View Single Post
01-19-2013, 07:12 AM
vanuck's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,112
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Yup. Just a terrible, terrible hockey player.

He's a poor man's Andy Delmore. The worst defensive defender in the NHL.

And as you say, after all the talk about advanced stats and moneypuck and whatnot .... it feels like we're constantly doing the exact opposite.

The risk is that a terrible hockey player is forced to play in the playoffs and contributes to sinking our season.

That people are saying this is 'zero risk' is mindboggling. Doesn't anyone remember Andrew Alberts' disastrous playoff performances in 2010 and 2011, that were a massive factor in our eliminations both years?

A horrible player forced into significant playoff minutes is a disaster. You need your depth guys to be able to cover reasonable minutes without killing you.

It's the principle.

It's like if someone you knew just spent $10 000 on magic beans. It's such an utterly, obviously, doomed to fail move on such a pile of total crap that it's damned upsetting.

Barker isn't some marginal, kinda crappy fringe defender who will be neither here nor there. He's a tragic trainwreck of a hockey player.

Barker's 40-point season means nothing.

It was a total mirage, a fluke caused because Chicago didn't use their two best offensive defenders on their first-unit PP that entire season, in order to give them more ES/PK time.

If you put Andrew Alberts on a #1 PP unit alongside Kane/Toews/Campbell/etc., he'd score 40 points too. Doesn't mean a damned thing.

This is just a lazy, lazy response.

We've actually had decent guys in that role in recent years - Rome, Sulzer, Weaver, and the like. Good solid guys who didn't hurt the team and provided solid value for the role. Vandermeer might have been that sort of guy, and there are other unsigned players floating around.

That we took such a lousy, rotten, 4th rate option to fill that spot is not acceptable.
Agree with this. You don't make bad signings like this and then just brush it off like it's nothing - it has ramifications for your hockey club, even if he was signed to league minimum. It takes up a contract spot and prevents you from acquiring better players. Pretty sure there are better options out there being exposed to waivers. Heck, look at Dale Weise last year - much better than the garbage we've had for 4th line wingers in the recent past...

You want your team to operate on good principles and to make transactions based on good reason and sense. To be a contender, you should expect this sort of scrutiny.

Also, it also hints of horrible, horrible pro scouting if the Canucks aren't aware of what he truly is - a shell of a player simply living off his former status as a 3rd overall pick that doesn't bring anything to the table, and actively hurts your team when he's out there.

Even if Barker is sent to the farm, it's still not an ideal situation because he's still taking up valuable minutes that would be best used to develop our prospects. It would be just like another Parent on the farm, but possibly even worse.

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote