McKenzie: Oilers in on Barrie? (Part II)

Drij

Registered User
Mar 5, 2007
7,336
348
Don't forget that the ROR offer sheet happen during the short lockout season. He was playing in Russia making big bucks, Barrie isn't.
 

Avenger*

Guest
There's nothing to suggest it wasn't said either.

It's he said, she said. Take whatever side you please.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
61,475
19,726
w/ Renly's Peach
There's a big difference between filing for arbitration and going for arbitration. Lots of players will file as a safety net if their QO is significantly lower than what they could expect from an arbitration case. Every year a majority of players who file for arbitration never make it to arbitration because they eventually come to terms with their team.

The reason players/teams file is because there is a deadline. If Barrie doesn't file then he risks having to either sit out the season or take a salary determined by his previous QO.

Bingo. MacKinnon filed for arbitration, and so did Grigorenko...who will probably end up the last RFA the avs sign, as the team waits on a resolution with Barrie before figuring out exactly how much can be dolled out to Greg. Filing for arbitration is just the next step in the RFA process that sets a deadline for both parties.

Everyone was scared about signing Barrie last time around because of Newport's brinksmanship, but it got done smoothly and with no bloodshed once the time finally came to sit down & get something done. I expect a similar resolution here whether Barrie is deadset on a figure higher than what his BFF just signed with us for, or not. If he isn't then a long term deal will get hammered out & announced before the arbitration date. And if he is, we'll see a short term contract signed just before arbitration (like with ROR) this time around; and a trade to a club ready to pay him what he's insisting on by the time he's next up for a contract.

How many times does it have to be mentioned that Roy never said this? A hack reporter speculated if Roy thought this, based on further speculation that Roy would think it based on wanting a bigger D.

It's getting painful at this point.

Eh. As an avs fan you get used to it. This type of misrepresented speculation happens all of the time with this club because of how they handle the media. None of the national guys ever has sources inside of the avs, and the team often just makes its own announcements; bypassing the local press completely. So what people do hear about Colorado is often speculation from league insiders who are not avs insiders, or speculation from local reporters with dubious connections or poor competence at their jobs...which in turn is why the Avs often bypass their inept a**es...meaning the best you can hope for is 2nd & 3rd hand speculation most of the time, based on what the teams those national guys with connections think, things the avs intentionally leak, or things that get pulled out of someone's a** along the way.

Dater has some sources, but loves to speculate wildly. Some of the newer sources of news for the Avs have some connections/credibility as well; but those are still being established. This is still a team that doesn't leak much of anything and often waits to announces news until they can announce it in bulk.
 
Last edited:

tucker3434

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 7, 2007
20,302
11,359
Atlanta, GA
Yeah you guys had Duchene, Stastny and MacKinnon to fall back on with his departure. If Barrie moves on D almost certainly would need to be coming back.

Stastny was already gone. But we did have MacKinnon and Duchene.

I don't necessarily think that's the case. I just think the value has to be there. If someone comes along and offers us Taylor Hall, I think Barrie is gone.

There's nothing to suggest it wasn't said either.

It's he said, she said. Take whatever side you please.

No it isn't. Fred's exact quote was something along the lines of, "I think Roy thinks Barrie is a #5." At no time did he ever say that was communicated to him by Roy or anyone else in the organization.
 

Roof Daddy

Registered User
Apr 1, 2008
13,201
2,387
There's nothing to suggest it wasn't said either.

It's he said, she said. Take whatever side you please.

Other than the fact there is no sound clip or direct quote available? In Frei's article he said (loosely paraphrased) "I think Roy wants a bigger defence. And if true, I think he might see Barrie as a number 5." It's all Frei's speculation, nothing more. Why is this so hard to grasp.

It's Frei said, Frei said. There are no sides to take. Roy didn't say anything.
 

strictlyrandy

Registered User
Sep 9, 2013
3,955
977
Colorado
There's nothing to suggest it wasn't said either.

It's he said, she said. Take whatever side you please.

Well by that logic, there's nothing to suggest that Tavares didn't say he secretly hated the NYI. Choose whatever you want to believe.


As has been said COUNTLESS times, Roy has NEVER said he thinks Barrie is a #5. It's completely baseless speculation by Terry Frei. A guy so distant from the Avs that somehow Mike Chambers has more credibility than he does.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
61,475
19,726
w/ Renly's Peach
There's nothing to suggest it wasn't said either.

It's he said, she said. Take whatever side you please.

Roy might be the most inept coach in the history of sports like many on HF like to suggest...though he probably isn't...but even he's not dumb enough to give his #5 22+ minutes every night.

But if that line of reasoning doesn't appeal to you...What's to suggest that Chiarelli doesn't think Conner McDavid is an injury prone bust doomed to become RNH 2.0? I speculate that he might be harbor such concerns because Chiarelli has a history of stupidity when it comes to players with "too much talent".

So shall we swap these two unwanted talents? Cause I think I'd probably do that for the avs :sarcasm:
 

McspOiler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2012
1,613
5
Victoria, BC
Avs get to select terms. Basically Barrie has to play in Colorado for at least 3 more years whether he likes it or not. He'll still be an RFA if Colorado choose the 2 year terms after arbitration, then they can do it all over again.
u guys gonna protect a player who doesn't want to be there long term??
 

Bryanbryoil

Pray For Ukraine
Sep 13, 2004
87,866
38,341
Stastny was already gone. But we did have MacKinnon and Duchene.

I don't necessarily think that's the case. I just think the value has to be there. If someone comes along and offers us Taylor Hall, I think Barrie is gone.



No it isn't. Fred's exact quote was something along the lines of, "I think Roy thinks Barrie is a #5." At no time did he ever say that was communicated to him by Roy or anyone else in the organization.

I wasn't sure if Stastny was still there or not, thanks for the correction. I'm not sure if Hall was offered for Barrie or not, Larsson was likely more needed for us than Barrie because of his defensive game, that said had we landed Larsson AND Barrie this offseason Chia should have a statue outside of the new rink. We still have a lot of need for an offensive RHD that can play the PP, however we could probably get away with lesser options than Barrie for that role whereas getting a #4/5 to play on our top pairing would've been a disaster for us.
 

Avs44

Registered User
May 16, 2011
21,889
10,678
I wasn't sure if Stastny was still there or not, thanks for the correction. I'm not sure if Hall was offered for Barrie or not, Larsson was likely more needed for us than Barrie because of his defensive game, that said had we landed Larsson AND Barrie this offseason Chia should have a statue outside of the new rink. We still have a lot of need for an offensive RHD that can play the PP, however we could probably get away with lesser options than Barrie for that role whereas getting a #4/5 to play on our top pairing would've been a disaster for us.

Over 23 minutes a night, lead the Avs in even strength ice time, 50 points, carried a second pairing. And you call him a 4/5 defensman. That's all that I need to know.
 

Bender

Registered User
Sep 25, 2002
17,804
9,517
I wasn't sure if Stastny was still there or not, thanks for the correction. I'm not sure if Hall was offered for Barrie or not, Larsson was likely more needed for us than Barrie because of his defensive game, that said had we landed Larsson AND Barrie this offseason Chia should have a statue outside of the new rink. We still have a lot of need for an offensive RHD that can play the PP, however we could probably get away with lesser options than Barrie for that role whereas getting a #4/5 to play on our top pairing would've been a disaster for us.

Wouldn't that depend on what he'd end up giving up for Barrie? Or do you just award statues haphazardly?
 

Bryanbryoil

Pray For Ukraine
Sep 13, 2004
87,866
38,341
Over 23 minutes a night, lead the Avs in even strength ice time, 50 points, carried a second pairing. And you call him a 4/5 defensman. That's all that I need to know.

You missed my point, I'm saying that having a #2 two way D to anchor our top pairing while having a PP specialist on our 3rd pairing > having say Mark Fayne on our top pairing and having Barrie on our 2nd pairing. I'd consider Barrie more of a #3 defenseman all things considered, definitely not a 4 or 5.

Wouldn't that depend on what he'd end up giving up for Barrie? Or do you just award statues haphazardly?

Naturally, however it should go without saying that if he traded McDavid for Barrie I'd be pissed, I don't think that I should need to hold anyone's hands when it comes to obvious things like that.
 

Avenger*

Guest
Roy might be the most inept coach in the history of sports like many on HF like to suggest...though he probably isn't...but even he's not dumb enough to give his #5 22+ minutes every night.

But if that line of reasoning doesn't appeal to you...What's to suggest that Chiarelli doesn't think Conner McDavid is an injury prone bust doomed to become RNH 2.0? I speculate that he might be harbor such concerns because Chiarelli has a history of stupidity when it comes to players with "too much talent".

So shall we swap these two unwanted talents? Cause I think I'd probably do that for the avs :sarcasm:

The difference between the two is that one is believable and the other isn't. I could definitely see Roy saying that during one of his meltdown temper tantrums. Not saying it's true but it seems a little too convenient that it's put out while Sakic is having problems with contract negotiations.
 

Rebuilt

Registered User
Jun 8, 2014
8,736
15
Tampa
Bob posted this several weeks ago.

At what point is it considered stale? Do we take this into the following season before we drop this?

I consider the whole thing bull crap. Once we got Larsson, we cant take on another defender because we will just lose someone else in the expansion draft.

As it stands now we can exempt Nurse

Protect Sekera (NMC) Klefbom and Larsson

We already will have to leave Davidson and Reinhart exposed. Getting another one -unless he is young enough to be exempt- is a waste of time.

We already lost Hall, we can still lose Eberle but we cant lost RNH at this time so the whole thing was MOOT once the Hall/Larsson deal went down.
 

EscapedGoat

Registered User
Jun 15, 2012
1,312
1,732
There's nothing to suggest it wasn't said either.

It's he said, she said. Take whatever side you please.

This may be one of the most illogical things I've ever read on these boards, and that's really saying something.

Frei said that "Barrie is best suited as a number 5 Pp specialist". He didn't even say he thinks Roy thinks that. Or that he overheard Roy say that. Frei gave HIS opinion of Barrie. How can you possible attribute that to Roy and when people call you on it, claim there's no proof Roy doesn't think that. Seriously man.

Here's a made up example of the same thing. Let's say I have a blog and I write an article about John Tavares. I say in the article that I think he's better suited as a second line winger as opposed to a first line centre. A really dumb opinion. Just like saying Barrie should be a PP specialist when he sucks on the PP is dumb. The islanders board picks this up and mocks me, rightfully. It makes its way to other team boards but somewhere along the line it turns into "this blogger thinks the islanders coaching staff sees Tavares as a second line winger". This makes the rounds for a while and slowly it turns into "the islanders coaching staff sees Tavares as a second line winger".

Then you come along. Instead of checking to see of you're right, you start telling islanders fans that their coaching staff thinks Tavares is a second line winger. In response, the islanders fans show you the original blog post made by some dummy who simply gave his dumb opinion. Instead of apologizing and admitting you're wrong, you say "well there's no proof the islanders coaching staff doesn't think Tavares is a second line winger. It's he said, she said.

That would be really quite a stupid thing for you to do, huh? Do you see how its the exact same thing you just did in this thread?

You know, I've never heard Mike Babcock say he doesn't believe that lizard people live inside the hollow earth. There's no proof that he doesn't think that.

Jordan Eberle has never said that he doesn't believe and worship Satan. There's no proof he isn't a Satanist. He said, she said.
 

Took a pill in Sbisa

2showToffoliIwascool
Apr 23, 2004
16,761
7,766
Australia
This may be one of the most illogical things I've ever read on these boards, and that's really saying something.

Frei said that "Barrie is best suited as a number 5 Pp specialist". He didn't even say he thinks Roy thinks that. Or that he overheard Roy say that. Frei gave HIS opinion of Barrie. How can you possible attribute that to Roy and when people call you on it, claim there's no proof Roy doesn't think that. Seriously man.

Here's a made up example of the same thing. Let's say I have a blog and I write an article about John Tavares. I say in the article that I think he's better suited as a second line winger as opposed to a first line centre. A really dumb opinion. Just like saying Barrie should be a PP specialist when he sucks on the PP is dumb. The islanders board picks this up and mocks me, rightfully. It makes its way to other team boards but somewhere along the line it turns into "this blogger thinks the islanders coaching staff sees Tavares as a second line winger". This makes the rounds for a while and slowly it turns into "the islanders coaching staff sees Tavares as a second line winger".

Then you come along. Instead of checking to see of you're right, you start telling islanders fans that their coaching staff thinks Tavares is a second line winger. In response, the islanders fans show you the original blog post made by some dummy who simply gave his dumb opinion. Instead of apologizing and admitting you're wrong, you say "well there's no proof the islanders coaching staff doesn't think Tavares is a second line winger. It's he said, she said.

That would be really quite a stupid thing for you to do, huh? Do you see how its the exact same thing you just did in this thread?

You know, I've never heard Mike Babcock say he doesn't believe that lizard people live inside the hollow earth. There's no proof that he doesn't think that.

Jordan Eberle has never said that he doesn't believe and worship Satan. There's no proof he isn't a Satanist. He said, she said.

I know what you're trying to say but Eberle is actually a Satanist. Hall had indoctrinated him and they traded Hall because they didn't want him to get to Connor.
 

Nordic*

Registered User
Oct 12, 2006
20,476
6
Tellus
Edmonton should start trading away their 1sts for guys that will help the team now. 2 1sts for Barrie should be enough?
 

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
6,253
4,276
Orange, CA
I consider the whole thing bull crap. Once we got Larsson, we cant take on another defender because we will just lose someone else in the expansion draft.

As it stands now we can exempt Nurse

Protect Sekera (NMC) Klefbom and Larsson

We already will have to leave Davidson and Reinhart exposed. Getting another one -unless he is young enough to be exempt- is a waste of time.

We already lost Hall, we can still lose Eberle but we cant lost RNH at this time so the whole thing was MOOT once the Hall/Larsson deal went down.
Not necessarily. If Edm traded for another D they could go the 8 skater route vs 7f 3d.
As it stands Edm only has to protect RNH, LD, Lucic and Eberle of their top end talent up front. McDavid and Pulijiarvi are exempt. I don't think they would cry about losing anyone outside of those 6 forwards. If you further consider that you might be able to add that 4th D without spending one of those 4 forwards it is a great move. If you have to move RNH or LD in order to get that D well then you can protect Yakupov or something.
 

tucker3434

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 7, 2007
20,302
11,359
Atlanta, GA
The difference between the two is that one is believable and the other isn't. I could definitely see Roy saying that during one of his meltdown temper tantrums. Not saying it's true but it seems a little too convenient that it's put out while Sakic is having problems with contract negotiations.

Just because you want to believe something, doesn't make it true.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad