Skip to content

Canucks label Booth as out ‘indefinitely’

Mar 19, 2013, 9:03 AM EDT

David Booth Getty Images

The Vancouver Canucks will have to continue their battle for a playoff spot without the services of 28-year-old forward David Booth for quite a while.

The results of Booth’s MRI have come back and Canucks coach Alain Vigneault revealed that Booth will be out “indefinitely” with an ankle sprain, according to the Globe and Mail’s David Ebner.

Booth has been placed on the injured reserve list as a result.

This is just the latest setback in what has become almost a tradition of bad luck for him.

In 2008-09, Booth had 60 points in 72 games, which encouraged the Florida Panthers to ink him to a six-year, $25.5 million extension. However, when the dust settles on the 2013 campaign, he will have missed more than 90 contests over the last four seasons due to a variety of injuries that range from a concussion to his present ankle problem.

He has three points in 12 contests this season.


Canucks recall Schroeder after Booth injured Saturday

  1. davebabychreturns - Mar 19, 2013 at 9:12 AM

    Time to think about a trade or buy out for David, nothing against him as a player or person but the Canucks need someone who will deliver results and it’s tough to do that from the IR.

    • canucks30 - Mar 19, 2013 at 9:53 PM

      If Mike Gillis has been this patient with Mason Raymond I highly doubt he throws David Booth under the bus despite his contract. I don’t see Mike Gillis as the buyout type nor are there going to be teams lining up to acquire an injured winger with multiple concussions and a $4.25 Million cap hit with term attached.

      • davebabychreturns - Mar 20, 2013 at 12:38 PM

        If the Canucks don’t use the amnesty buyout to get out from under contracts they don’t want and can’t trade, that is ridiculous. This team turns a profit and has a long history of using their financial means over and above the salary cap to ice a better team.

        If they feel Booth is going to give them $4.25m in value next year and the year after then great, but if not they need to flex some financial muscle and stop throwing good cap space after bad.

        As for the Raymond comparison, Raymond’s contract was much less significant, it was signed and played out in an environment where the cap ceiling went up every year, and he was restricted at the end of it (which the team used to negotiate a pay cut.. hardly an indicator of patience).

        Most importantly, there is a cap crunch coming next year. The salary cap is coming down and the team has to accomodate raises to Alex Burrows, Edler, Tanev and any of Higgins/Raymond/Lapierre they may wish to keep.

  2. canucks30 - Mar 19, 2013 at 10:09 AM

    Vancouver is accumulating a lot of bad contracts. Mostly from ex-Florida Panthers. See Ballard, Keith and Garrison, Jason.

    • valoisvipers - Mar 19, 2013 at 11:43 AM

      You forgot Luongo.

    • davebabychreturns - Mar 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM

      No problem with Garrison thusfar.

    • ikillchicken - Mar 19, 2013 at 1:41 PM

      Do you even watch hockey? Or are you just parroting something you read on a message board? It must be the latter or you wouldn’t include Garrison on that list.

      He’s currently on pace for 12 goals in an 82 game season. That’s impressive in its own right and doesn’t even need to be justified. It would be impressive enough on its own. But also, that’s despite him not getting any goals thus far on the powerplay. And that’s not because he’s struggled in that position. It’s because he hasn’t even been used there! And when he has gotten PP time (meaning, literally the last couple games)? Well, he was largely responsible for making yesterday’s PP goal happen. You remember right? The one that broke our giant terrifying steak of utterly failing to score? Oh and remember when we scored just two seconds after the PP expired last week? Yeah. Garrison too. Oh and also, all the above is despite him getting off to an understandably slow start (as any D man does learning a new system). If you ignore the first month or so where he didn’t score at all his goal pace is actually much higher. Unlike the rest of this bloody team, Garrison has been steadily trending up.

      Now, you’re probably sitting there thinking…boy. I sure feel dumb. Garrison has been bad? What was I thinking? That’s obviously not true at all. I was talking right out my rear end. But wait! There’s more! Unlike a lot of these offensive defensemen (many of whom make way more than Garrison, see: Wideman, Carle, and so many more) Garrison is one heck of a defensive player. He’s big and gritty and plays really well in a defensive role role. In fact, he currently leads all Nucks D man with a +7 rating. And that’s despite being used alongside Hamhuis as our shutdown pairing and playing big minutes every night against the toughest quality of competition! So just to recap: Garrison can score goals at a solid pace without even playing on the PP and at the same time be a reliable shutdown guy who plays big minutes against tough competition.

      Fact: Ballard is a bad contract. And hey, I can even tolerate the claim that Booth “hasn’t worked out” in the sense that he hasn’t been able to stay healthy. Whether that makes him a bad contract really depends on whether, your squishy, control freak brain can accept that injuries can simply be the result of bad luck. Or if it insists they must be the result of some kind of magical, predictable “injury prone” property that Nucks management should have foreseen with Booth. But! That’s a whole other discussion. The key point here is that Garrison has been a great addition to the team. This in an undeniable fact. What’s more, he has arguably been our best D man over the last couple months.

      But no! Instead he’s a “bad contract” like Ballard simply because people like you who don’t know a thing about hockey have somehow gotten it in your heads that this is the case and will now continue repeating it (thus spawning more misinformed parrots) for the rest of his bloody career. How fun!

      • loinstache - Mar 19, 2013 at 1:55 PM

        Thank you! I wanted to say at least a sliver of that but felt it would be futile. parrot fans like canucks30 help continue giving this team a bad name.

      • canucks30 - Mar 19, 2013 at 9:49 PM

        Are you capable of making a point without resorting to a condescending, “know it all”, holier than thou tone?

  3. canucks30 - Mar 19, 2013 at 4:19 PM

    I didn’t say Jason Garrison is a bust nor did I say he is an ineffective hockey player. He has a role on this team and he has been adequate in the role that he has been used in.

    However, to suggest that a second pair defenseman who isn’t utilized on the powerplay is worth $4.6 Million (a larger cap hit than Dan Hamhuis and the same as Kevin Bieksa’s) is simply wrong. Heck, Keith Ballard and David Booth can still return to the levels they once showed in Phoenix and Florida respectively if they were utilized in a manner that actually fit their skill set.

    The point I am making with each of these three are that they not being used by the present coaching staff in a role that is congruent with their salary. Hence, in the present term they are BAD contracts.

    When you have Booth playing 13 minutes a night on the third line, Ballard sitting in the press box, and Garrison playing on the third defense pair and not consistently utilized on the power play you are not exactly getting bang for your buck.

    Another frustrating thing about this fan base is the amount of vitriol shown by fellow fans for showing disagreement with someone’s opionion. Even if you disagree with me to call me a parrot fan and imply that I am not “fan enough” to follow the team I have spent the past two decades following is nothing short of dismaying.

    No I don’t give Canucks fans a bad name. The morons who participated in the 1994 and 2011 riots, the idiots who troll other teams message boards and then disappear when something goes wrong, and the fans who are too proud to admit anything is remotely imperfect about the team that they follow are.

    • ikillchicken - Mar 19, 2013 at 9:10 PM

      “The point I am making with each of these three are that they not being used by the present coaching staff in a role that is congruent with their salary. Hence, in the present term they are BAD contracts.”

      If the issue is how they are used then obviously it isn’t a bad contract. That’s just nonsense. If AV had a mental breakdown and suddenly decided to start playing the Sedins on the fourth line, would they suddenly become “bad contracts” as well? Obviously not.They would be underutilized. And really, in the case of Garrison that isn’t even the case. Garrison should be on the first unit PP…and now he is. It took longer than it should have but we’re now back on track there. And while he may have played a bit on the third pairing early on when he was still adjusting, they have now successfully transitioned him over to the right side and moved him up into the top 4. A 4.6 M cap hit is a pretty reasonable salary for an effective top 4 D man who plays at both ends of the ice and puts up 10+ goals in a normal season. I mean, right now he’s playing in more or less the exact same role as Hamhuis (who obviously you aren’t complaining about) but also contributing more goals.

      • canucks30 - Mar 19, 2013 at 9:46 PM

        One of the first things that Mike Gillis and the Vancouver media talked about when Garrison was signed was his ability on the powerplay and in particular boosting the Sedins back to 2009-2011 level of production. The Sedins rise to Art Ross and Hart Trophy candidates coincided with the acquisition of Christian Ehrhoff and the Canucks have yet to adequately replace his level of production. One of the things Jason Garrison talked about during training camp was how he was looking forward to playing with the Sedins on the powerplay which up until the past week has been a role he was not used in. The Sedins 5 on 5 production has never been better but the Canucks powerplay has regressed to the point where Henrik and Daniel are back to 70-80 point players as they were from 2005-2009. Garrison needs to help get their powerplay productivity back to 2010-11 levels and up until the past week he has not been afforded that oppurtunity. He also has not developed any chemistry with Edler either 5 on 5 or on the powerplay which again hurts his overall value. Long-term I don’t think either will live up to their contracts playing the right side and that’s further exacerbated with Hamhuis playing in the left to. Vancouver needs either Garrison or Edler to move to the right and be productive. Looks like that’s the role he has now been put in let’s see how he fares.

      • ikillchicken - Mar 19, 2013 at 10:18 PM

        And I agree. AV should have had Garrison back on the first PP unit a month ago. (Taking him off initially was correct. It gave him time to adjust). But that’s clearly an issue of poor deployment. Once again, to say that makes his contract bad is just nonsense. And once again, even in the role he has been used, Garrison has totally been worth the money. He’s been fine on the right side. All in all he’s been the perfect signing to round out our top 4. The fact that he has the potential to do more if deployed more effectively is nothing but an added bonus.

  4. canucks30 - Mar 19, 2013 at 4:31 PM

    When Mike Gillis re-signed the Sedins, Kesler, Bieksa, Burrows, and heck even Luongo to contracts that paid them cap hits below (and in Burrows case far below) market value the purpose was to add pieces either via trade or free agency with the available extra cap space to put the team over the top.

    Three of the players who were added are Booth, Ballard, and Garrison who combine to eat up $13.05 Million of cap space. (20% of next years lowered cap.

    The level of production these players have provided based on their cap hits simply isn’t good enough for a team that fancies itself a Stanley Cup contender.

    Not to mention Ballard cost a First Round pick (Quinton Howden) and Michael Grabner to acquire.

    The inability to find Ryan Kesler a winger who complements him (Booth and Kesler haven’t really been healthy at the same time to form a definitive judgement but it hasn’t worked out so far) and a defenseman who can fill in when a top four D-Man gets injured (Ballard was a HEALTHY SCRATH in the Stanley Cup Finals despite injuries to Hamhuis, Edler, and Ehrhoff and a suspended Aaron Rome) have cost this team dearly the last two years. If Jason Garrison is not going to be utilized on the powerplay consistency (perhaps that’s chafing but I’m not convinced) then this will be just another example of a play not meeting his salary’s worth.

    Regardless there seems to be a disconnect between management and the coaching staff about a players value and their subsequent role because to often the Canucks are acquiring players with significant salary and utilizing them in roles that don’t make any sense.

    • ikillchicken - Mar 19, 2013 at 9:16 PM

      “The inability to find Ryan Kesler a winger who complements him (Booth and Kesler haven’t really been healthy at the same time to form a definitive judgement but it hasn’t worked out so far)”

      It is perplexing to me that you are able to explain why jumping to such a conclusion is nonsense…but then proceed to do so anyway.

      • canucks30 - Mar 19, 2013 at 9:38 PM

        I was simply pointing out that it is unfair to judge David Booth definitively but as of right now from a pragmatic standpoint he simply has not provided value for what he is being paid. Until he does his contract serves as an anchor for improving this team especially with a diminishing salary cap and the raises given to Edler and Burrows over the last year. The injuries that Booth has suffered are not entirely his fault but at the same time part of a players true value is his durability and the ability to play a lot of games year in and year out.

      • ikillchicken - Mar 19, 2013 at 10:24 PM

        Sorry but I think “durability” is a myth. It’s something we like to say exists so we can pretend hockey is totally predictable but it just isn’t. Unless you’re talking about some kind of chronic, recurring thing, injuries are ultimately random. As such, sometimes players just get hurt a lot. It’s not a foreseeable thing. You can’t blame anyone for it. You just have to accept it.

  5. canucks30 - Mar 19, 2013 at 4:42 PM

    Jason Garrison’s increased powerplay time has only come due to Alex Edler’s calendar year of indifferent play (speaking of which there is another potentially BAD CONTRACT). He was benched from both powerplay units for the better part of a month and a half.

    I’m also familiar with Garrison’s defensive game, CORSI stats, and underling possession and shot differential numbers. He can be effective in a shutdown role but even then he often see’s less ice time than Edler, Bieksa, Hamhuis, and Tanev and isn’t always used in the PK. Time will tell if he gets put into a similar role as the one he had in Florida and can excel but with the present coaching and management staff I have my doubts.

  6. canucks30 - Mar 19, 2013 at 5:26 PM

    Bottom line Vancouver has 4 D-Men (Edler, Hamhuis, Garrison, and Ballard) who shoot left, are only comfortable on the left side, and make $4+ Million in salary. As long as that’s the case one will have to play on the right and thus have reduced effectiveness or sit in the press box. That is not good asset management in the salary cap era. Hence, 2 out of the 4 will have Bad Contracts

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kessel (1835)
  2. P. Kane (1303)
  3. P. Datsyuk (1282)
  4. M. Richards (1138)
  5. M. Giordano (1121)