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

[kanuck87]

I think when the arguments in favour of Barker are "he won't play!" and "he'll only be as terrible as these other terrible options!" that it's a pretty lousy signing. Heck, why is the team seemingly banking on Tanev being a stalwart defenseman? The team has zero fallback options right now. Not a good summer for Gillis before the lockout and a bad start after it.

I think the argument is that you can't expect your #8 defenseman to be of NHL-calibre quality. No competent d-men will ever sign up to play in that role. So the next best alternative is to find fringe players who are willing to play that role.

We've been lucky the past two seasons that we've had 7 or 8 competent d-man, but let's not forget that Rome was once a 26 year old career AHL d-man struggling to be a consistent NHLer and he turned out to be a rock for us. He didnt come here having already been a solid NHLer. It's not neccessarily what I think will happen with Barker, but sometimes younger players tend to test their limits to see how much of their full potential they can reach, and when they realize that they need to change things or else they'll be out of the NHL soon, they will start to keep things simple. I think thats what the Canucks are hoping here with Barker. Whether it works remains to be seen, but it's a relatively insignificant signing, and this thread shouldnt be going on 18 pages right now.

 

[kanuck87]

I like how we're at the 3-hour mark since the Vandermeer signing leaked out and that thread is only at 4 pages. Meanwhile yesterday, at the 3-hour mark of the Barker signing, there were already 8 pages in this thread. The difference is astounding considering they were both expected to fill the same roles.

 

[me2]

I like how we're at the 3-hour mark since the Vandermeer signing leaked out and that thread is only at 4 pages. Meanwhile yesterday, at the 3-hour mark of the Barker signing, there were already 8 pages in this thread. The difference is astounding considering they were both expected to fill the same roles.

1. First move gets more attention.

2. Half that thread was *****ing we didn't get vandameer

 

[Proto]

I think the argument is that you can't expect your #8 defenseman to be of NHL-calibre quality. No competent d-men will ever sign up to play in that role. So the next best alternative is to find fringe players who are willing to play that role.

We've been lucky the past two seasons that we've had 7 or 8 competent d-man, but let's not forget that Rome was once a 26 year old career AHL d-man struggling to be a consistent NHLer and he turned out to be a rock for us. He didnt come here having already been a solid NHLer. It's not neccessarily what I think will happen with Barker, but sometimes younger players tend to test their limits to see how much of their full potential they can reach, and when they realize that they need to change things or else they'll be out of the NHL soon, they will start to keep things simple. I think thats what the Canucks are hoping here with Barker. Whether it works remains to be seen, but it's a relatively insignificant signing, and this thread shouldnt be going on 18 pages right now.

No, but ideally you'll get a #8 defenseman that can be NHL level for the 500-600 minutes he'll play for the Canucks, which is actually a pretty good chunk of ice time.

 

[Tiranis]

Guys like Rome are who you need to find for those #7 and #8 spots and the pro scouts are not doing their jobs if they're not finding them. Yes, Rome was a career AHLer when we got him but he was also an excellent career AHLer who didn't have any obvious issues to his game (skating, size, skills or IQ). They need to work harder to identify these types of guys instead of signing players like Barker who have shown they can't even be as good as Rome in the AHL.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Is Hickey on waivers?

I think everyone and their dog saw "bust" written all over him from the moment he was drafted...

Surprised they would put him on waivers. Thomas' mother told me he went to Lombardi and asked to be dealt because he wasn't getting any opportunities but Dean didn't oblige. The Oilers were trying to trade for him but Lombardi didn't want to deal him...

I put my money on the Oilers claiming him.

 

[Scurr]

Guys like Rome are who you need to find for those #7 and #8 spots and the pro scouts are not doing their jobs if they're not finding them. Yes, Rome was a career AHLer when we got him but he was also an excellent career AHLer who didn't have any obvious issues to his game (skating, size, skills or IQ). They need to work harder to identify these types of guys instead of signing players like Barker who have shown they can't even be as good as Rome in the AHL.

I think the Canucks really believe in their pro development and think they can turn a guy like this into a player. Barker has things you can't teach... if you can teach him how to use those things you'll have the kind of player you can't easily find. Low risk/high reward.

If you look at the Canucks pairings (Hamhuis/Bieksa, Garrison/Edler, Ballard/Tanev) I think it's safe to say management is putting an emphasis on mobile defensemen that can move the puck. I think it's also safe to say that our coach would prefer some more size on that third pairing. Tanev fits the Hamhuis/Garrison role of a solid defensive player that can still move the puck. Maybe Barker can add size and be a Bieksa/Edler type offensive threat.

 

[Fat Tony]

It's not like Gillis got the best free agent defenseman in 2010 in Hamhuis, or the second best this summer in Garrison... Terrible GM making this elite team more mediocre eh

That mitigates the bad moves. Make enough bad moves and no amount of mitigation will do.

 

[Fat Tony]

True, but not what I meant...

"Look around the league at some teams 8/9th defenceman. Not too pretty I'll tell you that much. Pick the most vocal complainers about this deal, Oilers? Colten Tuebert or Martin Marcinin. Blackhawks? Dylan Olsen or Shawn Lalonde. Wild? Steven Kampfer or Brian Connelly. Most of these guys are busts or career AHLers, Marcinin has potential but 0 NHL experience. Something about glass houses comes to mind..."

If you're saying Oiler fans were panning this deal, that's something I hadn't noticed.

 

[Tiranis]

I think the Canucks really believe in their pro development and think they can turn a guy like this into a player. Barker has things you can't teach... if you can teach him how to use those things you'll have the kind of player you can't easily find. Low risk/high reward.

A shot and a pass, that's it. Size too, I guess but he's softer than Mancari. His hockey IQ is low and his skating abysmal. Is that really enough to work with? I guess I'll just wait and see.

 

[Scurr]

A shot and a pass, that's it. Size too, I guess but he's softer than Mancari. His hockey IQ is low and his skating abysmal. Is that really enough to work with? I guess I'll just wait and see.

I think the Canucks are (and should be) committed to giving Ballard this season to find his game. We can afford to carry him and he is a good player. It would also allow Gillis to salvage some value back should we need to move him. That gives the team a year to see what kind of person/player that Barker is and can become.

Barker played well in the right role on a good team. The team wants size on that third pair but not some donkey that can't move the puck. Those guys are pretty rare.

 

[Waveburner]

I like how we're at the 3-hour mark since the Vandermeer signing leaked out and that thread is only at 4 pages. Meanwhile yesterday, at the 3-hour mark of the Barker signing, there were already 8 pages in this thread. The difference is astounding considering they were both expected to fill the same roles.

My reasons for detesting the Barker signing but not caring about Vandemeer:

1)IMO, Vandemeer>Barker. The difference is of course marginal, but it's there.

2)Vandemeer is on a two-way, and thus nearly guaranteed to start in the AHL. Barker's one-way makes me believe he is a lock for the #8 spot, despite being well below NHL calibre.

If that's not true and Barker starts in Chicago, then I don't really care. Just expensive AHL depth. But he is basically a fourth/fifth D-man at the AHL level at best. A space occupier.

3)Barker signing I think bothers me so much not because he is going to sink the season. But rather because it reeks of lazy/poor scouting. It's the process behind the decision making that lead to signing Barker that bugs me. Not because I know what that process was, but because I cannot fathom a line of logic from the Canucks that would make me agree with this signing. And it also seems to be part of a recent trend of poor pro scouting. I'm not saying "the sky is falling", but I'm worried about the moves the organization has made.


I don't expect miracles for the number eight spot. But how about an effort to identify the next Rome? Sure you might end up no better off if the player cannot adapt to the NHL. But at least there is some upside and a chance of getting a decent NHL player.

Signing long-proven crud that can't skate, has horrendous hockey IQ and a penchant for getting hurt just seems like a giant waste of time.

 

[TruGr1t]

The thing I find interesting is we've been after Barker since last summer when the Oilers signed him. After all the crap he's been through - and most posters here stating he's pretty much the worst defenseman EVER - I find it pretty weird our scouting opinion of this player hasn't really changed.

 

[arsmaster*]

I like how we're at the 3-hour mark since the Vandermeer signing leaked out and that thread is only at 4 pages. Meanwhile yesterday, at the 3-hour mark of the Barker signing, there were already 8 pages in this thread. The difference is astounding considering they were both expected to fill the same roles.

Probably because one fits as a physical 3rx pairing defensman.

The other is a cream puff.

That's why.

We've got plenty of puck movers, we absolutely needed a Rome replacement.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

The thing I find interesting is we've been after Barker since last summer when the Oilers signed him. After all the crap he's been through - and most posters here stating he's pretty much the worst defenseman EVER - I find it pretty weird our scouting opinion of this player hasn't really changed.

I think it's because our management feel Barker has been set back by injuries. He dealt with back issues in '10-11 and had a bad ankle injury last season that he said he came back from too early. If he can stay healthy, he likely improves upon his play from the last 2 years. I don't believe they think they're going to turn him into a top 5 - but they may believe he has the potential to be a decent #7. And that's how he's being paid...

 

[Intoewsables]

On the plus side, maybe we'll get to relive all those wonderful adventures we had like when Marc Andre Gragnani was on the ice 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.

The thing I find interesting is we've been after Barker since last summer when the Oilers signed him. After all the crap he's been through - and most posters here stating he's pretty much the worst defenseman EVER - I find it pretty weird our scouting opinion of this player hasn't really changed.

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.

 

[jigsaw99]

The thing I find interesting is we've been after Barker since last summer when the Oilers signed him. After all the crap he's been through - and most posters here stating he's pretty much the worst defenseman EVER - I find it pretty weird our scouting opinion of this player hasn't really changed.

our scouting had he pegged as top 4 defenseman last summer probably...

 

[kanuck87]

Probably because one fits as a physical 3rx pairing defensman.

The other is a cream puff.

That's why.

We've got plenty of puck movers, we absolutely needed a Rome replacement.

I dont watch Vandermeer play much at all, but I would assume he's not a 3rd pairing guy based on the fact that he signed on to be the #8 guy here. There may be other motives in play, but this is as far as I can tell.

 

[kanuck87]

No, but ideally you'll get a #8 defenseman that can be NHL level for the 500-600 minutes he'll play for the Canucks, which is actually a pretty good chunk of ice time.

It's not guaranteed that our #8 d-man will get 500-600 minutes of ice-time, even though on the Canucks, there's a higher possibility than most teams. The question remains, what kind of NHL level defenseman would sign on when there is a distinct possibility that he'll play in a very limited number of games while on other teams, he may get regular ice-time?

 

[CanadianPirate]

Probably because one fits as a physical 3rx pairing defensman.

The other is a cream puff.

That's why.

We've got plenty of puck movers, we absolutely needed a Rome replacement.

Is he a cream puff though? I haven't watched him play that much so this is a genuine question. Looking at his highlights it looks like he has had quite a few fights.
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...2.1970.3j5j1j2.11.0...0.0...1ac.1.8qQ5fOGN3Fo

 

[me2]

Probably because one fits as a physical 3rx pairing defensman.

The other is a cream puff.

That's why.

We've got plenty of puck movers, we absolutely needed a Rome replacement.

Then pay 1.5m per year for 3 years. Finding guys like Rome takes a bit of luck when looking for Sub-900k contracts.

 

[kanuck87]

We've got plenty of puck movers, we absolutely needed a Rome replacement.

No, I think people just wanted to see an NHL-calibre player occupy that spot, which is just unrealistic, unless you have a prospect ready to make the jump, or guys who turn themselves into one, like Tanev and Rome have done, respectively.

 

[kanuck87]

Then pay 1.5m per year for 3 years.

I didn't even realize that he signed for that amount. It really shows that it's not just about what the team wants to do, but also about what the player is looking for as well, and I just don't see players like Rome (the now-version) looking to sign on as someone's #8 d-man.

 

[Barney Gumble]

Probably because one fits as a physical 3rx pairing defensman.

The other is a cream puff.

That's why.

We've got plenty of puck movers, we absolutely needed a Rome replacement.

I'm not so sure Barker really excels in this area - at least at the pro level (AHL or NHL).

 

[Scurr]

2)Vandemeer is on a two-way, and thus nearly guaranteed to start in the AHL. Barker's one-way makes me believe he is a lock for the #8 spot, despite being well below NHL calibre.

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