Moving from the main thread:
I also am not terribly enamored with Barrie's defensive play. However, I think one thing that a lot of people are missing in this Barrie discussion, is that a successful hockey team needs a defensive corps that is good offensive and good defensively. However, that does not necessarily mean that every member of that defensive corps is good at both. Hence, pairings matter, personnel with different skill sets matter, etc. Pair Barrie with a solid defender, and the overall product on the ice is solid in both ways. A kind of strange analogy comes to mind: a well-balanced diet does not need to consist of 100% well balanced meals - how it all adds up at the end of the day is what matters.
But good hockey teams can't simply trade players who are very productive in one facet of the game, just because they lack production in another. Vlasic has averaged just 20something points per season over the course of his career, and is never going to be an elite offensive defenseman. I don't see the Sharks actively trying to dump his ass though. Pair him up with a partner who can put up points, and the team will do well.
I mean, if the Avs are going to trade every good offensive defenseman who isn't so great defensively, eventually the team isn't going to have any good offensive defensemen at all. Because if we had a player with Barrie's offensive skill - who is also very good defensively - we are describing a Drew Doughty-type player. And if there are a dozen hidden Doughty's out there, by all means, please let us all know who and where they are. Please let Joe Sakic know also.
Barrie is a very productive offensive player, and the Avs are fortunate to have a player like him on the ice.
First off, I listed a bunch of arguments people have made, not necessarily my own beliefs, but I enjoy discussions like this, so I'll defend the point I listed as best I can.
I understand your argument, but here's where I see a flaw in it. Vlasic may be flawed offensively, but as a
defenseman that doesn't hurt his team much because it's much easier for a defenseman to hide that flaw by simply always passing the puck to someone with better offensive skill. On offense, the team with the puck has the choice generally about who has the puck, so if there's an offensively flawed player on the ice, that can be worked around.
But when a defenseman is lacking in
defensive ability, it's much harder to hide and thus much more likely to hurt the team. This is because in defensive situations it's the other team who largely dictates where the puck goes. And if I'm the other team and I know one of the players on the ice is weak defensively, I am certainly going to focus the attack on that player.
And the key is, it's not necessary to have all Doughty-esque players on the blueline. It's also a myth that offensive skill automatically means defensive deficiency. All you need to have, in my view, is zero defenseman who are
bad defensively. If they're offensively gifted, then they can be average defensively - they just can't be bad without it hurting the team. If you're looking for an example of the kind of guy I'd rather have instead of a good offense/bad defense player, look no further than Sam Girard. Very skilled offensively, yet at least average (I'd argue well above average) defensively. If you've got a talented forward group to go with such players, they don't necessarily need to be game-breakers to have a good team.
I think part of the issue with Barrie is that for most of his time here we've never really had a deep, talented forward group, so his offensive ability has been desperately needed (because
any offensive ability was desperately needed), Hopefully, as our forward depth develops, or defense can also develop into being solid defensively first and foremost, and contributing offensively where possible.
