|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Oct 13, 2009 8:35:06 GMT -5
Just read this blog and the guy makes some interesting points about getting Cam Barker from the Hawks. tinyurl.com/yh3latn |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 13, 2009 21:01:44 GMT -5
I read that earlier. You know, two other teams that are having serious goaltending problems are Toronto (shock, surprise) and, drum roll, Detroit.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 13, 2009 21:21:40 GMT -5
Barker's a nice piece who's not fully developed yet in my opinion. I'm not sure he's worth his salary, but like his skill set and where he could go. (He did have a 6g, 40pt season last year while going -6). I like the idea of a Barker in the lineup a lot because he's still very young, he's big, and he skates well. There are obvious comparisons to Bouwmeester, and were plenty when he was drafted in 2004.
My concern with his salary isn't this year. It's next year, and the article doesn't address it. Mara and Bergeron come off the books next year. That's $2.425 million. IMO, in order to fit Barker in the fold and keep some cap flexibility, someone else has to go. Is it a defender? Or, do we let Metro and his $1 million salary go at the end of the season? Plekanec is a UFA at season's end too. Do we let him and his $2.75 million walk? He could conceivably be back for less depending on his level of success this year.
What side does Barker play? He's a left hand shot. Has this been factored in?
I don't think we'd have to put more than Halak and Skost in the deal. In fact, it could be argued that Halak straight up could even be enough. Considering we're taking on salary, you could argue that we should get a pick, if one is in the deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Oct 13, 2009 22:44:26 GMT -5
Barker's been playing on the right in Chicago afaik, BLNY.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 14, 2009 6:06:44 GMT -5
Considering we're taking on salary, you could argue that we should get a pick, if one is in the deal. You could, but based on the Gomez deal Gainey apparently doesn't believe cap space is a tradeable asset. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 14, 2009 6:12:29 GMT -5
Considering we're taking on salary, you could argue that we should get a pick, if one is in the deal. You could, but based on the Gomez deal Gainey apparently doesn't believe cap space is a tradeable asset. That was my pseudo point with that comment. We'll see if he does anything similar in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 14, 2009 6:46:13 GMT -5
Gainey should put a call out to Chelios .... instant leadership, instant no BS attitude, instant captain , and by jebus, even at 145 yrs old (Chelios is greek for Matuselah don't you know  ), he'd be better than any defenseman we currently have ..... and I bet 1 million is all it would take. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 14, 2009 7:09:41 GMT -5
You could, but based on the Gomez deal Gainey apparently doesn't believe cap space is a tradeable asset. That was my pseudo point with that comment. We'll see if he does anything similar in the future. Gotcha. Subtlety is not my strong point before my second coffee. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 14, 2009 7:20:20 GMT -5
Gainey should put a call out to Chelios .... instant leadership, instant no BS attitude, instant captain , and by jebus, even at 145 yrs old (Chelios is greek for Matuselah don't you know ), he'd be better than any defenseman we currently have ..... and I bet 1 million is all it would take. I don't know how much gas is left in the tank, but I think he'd be an excellent mentor as well, Skilly. Also, if we've been concerned about a bonafide defence coach, then Chelios would fit that bill too. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Oct 14, 2009 7:40:16 GMT -5
Gainey should put a call out to Chelios .... instant leadership, instant no BS attitude, instant captain , and by jebus, even at 145 yrs old (Chelios is greek for Matuselah don't you know ), he'd be better than any defenseman we currently have ..... and I bet 1 million is all it would take. I don't know how much gas is left in the tank, but I think he'd be an excellent mentor as well, Skilly. Also, if we've been concerned about a bonafide defence coach, then Chelios would fit that bill too. Cheers. You guys are right on!! |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 14, 2009 8:08:52 GMT -5
I don't know how much gas is left in the tank, but I think he'd be an excellent mentor as well, Skilly. Also, if we've been concerned about a bonafide defence coach, then Chelios would fit that bill too. Cheers. You guys are right on!! ... and at 145 years old he's just now too old to go partying all night like he used to. |
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Oct 14, 2009 9:40:14 GMT -5
Barker's a nice piece who's not fully developed yet in my opinion. I'm not sure he's worth his salary, but like his skill set and where he could go. (He did have a 6g, 40pt season last year while going -6). I like the idea of a Barker in the lineup a lot because he's still very young, he's big, and he skates well. There are obvious comparisons to Bouwmeester, and were plenty when he was drafted in 2004. My concern with his salary isn't this year. It's next year, and the article doesn't address it. Mara and Bergeron come off the books next year. That's $2.425 million. IMO, in order to fit Barker in the fold and keep some cap flexibility, someone else has to go. Is it a defender? Or, do we let Metro and his $1 million salary go at the end of the season? Plekanec is a UFA at season's end too. Do we let him and his $2.75 million walk? He could conceivably be back for less depending on his level of success this year. What side does Barker play? He's a left hand shot. Has this been factored in? I don't think we'd have to put more than Halak and Skost in the deal. In fact, it could be argued that Halak straight up could even be enough. Considering we're taking on salary, you could argue that we should get a pick, if one is in the deal. My early vote would be to put Gill on waivers or trade him for picks when the time comes to need cap space. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 14, 2009 10:14:00 GMT -5
Barker's a nice piece who's not fully developed yet in my opinion. I'm not sure he's worth his salary, but like his skill set and where he could go. (He did have a 6g, 40pt season last year while going -6). I like the idea of a Barker in the lineup a lot because he's still very young, he's big, and he skates well. There are obvious comparisons to Bouwmeester, and were plenty when he was drafted in 2004. My concern with his salary isn't this year. It's next year, and the article doesn't address it. Mara and Bergeron come off the books next year. That's $2.425 million. IMO, in order to fit Barker in the fold and keep some cap flexibility, someone else has to go. Is it a defender? Or, do we let Metro and his $1 million salary go at the end of the season? Plekanec is a UFA at season's end too. Do we let him and his $2.75 million walk? He could conceivably be back for less depending on his level of success this year. What side does Barker play? He's a left hand shot. Has this been factored in? I don't think we'd have to put more than Halak and Skost in the deal. In fact, it could be argued that Halak straight up could even be enough. Considering we're taking on salary, you could argue that we should get a pick, if one is in the deal. My early vote would be to put Gill on waivers or trade him for picks when the time comes to need cap space. He's got a two year deal. Makes waivers harder. I like Hal, when he's in the role we signed him for. Problem is, with the injuries, he's play more minutes in areas he wouldn't normally. That exposes his weaknesses. It also makes signing future UFAs harder. No one likes seeing a new signing promptly dumped for a new younger player. MAB, while also a UFA was brought in under the pretense that he was a stop gap measure. That's not a prominent role. Gill was brought in to bring experience, leadership, etc. I don't think it sends a good message to discard that sort of signing via the waiver wire or as a salary dump. |
|
|
|
Post by madhabber on Oct 14, 2009 11:20:40 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind adding Barker. They could throw in Niemi if he's not a top prospect for them (not familiar with him). I would prefer getting another goalie back just in case Sanford or Price get injured.
Any combination of Halak, SKost, Carle and picks (not a 1st) going the other way is fine with me.
Hamrlik-Spacek
Mara-Barker
Gorges-Gill
this looks better to me. MAB could conceivably play the 12th forward and PP specialist like Streit did for 2 years for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 14, 2009 11:32:07 GMT -5
Where does that leave Obi? Should he be the odd man out? He was playing very well before getting hurt.
|
|
|
|
Post by madhabber on Oct 14, 2009 12:43:58 GMT -5
That leaves OB out on the IR until he is ready to come back.
By that time, we might need to call someone else up. But it's a matter of putting your best lineup on the ice. And if OB is a better option than Gill or Mara or someone else, so be it. We could try to accommodate a trade, but the best 6 should play.
Players don't like it at that point, but they understand it is the nature of the business.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on Oct 15, 2009 8:05:53 GMT -5
My early vote would be to put Gill on waivers or trade him for picks when the time comes to need cap space. He's got a two year deal. Makes waivers harder. I like Hal, when he's in the role we signed him for. Problem is, with the injuries, he's play more minutes in areas he wouldn't normally. That exposes his weaknesses. It also makes signing future UFAs harder. No one likes seeing a new signing promptly dumped for a new younger player. MAB, while also a UFA was brought in under the pretense that he was a stop gap measure. That's not a prominent role. Gill was brought in to bring experience, leadership, etc. I don't think it sends a good message to discard that sort of signing via the waiver wire or as a salary dump. The thought of putting Gill on waivers was more tounge in cheek then reality since I don't see Montreal moving him, it was more wishful thinking on my part. I loved when the Leafs had Gill because he was so slow and forwards could dump it in his corner and beat him to the puck. I loved him as a Bruin because he was so slow quick wingers could beat him to the outside. As a Montreal Canadien, I'm not loving him nearly as much. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 15, 2009 8:48:48 GMT -5
He's got a two year deal. Makes waivers harder. I like Hal, when he's in the role we signed him for. Problem is, with the injuries, he's play more minutes in areas he wouldn't normally. That exposes his weaknesses. It also makes signing future UFAs harder. No one likes seeing a new signing promptly dumped for a new younger player. MAB, while also a UFA was brought in under the pretense that he was a stop gap measure. That's not a prominent role. Gill was brought in to bring experience, leadership, etc. I don't think it sends a good message to discard that sort of signing via the waiver wire or as a salary dump. The thought of putting Gill on waivers was more tounge in cheek then reality since I don't see Montreal moving him, it was more wishful thinking on my part. I loved when the Leafs had Gill because he was so slow and forwards could dump it in his corner and beat him to the puck. I loved him as a Bruin because he was so slow quick wingers could beat him to the outside. As a Montreal Canadien, I'm not loving him nearly as much. Ahhh ... well his game is better than it was 5 years ago. He improved quite a bit in Pittsburgh. The problem now is the number of minutes he's being asked to play, and the positions that puts him in. I think once all are back, and he's in the third pair and a primary penalty killer we'll be happy. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Oct 15, 2009 15:59:07 GMT -5
I don't think Chicago really needs to solve the goalie situation in the same deal as a potential Barker trade. If Chicago really needs or wants to trade Barker and not take back salary then I would imagine there are LOTS of teams who would be willing to part with a package better than SKost and Halak. A potential headcase of a forward plus a backup goalie for Cam Barker? Really?
I think it would cost a top prospect and a 1st round draft pick, but probably not a top 5 pick and I don't think our prospects are all that special. Plus I don't think the Hawks, a real contender in the West, would trust a guy like Halak more than Huet. They could always find a decent veteran goalie withouut dealing Barker.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 15, 2009 16:55:59 GMT -5
The thought of putting Gill on waivers was more tounge in cheek then reality since I don't see Montreal moving him, it was more wishful thinking on my part. I loved when the Leafs had Gill because he was so slow and forwards could dump it in his corner and beat him to the puck. I loved him as a Bruin because he was so slow quick wingers could beat him to the outside. As a Montreal Canadien, I'm not loving him nearly as much. Ahhh ... well his game is better than it was 5 years ago. He improved quite a bit in Pittsburgh. The problem now is the number of minutes he's being asked to play, and the positions that puts him in. I think once all are back, and he's in the third pair and a primary penalty killer we'll be happy. I agree. It's not completely fair to criticize Gill because the role he is in now is not what he was signed for. As you say, once this team has a full complement of D men then he can be judged. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 15, 2009 17:03:18 GMT -5
I don't think Chicago really needs to solve the goalie situation in the same deal as a potential Barker trade. If Chicago really needs or wants to trade Barker and not take back salary then I would imagine there are LOTS of teams who would be willing to part with a package better than SKost and Halak. A potential headcase of a forward plus a backup goalie for Cam Barker? Really? I think it would cost a top prospect and a 1st round draft pick, but probably not a top 5 pick and I don't think our prospects are all that special. Plus I don't think the Hawks, a real contender in the West, would trust a guy like Halak more than Huet. They could always find a decent veteran goalie withouut dealing Barker. I don't think Chicago can solve their goalie problems. Huet with 3 years (incl this season) at 5.6 million is almost untradeable. And if they consider themselves real contenders than they need someone more than just another veteran goalie. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 16, 2009 7:23:19 GMT -5
Arpon Basu at The Daily Hab-it writes: Speaking of the defence, I couldn't help but notice that Cam Barker played 10:17 of the Blackhawks 3-1 win over Nashville, with no special teams time at all. In an unrelated bit of news, I can report the Blackhawks had two scouts at the Habs game, including director of player personnel Marc Bergevin. Though the two teams will meet Oct 30 in Chicago, two scouts at a regular season game is not a regular occurrence. Just saying.www.dailyhab-it.blogspot.com/ (link) |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 16, 2009 7:48:39 GMT -5
Interesting stuff Dis.
I'll say this much: big, mobile defenders, that are young and carry a big shot are hard to come by.
Why are his minutes dropping like this? Is it something in his play?
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 16, 2009 8:08:47 GMT -5
I'd love to get Barker, but the cost scares me. Gainey has not shown any great wizardry when it comes to coming out ahead on his deals...
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 16, 2009 8:54:44 GMT -5
Interesting stuff Dis. I'll say this much: big, mobile defenders, that are young and carry a big shot are hard to come by. Why are his minutes dropping like this? Is it something in his play? Cam is a lefty, and Chicago already has two very good lefties in Keith and Campbell, and Chicago is riding them hard (they play a combined average of 49 minutes and 14 seconds a game). I don't think they'll move Barker for Sergei Kostitsyn and Halak (because any other GM in the league is going to offer more than that - Barker will be an all-star in a couple years), but I do understand why Chicago would trade him - he makes about 3 million a season right? That's more than two and a half grand a minute for him right now. Too much for a guy you're hiding on your third line - especially when you're intending to make a run (as they seem to). |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 16, 2009 9:09:34 GMT -5
Interesting stuff Dis. I'll say this much: big, mobile defenders, that are young and carry a big shot are hard to come by. Why are his minutes dropping like this? Is it something in his play? I was listening to Gord Miller last night before I went to RDS. He said the Hawks are very close to the salary cap maximum. They're only under by something like $50,000 and this is why they have a guy, Jack Skille, who is demoted to the minors every second game. It gives them a little more breathing room than if he were to play every game. However, they're going to be in worse trouble next year when several more player contracts come up for renegotiation; Duncan Keith, Johnathen Toews and Patrick Kane being a few of them. Miller suggested that Cristobal Huet may have to get used to the minors just because of how much he makes. I don't know how much cap space Gainey has left, but he'll have to move the equivalent of Barker's salary out of Montreal if he is actually looking at bringing him in. I'm on www.nhlnumbers.com right now and Gainey doesn't have a lot of wiggle room left either. And even if he can make enough cap space, what about Chicago? The deal has to be financially viable for them too. If Chicago is in trouble, then a deal might just involve pick(s) and prospect(s) that don't cost a heck of a lot. But, which prospects? It might be a good time to offer up Sergei Kostitsyn (+). He has the talent, but if I'm Chicago I'm asking, "why would I want another RFA next year when I have several key ones coming up already?" Heck, even Kyle Chipchura is a RFA next year too. Haven't even discussed which veterans would be moved out yet. This will be one heck of a juggling act if both sides can get it done. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Oct 16, 2009 10:14:29 GMT -5
Dis the opportunity for the deal comes because of Markov's injury, which allows one player to exceed the cap by the amount of Markov's pro-rated cap hit during his injury. So Gainey has a little more wiggle room than nhlnumbers would indicate. At least for this season. We have our own group of RFAs and UFAs (Price, Halak, Plekanec, Latendresse, Lapierre, Chipchura, Stewart, D'Ago to name a few) to worry about. We'll clear Mara, MAB and Metropolit for a total of about $3M in cap space.
This year we can accommodate Barker. Next year, perhaps not (depending on where the final cap total landsO. Another trade might be necessary to make it all work out, sending Hamrlik elsewhere would be the odds-on best idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 16, 2009 10:35:42 GMT -5
Interesting stuff Dis. I'll say this much: big, mobile defenders, that are young and carry a big shot are hard to come by. Why are his minutes dropping like this? Is it something in his play? Cam is a lefty, and Chicago already has two very good lefties in Keith and Campbell, and Chicago is riding them hard (they play a combined average of 49 minutes and 14 seconds a game). I don't think they'll move Barker for Sergei Kostitsyn and Halak (because any other GM in the league is going to offer more than that - Barker will be an all-star in a couple years), but I do understand why Chicago would trade him - he makes about 3 million a season right? That's more than two and a half grand a minute for him right now. Too much for a guy you're hiding on your third line - especially when you're intending to make a run (as they seem to). I knew that they were riding Duncan and Brent, but if Cam's in the second pair as he should be, I'd expect more than 10 mins in a given game. I think his average is in the 14min per game area. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 16, 2009 10:37:08 GMT -5
Dis the opportunity for the deal comes because of Markov's injury, which allows one player to exceed the cap by the amount of Markov's pro-rated cap hit during his injury. So Gainey has a little more wiggle room than nhlnumbers would indicate. At least for this season. We have our own group of RFAs and UFAs (Price, Halak, Plekanec, Latendresse, Lapierre, Chipchura, Stewart, D'Ago to name a few) to worry about. We'll clear Mara, MAB and Metropolit for a total of about $3M in cap space. This year we can accommodate Barker. Next year, perhaps not (depending on where the final cap total landsO. Another trade might be necessary to make it all work out, sending Hamrlik elsewhere would be the odds-on best idea. Not sure who would take Hamrlik at $5 million for one year. He's still serviceable ( I think he's skating better this year than he did all of last) but it's a big pill for any team to swallow. Maybe you luck out and find a team bumping against the cap minimum. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Oct 16, 2009 11:01:11 GMT -5
Dis the opportunity for the deal comes because of Markov's injury, which allows one player to exceed the cap by the amount of Markov's pro-rated cap hit during his injury. So Gainey has a little more wiggle room than nhlnumbers would indicate. At least for this season. We have our own group of RFAs and UFAs (Price, Halak, Plekanec, Latendresse, Lapierre, Chipchura, Stewart, D'Ago to name a few) to worry about. We'll clear Mara, MAB and Metropolit for a total of about $3M in cap space. This year we can accommodate Barker. Next year, perhaps not (depending on where the final cap total landsO. Another trade might be necessary to make it all work out, sending Hamrlik elsewhere would be the odds-on best idea. Not sure who would take Hamrlik at $5 million for one year. He's still serviceable ( I think he's skating better this year than he did all of last) but it's a big pill for any team to swallow. Maybe you luck out and find a team bumping against the cap minimum. Come July it should be a smaller pill. It's only a one-year contract and depending on how the UFA defenseman class goes, there may be a team or two looking for a stopgap solution. |
|
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6F6VF25GCFF2HFJCOITRJSGNPE.jpg)
), he'd be better than any defenseman we currently have ..... and I bet 1 million is all it would take.
