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.
With Alberts as our #7 we've already got that in reserve. Having Alberts and Vandermeer as #7/8 guys doesn't really give AV any options since they're the same type of player. Barker at least gives AV a different flavour, if he's in the mix for NHL time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows
I'm starting to worry about our pro scouts and how they assess D men....
Ballard, Gragnani, Barker.. who else am I missing?
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.
And no team goes 82-0-0. But a team that fancies itself a contender goes into every game looking for the win, not hoping not to lose. The front office equivalent is the difference between "a player that helps the team" and "a player that doesn't hurt the team".
One thing differs for me from Sturm to Barker. Sturms contract was the problem, it was horrid. Barkers contract is the best thing about this move, cheap and only for one year, but that is not the problem and was never a point of contention. The player is the problem here. People talk about upside; I see none. Simple as that.
Then everyone is talking about throwing this player on the Wolves as a dumping ground and I'm stuck watching this crap. I've seen this movie before with Parent who looked scary and lost in front of his net in the last AHL playoffs and attributed to 3 goals against in one game. Forgive me if I don't want to repeat this movie.
And no team goes 82-0-0. But a team that fancies itself a contender goes into every game looking for the win, not hoping not to lose. The front office equivalent is the difference between "a player that helps the team" and "a player that doesn't hurt the team".
Fortunately, you can take chances now and then on questionable players and have it not affect the outcome of the games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefeebster
One thing differs for me from Sturm to Barker. Strums contract was the problem, it was horrid. Barkers contract is the best thing about this move, cheap and only for one year, but that is not the problem and was never a point of contention. The player is the problem here. People talk about upside; I see none. Simple as that.
Then everyone is talking about throwing this player on the Wolves as a dumping ground and I'm stuck watching this crap. I've seen this movie before with Parent who looked scary and lost in front of his net in the last AHL playoffs and attributed to 3 goals against in one game. Forgive me if I don't want to repeat this movie.
The Wolves is where projects go. Get used to it. Better on the Wolves than on the big squad, until he proves he's worthy, or not.
Yeah, I'm really worried about the Canucks moving forward... I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for the Barker decision.
"What tools does he possess guys."
*looks at his draft assessment & resume*
"Well, he recently played in the Spengler Cup on a team with John Tavares."
SIGN HIM
Le sigh.
I think we are witnessing the Canucks fall from grace (I say this not due to this signing, just... everything going on in the organization).
Right...
I'm sure they didn't evaluate the fact that he has some upside coming back from injury, has skated this year and that Chris Pronger wasn't available.
Apparently Canuck fans think a Norris Trophy winner can come in for an 8th spot for the league minimum.
And if you knew anything at all about hockey, you would know that Barker only had a 25 game contract, and was released at the end because the AHL Stars wanted to bring up Hubert Labrie who is a 21 year old Dallas prospect who is having a great season as a shut down D-man in the ECHL.
And don't say "le sigh." I'm bettng you're not a fat valley girl so you shouldn't type annoying stuff like that.
The Wolves is where projects go. Get used to it. Better on the Wolves than on the big squad, until he proves he's worthy, or not.
As I mentioned previously, watching this guy at the AHL level instills no faith in his abilities at the AHL level or overly optimistic thoughts of this mysterious upside. I don't want him on the team even as a project because he is a no-reward project. Any time spent working on this project is a waste, there's nothing left here.
Just expressing my opinion and will continue to when he is with the Wolves, better "get use to it."
But let me guess your response.... "Over-reaction."
Well we've all watched him play for years, we've seen how he plays night in and night out and he is a terrible hockey player that doesn't fill any need for us. He's not a good skater, he's sure not tough, he's just a guy... a guy that puts on gear and tries to play hockey... and sucks at it.
Yes I am sure "Nugent Hopkins Fan" knows more than every GM who has seen something in this guy.
1.) It suggests very poor pro scouting by the Canucks,
And, way more importantly:
2.) AV's comments that Barker reminds him of Higgins really makes AV look like... well, a moron. The only similarities at this point are that they've both been on many teams recently. Higgins had much better seasons and had good peripheral numbers: Barker has been a lousy player his entire career and hasn't stuck anywhere for that reason.
I wouldn't even waste one of 50 spots on this guy, and I don't get why he's making more than league minimum. He's a trashy player who's never done anything in the NHL. Even his one season with 40 points playing on the 1st unit in Chicago was terrible:
Quote:
Fun fact: In Barker's 40-pt season, he had a negative Corsi Rel, Qualcomp and 60% Ozone rate.
As I mentioned previously, watching this guy at the AHL level instills no faith in his abilities at the AHL level or overly optimistic thoughts of this mysterious upside. I don't want him on the team even as a project because he is a no-reward project. Any time spent working on this project is a waste, there's nothing left here.
Just expressing my opinion and will continue to when he is with the Wolves, better "get use to it."
But let me guess your response.... "Over-reaction."
You are entitled to your opinion, and it probably has merit...but it is an overreaction...But I can understand your apprehension since you seem to be more of an avid follower of the Wolves, but this isn't as big a cause for concern for Canuck fans.
I certainly hope you are aware of the hypocracy in your posts?
You prattle on about how people are overreactionary and not able to look at this at rationally.
Then you make a flippant remark that anyone disagrees with this and thinks it's a terrible move thinks we should fire Gillis over it? That's the argument of a weak mind.
Personally the reason I hate this move so much is that's another in a line of poor scouting moves. Letting Ehrhoff walk while keeping Ballard, bringing back Alberts, signing Sturm, trading for Booth (jury is out I admit, but I don't like his game much), trading for Pahlsson (he was clearly done as a top nine forward), letting Rome go while keeping Alberts again, now this. The only good move in between IMO was signing Garrison, which while Gillis deserves credit, is another BC boy coming home like Hamhuis, so Gillis had a clear edge.
It's just that, the more I look at Gillis' record, the only really impressive work he's done is with contracts and Cap management. Nothing else really stands out as above average.
He's not a bad GM by any means. But I stuggle to see this elite GM so many other Canuck fans seem to see.
Ehrhoff go a 10 year, 40 million dollar deal.
If you think he is worth that, you'd probably think Kevin Bieksa is worth A trillion and a half.
1.) It suggests very poor pro scouting by the Canucks,
And, way more importantly:
2.) AV's comments that Barker reminds him of Higgins really makes AV look like... well, a moron. The only similarities at this point are that they've both been on many teams recently. Higgins had much better seasons and had good peripheral numbers: Barker has been a lousy player his entire career and hasn't stuck anywhere for that reason.
I wouldn't even waste one of 50 spots on this guy, and I don't get why he's making more than league minimum. He's a trashy player who's never done anything in the NHL. Even his one season with 40 points playing on the 1st unit in Chicago was terrible:
Yet two previous teams took a flyer on him paying him big dollars and giving him regular time.
This suggest despite what fans may think there are markets for these terrible players.
My guess is MG is thinking:
1) maybe he can turn his game around. If not no loss.
2) if he cant turn around his game enough for our liking maybe a team is desperate enough to give up a 4th or even a 3rd come deadline.
Alberts and Rome are serviceable. Ehrhoff we picked off a team that needed to dump salary. Hamhuis was coming here, hell or high water.
The Canucks were the only team with salary room? Of course not.
And the whole "Hamhuis would've come anyway" is complete BS. Dozens of other teams were vying for his service so GMMG had to be good enough to make sure he would come without an excessive price tag. That kind of train of thought - that players "want to play home" regardless of circumstance is what has led to Toronto and Montreal being miserable at picking up the big fishes. None of them will come if the team isn't competitive or if the organization doesn't look robust.
