dangler wrote:With all the injuries,majority of his play while a Canuck being ineffective,and the emergence of some new-comers,
do the Canucks end the David Booth experiment?
I've got to believe that his presence would start to be more of a hindrance than a benefit at this point,especially when you hear stories of him being bag-skated at practices for lack of effort.
If the Canucks were to make him a healthy scratch when he returns that would still leave the club with Daniel,Burr,
Higgy,Sestito and Pelletier on L wing.
Does Boothy go bye bye?
dangler wrote:I'm sure the Gillis would trade him for a bag of pucks at this point,but unless Mike Milbury gets a GM job in the near future I doubt there will be any takers.
I think the aquamen are just gonna have to eat this one!!
Blob Mckenzie wrote: I say if we can get a team to take him off our hands and eat half his ticket that might be the way to go. At least they'll have 2- 2.5 million to add a player(s) that can make a difference here.
Blob Mckenzie wrote:There are a few options here. You trade him for another overpaid , underachieving player on another team.
The Brown Knight wrote:Blob Mckenzie wrote:There are a few options here. You trade him for another overpaid , underachieving player on another team.
I was thinking alone these lines as well.......like a David Booth for a John Michael Liles type deal.
Strangelove wrote:I wonder if something along the lines of Booth for 2 of Clemmensen/Whitney/Gomez would work?
Contracts a poor team would like to get rid of for an overpaid roster player who might work in their top 6.
We then flush Clemmensen/Whitney/Gomez for cap relief and eventually trade for Vanek at the deadline.
(first $925K of each salary wouldn't count against the cap)
Okay this probably won't work as the 3 players above are UFAs this summer.
But something along those lines?
Hockey Widow wrote:especially if you are the water boy and don't really want to buy anyone else out.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests