Tyson Barrie

[Iceberg]

I made a post earlier in this thread talking about a couple comparables. Yandle who’s probably his closest one makes 6.28 per year on a contract signed a couple years ago. So including inflation Barries probably worth around ~7.5per. OEL just got signed to an 8.25per this year and he’ll probably be the highest end “comparable” you could make for him. Now granted Barrie is slightly better than him offensively while being a bit worse than him defensively. So I’d say Barries market value should be anywhere in the 7-8 range and I’d be ok with going up 8 for him.

I think anything under 8M is a good number for Barrie, for he certainly has a case to ask for more, he could get something close to 9M in the open market as an UFA, i believe.

Now, if he gives the team a discount he'll most likely want some kind of NTC. Would you give him a full NTC for the first three years of his next deal? How far would you go on that?

 

[Foxtail]

Mikko Rantanen was even in +/- in 17/18 with 84 points despite being sheltered and playing on the same line with Nathan MacKinnon. I guess he's not that great either. Patrick Nemeth was +25, I guess he is God among men. Or you know, +/- is a garbage stat that tells you nothing about an individual player, a concept even the casual NHL fans understand.

PS

I love this narrative that Tyson was sheltered, and how people dump on him because of this absurd narrative (he was used a #1 D and the horse of the D by Bednar as evidenced by usage and ES TOI), but at the same time they circle jerk and write sonnets about Mack and Mikko who basically were allowed to do any damn thing they wanted because Landeskog did all the heavy lifting, even playing the role of a centre defensively, and were used predominately in offensive situations, being used to their strengths to exploit matchups. If you want to dog on Ty, dog on everyone that fits the criteria.

But what takes the cake is not wanting to pay him what he is worth, and then at the same time arguing he should be traded for a one-dimensional primadonna winger in Nylander who is getting 7mil per season.

Barrie wasn't #1 D his ice time is based off playing mostly with the big line who in turn get the most icetime. And yes Barrie was sheltered and given mostly ozone starts.

Miko could stand to work on his defensive game actually but having Barrie on the ice with him affects his plus/ minus as well.

And no Barrie wouldn't fetch Nylander 1 for 1

So what's your reasoning for Barrie having the most es points and worst +/- ?

 

[Gatorbait19]

Mikko Rantanen was even in +/- in 17/18 with 84 points despite being sheltered and playing on the same line with Nathan MacKinnon. I guess he's not that great either. Patrick Nemeth was +25, I guess he is God among men. Or you know, +/- is a garbage stat that tells you nothing about an individual player, a concept even the casual NHL fans understand.

PS

I love this narrative that Tyson was sheltered, and how people dump on him because of this absurd narrative (he was used a #1 D and the horse of the D by Bednar as evidenced by usage and ES TOI), but at the same time they circle jerk and write sonnets about Mack and Mikko who basically were allowed to do any damn thing they wanted because Landeskog did all the heavy lifting, even playing the role of a centre defensively, and were used predominately in offensive situations, being used to their strengths to exploit matchups. If you want to dog on Ty, dog on everyone that fits the criteria.

But what takes the cake is not wanting to pay him what he is worth, and then at the same time arguing he should be traded for a one-dimensional primadonna winger in Nylander who is getting 7mil per season.

+/- can definitely be a misleading stat, especially when looking at just one year. With that said, MacK was a +20 this year and Mikko a +13. Putting this year aside, Barrie’s basically had a negative +/- every year though.

Sure, Mikko and MacK do have flaws in their game and/or focus their efforts offensively at the expense of defense. But as you just said, they have Landy to complement/offset those other areas.

The same needs to be done with Barrie - he has to be paired with someone that complements his skillset and offsets his deficiencies. Makar/Girard do not complement Barrie and what he does.

What Barrie is worth is subjective right now, and can still be subjective in the future after he signs his deal (wherever that may be). Nylander May be one dimensional (not even saying he’s the best trade option), but his skillset is something this team is missing and can’t be replaced with other pieces we have. Barrie’s offense can be somewhat replaced from the backend and completely replaced by a true second line. We’re then much better off defensively.

We can work around/complement Nylander’s defensive deficiencies a lot more than we could Barrie, particularly in light of Makar/Girard, whose defensive abilities are much more in question right now than their offensive abilities.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I think anything under 8M is a good number for Barrie, for he certainly has a case to ask for more, he could get something close to 9M in the open market as an UFA, i believe.

Now, if he gives the team a discount he'll most likely want some kind of NTC. Would you give him a full NTC for the first three years of his next deal? How far would you go on that?

If he makes to UFA than he could maybe hit 9 due to a bidding war. But assuming he signs with us this offseason or during the year I don’t think he has a case for 9 at all really. And I’d give him a M-NTC or NTC for a couple years. Definitely not a NMC though.

 

[xbestboybandever]

If Makar puts up Barrie numbers and plays solid defense, you pay him happily the 10 million he will get.

I doubt Girard will be ever in same tier, though. I hope I am wrong.

And that is a super expensive back end that has the potential to create roster havoc. That's all I am saying. I think Barrie looking to get the Burns (8x8) contract is more than fair, and he does deserve it; however, I just wonder if a better deal comes along to plug another hole that takes from a position of strength to improve the overall team, maybe that is the better solution moving forward.

As far as Girard never getting there, he is 20, just finished his second NHL season and is rounding out his game nicely. As other posters have said, Barrie's development was never linear and it took him a few years to stick in the NHL full time. Girard will continue to develop and as he physically matures, his game will become stronger.

Mikko Rantanen was even in +/- in 17/18 with 84 points despite being sheltered and playing on the same line with Nathan MacKinnon. I guess he's not that great either. Patrick Nemeth was +25, I guess he is God among men. Or you know, +/- is a garbage stat that tells you nothing about an individual player, a concept even the casual NHL fans understand.

PS

I love this narrative that Tyson was sheltered, and how people dump on him because of this absurd narrative (he was used a #1 D and the horse of the D by Bednar as evidenced by usage and ES TOI), but at the same time they circle jerk and write sonnets about Mack and Mikko who basically were allowed to do any damn thing they wanted because Landeskog did all the heavy lifting, even playing the role of a centre defensively, and were used predominately in offensive situations, being used to their strengths to exploit matchups. If you want to dog on Ty, dog on everyone that fits the criteria.

But what takes the cake is not wanting to pay him what he is worth, and then at the same time arguing he should be traded for a one-dimensional primadonna winger in Nylander who is getting 7mil per season.

My favorite part of this is you calling Nylander a primadonna for doing exactly what O'Reilly did (minus signing with another team). You have been one of the biggest lamenters of that trade and then you turn around and bash a guy for not wanting to sign a bridge deal after two moderate seasons of success and opted to hold out until he got a long term deal that he thought he deserved.

Also, stop with this narrative nonsense. It's people's opinions on a hockey message board.

 

[MarkT]

I love this narrative that Tyson was sheltered, and how people dump on him because of this absurd narrative (he was used a #1 D and the horse of the D by Bednar as evidenced by usage and ES TOI), but at the same time they circle jerk and write sonnets about Mack and Mikko who basically were allowed to do any damn thing they wanted because Landeskog did all the heavy lifting, even playing the role of a centre defensively, and were used predominately in offensive situations, being used to their strengths to exploit matchups. If you want to dog on Ty, dog on everyone that fits the criteria.

But what takes the cake is not wanting to pay him what he is worth, and then at the same time arguing he should be traded for a one-dimensional primadonna winger in Nylander who is getting 7mil per season.

Um, how is it a narrative if it's obviously true if you take 10 seconds to look at the numbers.

Here're the relative zone start numbers for the Avs defense this years (highest to lowest)
OZONE STARTS/60: Barrie (12.92), EJ (10.29), Girard (10.85), Zadorov (7.12), Cole (6.78), Nemeth (3.06)
DZONE STARTS/60: Girard (6.97), Zadorov (7.12), Barrie (7.17), EJ (8.15), Cole (8.48), Nemeth (8.79)

So he definitely gets the choice offensive zone minutes. He Girard and Z were all sheltered defensively this season.

As for MacK and Mikko, I think you're missing something. What could it be? Oh yeah. They're forwards. It's less of an issue if a forward plays mostly offensive zone minutes because their primary job is to score points. That doesn't mean I don't get upset at poor defensive play by those two, but I don't judge them as harshly because they're not defensemen. Barrie is a defenseman, and I know people like to pretend his only job is to score points, but in the defensive zone it's his job to cover guys and prevent scoring chances, and he's not good at that.

So it's not a "narrative" that Barrie is sheltered. It's a fact. And it's also a fact that he needs to be sheltered because he's one of the worst defensemen on the team (and always has been) when the other team has the puck.

___________________________________________________

Now, just some general thoughts directed at nobody in particular.

I know I've made this point before, but not in this thread.

In terms of team building, if I were a GM and I had a choice in the matter, I'd want zero defensemen who were bad defensively. I'd also want zero defensemen who were bad offensively, and zero forwards who are bad defensively and bad offensively. That would be my ideal situation. Now, if a defenseman had elite defensive skills, I might accept poor offensive play because at least he's awesome at his primary role. Ditto for a forward who's elite offensively but bad defensively. But I'd definitely want zero forwards who suck at offense and zero defensemen who suck at defense. The reason for this belief is that I think such players have exponential effects on the game - a forward who sucks at offense can completely kill offensive chances from ever happening regardless of who else is on the ice with him. A defenseman who sucks at defense can singlehandedly cost you games by not covering his guy properly and allowing him to get prime scoring chances - again regardless of who else is on the ice. The same is true for bad-offense-defensemen and bad-defense-forwards, but it's easier to shelter such players so the damage is lessened.

Now, that's an ideal and not always realistic. If you've got Tyson Barrie and he's the only defenseman on the team who is even above average offensively (which has been the case a lot of his career), you've kind of got to just live with his defensive shortcomings and hope he ends up helping you more than hurting you.

But this offseason we have a prime opportunity to change the makeup of this team. If we remove Barrie, Nemeth and Bourque, we may have a team next season that comes pretty close to my ideal. I know there are good reasons to keep Barrie, which again is why I'm not 100% on board the trade Barrie train, but man it's really hard to stop myself from thinking that removing him from the roster might actually have a net positive effect even if we don't get a roster player in return*

*Yes I know that's a crazy thought if you just look at the offense Barrie produces, but I don't really know of any way to measure in numbers the negative effect his poor defensive play has not only on him, but on everyone he shares the ice with.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

I think Makar will be more than good enough, on his own, to replace Barrie's offense starting next season... for me this is the worst argument to keep Barrie.

Having both of them (Makar and Barrie) on the team putting up points from D is a much more compeling argument, IMO.

That is just so utterly ridiculous.


There's less than 10 Dmen in the entire NHL capable of providing Offense to the level Tyson Barrie is capable of. You think Makar as a rookie is going to replace that kind of offense immediately? You think he's going to be a borderline Top 5 Offensive Dman in the NHL as a rookie?


Absolutely outrageous. And I'm one of the biggest Makar homers you'll fine. If Cale hits 40 points next season it would be a fantastic rookie campaign.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Um, how is it a narrative if it's obviously true if you take 10 seconds to look at the numbers.

Here're the relative zone start numbers for the Avs defense this years (highest to lowest)
OZONE STARTS/60: Barrie (12.92), EJ (10.29), Girard (10.85), Zadorov (7.12), Cole (6.78), Nemeth (3.06)
DZONE STARTS/60: Girard (6.97), Zadorov (7.12), Barrie (7.17), EJ (8.15), Cole (8.48), Nemeth (8.79)

You cant just look at zone starts and decide he wasn't sheltered... Cole and Nemeth are literal black holes Offensively. You dont start them in the offensive zone because it would be incredibly dumb. They also played significantly less minutes at even strength and even less against good players and QoC. On the flip side Barrie is an elite point producing Dman and our best puck mover on the team. You start him in the offensive zone because it is a very smart thing to do and gives you the best chance at creating a goal.


Zone starts have next to nothing to do with whether a guy is sheltered or not. It has everything to do with playing to specific players strengths and weaknesses. Two entirely different things.


Ice time, and specifically QoC in that ice time is what caters more to whether a player is sheltered or not. And Barrie led the team for the majority of the season if not all of it in even strength ice time, and especially in the playoffs was used against the best lines all the time. Because he's a fantastic puck driving player who can move the puck very quickly out of the defensive zone when he's in it, can transition the puck through the neutral zone quicker than any of our other defenders(Except maybe Girard here as G is very good at this), and then is most certainly the best scoring chance generator in the offensive zone out of all Defenders by a large margin.


If you're gonna use advanced stats to argue Barrie is sheltered at least try and use the right ones...

 

[xbestboybandever]

You cant just look at zone starts and decide he wasn't sheltered... Cole and Nemeth are literal black holes Offensively. You dont start them in the offensive zone because it would be incredibly dumb. They also played significantly less minutes at even strength and even less against good players and QoC. On the flip side Barrie is an elite point producing Dman and our best puck mover on the team. You start him in the offensive zone because it is a very smart thing to do and gives you the best chance at creating a goal.


Zone starts have next to nothing to do with whether a guy is sheltered or not. It has everything to do with playing to specific players strengths and weaknesses. Two entirely different things.


Ice time, and specifically QoC in that ice time is what caters more to whether a player is sheltered or not. And Barrie led the team for the majority of the season if not all of it in even strength ice time, and especially in the playoffs was used against the best lines all the time. Because he's a fantastic puck driving player who can move the puck very quickly out of the defensive zone when he's in it, can transition the puck through the neutral zone quicker than any of our other defenders(Except maybe Girard here as G is very good at this), and then is most certainly the best scoring chance generator in the offensive zone out of all Defenders by a large margin.


If you're gonna use advanced stats to argue Barrie is sheltered at least try and use the right ones...

Yet in your counter you compare Barrie to Nemeth and Cole instead of Johnson, Girard or post-season Makar?

 

[MarkT]

You cant just look at zone starts and decide he wasn't sheltered... Cole and Nemeth are literal black holes Offensively. You dont start them in the offensive zone because it would be incredibly dumb. They also played significantly less minutes at even strength and even less against good players and QoC. On the flip side Barrie is an elite point producing Dman and our best puck mover on the team. You start him in the offensive zone because it is a very smart thing to do and gives you the best chance at creating a goal.


Zone starts have next to nothing to do with whether a guy is sheltered or not. It has everything to do with playing to specific players strengths and weaknesses. Two entirely different things.


Ice time, and specifically QoC in that ice time is what caters more to whether a player is sheltered or not. And Barrie led the team for the majority of the season if not all of it in even strength ice time, and especially in the playoffs was used against the best lines all the time. Because he's a fantastic puck driving player who can move the puck very quickly out of the defensive zone when he's in it, can transition the puck through the neutral zone quicker than any of our other defenders(Except maybe Girard here as G is very good at this), and then is most certainly the best scoring chance generator in the offensive zone out of all Defenders by a large margin.


If you're gonna use advanced stats to argue Barrie is sheltered at least try and use the right ones...

I'm not just looking at zone starts. I also watched every game.

And the reason Barrie played tons of minutes against great competition is because he nearly always played with the MacKinnon line, who always draw the other teams' best players. See, QoC and ice team are useful for judging a defenseman defensive ability if he's also getting lots of defensive zone starts. If a guy plays a lot against the other team's best players in his own zone then the coach must think this that player is really good defensively. If he plays a lot against top players but usually starts in the offensive zone, it tells you the other team's coach thinks he's really good offensively (or the players he's with are, or both).

So I'm not claiming he's sheltered in the sense that he sucks overall and only plays against bad opponents. I'm saying he's sheltered in that he gets most of the prime offensive zone starts that allows a player to put up good offensive numbers, and gets few defensive zone starts where his defensive abilities will be put to the test.

So to summarize:
- High ice time means he's good at something. How much ice time gives you an idea of how good.
- QoC alone only tells us one of the two coaches thinks he's good at something
- QoC plus offensive zone starts means the other coach is driving the QoC numbers and he's probably a good offensive player
- QoC plus defensive zone starts means his own coach is driving the QoC numbers and he's probably a good defensive player.

So really all the numbers for Barrie show is what we already know - he's an elite offensive defenseman who isn't good in his own zone, and he's played accordingly.

And if you define sheltered as "gets offensive minutes rather than defensive minutes" then he's sheltered.

 

[Iceberg]

That is just so utterly ridiculous.


There's less than 10 Dmen in the entire NHL capable of providing Offense to the level Tyson Barrie is capable of. You think Makar as a rookie is going to replace that kind of offense immediately? You think he's going to be a borderline Top 5 Offensive Dman in the NHL as a rookie?


Absolutely outrageous. And I'm one of the biggest Makar homers you'll fine. If Cale hits 40 points next season it would be a fantastic rookie campaign.

Anyway... yes, if put in same situation as Barrie was this year, Makar will match Barrie's production... you can right it down.

 

[Miri]

In terms of team building, if I were a GM and I had a choice in the matter, I'd want zero defensemen who were bad defensively. I'd also want zero defensemen who were bad offensively, and zero forwards who are bad defensively and bad offensively. That would be my ideal situation. Now, if a defenseman had elite defensive skills, I might accept poor offensive play because at least he's awesome at his primary role. Ditto for a forward who's elite offensively but bad defensively. But I'd definitely want zero forwards who suck at offense and zero defensemen who suck at defense. The reason for this belief is that I think such players have exponential effects on the game - a forward who sucks at offense can completely kill offensive chances from ever happening regardless of who else is on the ice with him. A defenseman who sucks at defense can singlehandedly cost you games by not covering his guy properly and allowing him to get prime scoring chances - again regardless of who else is on the ice. The same is true for bad-offense-defensemen and bad-defense-forwards, but it's easier to shelter such players so the damage is lessened.

If this is sort of meant as justification for why would you rid of Barrie, i would say you are stuck in past with that kind of thinking. Barrie is great offensive D and suspect defensively, no doubt about that. The solution to that is not to rid of him, though, but pair him with more defensively responsible forwards (who on other hand might not be exactly elite offensive producers themselves), who would make up for his defensive deficiencies and let him shine where he is best at. I see Barrie more as a forward anyway, except his main offensive strength is really skating the puck out of the zone and jumping a play in odd man rushes...which is something best done from defensive spot... finally, he scored 60 points. There are dozens forwards in NHL, who could not do that. The fabled Kevin Hayes did not. It is not that easy to do it. Players like Barrie dont grow on trees.

 

[MarkT]

If this is sort of meant as justification for why would you rid of Barrie, i would say you are stuck in past with that kind of thinking. Barrie is great offensive D and suspect defensively, no doubt about that. The solution to that is not to rid of him, though, but pair him with more defensively responsible forwards (who on other hand might not be exactly elite offensive producers themselves), who would make up for his defensive deficiencies and let him shine where he is best at. I see Barrie more as a forward anyway, except his main offensive strength is really skating the puck out of the zone and jumping a play in odd man rushes...which is something best done from defensive spot... finally, he scored 60 points. There are dozens forwards in NHL, who could not do that. The fabled Kevin Hayes did not. It is not that easy to do it. Players like Barrie dont grow on trees.

What does my post have to do with the past? Is playing defense as a defenseman a thing of the past? Seriously? Until I see a defenseman who, by scheme, covers the points rather than the forwards down now, then defensive skill will always be a key factor is evaluating defensemen.

If anything, I think my thinking is rather progressive, because in the past it seemed to be considered quite acceptable to have plenty of defensemen who could hardly skate and had no offensive skills, and forwards who had no offensive skills (unless you consider punching people an offensive skill). It was also quite acceptable to have defensemen who just weren't expected to play much defense.

Now it seems like more and more every defenseman is expected to be able to carry the puck and make a good first pass at least, and every forward is expected to backcheck and be able to at least make a pass or shoot well. My thinking reflects that new reality.

And anyway, pairing him with defensively responsible players doesn't solve the problem. If he's out of position or not covering his guy, it means someone else has to cover for him and somebody ends up open and with a potential scoring chance. Playing defense in the modern NHL is as a five man unit, and the three guys playing down low matter a ton. If one of those three is bad, it can destroy the whole defensive unit.

Also, I'm not, nor have I ever, argued Barrie isn't great offensively, especially, as you say, at rushing the puck. And yes, he scored 60 points. We're all aware. But I don't view points in a vacuum. What I want to know is how many of those points did he himself create? And equally important, how many points did the other team get because of his action or inaction? That's the kind of +/- I care about (goals you're responsible for plus and minus).

And finally, I know my last post was long (so is this one), but I clearly stated I'm not a full supporter to trading Barrie. I just see the logic in doing so. I think my brain wants to trade him but my heart wants to keep him, if that makes sense.

 

[Gatorbait19]

Um, how is it a narrative if it's obviously true if you take 10 seconds to look at the numbers.

Here're the relative zone start numbers for the Avs defense this years (highest to lowest)
OZONE STARTS/60: Barrie (12.92), EJ (10.29), Girard (10.85), Zadorov (7.12), Cole (6.78), Nemeth (3.06)
DZONE STARTS/60: Girard (6.97), Zadorov (7.12), Barrie (7.17), EJ (8.15), Cole (8.48), Nemeth (8.79)

So he definitely gets the choice offensive zone minutes. He Girard and Z were all sheltered defensively this season.

As for MacK and Mikko, I think you're missing something. What could it be? Oh yeah. They're forwards. It's less of an issue if a forward plays mostly offensive zone minutes because their primary job is to score points. That doesn't mean I don't get upset at poor defensive play by those two, but I don't judge them as harshly because they're not defensemen. Barrie is a defenseman, and I know people like to pretend his only job is to score points, but in the defensive zone it's his job to cover guys and prevent scoring chances, and he's not good at that.

So it's not a "narrative" that Barrie is sheltered. It's a fact. And it's also a fact that he needs to be sheltered because he's one of the worst defensemen on the team (and always has been) when the other team has the puck.

___________________________________________________

Now, just some general thoughts directed at nobody in particular.

I know I've made this point before, but not in this thread.

In terms of team building, if I were a GM and I had a choice in the matter, I'd want zero defensemen who were bad defensively. I'd also want zero defensemen who were bad offensively, and zero forwards who are bad defensively and bad offensively. That would be my ideal situation. Now, if a defenseman had elite defensive skills, I might accept poor offensive play because at least he's awesome at his primary role. Ditto for a forward who's elite offensively but bad defensively. But I'd definitely want zero forwards who suck at offense and zero defensemen who suck at defense. The reason for this belief is that I think such players have exponential effects on the game - a forward who sucks at offense can completely kill offensive chances from ever happening regardless of who else is on the ice with him. A defenseman who sucks at defense can singlehandedly cost you games by not covering his guy properly and allowing him to get prime scoring chances - again regardless of who else is on the ice. The same is true for bad-offense-defensemen and bad-defense-forwards, but it's easier to shelter such players so the damage is lessened.

Now, that's an ideal and not always realistic. If you've got Tyson Barrie and he's the only defenseman on the team who is even above average offensively (which has been the case a lot of his career), you've kind of got to just live with his defensive shortcomings and hope he ends up helping you more than hurting you.

But this offseason we have a prime opportunity to change the makeup of this team. If we remove Barrie, Nemeth and Bourque, we may have a team next season that comes pretty close to my ideal. I know there are good reasons to keep Barrie, which again is why I'm not 100% on board the trade Barrie train, but man it's really hard to stop myself from thinking that removing him from the roster might actually have a net positive effect even if we don't get a roster player in return*

*Yes I know that's a crazy thought if you just look at the offense Barrie produces, but I don't really know of any way to measure in numbers the negative effect his poor defensive play has not only on him, but on everyone he shares the ice with.

Insert Joker Clapping gif.

Throw in the fact that Barrie’s offensive zone starts (which probably generate a lot of his points) will take a significant hit, as Makar will be given many of those opportunities.

I agree with the “have no bad offensive o-men and no bad defensive Dmen” idea. Those guys can have significant roles on their teams, but you don’t pay those guys top 5 money at their position. You only pay that kind of money to those guys if you have no other options. We thankfully have those options.

 

[Gatorbait19]

If this is sort of meant as justification for why would you rid of Barrie, i would say you are stuck in past with that kind of thinking. Barrie is great offensive D and suspect defensively, no doubt about that. The solution to that is not to rid of him, though, but pair him with more defensively responsible forwards (who on other hand might not be exactly elite offensive producers themselves), who would make up for his defensive deficiencies and let him shine where he is best at. I see Barrie more as a forward anyway, except his main offensive strength is really skating the puck out of the zone and jumping a play in odd man rushes...which is something best done from defensive spot... finally, he scored 60 points. There are dozens forwards in NHL, who could not do that. The fabled Kevin Hayes did not. It is not that easy to do it. Players like Barrie dont grow on trees.

You’ve got the right idea of complementary players down, but there’s a big disconnect with your execution of it.

You don’t complement Barrie by putting him with defensively-minded forwards. He excels in jumping up into the play and involving those forwards.

Instead, you complement Barrie by pairing him with a good defensively-minded/stay at home dman thats able to make up for his defensive shortcomings. HOWEVER, that means you’re splitting Makar, Girard and Barrie typically.

EJ-Makar
Girard-Zads
Barrie-Cole

The problem though is you can’t pay a 3rd pairing Dman $7-9m/year, no matter how good he is offensively.

Yes, 60 points is a lot for a Dman, but you’re also underestimating the impact that Barrie benefited from by (1) playing with MacK all the time and (2) from playing on the PP all the time. The minutes Barrie sees from both of those categories will be reduced next year (not to mention all TOI generally), thereby resulting in a decrease in his point total.

Also, ppl talk about how many ES points Barrie has had since he broke into the league. Well he was 14th amongst Dmen last year in that category, and all within the top 25 range are significantly better than Barrie defensively.

 

[Foxtail]

If Makar puts up Barrie numbers and plays solid defense, you pay him happily the 10 million he will get.

I doubt Girard will be ever in same tier, though. I hope I am wrong.

Girard has been better at every level than Barrie, made the NHL at 19 and already is a superior hockey player to Barrie. Give Sammy , Barrie's ice and he will put up the points. He far superior to Barrie in skill level and is already the better player.

Barrie would tell you this himself. As for Makar , silly to think he doesn't , they did t burn a year and sign him for the playoffs if they weren't confident in him. Both will be playing 25 mins a night next year.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Girard has been better at every level than Barrie, made the NHL at 19 and already is a superior hockey player to Barrie. Give Sammy , Barrie's ice and he will put up the points. He far superior to Barrie in skill level and is already the better player.

1) development isn’t linear
2) Girard will never be 50-60 pt dman with his current shot. It needs to improve a metric shit ton because he won’t be the ES point producer that Barrie is since he’ll always be a 2nd pairing PP guy here.

 

[Pokecheque]

Girard has been better at every level than Barrie, made the NHL at 19 and already is a superior hockey player to Barrie. Give Sammy , Barrie's ice and he will put up the points. He far superior to Barrie in skill level and is already the better player.

This in particular means absolutely nothing whatsoever. Duncan Keith didn't make the NHL at 19, pretty sure Erik Karlsson didn't either. Cale Makar didn't either. Completely irrelevant where a player starts as opposed to when he hits his prime.

This is as far as I want to venture into what will be this summer's dumbest argument by a country mile.

 

[Byzantium]

Barries closest comperable is John Carlson who signed for $8 million just last year and I can't see Barrie making more than that. Especially because he doesn't have the same leverage. Makar is the future of the franchise.

 

[xbestboybandever]

1) development isn’t linear
2) Girard will never be 50-60 pt dman with his current shot. It needs to improve a metric **** ton because he won’t be the ES point producer that Barrie is since he’ll always be a 2nd pairing PP guy here.

Barrie's shot was just as bad coming into the league. Girard's shot will improve.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Barrie's shot was just as bad coming into the league. Girard's shot will improve.

I’m sure it will, but Barrie came in and scored 13 and 12 goals in his first two seasons in the league. Girard has 4 and 4. Yes Barries shot improved but it was nowhere near as bad as Girards is now. Girard will always be more of an assist guy compared to Barrie.

 

[xbestboybandever]

I’m sure it will, but Barrie came in and scored 13 and 12 goals in his first two seasons in the league. Girard has 4 and 4. Yes Barries shot improved but it was nowhere near as bad as Girards is now. Girard will always be more of an assist guy compared to Barrie.

No, in his first two seasons he scored 0 goals in ten games and 2 in 32 the following year.

In his first two FULL seasons, he scored 13 and 12 as a 22/23 year old. Development isn't linear, but Barrie was more physically mature by the time he was playing full time campaigns than Girard was for his first two. Girard will need to continue to add strength to his frame, and when he does that his shot will get stronger and he will be less susceptible to having as much difficulty as he is currently experiencing with more physical players.

 

[Gatorbait19]

Barries closest comperable is John Carlson who signed for $8 million just last year and I can't see him making more than that. Especially because he doesn't have the same leverage. Makar is the future of the franchise.

I made the Carlson comp a few weeks ago and think it’s the best possible comp out there.

With that said, Carlson is better than Barrie offensively, and 1,000x better defensively. Hell id trade Barrie for Carlson @ $9m/year in an instant.

 

[The Abusement Park]

No, in his first two seasons he scored 0 goals in ten games and 2 in 32 the following year.

In his first two FULL seasons, he scored 13 and 12 as a 22/23 year old. Development isn't linear, but Barrie was more physically mature by the time he was playing full time campaigns than Girard was for his first two. Girard will need to continue to add strength to his frame, and when he does that his shot will get stronger and he will be less susceptible to having as much difficulty as he is currently experiencing with more physical players.

That’s what I meant first two full seasons. And yes Girard needs to add some muscle to his frame but he’s just not a big dude and doesn’t have that stockiness that Barrie does.

 

[xbestboybandever]

That’s what I meant first two full seasons. And yes Girard needs to add some muscle to his frame but he’s just not a big dude and doesn’t have that stockiness that Barrie does.

But even when Barrie wasn't in the NHL, he was playing full time in the AHL with 49 and 38 games played. When he was 19, he was still with Kelowna. So he basically had 3 full years of professional development before he produced the numbers you are citing.