Confirmed Signing with Link: [COL] Tyson Barrie (4 years, $5.5M AAV)

[Avs44]

Barrie's ask is a lot lower than I thought, but he is only asking to buy one RFA year. However, I will say...where are all the people who told me Barrie would win big in arbitration and get 7+ million

 

[Mad Brills*]

isn't it 2 years until UFA? 27 and 7 years of service after 17-18.

 

[cgf]

If Barrie's willing to accept 6M for a single RFA year, they avs really should just lock him up at 6M for 8 years. Cause that's how contract negotiations work.

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

Very reasonable. No idea why it hasn't been done yet, just go to the middle and call it a day.

If he signs for 2 or less years doesn't this become ROR 2.0? He'll be a pending UFA the summer before, so.

He's got 3 RFA years left, he'll be an RFA at the end of 2 years.

 

[Avs44]

isn't it 2 years until UFA? 27 and 7 years of service after 17-18.

It's three. It's not seven years of service, it's seven accrued seasons, and the definition of an accrued season is 40 games on the active roster in a season. Barrie has only actually had three of those seasons thus far. It's been confirmed by quite a few sources, e.g. generalfanger, capfriendly, Dater, etc.

 

[Mad Brills*]

thanks. I forgot his 2013 season didn't count as an accrued season.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

Actually, he has 4 years of accrued service. 2012-13 through to 2015-16.

Barrie's late July birthday is why he's still 3 years away from UFA.

He played enough games in the lockout year to get credited with a year.

 

[Avs44]

Actually, he has 4 years of accrued service. 2012-13 through to 2015-16.

Barrie's late July birthday is why he's still 3 years away from UFA.

He played enough games in the lockout year to get credited with a year.

I figured that as well, but,



Dater is generally wrong, but I'd take the word of generalfanger. However, it's a moot point, since he's a UFA in three years regardless.

 

[MikeK]

I don't understand what the AVs are doing here. I see this player playing somewhere else in 2 years.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Have to think that Barrie will come out on top here.

Same here, Curious why he's only asking for 1x6 when he can easily get 6x6 unless he wants a 1 year prove it contract and look at getting $7 million or more in his next deal something like that.

 

[redacted]

I don't understand what the AVs are doing here. I see this player playing somewhere else in 2 years.

The choices are: give into Barrie's demands on a long-term deal (if it is over 6, they won't... under they might), trade Barrie now, or have Barrie for 2 years and deal with it that offseason (either trade Barrie for similar value or sign him long-term then). They really can't lose here, which is why they are playing it this way... IMO the biggest chance of losing is trading Barrie now. Even that would bring a good return.

 

[serp]

Not really, the Avs are going to have much better comparables for their range (Josi, Klingberg, Faulk) than Barrie has. The only really decent comparable Barrie has is Dougie Hamilton, he is not anywhere close to the player Karlsson or Pietrangelo are, and there aren't really any other decent comparables in that range.

Klingberg , Faulk and Josi got their contracts after their rookie/sophomore years when it wasn't really clear how good they really are. Barrie has 3 full year behind him ( and some more games from 2 years prior to those ) . He's a sure thing at this point.

 

[MikeK]

The choices are: give into Barrie's demands on a long-term deal (if it is over 6, they won't... under they might), trade Barrie now, or have Barrie for 2 years and deal with it that offseason (either trade Barrie for similar value or sign him long-term then). They really can't lose here, which is why they are playing it this way... IMO the biggest chance of losing is trading Barrie now. Even that would bring a good return.

If they don't see him as a long term asset it's a bad idea to wait. So many things can happen between now and then. Trade him now and maximize the asset.

 

[redacted]

Klingberg , Faulk and Josi got their contracts after their rookie/sophomore years when it wasn't really clear how good they really are. Barrie has 3 full year behind him ( and some more games from 2 years prior to those ) . He's a sure thing at this point.

When the deals happen doesn't really matter. Even a RFA deal is signed that has 1 RFA year and 6 UFA, it can potentially be used as a comparable for Barrie too. The Avs have better comparables, but recent contracts like Krug and Hamilton work for Barrie. An award likely ends up between Krug and Hamilton.

Long-term what matters is the Avs have 3 RFA years to negotiate with. If they can't find a long-term deal, the Avs can take the award (or settle before) and deal with the situation in 2018. That is the most likely route they take.

If they don't see him as a long term asset it's a bad idea to wait. So many things can happen between now and then. Trade him now and maximize the asset.

They can maximize it in two years too. Barrie will still be an RFA, and the Avs will have a much clearer picture how Rantanen, Jost, Zadorov, and Bigras develop. Their needs might be completely different in 2 years. On 3-4+ year outlook, it is better to see where this team is heading with the current group of kids than make a move for now.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

I figured that as well, but,



Dater is generally wrong, but I'd take the word of generalfanger. However, it's a moot point, since he's a UFA in three years regardless.

He played 32 games. But there were games where he was on the roster where he did not play as he was a scratch. Those still count as part of the calculation for an accrued season.

The only time during that season he was in the AHL was a 2 week stretch in March.

3/12/2013 Assigned to Lake Erie (AHL).
3/26/2013 Recalled from Lake Erie (AHL).

The Avalanche played 7 games from the 12th to the 24th. He was back for their next game on the 27th.

So he was on the roster for 41 games it appears. Maybe even 42 if he was sent down after the game on the 12th.

 

[mouser]

I figured that as well, but,



Dater is generally wrong, but I'd take the word of generalfanger. However, it's a moot point, since he's a UFA in three years regardless.

Yeah, 2012-2013 # of games for an accrued season was pro-rated to 24 due to the lockout shortened season. So Dater is incorrect.

 

[MikeK]

They can maximize it in two years too. Barrie will still be an RFA, and the Avs will have a much clearer picture how Rantanen, Jost, Zadorov, and Bigras develop. Their needs might be completely different in 2 years. On 3-4+ year outlook, it is better to see where this team is heading with the current group of kids than make a move for now.

In 2 years his AAV will likely be much higher than it is now. I don't see his trade value being higher then it is right now. I don't think we're seeing good management right now.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

Yeah, 2012-2013 # of games for an accrued season was pro-rated to 24 due to the lockout. So Dater is incorrect.

Thanks, just created a thread on the business forum about it.

 

[redacted]

In 2 years his AAV will likely be much higher than it is now. I don't see his trade value being higher then it is right now. I don't think we're seeing good management right now.

Sure his contract will be bigger, but many teams are willing to pay. The difference isn't that great and they'll know what the demands are. His trade value will be roughly the same or more in 2 years (only more if he further establishes himself as a top tier offensive defensemen).

 

[Breakers]

]

And it's his ask for a one year award.

He's probably looking for 7-8 M per year on a 7 or 8 year term is what this tells me.

Wow that would be a terrible deal for US

 

[MikeK]

Sure his contract will be bigger, but many teams are willing to pay. The difference isn't that great and they'll know what the demands are. His trade value will be roughly the same or more in 2 years (only more if he further establishes himself as a top tier offensive defensemen).

There is a flip side to that coin as well. The player feels slighted and doesn't improve upon his recent success and may even regress. Like I said in my original reply, so many things can happen. If they don't see him as a long term fit I have no idea why they are playing this waiting game. It's bad asset management. I do not agree that his value will likely be the same. I think his trade value will never be higher than it is right now, if for no other reason than it gives his new team a chance to work out a long term contract at a lower AVV than it may or may not be in 2 years time.

 

[redacted]

There is a flip side to that coin as well. The player feels slighted and doesn't improve upon his recent success and may even regress. Like I said in my original reply, so many things can happen. If they don't see him as a long term fit I have no idea why they are playing this waiting game. It's bad asset management. I do not agree that his value will likely be the same. I think his trade value will never be higher than it is right now, if for no other reason than it gives his new team a chance to work out a long term contract at a lower AVV than it may or may not be in 2 years time.

The other team will be able to negotiate with Barrie as a RFA. In sounds all nice in theory that his value will decrease because of less RFA years, it hasn't worked that way in practice. As long as a team has the player's rights for a year, they will pay and find a way to make a deal work.

It is a risk that Barrie regresses, but I think that is pretty unlikely. He is a ~50 point defensemen right in the middle of his prime and is getting better defensively and on the PP. I don't think his numbers will regress at all over the next two seasons. I'd be willing to take the risk that a 25 year old defensemen who is improving won't regress over 2 years.

To me it isn't bad asset management at all to get 2 more years out of him and then trading him for a similar return as to trading him now. That's smart IMO.

 

[StevenDean]

$6M ask? that is reasonable. If the Avs are smart they will turn this into a long term extension at $5.5M (or better of you can swing it). Underpaid top pairing defense are always welcome.

 

[Mashed Potatoes]

I'm calling it 5.65 exactly.

Edit: For 6 years

 

[Konami McDavid]

To me it isn't bad asset management at all to get 2 more years out of him and then trading him for a similar return as to trading him now. That's smart IMO.

I think MikeK is making a fairly valid point here (though I wouldn't go as far as saying this is poor management). If you don't see Barrie as a long term part of your team, you sell while you know you are getting a strong return. Now that is a BIG if (I don't think the Avs want to lose Barrie), but if the Avs know they are going to sell in two years, you are risking quite a bit. The bigger but less likely risk is that he regresses, it is possible but definitely unlikely. The bigger risk is that he gets injured in the next two years and then the asset you knew you were going to use as a bartering chip becomes significantly less valuable. Today's hockey is a brutal game and Barrie is a fairly small player.

Getting two more years out of him and trading for a similar return is smart, but you cannot assume that it is a guarantee. Keep in mind that the value of an asset that is exceptionally high typically has only one way to go ... typically.