HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Canucks sign UFA D Cam Barker to 1-Year, $700K Deal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-13-2013, 09:01 PM
  #301
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Outside of that year, he has 54 points in 228 NHL games, or 19 points/82 games.

He scored 8 points in 23 AHL games this year despite getting loads of PP time.

He showed some offensive skills in junior, but at the pro level - outside of that one fluke season that was a direct result of his supporting cast - he's done squat.

And his problem isn't just that he's soft. You can be soft and still be a serviceable NHL defender. His problem is that he's stupid. His defensive reads are possibly the worst I've ever seen by a guy playing regular minutes at the NHL level. Just has no idea whatsoever how to read the play - even if he had grit and worked hard, he'd be a liability because of this.
No arguements here about his defensive coverage - ****in' brutal. BUT, at least he has a shred of offensive ability, and could be a PP specialist at least if injuries decimate the team.

monster_bertuzzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:05 PM
  #302
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
It only reflects poorly on the organization if Barker hurts the team, that is yet to happen. Like the Sturm signing, if Barker doesn't add anything he'll be squeezed out of the organization or into a place where he won't hurt the team. This isn't a big deal.
Ah, so obviously stupid (from the second they were made) moves like the Sturm signing are 'OK!' if we manage to dig our way out of the hole later on. Gotcha.

The Sturm signing still a) prevented us from signing a superior player that offseason, b) altered the deal with Florida since he clearly had negative value at the time, and c) was damned lucky to be sorted in the way it was.

As noted, signing a crappy 7th-8th defender in Andrew Alberts might have cost us a Cup in 2011 - when he was forced to play due to injuries, he was utterly horrendous and was a -8 in 9 games. Completely unplayable and we didn't have any other options.

Small signings matter. This won't sink the ship, but you don't want a bunch of unnecessary pinholes slowly leaking water.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:06 PM
  #303
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
No, it reflects poorly if he doesn't help the team. If the test of our scouting is that we pick up players that don't hurt the team, we're in bad shape.
Not all players they sign/trade for are going to pan out, they can't bat 1.000. They've made some questionable choices and this is one of them, but until he blows it I'm not going to piss and moan about it. It's a minor signing that has almost zero downside, because if its not upside it's no-side at all.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:08 PM
  #304
Momesso
Registered User
 
Momesso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Good grief.

Yeah, it's a minor move. But it's a crap minor move that makes the team worse.

Of course people are going to be grumpy about it.

Like the bizarre Sturm signing, it's crappy pro scouting that reflects poorly on the organization.
Agreed. No reason to make a crap move, even if a minor one. Reeks of Marco Sturm. Inexplicable.

Momesso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:09 PM
  #305
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
No arguements here about his defensive coverage - ****in' brutal. BUT, at least he has a shred of offensive ability, and could be a PP specialist at least if injuries decimate the team.
But again, he's received regular, consistent PP time over the past two seasons in Edmonton and Minnesota, and scored 3 PP points in 76 games. That's just absolutely awful.

Some guys just 'lose it'.

Barker could never play defense worth a damn, but the psychological beating he's taken due to his failings there seems to have taken out his offensive ability at the same time. Result is a shell of a player who is horrible at both ends of the rink.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:09 PM
  #306
Bitz and Bites
Registered User
 
Bitz and Bites's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYVanfan View Post
that means we can take a 2-for-1 in a goalie deal (or one more than we send out...)
Interesting, barring any other moves, a multi-player return not likely for Luo.
Can always send a non-performing contract the other way to make it work.Guys like Stephan Schnieder,Kellan Tochkin,and Yann Sauve are easily expendable.

Bitz and Bites is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:09 PM
  #307
alternate
Registered User
 
alternate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,243
vCash: 500
The only thing worse than Cam Barker is the overreaction to this signing. He either comes in and puts his game together (doubt it) or he gives the Wolves PP a boost.

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:10 PM
  #308
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momesso View Post
Agreed. No reason to make a crap move, even if a minor one. Reeks of Marco Sturm. Inexplicable.
Not really. Sturm was signed for 2.5 million and was a ''replacement'' for Torres (another **** up letting him go, by the way). This is 700 k we're friggin talking about here.

monster_bertuzzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:13 PM
  #309
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Not all players they sign/trade for are going to pan out, they can't bat 1.000. They've made some questionable choices and this is one of them, but until he blows it I'm not going to piss and moan about it. It's a minor signing that has almost zero downside, because if its not upside it's no-side at all.
Of course not all signings work out.

But you want all signings to make sense at the time. Trading for Ballard didn't work out, but you can see the logic there and it's hard to be too critical.

Sturm was an utterly baffling, stupid move. So is this. Bad, washed-up players - that everybody knows are rubbish - signed to one-way deals when there are a multitude of better options available. Not good enough.

Same with drafting - there are sensible picks that don't turn out (Josh Holden) and utterly idiotic picks that are immediately an utter waste of the selection (Ellington, etc.).

Let's not confuse the two and lump all 'bad moves' together.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:14 PM
  #310
Bobby Lou
Moustache Power
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,459
vCash: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
The only thing worse than Cam Barker is the overreaction to this signing. He either comes in and puts his game together (doubt it) or he gives the Wolves PP a boost.
Haha this is my exact response... No fan of Barker, but he's likely an AHL player here.

Bobby Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:15 PM
  #311
Momesso
Registered User
 
Momesso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Not really. Sturm was signed for 2.5 million and was a ''replacement'' for Torres (another **** up letting him go, by the way). This is 700 k we're friggin talking about here.
Dollars aside, both are a waste of roster spots. Why couldn't Barker just be invited to camp?

I'd much rather have Rome than the $1.8 we're spending on Alberts and Barker now (hindsight being 20/20...I know).

Momesso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:16 PM
  #312
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
The only thing worse than Cam Barker is the overreaction to this signing. He either comes in and puts his game together (doubt it) or he gives the Wolves PP a boost.
... or he's forced to play because of injuries and the fact we're nearly out of contract spots, and don't have any better AHL options available, and costs us games.

It's not like we have a load of guys in Chicago who can just step up if our #7-8 defender sucks. Tanev is already penciled into the lineup ahead of Barker, and everyone else down there is awful. Connauton and Sauve cannot play at the NHL level, and Corrado can't be called up unless he makes the team to start the season.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:18 PM
  #313
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Lou View Post
Haha this is my exact response... No fan of Barker, but he's likely an AHL player here.
I'd sooner have the Canucks give a high AHL salary (eg., non-NHL contract) to a career AHLer (re: help with defenseman depth for the Wolves). A waste of a contract spot (we're close to the limit of 50 so it's an issue). At least MAG was a more than respectable AHLer. I question how good Barker is even at the AHL level.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:21 PM
  #314
alternate
Registered User
 
alternate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
... or he's forced to play because of injuries and the fact we're nearly out of contract spots, and don't have any better AHL options available, and costs us games.

It's not like we have a load of guys in Chicago who can just step up if our #7-8 defender sucks. Tanev is already penciled into the lineup ahead of Barker, and everyone else down there is awful. Connauton and Sauve cannot play at the NHL level, and Corrado can't be called up unless he makes the team to start the season.
Fortunately we don't need to stamp the roster we have today in stone. All the guys available that we could have signed instead are still available if we want any.

It's a reclamation project. IMO the idea is to have Barker spend the year in CHI to get "re-wired" so to speak. If he shows something, look at re-signing him.

The only negative is the lost contract slot, but I've got no problem with Gillis taking some high-reward gambles.

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:29 PM
  #315
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Of course not all signings work out.

But you want all signings to make sense at the time. Trading for Ballard didn't work out, but you can see the logic there and it's hard to be too critical.

Sturm was an utterly baffling, stupid move. So is this. Bad, washed-up players - that everybody knows are rubbish - signed to one-way deals when there are a multitude of better options available. Not good enough.

Same with drafting - there are sensible picks that don't turn out (Josh Holden) and utterly idiotic picks that are immediately an utter waste of the selection (Ellington, etc.).

Let's not confuse the two and lump all 'bad moves' together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
... or he's forced to play because of injuries and the fact we're nearly out of contract spots, and don't have any better AHL options available, and costs us games.

It's not like we have a load of guys in Chicago who can just step up if our #7-8 defender sucks. Tanev is already penciled into the lineup ahead of Barker, and everyone else down there is awful. Connauton and Sauve cannot play at the NHL level, and Corrado can't be called up unless he makes the team to start the season.
Bit of a difference between a $2.25m and a $700k contract. I hated the Sturm signing, but it was because it was a huge overpayment...Unless Barker has some miraculous turn around he'll be in the AHL, if he's the ***** in the AHL, he won't get a sniff of the NHL. You think management won't be keeping tabs on his play to see if he's someone they think they can count on? If Gillis doesn't feel his depth on defense is adequate when the deadline comes around I would tend to think he'd address it (I hope), I don't think now is the time to be worried about a minor league depth signing.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:32 PM
  #316
phillipsj89
Registered User
 
phillipsj89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
... or he's forced to play because of injuries and the fact we're nearly out of contract spots, and don't have any better AHL options available, and costs us games.

It's not like we have a load of guys in Chicago who can just step up if our #7-8 defender sucks. Tanev is already penciled into the lineup ahead of Barker, and everyone else down there is awful. Connauton and Sauve cannot play at the NHL level, and Corrado can't be called up unless he makes the team to start the season.
So when we have injuries on the back-end you suggest we replace them with...... no one? honestly, 700k, tons of upside, almost no downside. You have a better idea?

phillipsj89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:34 PM
  #317
oilphan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,715
vCash: 500
Oiler fan coming in peace. Barker was absolutely the worst blue liner for the Oilers last year. Now, he also played with one of the worst teams in the league, which may very well have amplified his weaknesses. But I just can't see him helping you guys.

oilphan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:36 PM
  #318
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
The Modfather
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,289
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by EpochLink View Post
Knowing AV, he'll be his new Aaron Rome

Meh on Barker, depth defensemen
I'm not a big fan of this signing, but I don't see this at all.

Barker is about as completely different a player from Rome as you can get. Whereas Rome was a meat and potatoes defensemen who made safe plays, Barker is (supposed to be) a puck rushing defensemen with offensive skills that can run a PP.

AV liked Rome because he made safe, smart defensive plays and was dependable. For all the flak Rome took around here, he was a solid player. Barker's defensive game would have to improve by leaps and bounds for him to be in the same conversation.

At the moment, Barker fills in as a No. 8 on the depth chart; so filling the same role that Sulzer/Gragnani filled last year. It's not ideal, but at $700,000, it's not a back breaker either. I think there was a bigger opportunity to grab some muscle (a la Vandermeer), as that's an element our blueline is missing - we have lots of solid PP/Offensive defenders.

Mr. Canucklehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:39 PM
  #319
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
I'm not a big fan of this signing, but I don't see this at all.

Barker is about as completely different a player from Rome as you can get. Whereas Rome was a meat and potatoes defensemen who made safe plays, Barker is (supposed to be) a puck rushing defensemen with offensive skills that can run a PP.

AV liked Rome because he made safe, smart defensive plays and was dependable. For all the flak Rome took around here, he was a solid player. Barker's defensive game would have to improve by leaps and bounds for him to be in the same conversation.

At the moment, Barker fills in as a No. 8 on the depth chart; so filling the same role that Sulzer/Gragnani filled last year. It's not ideal, but at $700,000, it's not a back breaker either. I think there was a bigger opportunity to grab some muscle (a la Vandermeer), as that's an element our blueline is missing - we have lots of solid PP/Offensive defenders.
As soon as Gragnani showed he couldn't play a reliable game AV had him in the pressbox, never to be seen again...the same will go for Barker. Get a chance to prove yourself, if you don't show well, you're gone...if you play well you might get another chance.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:40 PM
  #320
Christina Woloski
Registered Something
 
Christina Woloski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Narnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
... or he's forced to play because of injuries and the fact we're nearly out of contract spots, and don't have any better AHL options available, and costs us games.

It's not like we have a load of guys in Chicago who can just step up if our #7-8 defender sucks. Tanev is already penciled into the lineup ahead of Barker, and everyone else down there is awful. Connauton and Sauve cannot play at the NHL level, and Corrado can't be called up unless he makes the team to start the season.
SO, you're upset at the Barker signing because he took a spot...


... you realize if he's getting put in, it's because he's the best for the spot?


Essentially, you're saying. "Why did we sign Barker? We have no one."


There's no major harm in this signing. Enough overreacting. I didn't even know everyone was expecting us to sign a defenseman.


It just looks like this is taking a flyer on a player that once had a lot of promise and is only 26 years old. He was hampered with injuries and may be they found him to be in good shape. Maybe they think they can try a new type of role for him. Who knows.
It's so minimal, such a non-factor and if still only a 1/10 chance of working out on the Canucks roster, worth the roster spot.

Christina Woloski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:40 PM
  #321
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16,892
vCash: 500
The money and term make all the difference. This isn't a salary you have to work to dump. 700k is easily dismissed. I was much more up in arms about the Desbiens signing, but this is what a depth signing is, more or less. Question marks will be there.


The pro scouting on this team sucks. However, I can absolutely see the _reason_ behind acquiring Barker. Gillis isn't looking for a stay at home option like a Rome, Weaver or Sulzer. He wants a depth PMD, which Barker is. Aside from a trade, getting that type is pretty difficult. So this is the best of a bad lot. They are taking a risk, sure, but I understand why they are taking it.




Edit: Oh, and the most important aspect of this defense, without a doubt, is the first pass. If Barker is poor defensively, but has a solid first pass, they will still give him opportunity after opportunity to get it going. The first pass is vital here.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:42 PM
  #322
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by m9 View Post
How is the depth much worse? Garrison is a substantial upgrade over the version of Salo we had last year. Oh and one of the main reasons we had so many injuries on D was because Salo was the one constantly hurt. People like to talk about Sulzer like some god because he played well in Buffalo, but he showed little here. Gragnani was brutal. So all of a sudden our depth has fallen off a cliff going from Salo and Gragnani/Sulzer to Garrison and Barker? I'll take that 'drop' anytime.

Also your list of the guys we lost for nothing is nonsense. How about guys we've signed like Garrison and Hamhuis? How did we get Mitchell and Rome in the first place. We got Ehrhoff for nothing and traded him for a pick on the way out. Players come and go in free agency, and the Canucks have done just fine with their D moves.
you are assuming Edler-Garrison will be better than Edler-Salo. You don't know. What we do know is that when healthy (his play fell off after Marchand's dirty hit), Salo is an excellent natural right side defender (don't take my word for it, Scotty Bowman said so; he's also 2nd among active dmen in plus minus..), who Edler is very familiar with. Edler and Garrison are not familiar with each other (we saw how the Edler-Bieksa pairing worked out). And one of them will be asked to play their off-side. tbh, I don't like to put a new player like Garrison in that situation, he already has to adjust to a new team.

Ballard our 6th dman has not worked out by most accounts. Same for Alberts, the #7 D. They were arguably 8th and 9th on the depth chart LY. Why did they get "promoted" Because we lost depth. After them, there is no NHL experience other than Barker to speak of, and you saw the negative comments from credible posters on that signing.

The list is not nonsense. Why would an organization let so many NHL caliber dmen go to free agency? Because they believe they have a lot of depth but if they really don't, then it means they took the depth for granted. The taken for granted opinion is supported by the lack of results to re-sign Salo or Rome.

I do realize I'm in the extreme minority who believes this (as I was on the Ballard trade..) because in the entire discussion on Luongo trade, the only D ever mentioned practically was Gardiner and most of the talk is about adding forwards...

YMMV but I stand by my post - the team took the D esp. its depth for granted - on the balance of probabilities, the team will be a lot weaker defensively this year, unless the team does something, hopefully they will before their back is against the wall.

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:42 PM
  #323
EpochLink
Canucks and Jets fan
 
EpochLink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,571
vCash: 500
Hard to believe Barker was the third round pick after Ovy and Malkin..

EpochLink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:43 PM
  #324
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
I'm starting to worry about our pro scouts and how they assess D men....

Ballard, Gragnani, Barker.. who else am I missing?

Crows* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-13-2013, 09:43 PM
  #325
Christina Woloski
Registered Something
 
Christina Woloski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Narnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
you are assuming Edler-Garrison will be better than Edler-Salo. You don't know. What we do know is that when healthy (his play fell off after Marchand's dirty hit), Salo is an excellent natural right side defender (don't take my word for it, Scotty Bowman said so; he's also 2nd among active dmen in plus minus..), who Edler is very familiar with. Edler and Garrison are not familiar with each other (we saw how the Edler-Bieksa pairing worked out). And one of them will be asked to play their off-side. tbh, I don't like to put a new player like Garrison in that situation, he already has to adjust to a new team.

Ballard our 6th dman has not worked out by most accounts. Same for Alberts, the #7 D. They were arguably 8th and 9th on the depth chart LY. Why did they get "promoted" Because we lost depth. After them, there is no NHL experience other than Barker to speak of, and you saw the negative comments from credible posters on that signing.

The list is not nonsense. Why would an organization let so many NHL caliber dmen go to free agency? Because they believe they have a lot of depth but if they really don't, then it means they took the depth for granted. The taken for granted opinion is supported by the lack of results to re-sign Salo or Rome.

I do realize I'm in the extreme minority who believes this (as I was on the Ballard trade..) because in the entire discussion on Luongo trade, the only D ever mentioned practically was Gardiner and most of the talk is about adding forwards...

YMMV but I stand by my post - the team took the D esp. its depth for granted - on the balance of probabilities, the team will be a lot weaker defensively this year, unless the team does something, hopefully they will before their back is against the wall.
SO.. Who would you like for the same cost instead that's available ?

Christina Woloski is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.