Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign UFA D Cam Barker to 1-Year, $700K Deal

[David71]

We've had at least one NHL contract in the minors for 4 years running.

that was brad lukowich if i recalled. stupid waivers rule back then prohitbited to calling him up. but he did manage to play a few games before

 

[thebigbea]

I can't believe there are 17 pages on CAM BARKER, jesus christ people

haha.. this thread probably got more replies than some other team whole forum combine.. lol

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

Considering there's about a 12-15% chance of a 3rd round pick having any sort of career in the NHL, I don't think a 3rd round pick is worth $500,000 or whatever the cost of that is. And considering there's probably only a 1 in 5 chance of Barker even playing that well (that's being really charitable, but for argument's sake I'll give you 20%), you're looking at a 2.5 million dollar "risk" for a 3rd round pick? I don't see it.

I think it's just bad scouting.

The hypothetical 3rd rounder can be used in a trade etc so theres value there. And you cannot "buy" a pick with cash.

The risk is whatever Barker takes up. His salary, position on the team, contract spot.

2.5 million is not absolute and you havent put it in context. IE what is the risk with other players/options.

$700,000 may seem like a lot to you but its beans to the Nucks. Obviously they think they can do a fixer upper and get something out of him as they have tried with others. Im doubtful its "bad" scouting as MG and his righthand men wont be going into this based purely on what they are told. Its not their MO. Theyve worked the numbers etc as much if not more than HF posters.

 

[Proto]

The hypothetical 3rd rounder can be used in a trade etc so theres value there. And you cannot "buy" a pick with cash


The risk is whatever Barker takes up. His salary, position on the team, contract spot.

2.5 million is not absolute and you havent put it in context. IE what is the risk with other players/options.

That's not the point. The point is if you're running a team, you're not just looking at the cap, but probably also cash outlay for the return. Similarly, in baseball, there's a formula for what the average "cost" for a win above replacement is for a player. So a 5 WAR player being paid like a 9 WAR player doesn't have significant trade value in baseball if the going over-market free-agent rate for a 5 WAR player is 7 WAR $$$.

The Canucks don't have unlimited money. If you told Aqualini he could have 10 3rd round picks for 25 million dollars, I think he'd say no -- or I hope he would. There would be significantly better ways to spend (or even over spend) his money than on draft picks with marginal value.

Though you are correct that third round picks do seem to get more return from rival GMs than they really should.

Im doubtful its "bad" scouting as MG and his righthand men wont be going into this based purely on what they are told. Its not their MO. Theyve worked the numbers etc as much if not more than HF posters.

Yup, and they've made plenty of bad calls and mistakes, too. I'm curious whether Gilman actually supports this move. It doesn't seem like a Gilman move, but who knows. Maybe we'll all be surprised and the Texas Stars castoff will find himself

 

[vanuck]

Cam Barker is not an effective 5-on-5 player AT THE AHL LEVEL. Think about that. Jesus between this and the Joslin signing you really have to wonder what the hell kind of advanced stats wizard Mike GIllis really is. They literally had the two worst Corsi numbers in the league last season.

On a serious note, I don't understand why Gragnani wasn't qualified if we were just going to end up replacing him with Cam ****ing Barker anyway.




No kidding. And for a team that apparently uses advanced statistics, signing players like Barker and Joslin seems pretty odd. Especially a guy like Barker where the player plays for a team in your division and you have the opportunity to get a good look at him.

This signing is so strange you almost wonder if they're conducting some sort of strange advanced stats experiment with players who have bad underlying numbers, in terms of trying to turn them around. Seems a little extreme for a reclamation project though, if that's the case.

 

[vanuck]

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.

 

[Wizeman*]

I like the barker signing. I am certain we can stuff him down in Chicago if it dont work out. Its only good til June 30th. It aint a 10 year contract.

But if Barker can turn himself around and put his head in the game, then its a good signing. I dont see the downside here.

 

[alternate]

I don't like Barker as a player -- at all -- even when he was a Blackhawk I thought he sucked at anything other than standing still and shooting on the PP.

But I don't have any problem with this signing. You don't go #3 overall and put up 40 points in the NHL without having something to work with. AV and Gillis are good at getting the best from their players...if Barker is as crappy as we all think he is, he'll be sent down, his contract will expire, and he'll just be one of those blips on the radar that didn't work out and is quickly forgotten about.

But if he does work out and becomes a quality player for us (not holding my breath, but what evs) think of the lolz we can have at the expense of the Hawks and Oil. That alone is worth the contract spot for a few months.