Jim, Ben and Tom have been going round and round on Columbus' signing of veteran defenseman Adam Foote, and I thought it was my turn to throw in my two cents. Let's listen to ESPN.com's Terry Frei for a moment:
If the game truly opens up, the issue is whether a 34-year-old defenseman of unquestioned talent and grit is at least less valuable than before. Yet Foote made it through the World Cup last year without even drawing a penalty, and he is better offensively than advertised. Plus, it's perilous to assume that the latest zero-tolerance pronouncements about obstruction actually will mean much more than the previous 316 zero-tolerance pronouncements about obstruction, despite the actual tweaking of the rulebook.
34 is certainly getting up there in terms of age, and when it comes to how the game is going to change, it looks like the early bets are split (Anheim and the Isles -- among others -- stressing mobility, while teams like Philly and Washington are looking for guys with a ridiculously high body mass index).
Then again, if you had the chance to acquire a 34-year old Scott Stevens right now, would you make that move?
The guy Stevens reminds me the most of over the course of his career was Denis Potvin, but by the time he hit 34 his days of quarterbacking the power play were long gone, and his similarity to Foote offensively at this point of their careers is quite striking. And unlike Foote, at that point in his career Stevens had only won one cup to Foote's two.
So is Foote worth what Columbus will pay him? If the Blue Jackets make the playoffs this season and manage to win a round, I'm sure GM Doug McLean will feel Foote was worth every penny.
But if I was faced with the same personnel decision, I'm afraid I'd take a pass on Foote at that price every time.
