|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 16, 2009 11:54:08 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. Thanks Red. I totally forgot Markov's salary in this whole scenario and that would really provide the room Gainey needs. Still, Chicago is in a tight spot. They'll need a decent return for a young blueliner like Barker. But, that return will have to be within their means. Boston just went through this with Toronto and I think they faired rather well. If the Leafs keep playing the way the have been then Boston will have a pretty decent selection(s) with those picks they received in return. I don't know if a return for Barker would equal what Boston got for Kessel, but his services won't be cheap. I'd like to see this one go down. With a few exceptions, our blueline corps hasn't been doing all that badly; good games in Calgary, Edmonton and last night. Barker would bolster that significantly IMO. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 16, 2009 12:04:59 GMT -5
My guess would be that Barker would cost us a Kostitsyn, but not Sergei... which would leave us with even less of a 2nd line, and we're already weak in that regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 16, 2009 14:08:26 GMT -5
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. No, the Hawks have Campbell as their second plus excessive amounts of PP time. What I don't understand is why he's not picking up PK time. He's good defensively, and has to be better than Brian "Brisebois" Campbell on the PK. But maybe they're riding Keith really hard on the PK (~2 minute shifts) and Campbell really hard on the PP (same). Bottom line is that Cam is a three million dollar player who's getting million dollar player ice time. Sure would've been nice to have a Barker in the wings when we lost Markov though. He's way too good for the ice time he's getting. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 16, 2009 14:37:10 GMT -5
I forgot about Campbell. Does Brian play exclusively on the left side on even strength? I don't see Cam as a huge PP guy, but he does have a good shot so in the right spot maybe he could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 16, 2009 15:04:38 GMT -5
My guess would be that Barker would cost us a Kostitsyn, but not Sergei... which would leave us with even less of a 2nd line, and we're already weak in that regard. I would be more than reluctant to send Akost AND Halak for Barker. Akost may not have developed to the level we'd like yet, but he's still a 30g guy. He's still a capable second liner. The premise behind all of this was that Chicago needed to upgrade their goaltending. It's up to them to decide whether or not Halak fits that bill. Boston got two firsts and a second over the next two years for Kessel. I think it fair to say that at the moment Kessel's value should be higher than Barker's. That may not be the case in a couple of years, but for now I'd argue strongly that it's the case. Current salaries would suggest that Barker is worth 57.8% of Kessel given their cap hits ($3.125m for Barker and $5.4m for Kessel). Call it 60% to round it off. If that was the start of the negotiations, what would that translate into compared to the Kessel deal? It's hard to say. It gets really arbitrary unless you come up with some formula to value the assets. Barker's likely worth the equivalent of one first round pick. Beyond that, perhaps a second. That is two thirds the number of assets that went to Boston in their deal, which isn't far off the 60% number. It equals one of the firsts, and the second. So, what aside from the obvious do we have that equals that? Halak was drafted in the 9th round, but as easily one of the best backups in the league and deserving of a shot at #1 at the very least, he's worth a 2nd to me. Skost was a 7th rounder, but later blossomed when he came to play junior in North America. If he was drafted after coming to play here, he's easily a first rounder given the success he had, maybe a second at worst. If the Hawks didn't see either of them as a first round equivalent, ante up with a mid round pick. Competing teams might offer a first round in 2010, but a package of Halak and Skost is a strong offer (despite the latter's issues). I could really see the latter take off with Kane. They played together in London. Sell the Hawks on that very thing. Chicago is the one up against it. They're the ones that have to make some VERY tough choices before next year. I don't see the need to pander to them, and they don't have a lot of leverage to try and drive the price up. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Oct 16, 2009 15:32:40 GMT -5
I suspect Chicago would much rather have tangible assets than futures like picks, given their current team level. They might also want a defenseman in return, though. I would hesitate to send Gorges, as I think he could end up being Rivet-lite. Nor would I send O'Byrne. Unless they're interested in Mara or one of Carle or Weber (or Belle?), maybe it doesn't work. Someone else might know more about Chicago's defensive depth (beyond Barker, I mean). I know they have Hjalmarsson, but I'm not sure who would step into Barker's shoes if he were traded.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 16, 2009 15:53:16 GMT -5
My guess would be that Barker would cost us a Kostitsyn, but not Sergei... which would leave us with even less of a 2nd line, and we're already weak in that regard. I would be more than reluctant to send Akost AND Halak for Barker. Akost may not have developed to the level we'd like yet, but he's still a 30g guy. He's still a capable second liner. I think the promise of 30 goals is still there but his high is 26. My opinion of AK changes from time to time because the level of his play changes. That's not a good thing because he has rarely shown more than flashes of his potential. His 1st round draft class has a lot of success stories. Time for him to show up day in & day out. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Oct 16, 2009 16:13:20 GMT -5
I think talentwise Barker for AKost is a fair trade, but I thought Chicago had salary cap issues and needs to not take back a comparable salary.
What about Barker for Josh Gorges, SKost, and a 2nd round pick? Or you could give them a 1st and replace SKost with a mid-tier prospect like Ryan White.
I bet Chicago would be happy to get a decent and cheap dman back in Gorges. And after trading away Ryan McDonagh and David Fischer still looking like a long shot at this point, it wouldn't be a bad idea to add a young and proven dman to the mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 16, 2009 17:22:17 GMT -5
I would be more than reluctant to send Akost AND Halak for Barker. Akost may not have developed to the level we'd like yet, but he's still a 30g guy. He's still a capable second liner. I think the promise of 30 goals is still there but his high is 26. My opinion of AK changes from time to time because the level of his play changes. That's not a good thing because he has rarely shown more than flashes of his potential. His 1st round draft class has a lot of success stories. Time for him to show up day in & day out. I know he hasn't hit 30 yet, but a season of 26 that includes a couple of bounces here and there and it's 30. I think it's his ceiling if he doesn't take the next step , and very attainable. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 16, 2009 17:33:23 GMT -5
I think talentwise Barker for AKost is a fair trade, but I thought Chicago had salary cap issues and needs to not take back a comparable salary. What about Barker for Josh Gorges, SKost, and a 2nd round pick? Or you could give them a 1st and replace SKost with a mid-tier prospect like Ryan White. I bet Chicago would be happy to get a decent and cheap dman back in Gorges. And after trading away Ryan McDonagh and David Fischer still looking like a long shot at this point, it wouldn't be a bad idea to add a young and proven dman to the mix. Straight up Akost for Barker makes sense. Their salaries are almost a wash though, and that's where Chicago would likely veto the offer. That's why Skost and Halak make sense from their POV. I don't think we have to give up 3 pieces when were giving up a solid roster player in Gorges, a guy who should be on the roster in Skost, AND a pick. IMO, as solid as Gorges is, he and a pick should be enough. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 17, 2009 22:26:18 GMT -5
Watched the end of the Hawks game tonight. They were on the PP & trying to tie in the last minute & Barker was on the ice.
I just can't see the Hawks moving him.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 18, 2009 1:38:50 GMT -5
Me neither. He scored a couple of games ago. I don't thinkyou give up on a 3rd overall pick so soon. And if they did, we wouldn't be in the running. Very few of our guys are playing well enough to attract interest from anyone except maybe Burke.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 18, 2009 9:37:50 GMT -5
It's not that they're giving him up. It's that, perhaps, they don't value him as highly as they do Kane, Toews, Sharp, Versteeg, etc. With Keith, Seabrook, and Campbell all ahead of him on the depth chart, and so many RFAs coming up for renewal, they may have no choice but to move him.
Hawks RFAs include (approx cap hit):
Kane (875k)
Toews (875k)
Ladd (1.55m)
Eager (965k)
Fraser (700)
Skille (850)
Keith (1.65m)
Hjalmarsson (644k)
Niemi (827)
They're so up against the cap that Jack Skille, who should be playing everyday for them, is playing every OTHER game. He's going up and down like a yo-yo between the Hawks and the farm.
You can argue that the likes of Eager, Ladd, and Niemi could go, but you have to fill out your roster. You have to pick who from your top six you want to keep, and who from your bottom six you want to keep. Those that go, have to be replaced in some fashion. They can't just discard the bottom two lines in an effort to sign all of their top six.
CBC was discussing the cap on the Hotstove. They seem to think if it drops for next year it will likely only go down a million. That helps Chicago some, but Kane and Toews are going to command huge raises. Offer sheet or not, these guys will likely see contracts in the area of 4-5 million a season over perhaps 6 years. Maybe longer. Those salaries will require a couple of contracts to be moved out. Barker seems a logical choice when you factor the above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Oct 23, 2009 12:39:32 GMT -5
After the hit Toews took from Mitchell, Spector says the Hawks will be looking for some toughness... maybe Bob could create a package that included BGL.
Let the BGL comments begin...
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 23, 2009 15:16:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure anyone would take that albatross off our hands, but I'd consider the move if someone would. I don't have any particular dislike for BGL, but for various reasons he's not been the deterrent we've wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by goingfornumber25 on Oct 23, 2009 16:20:13 GMT -5
they got ben eager, imo the best all around goon in the game, and troy brouwer, i don't think they'd need a cement footed, lululemon wearing goon.
|
|
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6F6VF25GCFF2HFJCOITRJSGNPE.jpg)