.

I'll take that over Samuelsson anyday.

 

[vanuck]

Isn't Booth in the top 90 of all forwards when you break it down to G/60 or something like that?

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Isn't Booth in the top 90 of all forwards when you break it down to G/60 or something like that?

I believe his A/60 is one of the worst in the NHL for top 6 forwards.

You can't refer to Booth as a buy-low player until his value goes up. If that doesn't happen, it's just a trade for a low-value asset. There's a reason no other team outbid our nothing offer, in a league where 20 teams are desperate for more top 6 scoring...

Same goes for Hodgson. People say we sold high but that's obviously not the case. He's much more valuable today than the day he was dealt. Gillis thought he 'built him up', which is concerning considering how much better he is this year than when he was moved.

 

[Shareefruck]

Then you agree with me. Gillis didn't buy low.

My definition of "buying low" is attaining something perceived incorrectly as having low value or something that has value that can be increased. Booth appears to be neither.

I feel like your interpretation of a trade is to give a team money to the amount of one of their players contracts and get the player without anything besides money changing hands.

 

[Fat Tony]

It was stupid to apply "buy low, sell high" to hockey transactions. I wasn't the only one (or even the first one) but it appears I'm the only one you disagree with.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Samuelsson was worth the same as Booth last year. He and Sturm would have been off the books this year so their value now is irrelevant.



You're proceeding on the premise that Booth is a top 6 forward. Hansen deserves a spot on the second line more than he does and I don't think Hansen is a second line player.

What's your statistical definition of a top6 player?

Jonathan Willis broke it down as an average of 35 points per 82 games. Meaning top 180 across the league. Do you agree?



And we'll disagree that Sammy was worth the same as Booth, even last year.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I believe his A/60 is one of the worst in the NHL for top 6 forwards.

You can't refer to Booth as a buy-low player until his value goes up. If that doesn't happen, it's just a trade for a low-value asset. There's a reason no other team outbid our nothing offer, in a league where 20 teams are desperate for more top 6 scoring...

Same goes for Hodgson. People say we sold high but that's obviously not the case. He's much more valuable today than the day he was dealt. Gillis thought he 'built him up', which is concerning considering how much better he is this year than when he was moved.

Wait, Hodgson's more valuable now? Based on what? His league leading goals against?


If Booth has kept his G/60 ratio while moving to a new situation in VAN, then you don't have to wait for him to improve to call it a buy low option. Make sense?


Also, did you make up that A/60 number or do you have some data? Just curious.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

What's your statistical definition of a top6 player?

Jonathan Willis broke it down as an average of 35 points per 82 games. Meaning top 180 across the league. Do you agree?

And Booth has only managed this once in his last 3 years and didn't do it as a Canuck. So by Willis' definition, Booth is not a top 6 forward...

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Wait, Hodgson's more valuable now? Based on what? His league leading goals against?


If Booth has kept his G/60 ratio while moving to a new situation in VAN, then you don't have to wait for him to improve to call it a buy low option. Make sense?


Also, did you make up that A/60 number or do you have some data? Just curious.

Hodgson is more valuable now because he's producing like a 1st line centre. He's 2nd in the NHL in even strength points. Concerns about his back are also lessened with each passing month.

IMO it's only buy-low if the player improves his value. For example, I don't believe Ballard should be considered a buy-low candidate right now unless he improves on his new team.

As for Booth's A/60, it's just an observation based on looking around the league at other top 6 forwards. It's hard to find guys less productive in top 6 roles...

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Hodgson is more valuable now because he's producing like a 1st line centre. He's 2nd in the NHL in even strength points. Concerns about his back are also lessened with each passing month.

IMO it's only buy-low if the player improves his value. For example, I don't believe Ballard should be considered a buy-low candidate right now unless he improves on his new team.

As for Booth's A/60, it's just an observation based on looking around the league at other top 6 forwards. It's hard to find guys less productive in top 6 roles...

To me even if Booth dose not improve from last year, when he was playing on his off side with broken Raymond and broken no pass Kesler, he is still worth more then what we paid for him. In my book if you pay less then what something is worth then its buy low.

 

[Bleach Clean]

And Booth has only managed this once in his last 3 years and didn't do it as a Canuck. So by Willis' definition, Booth is not a top 6 forward...

In '12 he was at that pace. In '11 he put up 40 and in '10 he was out with concussion. Where are you gettin your numbers?


Edit: I see you're not accounting for injuries and pace in your posts.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

In '12 he was at that pace. In '11 he put up 40 and in '10 he was out with concussion. Where are you gettin your numbers?

His pace is irrelevant. Willis didn't give a single other player in the NHL the benefit of the doubt of pace or projection. It would be unfair to give it Booth if we're setting the benchmark at a paltry 35 points.

Pro-rating this season would make Willis' benchmark 20 points for a top 6 forward. Odds are, Booth misses the mark for the 3rd time in 4 years.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

To me even if Booth dose not improve from last year, when he was playing on his off side with broken Raymond and broken no pass Kesler, he is still worth more then what we paid for him. In my book if you pay less then what something is worth then its buy low.

But you have to factor in what you're getting for the cap hit too. So far, we've received a 29 point season and a player that hurt himself while doing fitness testing. A far cry from what you want from a guy making north of $4mil.

In a cap environment, it kills you having big ticket players that can't stay healthy. It's just so difficult replacing players through trade and leaves the team in a tough position. If Booth can't stay healthy from now until the end of the playoffs I wouldn't bring him back next season. Too much risk, too little reward.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

But you have to factor in what you're getting for the cap hit too. So far, we've received a 29 point season and a player that hurt himself while doing fitness testing. A far cry from what you want from a guy making north of $4mil.

In a cap environment, it kills you having big ticket players that can't stay healthy. It's just so difficult replacing players through trade and leaves the team in a tough position. If Booth can't stay healthy from now until the end of the playoffs I wouldn't bring him back next season. Too much risk, too little reward.

I agree that you need to take into consideration cap hit in some way, in the context of establishing If it was a buy low purchase. But how that is done logically I do not know. stright cap hit for cap hit in this trade? or is it the asset value (How good a player is) for the cap hit you pay, against the asset value for cap hit coming back? But for argument sake I propose the cap hit of an injured Samuelson and Sturm traded for D Booth is still buy low.

Cap space is also only worth something if MG had something to spend it on, We got our FA signing, has Booths cap stopped any trades? we will never know. So at this stage its not a big deal.

Every thing after the bolded I just flat out disagree with. Should a guy be more indestructible the higher the cap hit? And how were the injures his fault? Should they all be H Sedin?

 

[Bleach Clean]

His pace is irrelevant. Willis didn't give a single other player in the NHL the benefit of the doubt of pace or projection. It would be unfair to give it Booth if we're setting the benchmark at a paltry 35 points.

Pro-rating this season would make Willis' benchmark 20 points for a top 6 forward. Odds are, Booth misses the mark for the 3rd time in 4 years.

Sorry, his pace is completely relevant. Injuries are not the fault of the player. Was he supposed to increase his pace to compensate? Would that be great?


Willis measured _several_seasons_ of production. By doing this, he eliminates the spikes/dips due to injuries. His average accounts for the injuries that may occur across teams no matter the season. It's a replacement analysis.


It would be unfair not to give it to Booth on the basis of injury, which is what you are doing. It's funny actually, he scores at a 1st line rate of efficiency, meets the logical threshold of Jonathon Willis cites, and you bring up weak arguments like the worst top6 in an A/60 ratio, which I still have yet to see samples for. Just dubious all around.

 

[Bleach Clean]

But you have to factor in what you're getting for the cap hit too. So far, we've received a 29 point season and a player that hurt himself while doing fitness testing. A far cry from what you want from a guy making north of $4mil.

In a cap environment, it kills you having big ticket players that can't stay healthy. It's just so difficult replacing players through trade and leaves the team in a tough position. If Booth can't stay healthy from now until the end of the playoffs I wouldn't bring him back next season. Too much risk, too little reward.

Yeah, shame on Booth for hurting himself... Wow.


So getting a knee from Porter last year makes him injury prone now? Without the 18 games missed due to knee injury, he plays 62 + 18 = 80 games. Allowing him to play at least 72 games per year in every "full" season. That is not injury prone.