The Edmonton Oilers have signed free agent defenseman Cam Barker to a 1-year, $2.25M deal. Barker was recently bought out by Minnesota and is coming off an extremely poor season. 52gp, 1-4-5 -10 with Minnesota and a CorsiRel that was midpack on the Wild; he played third pairing opponents with third pairing help and was passed by every able bodied defenseman in the system.
Or so it seemed.
I believe this signing is a massive risk. If Barker can recover to where he was a couple of years ago then it's all good. Otherwise, it's a problem and a lot of money.
The Oilers still need an NHL defenseman.
too much money
ReplyDeleteSumOil - it would only be too many $ if it were a multi-year deal. This way, if it doesn't pan out, it's not gonna impact down the road. Katz's cash for one year, and possible upside if Barker remembers he's a hockey player.
ReplyDeleteDBO: I'll take your word for the Barker / toughness thing. I haven't watched him much since he went to Minny, but I never saw that from him when I did.
ReplyDeleteWell if that Sutton deal is true, that takes care of that!
ReplyDeleteso the bikini chick has been on top of some things today.
ReplyDeletehey now.....
It's not a massive risk because of the term. I mean, really, what's the worst that could happen? Another lottery pick that we were kind of expecting anyway?
ReplyDeleteStauffer alluding to another move the Oilers might make... which basically means there's another move.
"I'm not sure anything is going to happen tomorrow" - Steve Tambellini
That's a helluva deal if true.
ReplyDeleteMeh, its one year, the money is stupid but there's no risk. If he gets it together then maybe they can sign him longterm, if not, well its not like they are against the cap.
ReplyDeleteBarker is a low risk gamble. IT's not like anyone on the farm is ready, other than Petry, and he plays the other side anyway.
ReplyDeleteBarker is filler for now. Might turn into something, might not. I don't mind this move at all.
The only worry I have on Barker are the extracurricular rumours. Otherwise, it's a one year deal, what's the worst that can happen?
ReplyDeleteIf Belanger gets done and the Sutton deal is true, it's been a very good day for Tambo. Some people around here might actually have to *gulp* give him so credit.
ReplyDeletethey guy was just bought out for fucks sake.
ReplyDeletewe could have had him for 1 million or so of played hard ball.
Also, we could deal Barker at the deadline, which has helped our draft day results in the past.
ReplyDeleteTaking a risk on a one year deal is what rebuilding teams should do.
ReplyDeleteIf it works, they don't make the playoffs and can sign him longterm or flip him at the deadline.
If it doesn't work, they still don't make the playoffs.
Hopefully the buyout gets his attention.
Huge risk, but could have a huge benefit at the trading dead line. If he comes back to form the asking price could be the moon or at least a first round pick plus for a good draft year.
ReplyDeletei may be wrong but I think with the barker deal he is still an rfa after this year. not sure but we may still have his rights, so if he does pan out we control his fate and that is valuable
ReplyDeletewe don't know who else was in for Barker; hence the overpay (which would only matter if we were close to the cap ceiling anyways)
ReplyDeleteBra and panties sez its a done deal.
ReplyDeleteThe left side of the defense has
ReplyDeleteWhitney
Peckham
Smid
Barker
If one of them falters and doesn't play like they should....they likely will be riding pine.
apparently the barker deal gives him the money he lost on the buyout. so hence the dollar figure he asked for
ReplyDeleteAgree w/LT 100% on this (and SumOil too).
ReplyDeletei dont mind adding Barker. Considering this is not a playoff team, I am ok with seeing if he can rebound.
ReplyDeleteBut the money is too much
I know a guy who played junior with him on the tigers, he was apparently quite the alcoholic and if the rumors are true he still is. I don't know if thats a good thing, in that if he gets it under control he could bounce back, or if he is just a lost cause. BTW, this blog is awesome, i've been reading for years, so thanks for all the great articles.
ReplyDeleteah.. a left D too?!..
ReplyDeleteThe oil need a top 4 RD, am I wrong?..
I think the dollar value might have been an instance of Barker getting low-ball offers from other (read: better) teams, and the Oilers deciding to overpay him short-term to see if he can rebound, and possibly be a part of the defense going forward.
ReplyDeleteIt's the kind of strategic move that a team like this should make. They can overpay in the short term because the cap won't be a problem for a couple of years. They can use that overpay to target a boom-or-bust type project like Barker, and if it doesn't work out, well, it won't be because of Barker that they miss the playoffs, and they can go out and get another player next year.
I think it's a no-lose gamble.
The money is irrelevant. It's a one year deal with very little risk, and a whole lot of potential reward. We are not a cap team.
ReplyDeleteIf Barker's dollars prevented the Oilers from making another move in some way, I'd be singing a different tune, but it seems like a reasonable flyer to take to me. There's cap space here for an overpay in the short term. Tambo has spent some of it taking a risk/reward shot for tomorrow rather than a move that realy improves the team that much today.
ReplyDeleteIf the guy doesn't get his game back together, walk away from him next season, no harm done. It's not like this is going to preclude them spending on a 3rd line center.
This coming year will be his 7th and he'll be UFA at the end of the year. Worth the risk, like what ST has done so far.
ReplyDelete"The oil need a top 4 RD, am I wrong?.."
ReplyDeleteNo...that is correct.
bra and panties doesn't live in edmonton, from what i can tell. she re-tweeted Shark Club which doesn't have an edmonton location...
ReplyDeletefor what it's worth.
new thread
ReplyDeleteShe just tweeted Versteeg to FLA.
ReplyDeleteAdding Barker and Andy Sutton does not address top 4 d-men, unless you've decided it's going to be:
ReplyDeleteWhitney/Peckham
Gilbert/Smid
Archie: He only played 1 game at 19 though, so he should only have 6 years of service after this year I think.
ReplyDeletePouliot to Boston....Jack Edwards' head just exploded.
ReplyDeleteWhich of our younger players is vulnerable to negative extra extracurricular behaviour? None of the golden kids from last year.
ReplyDeleteOmark dances to his own drummer, and many of the other young players were brought up too young, so they've experienced the temptations and former their character long ago.
Many Peckham could be negatively influenced by a bully in a bottle.
It's not uncommon that the sandpaper comes along with some life issues; all you're really asking is that they STFU in the dressing room and sticks to the system.
It's the $6 million men with NMC contracts who have problems with the STFU part, or the narcissistic double douchebags like Sean Avery.
It's part of hockey. A smart GM keeps the necessary evil on a short leash.
There's an old saying about prostitution that you're paying less for sex than severance afterward.
Sutton for Foster official.
ReplyDeleteUm, Barker was already a UFA when we signed him.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely more than anyone would pay for him. Which is near tautological and completely the point. Hope he finds a way back to being a player.
Um, Barker was already a UFA when we signed him.
ReplyDeleteBecause of a buyout. That's one of those weird situations where a guy can go from UFA to RFA. Not sure whether that's the case with Barker, but it could be.
Er, Catrin is me and I am her. Goo goo gajoo.
ReplyDelete@Catrin
ReplyDeleteBecause of a buyout. That's one of those weird situations where a guy can go from UFA to RFA. Not sure whether that's the case with Barker, but it could be.
Didn't realize. Can you cite a source? According to the CBA article 10.1(a)(ii) on defining Group 3 free agents:
An Unrestricted Free Agent shall not be subject to any limitations on the period of time before which he may qualify as an Unrestricted Free Agent again, or to any limitations on the number of times he may become an Unrestricted Free Agent, except for a Group 5 Player, who may only elect to become a Group 5 Player once, but who may qualify to be another type of Unrestricted Free Agent in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
I read the first part of the phrase as "once a UFA, always a UFA". Furthermore, Section 50.13(e) states
Upon termination, the Player shall immediately be an Unrestricted Free Agent and shall no longer be obligated to perform under this SPC.
This seems to say to me that when a group 3 player like Barker is bought out, he becomes an unrestricted group 3 player, who can never become restricted again. Clause 50.13(e) therefore adds an additional condition to 10.1(a)(i) as to how a group 3 player can become UFA.
Where can I read about a recapture?
Oilswell: that deals with Group 3 free agents (i.e. guys who have reached the UFA age). Barker hasn't reached that age. As far as I can see, Barker's a UFA because of para. 13 of the SPC, and also because of 10.1(d)(i). At the expiration of his contract with the Oilers, he'll become a Group 2 free agent by reason of the provisions of 10.2(a).
ReplyDeleteAnd the second bit you quote (my above post was with respect to the 10.1 part - sorry if that was unclear) only says that the player will be a UFA on termination of the SPC (which Barker was) and that he will no longer be obligated to perform under that SPC (which Barker wasn't). It has no bearing on what might happen under future SPCs.
ReplyDelete