Justin Falk Reassigned to Houston
by BReynolds on Nov 18, 2010 11:49 AM CST
in News
Email
PrintRusso is reporting that the Wild have re-assigned defenseman Justin Falk to the Aeros, keeping Marco Scandella with the big club for now. Russo has the reasoning over on his blog, but let me just say this caught me off guard. Sure, it makes sense financially and it makes sense due to the waivers issue.
Why the Wild choose to pay Clayton Stoner to sit in the press box is beyond me. Falk has done everything right thus far, and had earned his spot. Stoner has a crappy contract and gets to stay up because of it. I don't often criticize personnel decisions, but this was the wrong choice.
Russo spells it out pretty well that it makes no sense to have Falk in the press box while Scandella plays, and I agree 100%. If it was me? I sent Stoner to Houston and make him play his way back up. I play Scandella and Falk nightly and sit Barker in the press box and make him earn his ice tie as well. I understand it is difficult to justify sedning a $500K+ salary to Houston, and more difficult to justify benching a $3 million salary, but hey, it's about winning the games right?
As Russo says on his blog:
... Justin Falk, 22, who's played quite well since a solid training camp...
And with rookie Marco Scandella, 20, proving himself at least close to NHL ready during his first three NHL games, Falk was the odd man out even though Clayton Stoner's been scratched eight times and in two in a row.
Falk has had a stellar season, especially for a rookie. Scandella has played lights out in his move up. Stoner? Not so much. He has shown little to nothing of value, save for a couple games where he stayed below the radar. Scratched eight games is normal for a #7 d-man, but the problem is, he doesn't deserve to be the #7 d-man. That honor falls to Cam Barker.
Barker has three points and is a -6 on the year. He is used in all situations, but has not produced anything in any of them. I have held off critiquing him harshly for 17 games, and his game is not outrageously bad. However, at $3 million, "not outrageously bad" is not what you are hoping for. He needs some time to sit and think about it, and watch as the kids who are working hard (Sorry Tom) and earn their spots on the ice.
This is likely of minor importance, and I am likely making way too big of a deal about it. However, when there are two guys that are busting their humps every night and two guys who don't seem to want it much, the choice seems pretty clear. Contract status should not play such a large role in deciding who gets to play and who doesn't, but as Russo said last night, this isn't fantasy hockey. Contracts make a difference, and this decision could end up costing them wins rather than dollars, and that doesn't strike me as the right decision.
Congrats to Marco "Pizza" Scandella. You earned your spot, now make it count.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Scandella
In my opinion, the reason he stays is that he can move the puck. Falk is a pure stay at home d-man. Scandella, Barker (when he can be bothered) and Stoner can all provide the breakout, which this team needs desperately.
Stoner has a 1-way deal. It’s not fiscally responsible to send him down. Barker has a one-way deal (and may have to clear waivers, I’m not sure there) at over $3M so it’s really irresponsible to send him down.
You’re stuck moving one of the two kids. It’s a crap situation, but it is what it is.
Proprietor of Hockey Wilderness - We take Minnesota hockey WAY too seriously.
Barker would most definitely have to clear waivers, and my bet is that he wouldn’t. I don’t think they needed to send him down, just sit him in the press box while he earns the right to play. I agree, this is a crappy situation, and Falk got the raw end of it.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Assistant Editor:SBN Minnesota Owner: Komissaari erämaa
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
Why would Barker being a waiver pickup be a bad thing?
I’d like to see him traded, but why not simply let him go (via waivers) as a non-performing player? Developing D-men is one of the things this organization legitimately does well; we have players that can fill his role quite readily at a much better cost.
I just don’t see Barker as being strategic to the future of this team.
The Wild gave up good assets to get him.
He’s been with the Wild for less than a season. This would be awfully fast to wipe your hands clean from that move. Yes, Barker certainly isn’t living up to the money he is being paid right now. Still, the team has a lot invested in him, and he was a high pick himself that has had good numbers once in the NHL.
Give Wilson some time working with Barker. Give Barker a little bit more time to prove it, whether he belongs or not. The team can always put him on waivers at a later time, but they had better be damn certain that he doesn’t have a future with the team or as a trade that nets the team something they can use. Because if the Wild can’t capitalize on him, they have to make a move that will finalize a pretty big mistake on their part.
by Krotz the Wall on Nov 18, 2010 1:10 PM CST up reply actions
The optics of throwing away an asset that we traded for are admittedly bad, but just because he was a high draft pick doesn’t mean he’s guaranteed top talent. (See also: AJ Thelen, James Sheppard)
Barker was drafted in 2004, and last season was the first season in which he wasn’t assigned to the AHL. Yeah, he had a big year in 08-09 with 40 points in the regular season and 9 points in the playoffs, but with his play before and his play after it looks very much like that was just an anomaly of him being on an incredibly stacked Chicago team.
I’m guessing we bought in with the expectation that his 08-09 success with reflective of him and not just his situation, but it’s becoming increasingly clear he was a mediocre player that looked impressive because of the players around him.
I don't disagree with you.
It’s just that teams don’t tend to throw away these types of players, high picks, or players brought in with high picks/prospects. Just look at the team’s unwillingness to cut Sheppard or Pouliot before him. It just isn’t done that often, especially with younger guys.
by Krotz the Wall on Nov 18, 2010 1:45 PM CST up reply actions
Sure, but the top teams are pretty good about only giving NHL contracts to players that are ready to be effective. How many bad contracts have you seen Detroit make in the last few years?
I believe Chicago knew they had a bad contract with Barker, and they were able to pawn him off on us — and that pisses me off. Now we’re stuck with Barker, and if this team is going to go anywhere we can’t have passengers on the 23 man roster.
I see your points
However, I don’t think Chicago was dumping someone they knew was gonna be terrible. 40 points in 68 games in 08-09? Yeah, there is definitely some promise there, the only reason his point total dropped off so much the next year is because their defense is/was so deep. They needed to dump salary, and getting rid of Barker’s contract when they already have Seabrook and Keith was a great way to do it.
And waiving Barker after we gave up some pretty decent assets for him? Ummmm, what was one thing that the last Wild regime was criticized for?…letting assets go for no return. Granted, I’d rather have Rolston than Barker, but the principle is the same. Sit Barker for a while, he needs some motivation
Letting him go on waivers is a drastic move. Letting a guy who has been in the league for as long as Barker, even under performing, is just not something you see. At least not unless you are the NY Rangers. I get where you are coming from, and I wouldn’t miss his presence or lack there of. However, I think it is a inside ball, respect the vets kind of thing. I really do.
Also, with Fletcher trading for him, letting him go on waivers for nothing is admitting a huge mistake, and I don’t think he wants to do that. Good, bad, or otherwise, no way they put him on waivers.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Assistant Editor:SBN Minnesota Owner: Komissaari erämaa
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
NY and Redden is the obvious first name that comes to mind, but there is also Edmonton and Souray, and Chicago did a nice job making Huet disappear.
This team isn’t going to get better if we refuse to move ineffective players because we gave up some assets to get them.
We took the gamble and lost, how long are we going to continue to pour time and money into this situation before we acknowledge this, take some action, and move on?
Agreed. The examples abound, but they are all poorly run organizations. Even Chicago. A team that has that much salary cap trouble is poorly run. The total number of games Barker has had here just doesn’t seem to warrant abandoning ship.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think Barker adds much, if anything. I’m just trying to point it out from the team’s side. No way they will simply put him on waivers and walk away. They could offer him up for a late round pick or something, or as part of a package, but no way they just throw him on waivers and send him to Houston. They seem unwilling to pay 500K to send Stoner there, to why would they pay 3 mil to have Barker there?
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Assistant Editor:SBN Minnesota Owner: Komissaari erämaa
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
You guys really are comparing Barker’s contract to Redden and Huet? lol
Absolutely. $3.083m is a hell of a lot of cash for a 3rd pairing D-man.
There is no way...
That you can compare a 5+ mil contract FA signing, and a 6+mil Redden FA signing, to a trade for barker.
2 things happened that confuse me, we re signed Zid, then traded for Barker.
We had a huge stock pile of D that should be close to NHL ready. I.e, Scandella, Stoner, Falk, Cuma, Noreau. So instead of letting a player walk, and getting space and available $, we trade for Barker and 3+ mil contract.
The re-signing of Zid was a move that kida made me mad. He was in a contract year. Playing out of his Gord. What happened right after he was resigned? His production took a huge nose dive.
Granted he has been solid this season so far, I personally didnt like the move.
As far as comparing Barker to either Redden or Souray? No way. I think if Barker was a FA signing, yes then you can compare them, but not in a trade.
What’s the difference between a trade and an FA signing? In the trade you know the contract, have all the details AND have to give up assets to get it. I would say trading for a bad contract is worse than signing one fresh.
Redden is the victim of piss more management in New York. He is a good player and deserves to be in the NHL. If someone offers you 6 million, you take it, even if you cannot live up to it. Then the management learns that you are not the miracle worker they expected and you are shipped off. Uncool.
Personally, I think contracts over a certain amount should not be able to be so easily removed from the cap. It takes the teeth out of it and makes GMs sign stupid deals knowing they can just off load it somewhere.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Assistant Editor:SBN Minnesota Owner: Komissaari erämaa
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
I agree, poor management...
and thats what I was getting at. Fletch knew what the contract was, he knows how much is already on the books, he knew what we have for D in the minors, Granted you really cant tell how well a rookie might play, but you will never know with out letting him play, so with that said, Fletch trading for barker after extending Zid, put us in a situation where we now have a 3+ mil contract on our 3rd d pairing.
In NY, they gave a good player big money to be THE guy on D. problem was, they didnt have anyone else that could produce.
Then like a kid with ADD, when the free agents hit the market, NY HAS to go get a shinny new toy and pay it the most amount of money it can. Look at Scott Gomez, Jagr, And Gaborik.
Always trying to Buy a winning team. Barker has the offensive capability to be a top 4 dman, but he is stuck in a situation like he was in Chicago, 3rd pair and maybe even 7th D, (with the breakout year Hjarmlenson had) so all he really did was move Cities and stay in the same situation.
in a good Defensive pairing, you should have 1 Offensive and 1 defensive d man, and Barker just so happens to be our 3rd best offensive dman.
All in all, it makes no sense to have either Falk or Pizza sit, they are young and still developing, send one or the other down and keep them playing top mins, getting experience.
Both Stoner and Barker would have to clear waivers to go to Houston.
Both have one-way deals. The pure economics of the situation dictate that those two stay with the big club and either play well enough to get traded or secure a regular role. Losing Barker to a waiver claim, while alleviating salary, would look really bad after giving up what the Wild gave up. Besides, there is still potential there, and a possible trade market down the line if he doesn’t pan out at all.
Stoner… I imagine that the Wild just don’t want to lose any defensive resources this early in the season.
One positive for Falk is that he’ll get a chance to play 20 minutes plus and get some different game situations. It’ll give him a chance to put together what he’s learned so far this year in a slightly different context.
by Krotz the Wall on Nov 18, 2010 12:07 PM CST up reply actions
One way and two way deals have nothing to do with waivers. Only with how much they are paid while in the minors. It is all based on number of games played, length of service, etc. It is an equation, not a contract status.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Assistant Editor:SBN Minnesota Owner: Komissaari erämaa
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
Yes, but
He’s played in 9 games while being consecutively with the Wild, and I believe that that is the magic number to require having to pass through waivers to be sent to the minors. That’s why the One-way contracts and the passing through waivers were listed as separate statements not cause and effect statements.
by Krotz the Wall on Nov 18, 2010 1:40 PM CST up reply actions
Falk is different due to his age, service time, and I do believe being in the year of the contract that he is in.
However, I am certainly not an expert on this, so I could be remembering things wrong.
by Krotz the Wall on Nov 18, 2010 1:42 PM CST up reply actions
Correct. I am fairly certain Stoner needs to go through waivers, just pointing out that it is not the contract.
Editor:Hockey Wilderness Assistant Editor:SBN Minnesota Owner: Komissaari erämaa
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
The best part about Barker
We’ve still got him under contract for another year after this, and then he’ll be an RFA.
It’s like a TSA grope-down every time I look at our numbers on Capgeek.
Stoner is a decent press box D-man
Primarily, he doesn’t cost that much and he has shown, in the past, that he can be a NHL level defender.
Barker, we have him for another year and a half, and then he is a RFA. At $3 million a year, and having been purchased with a pick and a 1st round prospect, the team has to give Barker every opportunity to establish something. It might not be the absolute best short-term decision, but it is probably the best long-term move for the Wild, Barker, and Falk (as I would rather have Falk playing 20+ with Houston than sitting the bench hoping that Barker can justify a portion of his salary).
It’s not really fair as Falk has played well, especially for a rookie. But, it also isn’t fair to his development to have him spending a majority of his time on the bench right now either.
by Krotz the Wall on Nov 18, 2010 12:15 PM CST reply actions
Backstrom can't be facing 30+ shots a night
Shutdown D-Men are what we need now!
by Hockeyfan_Miller on Nov 18, 2010 12:33 PM CST reply actions
We need d-men that can break the puck out of the zone.
The Wild have had trouble doing that since trading Johnsson last year. Scandella looks like he can help in this aspect of the game. Getting the puck out of the defensive zone, and under control, will eventually cut down on shots and chances against.
However, I’d rather have the number of shots the Wild are facing this year than the complete defensive breakdowns they had last year. Still Backstrom has had to be far too good for the Wild to get these wins.
by Krotz the Wall on Nov 18, 2010 12:52 PM CST up reply actions
Noooo
I like Falk :( All I have to say about this is #fuckbarker. I wish we could get rid of him.
"Danny Valencia is a fricking stud! Hide your daughters!"
-Denard Span
I guess the Falk move makes sense
I’d rather not have a young, developing Dman with high potential sit in the press box. Time in Houston will prove to be much more effective for the Wild than time in the press box.
Stoner in the press box is a much better fit for me.
As for Barker? I’m not ready to give up on him, and I still think he could turn it around. It’s not like we’re gonna be able to dump him off for anything worth a damn, so why not give him some more time? And maybe the management should send him a message (see: benching, warnings, expectations) and tell him that he won’t see the light of day unless he plays like he belongs on the team.
Owner of The Haves & Havlats in the Hockey Wilderness League
I would rather
Pay Stoner to sit in the press box and play when needed than have to scratch either Falk or Pizza. They are the future of our D-Corps and they need to play, learn, and grow. Let Falk go down to Houston and tear it up and get further experience of top pair minutes down there. Let Pizza continue to whoop ass up here and play against NHL level guys. Stoner can chill until we need him, collecting a fat pay check.
As far as Barker……well this just sucks, maybe pairing him with ol’ Marco or a few games in the press box will tazer his mind into playing better.
Hockey Wilderness Fantasy Team: 12th Legion
The way I see it...
Whether it was Falk or Scandella, the one sent down was going to benefit from more ice time in the AHL. This time, turns out it was Falk, which SHOULD be good for his development, seeing more ice in more situations. However, based on the Wild’s current needs, maybe it should’ve been Pizza back in the minors, for the simple reason that we now carry 4 offensive-dmen: Burns, Pizza, Zid and Barker. It may be a bit much. Don’t get me wrong, we need offense, but not at the expense of our defense.
Pizza did win his spot, so it can’t be all bad, but I can’t help but notice that Falk was probably even more deserving, because he got a longer look… 3 games for Pizza is a mighty small sample to know if he’s the real deal..
One thing’s for certain: No need to fret, because we certainly haven’t seen the last of Falk this season.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Not the loser of the first official Hockey Wilderness Fantasy Hockey League
Owner of the Bertrand Acadians of the Hockey Wilderness Fantasy Hockey League
twitter: BubbleWild48
The 3 game look is probably why Pizza is getting a couple more games now.
He’s up here already, and he’s had a couple good games. The team might as well give him a few more now to get a good read on him game, how he adjusts, what he can bring to the table. The Wild have a pretty good idea of what Falk is bringing to the table, now they can get a read on Pizza. This in-game scouting will let the team better prepare for any future moves or decisions.
Besides, I think that Pizza will be able to help in an area that the Wild have currently struggled… the break out. From the eye test, it seems to me that Pizza might be an asset in that phase of the game. We have a couple games to find out.
by Krotz the Wall on Nov 19, 2010 8:37 AM CST up reply actions
I don't know that the Wild are in a position where they can ''experiment'' right now..
I’m not saying Pizza won’t be great for us, because he has been in clearing the crease, moving the puck, so on and so forth, but it may be a bit risky considering every point counts for a team like this one. Falk has been one of our best d-men this season, so it seems to me that this will be purely temporary until they can figure out what to do with Barker or Stoner, because I think the Wild should be actively shopping them to try and bring some offense as well as both Falk and Scandella in the big club at the same time. Of course that would be the ideal situation, but it’s easier said than done.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Not the loser of the first official Hockey Wilderness Fantasy Hockey League
Owner of the Bertrand Acadians of the Hockey Wilderness Fantasy Hockey League
twitter: BubbleWild48
I think it's an "experiment" they are willing to do
because as Russo noted, and Richards commented on, Falk’s game has slipped over the past several games. Scandella has played two really solid games in a row. Let Falk go to the Aero’s, regroup a little bit, play some top minutes, refocus, and be ready to bring it when he’s called back up to the Wild, probably soon.
Additionally, Pizza has been very good the past couple. Let’s see if the kid can build on it, be even more effective.
I agree that this is temporary, especially if Scandella proves to be NHL ready. Falk deserves to be up with the Wild, though a little time in the AHL might do him a bit of good. I still don’t see the Wild sitting either Pizza or Falk as the 7th d-man as they need to continue to develop. Still, the Wild won’t be able, or probably willing, to try to move Barker until he can get out of the funk he’s in right now.
by Krotz the Wall on Nov 19, 2010 12:06 PM CST up reply actions
If management truly believes Pizza's doing better than Falk, then they did the right thing
It’s just a shame that guys like Stoner and Barker are allowed to keep their jobs here because of technicallities (probably misspelled haha)
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Not the loser of the first official Hockey Wilderness Fantasy Hockey League
Owner of the Bertrand Acadians of the Hockey Wilderness Fantasy Hockey League
twitter: BubbleWild48
Don't think its time to freak out just yet.
I don’t ever comment, but decided to throw in my 2 cents as it seems like the thing to do. As Russo pointed out in his blog, Falk and Pizza can basically ping-pong back and forth from Houston without waivers (risk of losing them for nothing, like would happen to Stoner, or as some of you suggested crazily, Barker). So it could happen that they send Falk down for the weekend and bring him back up next week. Its not as if he is being sent down indefinitely. And I’m sure we all know that he will be back VERY soon. I think Pizza played well enough to deserve another game or two. So instead of having a 20 yr old sit in the press box, he gets to play which makes the most sense for EVERYONE involved. To me its a no brainer and has no reflection on his status in the pecking order.
Nice to have your input! Feel free to comment whenever, don't be shy :)
Yeah, to me, there’s no doubt Falk will be back shortly.
And to me, it never makes sense to lose anyone via waiver pickup, regardless of the contract situation because if someone was willing to pick him up, it means you probably would’ve been able to get something, anything, in return.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
Not the loser of the first official Hockey Wilderness Fantasy Hockey League
Owner of the Bertrand Acadians of the Hockey Wilderness Fantasy Hockey League
twitter: BubbleWild48
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Hockey Wilderness
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Los Angeles Kings give Rainn Wilson, a.k.a. Dwight Schrute, free playoff tickets in a Jell-O mold
- Monday’s Three Stars: Parise scores, Brodeur saves in Game 4 Devils win
- Zach Parise, Devils respond after a quiet Game 3 to even series with Rangers in Game 4
- Mike Rupp shoves Brodeur, sparks Game 4 chaos as Devils, Rangers coaches squabble (VIDEO)
- Devils try to even series with Rangers; watch the ‘Sandley Cup’ get built (Playoff Puck Previews)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Brodeur, Parise lead Devils to 4-1 Game 4 win over rattled Rangers; East Finals tied, 2-2
- Brodeur, Parise lead Devils to 4-1 win over rattled Rangers; East final tied 2-2
- Brodeur, Parise lead Devils to 4-1 win over rattled Rangers; East final tied 2-2
- Wild prospects lead Saint John past Edmonton
- Labrie stars in Admirals 1-0 overtime win over IceCaps; Norfolk leads series 3-0
