(Rumour) Barrie on the move?

[aGENT]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it would have to be Stecher + assets. So whats a fair deal? who from the prospect pool would you be willing to give up? I think one of the college d signings so the Leaves have a 'now' in Stecher and a 'later' in say Rafferty or Chatfield. Doubt thats enough to get it done but on the other hand no GMs will be looking to help Dubie out.

 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Benning is trying to work something here tho. 

 

 

 

I'm not so sure it does. Again, they're getting a younger D, with a more favourable RFA contract status. And while he certainly doesn't historically put up Barrie's offense (not that Barrie is setting the world on fire this season, with a whopping 2 more points than Troy thus far) he's also probably better defensively and plays (and trains) like a dog on a bone.

 

That said, I'd be willing to entertain a 'B' prospect from our depth of solid forwards (Lockwood for example) but beyond that, they can see if any other GM's are willing to offer more for an expiring, slumping offensively, small, defensively iffy rental who will be expecting a pay raise on a team that's a bit of a nightmare at the moment and lacks leverage...

[mll]

30 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

maybe, but it could also get worse depending on the new systems. I just don't know what a fair deal really looks like between TO and the Canucks, that makes enough of a difference to TOs playoff chances if Tanev isn't part of the package. 

According to LeBrun, Mirtle and co, Dubas has been wanting to get rid of Babcock for a while.  He now has the roster he built for the coach he always wanted.  Don't think he's looking to move Barrie just yet.   

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, mll said:

According to LeBrun, Mirtle and co, Dubas has been wanting to get rid of Babcock for a while.  He now has the roster he built for the coach he always wanted.  Don't think he's looking to move Barrie just yet.   

nothing like high expectations for a rookie coach, eh? That roster has some real structural issues, so that level of expectation seems pretty darn high to me. I guess we'll find out. 

[JM_]

21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'm not so sure it does. Again, they're getting a younger D, with a more favourable RFA contract status. And while he certainly doesn't historically put up Barrie's offense (not that Barrie is setting the world on fire this season, with a whopping 2 more points than Troy thus far) he's also probably better defensively and plays (and trains) like a dog on a bone.

 

That said, I'd be willing to entertain a 'B' prospect from our depth of solid forwards (Lockwood for example) but beyond that, they can see if any other GM's are willing to offer more for an expiring, slumping offensively, small, defensively iffy rental who will be expecting a pay raise on a team that's a bit of a nightmare at the moment and lacks leverage...

Thats probably the level of offer I suspect, doubt that moves the needle. Maybe for Dubie but Shannyplanny won't go for that. 

 

And thats fine, we can get Barrie in free agency in all likihood. 

[Guest]

Barrie concerns me with his defensive style. If we were to give up one of our hardest working defensive players in Stetcher when keeping the puck out of our own net is already a struggle, we’d be looking at so many more goals against. 

 

If we had a healthier roster and Sutter was back at 100%, I’d be more interested. Right now doesn’t seem like a good time to make a deal like this.

 

We’d also effectively be giving up a home grown guy who’s extremely close to some of the guys on this team, including Bo. What would a move like this do to the locker room? Too many big problems with a Stetcher deal that not enough people are talking about. 

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Stamkos said:

Barrie concerns me with his defensive style. If we were to give up one of our hardest working defensive players in Stetcher when keeping the puck out of our own net is already a struggle, we’d be looking at so many more goals against. 

 

If we had a healthier roster and Sutter was back at 100%, I’d be more interested. Right now doesn’t seem like a good time to make a deal like this.

 

We’d also effectively be giving up a home grown guy who’s extremely close to some of the guys on this team, including Bo. What would a move like this do to the locker room? Too many big problems with a Stetcher deal that not enough people are talking about. 

We're highly likely to lose at least one of Tanev/Stecher by next year, whether by trade or free agency.

 

We don't have to make a move now but at some point, don't be surprised if there is one.

[Guest]

Just now, aGENT said:

We're highly likely to lose at least one of Tanev/Stecher by next year, whether by trade or free agency.

 

We don't have to make a move now but at some point, don't be surprised if there is one.

I get that, but consider this. 

 

You’re Bo Horvat, brand new captain, facing the struggles of leading a supposed up-and-coming team to the promise land. After a good start, the team seems to have fallen flat. Effort is gone and the room is starting to go. There’s bickering on all sides (as we saw with Miller and Boes). It’s now your job to try and fix it. Then add that someone who, iirc, was one of your groomsmen at your very recent wedding is being speculated to be in talks for someone who’s defensively inept. How do you manage the stresses and pressure of such a situation?

[mll]

12 minutes ago, Stamkos said:

I get that, but consider this. 

 

You’re Bo Horvat, brand new captain, facing the struggles of leading a supposed up-and-coming team to the promise land. After a good start, the team seems to have fallen flat. Effort is gone and the room is starting to go. There’s bickering on all sides (as we saw with Miller and Boes). It’s now your job to try and fix it. Then add that someone who, iirc, was one of your groomsmen at your very recent wedding is being speculated to be in talks for someone who’s defensively inept. How do you manage the stresses and pressure of such a situation?

It's Baertschi that was a groomsman not Stecher or Tanev.  

 

[aGENT]

31 minutes ago, Stamkos said:

How do you manage the stresses and pressure of such a situation?

Some of that wasn't factually correct and you seem to be projecting a bit there but I'll sum it up with...

 

Welcome to the NHL, where big boy pants are required.

Edited November 21, 2019 by aGENT

[mll]

45 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Thats probably the level of offer I suspect, doubt that moves the needle. Maybe for Dubie but Shannyplanny won't go for that. 

 

And thats fine, we can get Barrie in free agency in all likihood. 

Would think that Barrie will study carefully role and style of play especially after his experience under Babcock.   In Colorado he was playing about 22 min a night - a lot with MacKinnon and was manning PP1.  Can he be the D playing with Pettersson and on PP1 or will that be Hughes mostly.   Can't see Green trying Hughes-Barrie as a pairing.  

 

Fwiw he's been promoted to PP1 at Keefe's 1st practice.  

 

  

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, mll said:

Would think that Barrie will study carefully role and style of play especially after his experience under Babcock.   In Colorado he was playing about 22 min a night - a lot with MacKinnon and was manning PP1.  Can he be the D playing with Pettersson and on PP1 or will that be Hughes mostly.   Can't see Green trying Hughes-Barrie as a pairing.  

 

Fwiw he's been promoted to PP1 at Keefe's 1st practice.    

I don't think we'd see Hughes-Barrie, but Keefe is trying Dermott-Barrie. So I don't see 22 mins there.... unless the leafs get a lot of PP time.

 

The way the game is going I like the idea of having two excellent puck movers back there, particularly since Hughes looks pretty good defensively (or looks like he will be).

[70seven]

1 hour ago, mll said:

Would think that Barrie will study carefully role and style of play especially after his experience under Babcock.   In Colorado he was playing about 22 min a night - a lot with MacKinnon and was manning PP1.  Can he be the D playing with Pettersson and on PP1 or will that be Hughes mostly.   Can't see Green trying Hughes-Barrie as a pairing.  

 

Fwiw he's been promoted to PP1 at Keefe's 1st practice.  

 

  

Poolies rejoice!

[Pears]

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it would have to be Stecher + assets. So whats a fair deal? who from the prospect pool would you be willing to give up? I think one of the college d signings so the Leaves have a 'now' in Stecher and a 'later' in say Rafferty or Chatfield. Doubt thats enough to get it done but on the other hand no GMs will be looking to help Dubie out.

 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Benning is trying to work something here tho. 

 

 

 

Stecher, Goldobin, and a 2nd or 3rd?

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Pears said:

Stecher, Goldobin, and a 2nd or 3rd?

that could work, Goldy is already in the AHL and the Leaves need to recover a pick. 

[VIC_CITY]

16 minutes ago, Pears said:

Stecher, Goldobin, and a 2nd or 3rd?

I definitely wouldn't trade our 2nd round pick for Barrie. We're already down our 1st rounder this year (most likely). Stetcher and Goldobin, sure. But Benning needs to hang onto those draft picks. 

 

With the coaching change in TO, I don't see a Barrie trade happening any time soon. My guess is that Keefe will want to get a good look at Barrie. 

[flickyoursedin]

1 hour ago, VIC_CITY said:

I definitely wouldn't trade our 2nd round pick for Barrie. We're already down our 1st rounder this year (most likely). Stetcher and Goldobin, sure. But Benning needs to hang onto those draft picks. 

 

With the coaching change in TO, I don't see a Barrie trade happening any time soon. My guess is that Keefe will want to get a good look at Barrie. 

If that’s the cost on Barrie you almost have to make that deal. He’s had back to back 50 point seasons before this one. If he starts to rebound it’s a home run trade. If he rebounds and we fall outta the playoffs at the trade deadline he’s definitely worth more than what you’d be giving up in this hypothetical trade.

Edited November 21, 2019 by flickyoursedin

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Pears said:

Stecher, Goldobin, and a 2nd or 3rd?

Does Goldy have any real value, or is he a negative?  I guess the Leafs could use him for their Marlie team.  Still say the Leafs would insist on Tanev, and then to balance the cap stuff they would want to dump Nylander on us.  

[shazzam]

I don't think Barrie is going anymore unless they are out of the race come tdl. He is their rental for this season.

 

Their full on offensive team will be interesting to see. Dubas is defintely trying to build a team unlike the rest. Will it work? I certainly don't think so.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, shazzam said:

I don't think Barrie is going anymore unless they are out of the race come tdl. He is their rental for this season.

 

Their full on offensive team will be interesting to see. Dubas is defintely trying to build a team unlike the rest. Will it work? I certainly don't think so.

Leafs look a lot like TBay, minus the stud (Hedman) D-man.  Do the Loser Leafs make as much money for the league as the Winner Leafs?  Betman is about dollars, so I could see the league turning all Leaf games into specialty team games and PP advantages for the Leafs if their revenues start to drop.  Don't trust this league one iota.  

[Tower102]

I wonder if the Leafs would be interested in something surrounding this:

 

To Vancouver:

Barrie

Nylander

 

To Leafs:

Myers

Pearson

+ Prospect/pick package

 

The salary is off by less than 400K. Leafs get a bigger better defensive RHD that they won't lose at the end of the season and Pearson would be serviceable for their top 9 replacing Nylander (Kapanen probably pushes up the lineup with Pearson sliding into the 3rd line). Also receive a package of picks and prospects to even out the value.

 

Canucks get to improve their backline and top 6. Nylander can slide in with Horvat on the second line to offer more scoring their (or next to Gaudette when Horvat is needed for defensive responsibilities). They then have Barrie that can slide in next to Edler meaning we have two solid puck moving d-men in our top 4. 

 

This trade would require a few different things to happen though. Canucks would need to agree to an extension with Barrie and be confident they can move enough cap space in order to fit him in next year. They should also talk to Myers and get his approval for it so that they don't look bad trading a UFA signing in year 1 and deter future UFA signings. It also very much depends on what kind of prospect/pick package the leafs would require. I believe it needs to be of fairly high substance to equal the value, but the Canucks wouldn't want to give up one of their higher end prospects or a 1st or 2nd (unless the 2nd is opposite year to the 1st that goes to TB).