Harry York 37 wrote: ↑19 Oct 2025 17:20 pm
The only things not “good” about Buch are his appearance and his demeanor.
He has been our most dependable forward since he has been here.
If he did not resemble the mad Nazi in the original film THE PRODUCERS, much of the hate would evaporate.
NONE of the arguments against him hold up against statistics.
If his haters were blind, they would find more deserving targets for criticism.
Agree with 90 percent (maybe 100).
To me, he resembles Count Chocula*, but I have not seen The Producers, hence the 90-100 range.
*Once in a great while, mom would buy the name-brand, and CC was inhaled in a hurry!
I get Count Chocula.
Here is the brilliant Kenneth Mars, wiping the stage with Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel- not exactly lightweights
I give you:
Ace07 wrote: ↑19 Oct 2025 09:14 am
He's 30 now, off to a bit of a slow start and maybe has lost a small step.
BUT, he has 267 points in 297 games with the Blues. Well over a 70+ point pace over a full season. He's never had a minus season and is +56 in those 297 games. Despite a slow start, he's still contributed at times and has managed 4 points in 5 games. I think he will improve as the season progresses, and contribute 60-65 points or so. Definitely not someone I worry about from a production standpoint, he's earned it. Pretty ridiculous thread IMO.
Buch also has 19 points in 19 playoff games with the Blues. Thanks for quoting the stats. The thread is ridiculous. You don't "luck into" almost a point per game for over 300 games.
Jroll71 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 09:22 am
He's not worth $8M a year and we have him six more years. That extension and the trade for Mailloux were dumb on Army's part.
Jroll71 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 09:22 am
He's not worth $8M a year and we have him six more years. That extension and the trade for Mailloux were dumb on Army's part.
One could pick out many 8 mil players and argue that he's paid market value.
Canucks--gave Garland 6 milllion and Boeser 9+ million. Id say hes somewhere in between those two guys. Numbers similar to Boeser.
Other names in his range: Fiala, Landeskog, Verhaeghe, Ehlers,
Timo Meir-8.8 million.
Buch is older and paid very well. It may be bad last 2 or 3 years. Right now its fair.
Jroll71 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 09:22 am
He's not worth $8M a year and we have him six more years. That extension and the trade for Mailloux were dumb on Army's part.
One could pick out many 8 mil players and argue that he's paid market value.
Canucks--gave Garland 6 milllion and Boeser 9+ million. Id say hes somewhere in between those two guys. Numbers similar to Boeser.
Other names in his range: Fiala, Landeskog, Verhaeghe, Ehlers,
Timo Meir-8.8 million.
Buch is older and paid very well. It may be bad last 2 or 3 years. Right now its fair.
And other 6-8 mil players are exceeding that. I can think of a boatload of players I’d rather have for that.
Jroll71 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 09:22 am
He's not worth $8M a year and we have him six more years. That extension and the trade for Mailloux were dumb on Army's part.
One could pick out many 8 mil players and argue that he's paid market value.
Canucks--gave Garland 6 milllion and Boeser 9+ million. Id say hes somewhere in between those two guys. Numbers similar to Boeser.
Other names in his range: Fiala, Landeskog, Verhaeghe, Ehlers,
Timo Meir-8.8 million.
Buch is older and paid very well. It may be bad last 2 or 3 years. Right now its fair.
And other 6-8 mil players are exceeding that. I can think of a boatload of players I’d rather have for that.
Really, what is there to complain about if he keeps outplaying Rantanen and similar players like he did the other night? I watched the game and I can read the stats.
It's not like Army has free choice of players all available in a big pot. The grass often appears greener on the other side of the fence but is it really that different, is the Blues situation really that bad? No.
Jroll71 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 09:22 am
He's not worth $8M a year and we have him six more years. That extension and the trade for Mailloux were dumb on Army's part.
One could pick out many 8 mil players and argue that he's paid market value.
Canucks--gave Garland 6 milllion and Boeser 9+ million. Id say hes somewhere in between those two guys. Numbers similar to Boeser.
Other names in his range: Fiala, Landeskog, Verhaeghe, Ehlers,
Timo Meir-8.8 million.
Buch is older and paid very well. It may be bad last 2 or 3 years. Right now its fair.
And other 6-8 mil players are exceeding that. I can think of a boatload of players I’d rather have for that.
Really, what is there to complain about if he keeps outplaying Rantanen and similar players like he did the other night? I watched the game and I can read the stats.
It's not like Army has free choice of players all available in a big pot. The grass often appears greener on the other side of the fence but is it really that different, is the Blues situation really that bad? No.
I'm taking buchnevich on my team every day of the week. He is a consistent contributor. Doesn't have dry spells like a few other players. That contract could end bad but the way he plays he will always have a role. He's a 200ft player and Rangers fans are still (upset) that they got fleeced for him. Only thing to be concerned about is if the goaless streak continues. That will get in his head. It was like last year or 2 years ago when he had a goal drought, he did that one Celebration that he stole from his russian friend who said (this is what I do when I suck). Was a really funny interview. He will find his way to get to 20, but you want him pushing 30 and trying to be a PPG guy.
Jroll71 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 09:22 am
He's not worth $8M a year and we have him six more years. That extension and the trade for Mailloux were dumb on Army's part.
One could pick out many 8 mil players and argue that he's paid market value.
Canucks--gave Garland 6 milllion and Boeser 9+ million. Id say hes somewhere in between those two guys. Numbers similar to Boeser.
Other names in his range: Fiala, Landeskog, Verhaeghe, Ehlers,
Timo Meir-8.8 million.
Buch is older and paid very well. It may be bad last 2 or 3 years. Right now its fair.
And other 6-8 mil players are exceeding that. I can think of a boatload of players I’d rather have for that.
Really, what is there to complain about if he keeps outplaying Rantanen and similar players like he did the other night? I watched the game and I can read the stats.
It's not like Army has free choice of players all available in a big pot. The grass often appears greener on the other side of the fence but is it really that different, is the Blues situation really that bad? No.
So if Schenn looks better than McDavid in November for a game are you going to talk about it being significant?
Jroll71 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2025 09:22 am
He's not worth $8M a year and we have him six more years. That extension and the trade for Mailloux were dumb on Army's part.
One could pick out many 8 mil players and argue that he's paid market value.
Canucks--gave Garland 6 milllion and Boeser 9+ million. Id say hes somewhere in between those two guys. Numbers similar to Boeser.
Other names in his range: Fiala, Landeskog, Verhaeghe, Ehlers,
Timo Meir-8.8 million.
Buch is older and paid very well. It may be bad last 2 or 3 years. Right now its fair.
And other 6-8 mil players are exceeding that. I can think of a boatload of players I’d rather have for that.
Really, what is there to complain about if he keeps outplaying Rantanen and similar players like he did the other night? I watched the game and I can read the stats.
It's not like Army has free choice of players all available in a big pot. The grass often appears greener on the other side of the fence but is it really that different, is the Blues situation really that bad? No.
So if Schenn looks better than McDavid in November for a game are you going to talk about it being significant?
