Sign in to follow this  
70seven

(Rumour) Barrie on the move?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Stecher is not the reason for why the Canucks are playing so bad.

 

Plus he's a fan favourite. Come on guys.

I like Stecher but if he gets us Barrie I make that trade.  Highly unlikely Stecher alone is enough.  The real issue is how much does Barrie want in his next contract.  If the rumors of $7-8 Million/yr is true he won't be here past this year anyways.  So likely a non-starter unless he is a rental.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I don't care how many points you put up, if you're a complete liability in your own end you shouldn't be playing D in the NHL.  Barrie's incompetence in the defensive zone is completely unacceptable and realistically I'd rather see one of the Utica guys called up than ice a defenseman who can't play defense.  Regardless of who you put Barrie with to babysit him, the team is better off without him.

Lay off the dramatics Heffy, he's nowhere remotely as bad as you claim he is. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

The Leafs aren't that good to be honest.  Buttery soft forward group and Muzzin is the only D who plays like an NHLer in his own zone  The best case scenario for them is they make the playoffs and get smoked in the first round again.  Rielly's play style also creates a culture where it's acceptable to play like absolute trash in your own end with zero accountability.

Defensively poor I know but the leafs are a top 5 team goals for. For an offensive dman like Barrie I just didn’t foresee bad offensive statistics from him on a good scoring team. He’s a smaller offensive dman I don’t think anybody thought he’d all of a sudden be great on the defensive side of things. He really wasn’t the dman they needed when they traded for him. I still thought he’d bring his 50+ point offensive numbers over to the leafs.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Stecher is not the reason for why the Canucks are playing so bad.

 

Plus he's a fan favourite. Come on guys.

Yea I’d rather have Stecher for a bottom pairing role. 
 

Barrie would just take time away from Hughes.

 

Only Dman we need is Tryamkin and we’re good. He brings the size and snarl we need.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benning would need to unload some other contracts before this could happen. Vancouver boy, he isn't even close to peaked yet, and is at least worth inquiring about. He can be coached some D, but his offensive game would be a welcome addition to this team.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stelar said:

Lol, the people who prefer Stetcher over Barrie.  I like Stetch as well but come on man.......

Laughable at best, honestly. :lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Yea I’d rather have Stecher for a bottom pairing role. 
 

Barrie would just take time away from Hughes.

 

Only Dman we need is Tryamkin and we’re good. He brings the size and snarl we need.

Easy add Barrie replaces and an upgrade on Stecher. If Tryamkin comes back Benn becomes #7 and Fantenberg #8 or Utica bound. Defence massively upgraded. 

Edited by canuck73_3
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Would we do Stecher straight across for Barrie?  Barrie is on the expiring deal, but has serious offence.  Stecher is a hard working character guy, who isn’t costing too much.  

I think if anything it would have to be Tanev 1/2 retained for Barrie, plus maybe some minor league additions on our part - don't really see any other thing that we could make work. They need a Tanev. 

 

I like the idea of adding Barrie, we still need more offence out of our d group. Put him with Benn and he should be passable in our end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flickyoursedin said:

Defensively poor I know but the leafs are a top 5 team goals for. For an offensive dman like Barrie I just didn’t foresee bad offensive statistics from him on a good scoring team. He’s a smaller offensive dman I don’t think anybody thought he’d all of a sudden be great on the defensive side of things. He really wasn’t the dman they needed when they traded for him. I still thought he’d bring his 50+ point offensive numbers over to the leafs.

Even if he was scoring, his defensive play is so awful he's a total liability out there. 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

I think if anything it would have to be Tanev 1/2 retained for Barrie, plus maybe some minor league additions on our part - don't really see any other thing that we could make work. They need a Tanev. 

 

I like the idea of adding Barrie, we still need more offence out of our d group. Put him with Benn and he should be passable in our end. 

We need Tanev too though.  He’s great with Hughes.  I think we lose on a Tanev for Barrie deal.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

Even if he was scoring, his defensive play is so awful he's a total liability out there. 

Wrong, but ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

We need Tanev too though.  He’s great with Hughes.  I think we lose on a Tanev for Barrie deal.  

I don't think we do anymore - Edler and Myers are doing great, Benn is a very solid player. Hughes is a prodigy. I think we can make it work. Maybe a few more adventures in our end but I think we'd push more offence 5 on 5 it would work. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Even if he was scoring, his defensive play is so awful he's a total liability out there. 

I’m not confused by your point KH.  It’s pretty clear you’re saying Barrie’s defensive struggles are not covered enough by his offence to be worth having on our team.  How can anyone honestly find your point confusing?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't think we do anymore - Edler and Myers are doing great, Benn is a very solid player. Hughes is a prodigy. I think we can make it work. Maybe a few more adventures in our end but I think we'd push more offence 5 on 5 it would work. 

Tanev is such a warrior though.  He plays the right way, and is tough as they come.  Barrie has put up big points, and is still relatively young.  If it was straight across, and no retention, then I could see JB thinking about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Wrong, but ok. 

The real question is how willing you are to deal with a guy you can't trust in your own end, and how much offense is necessary for that to be worth it.  I lean towards the "none" end of the spectrum,  It doesn't necessarily make me wrong.  The Leafs group of D is stinking up the joint right now and it's largely because their management leans towards the other end and doesn't care whether or not their D group are capable of playing defense at an NHL level.  Barrie is as bad as Larsen, Pouliot, and Weber were for us in the defensive zone.  There's not amount of offense that will make that kind of defense acceptable to me.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Would we do Stecher straight across for Barrie?  Barrie is on the expiring deal, but has serious offence.  Stecher is a hard working character guy, who isn’t costing too much.  

barrie has 6 points and is something like minus 8 , Canucks would be foolish I think to get him

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Tanev is such a warrior though.  He plays the right way, and is tough as they come.  Barrie has put up big points, and is still relatively young.  If it was straight across, and no retention, then I could see JB thinking about it. 

yeah he is. I do think TO looks at that and wants it. The only deal we could swing is Tanev 1/2 retained - thats all we can give off the roster and its all TO can afford to take back. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

The real question is how willing you are to deal with a guy you can't trust in your own end, and how much offense is necessary for that to be worth it.  I lean towards the "none" end of the spectrum,  It doesn't necessarily make me wrong.  The Leafs group of D is stinking up the joint right now and it's largely because their management leans towards the other end and doesn't care whether or not their D group are capable of playing defense at an NHL level.  Barrie is as bad as Larsen, Pouliot, and Weber were for us in the defensive zone.  There's not amount of offense that will make that kind of defense acceptable to me.

Laughable at best Heffy. No need to be this dramatic. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bree2 said:

barrie has 6 points and is something like minus 8 , Canucks would be foolish I think to get him

We need to do away with these confused emoji faces.  It’s clearly obvious what you are suggesting.  There is no confusion.  You don’t want Barrie.  How can anyone be confused over your statement? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.