Revisiting the Cam Barker Trade
by BReynolds on Jul 26, 2010 5:57 PM CDT
46 comments
Our very own SpaethCo brought up a topic on Twitter today:
Ok guys, remind me again why Leddy for Barker was a good trade.
Being that it is July 26th, and we have a little more than 70 days until the NHL starts up again, I figure rather than hash it out on Twitter in 140 characters at a time, we'll hash it out here. I'll provide my take, and look forward to getting insight from the huddled masses, desperate to talk hockey.
Ready? Go.
The Chicago Blackhawks needed to make a trade more so than the Wild needed to make a trade. What the Hawks wanted was expiring contracts to help them deal with their colossal salary cap issues. However, what the Wild wanted in return was worth more than simple cap relief.
Cam Barker, as you all should know by now, was the third overall selection behind Alexander Ovechkin and Evgeni Malkin. That is impressive, and holds some clout, even if the numbers have yet to arrive. Remember, it takes time for a defenseman to become dominant in the NHL. Even more rare than forwards who can play on the top line are d-men like Tyler Myers.
One thing you should truly be looking at is how long it took Duncan Keith to unseat Nik Lidstrom for the Norris. Keith was drafted in 2002. Took him eight years to develop into the player he is today. I am not trying to tell you that Barker is going to win the Norris in two years, but rather making two points. One, it takes an amazing amount of time to develop a top pairing d-man. Two, Barker was buried on a third pairing in Chicago behind Keith, Campbell, Hjalmarsson, and Sopel.
Barker had 13 minutes of TOI per game in Chicago last season, sixth on the team for regularly playing defenseman. He has a solid two minutes of PP TOI /G, and was given a total of 1:42 of PK TOI for the entire season. Compare this to 22:01 in TOI /G, 2:32 of PP TOI/ G, and 37:35 in PK TOI in just 19 games with the Wild. Clearly, the Wild are going to give him his chance to shine.
Now, look at what he cost the Wild. Kim Johnsson and Nick Leddy. Johnsson is arguably one of the best puck-movers in the league, and this is a cost the Wild could ill-afford to pay. However, Johnsson was in the last year of his contract and had given no indication of wanting to re-sign with the Wild (at least that is what has been reported). Johnsson was (and is) in the twilight of his career. At 34 years old, Johnsson has few years left, and with his reported major concussion issues, may not have even a single year left.
Nick Leddy, while a top prospect, is a prospect. No one knows if the kid is going to turn out to be anything. We can watch him play with the Gophers and "ooo and awe" over his play, and then we can look at what Tommy Thompson said, that the Wild were worried about his development with the U. Fletcher denies the Wild had any issues, and Thompson is no favorite of anyone around Hockey Wilderness, but it still is out there.
Johnsson was not a huge loss, as much as it seems he was. The Wild were not going to make the playoffs, Johnsson was not coming back, so why keep him around? Would you rather have had another second round pick, which Chicago was unlikely to give up, or would you rather have Cam Barker? If you looking at the numbers, Cam Barker would be an amazing find in the second round.
Not to keep using SpaethCo's arguments as the basis of the opposite argument, but since he brought it up, I'm going to:
Still feels like an awkward trade now that we have Cuma, Prosser, Scandella, Stoner all potent. ready to break into the lineup.
This is exactly what made Leddy expendable. Four solid prospects coming up, all very close to cracking the lineup. Leddy was no longer necessary, and if he was the additional cost to bring in Cam Barker, so be it. The Hawks wanted a prospect. Which one would you have sent? The four guys listed above, who will be on the team very soon, or Leddy, who would not have been?
But Buddha, Leddy is reported to have signed with the Hawks, and could likely be in the NHL this season.
Indeed. The rumors are being quashed right now, but it seems likely he will sign with the Hawks sooner than later. Now, ask yourself if the Hawks did not have the cap issues, would Leddy be signing there this season? I have pretty strong doubts about that.
The point with Leddy is that with the roster of d-men in Chicago, there is no way he is anything other than a third pairing guy, taking Barker's role, though likely with less PP time. That is if, and it is a strong if, Leddy even goes to Chicago immediately. No doubt he spends some time defending Huet in the AHL(too soon?), unless this is a very cap friendly deal.
Getting back to the prospects, Barker is not taking a spot from Cuma, Scandella, Prosser, or Stoner. Indeed, Stoner is on a one-way deal, and one of the remaining three is likely to make the team unless the Wild sign someone else before the season starts.Many fans see the pairing of Schultz and Burns as a foregone conclusion. Russo does as well, which does not bode well for me, but if I remember correctly, Burns and Barker spent quite a bit of time on the ice together at the end of the season.
My defensive pairings would be:
Zidlicky - Zanon
Burns- Barker
Stoner - Schultz
Prosser
This would give the Wild two top pairings, a so-called 1A and 1B, and a shut down pairing in the SS line.
The short version is this: Johnsson was on his way out, and was not a huge loss for the team, Leddy is an unknown and a gamble for both sides (one to lose that gamble, one to potentially win). Barker is a better defenseman than Wild fans are thus far willing to accept, but one that the Wild brass look to be giving every chance to succeed. At this point, with only 19 games with the team, it is very difficult to know how Barker will fit, what role he will play, or if he was worth the cost of Leddy.
Unfortunately, the deal involved three defensemen, a group notorious for taking a good deal of time to be able to answer questions about. It is still far too early to know if the Wild made a good trade, and it is very much too early to know what kind of player Barker will be for the Wild.
What say you, Wilderness? You have nothing else to talk about. Is it time to criticize the trade? To wonder about it? What is your take?
(Thank you to SpaethCo for raising the topic, and giving us something to discuss.)
0 recs |
46 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
At this point
I still believe the Wild won this deal. Could that change? Absolutely. But so far all we know is that Leddy looked really good in rookie camp. But looking good in rookie camp or even training camp doesn’t always translate to regular season success.
http://twitter.com/wildiowafan
I’m thinking training camp might help. It can’t be easy to throw a guy in mid season or trade deadline and expect him to mesh and do stellar work…or even very good work.
It’ll be interesting to see how things go in training camp and during the preseason and then with a start to the season.
I think we need a bit more time to see how this is going to play out for Barker. As for Leddy, well, that would remain to be seen as well, but I’m thinking he’s expendable.
I don't see a debate at all
You guys fleeced the Hawks and any team would be lucky to have Barker (oversized cap hit aside).
by Spezzal Teams Playa on Jul 26, 2010 6:59 PM CDT reply actions
Here is my principle frustration with this trade
We all saw the Chicago fire sale coming. With that in mind, it feels very much like we overpaid. If Johnsson had not gotten the concussion he would have been an upgrade from Barker, and his being an UFA helps their cap situation. Maybe you have to throw something else in on the trade, but a first round draft pick for a team that has to shed roster spots anyway seems a bit much.
Fair enough
But you have to consider that maybe Leddy should not have been taken as highly as 16th overall.
Sure, he was named Mr. Hockey, and maybe even took a Rookie of the Week award in the WCHA, but the kid is rather undersized and hardly lights the lamp as often as other tiny defenders.
by Spezzal Teams Playa on Jul 26, 2010 7:12 PM CDT up reply actions
But I think his point is
that usually in a trade the team taking on the expiring contract has to give up more to the team taking on the non-expiring contract. The opposite happened here. Now on the other hand you could argue that Barker’s cap hit is small and potential was high enough to warrant the Wild throwing in Leddy.
http://twitter.com/knowsknothing
Oh, I get his point
It is well made and totally valid.
The Hawks were over a barrel, known to be souring on Barker, and looking primed for a raping.
I usd the word ‘fleeced" earlier, and perhaps that was not the bon mot in light of Chicago’s desperation, but any one of the other GMs with the space to fit Barker should have been in on those negotiations.
And I agree with your statement that teams in Chicago’s position should usually have to pay for expiring contracts, but given that they were en route to their one shot at the Cup, I saw that aspect of things to be less important than during the off-season. In fact, the cost savings to the Wild were incentive enough to make a straight Johnsson-for-Barker deal, but since Barker had a future, the only way Bowman would do a deal would be a Barker-for-prospect trade with Johnsson’s salary dump being the favor to Fletcher. It’s not like Chicago planned on using Johnsson more than they used Barker, so they weren’t actually shopping for him.
So yeah, a first round pick does seem rather high a price, given Chicago’s situation, but I was merely surmising that Fletcher had maybe soured on Leddy as a 16th overall level asset.
It’ll come as no surprise to you guys that the rest of the league sees you as homers, willing to reach for Minny-grown talent. I think Central Scouting had Leddy ranked 26th among North American skaters, while ISS or RedLine or both had him pegged as a second or even third rounder.
Paying a bona fide first rounder for Barker in that situation would have been a steep price, but maybe Leddy’s value had diminished in Fletcher’s eyes, and regressed to where most GMs had always placed him.
by Spezzal Teams Playa on Jul 26, 2010 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Heh.. can't win.
The rest of the league sees us as homers, and the hometown fans say we don’t even try to get the MN players. shrug
To understand why it is frustrating to give up a prospect that shows promise, you need only look at our first round draft success for the last few years.
First round picks in the beginning were decent:
2000 Marian Gaborik
2001 Mikko Koivu
2002 Pierre-Marc Bouchard
2003 Brent Burns
Then went to complete busts:
2004 AJ Thelen
2005 Benoit Pouliot
2006 James Sheppard
Then to marginal players:
2007 Colton Gillies
2008 Tyler Cuma
2009 Nick Leddy
I don’t think anyone will disagree that Leddy was picked by the Wild higher than he should have been. Still, the news of Leddy looking good in the Hawks prospect camp is a stark contrast to the last image we have of Barker, which is that of a $3.08m cap hit D-man who looked unimpressive playing on a dismally poor team down the stretch.
I am optimistic
And that’s saying a lot.
I think Barker has had his expectations laid out for him in the post-season meetings, word is that he’s working harder this summer than he did last, and will come into camp with a better idea of what’s expected, plus he’s going to be fighting for that second pairing with Schultz or Burns.
I see a big upside for the next two seasons before Leddy is able to make an impact. We saw in person what looking good at a development camp is compared to looking good in an NHL training camp, let alone NHL games. Leddy isn’t going to be playing against 18-23 year-olds heading back to juniors or the NCAA if he does make the jump. From what I saw last season (unless he put on 25 pounds and 2 inches) he isn’t ready. Barker is, and will be better in the short-run.
Proprietor of Hockey Wilderness - We take Minnesota hockey WAY too seriously.
To be fair...
Sheppard and Pouliot both had a bad shake from the start. Their development was stunted in Minnesota by the former regime and the desire to throw first-round picks right into the NHL. Specifically with Sheppard, he plays about 4 minutes a night on the 4th line. He’ll never develop playing with that poor of talent with limited ice. Practice is all well and good, but any player will tell you that you can’t mimic game speed in a practice. Shep is screwed.
Cuma could still turn the corner. The injury last year set him back, but his time in the minors does help him develop. Plus it does take longer for NHL d-men to round out, so I’m not ready to bag him yet, or call him marginal.
I would only throw Thelen and Gillies in the bust category for now. Pouliot did thrive in Montreal, so he wasn’t a total bust. Plus you do have to figure in his trade value for us when we got Lats.
I think our bigger problem is our late-round drafting. I don’t see anyone that we draft after round 2 even coming close to making an impact for the team.
Pouliot thrived in MTL for about two weeks, then turned back into what he has always been, a floater. They will see the real Benoit this season. As for Gilles being a bust, I am not ready to give up on him just yet. He is not what a first round pick should be, but he is down in Houston, developing into what he will be. Hopefully that role can help the team at some point.
And as for throwing Thelen in the bust pile “for now,” he is at the bottom of that pile. Worst draft pick in team history.
Hockey Wilderness
Assistant Editor:SBN Minnesota
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
And as for throwing Thelen in the bust pile "for now," he is at the bottom of that pile. Worst draft pick in team history.
Agreed. So glad the regime that took him is history.
by Call of the Wild on Jul 28, 2010 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Plus there seems to be some trepidation between the Wild scouting department and the U
No matter how many times you hear from the Wild that there isn’t, there are entirely too many whispers that they do not feel the Lucia regime is developing talent.
Proprietor of Hockey Wilderness - We take Minnesota hockey WAY too seriously.
Lucia flat out sucks
I agree with your assessment that the U doesn’t develop players correctly. In all honesty, I see Lucia riding the coattails of Vanek winning 2 National Championships for Minnesota. Lucia has a great roster that has done nothing at all since the departure of Vanek. The U of M has done a poor job of really refining players; hence, players bail early to develop with an AHL or NHL team.
by oni_link_04 on Jul 26, 2010 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Yawwnson, one of the best puck handlers in the league. Ha, ha, ha, ha… I needed a good laugh. Good riddens. Barker will be worth every penny.
by mckay10 on Jul 26, 2010 9:10 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
I wasn’t to sad to see him go either. Overpaid and glass-jawed. Dude couldn’t mix it up if his life depended on it.
by CitySlicker on Jul 26, 2010 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Call me crazy, but I find his ability to get the puck the hell out of our zone a lot more valuable than his ability to “mix it up.”
I definitely noticed when he was gone — the stats sheet noticed too.
You noticed to the tune of 5 mil a year? I sure didn't.
Besides he’s all but retired now anyway, we got something out of him, good trade. And yeah, it’s important to be tough in hockey, he wasn’t. At all.
1st Round Pick
The only problem I really have with all of this was the simple fact that the Wild passed on Jordan Schroeder twice in the first round. I get the knock that he’s undersized, but the dude produces at every level. Started playing high school hockey in 8th grade for St. Thomas Academy, one of the top producers in the WCHA, and set the new USA record for most points by a player 20 and under. Schroeder has game, and the Wild probably should have considered him over Leddy, especially considering our current lack of offense.
Agreed.
But this is the same scouting juggernaut that got us first round picks like James Sheppard and AJ Thelen. I think that draft was screwed when Fletcher was in the unenviable position of using the draft order list the previous regime had developed.
I don't think we can call this one good or bad, yet
For all the reasons stated above as well as just needing patience sometimes. I think we’ll have to give Barker even another year barring obvious suckitude. Partly because I don’t think the team is going to be all that good. It is going to be REALLY hard to tell “who’s fault” it will be—and the temptation to assign blame is going to be palpable.
Let's Go Twins!
Minnesota Wild Off-season: In Fletch We Trust.
Patience is a tough sell on this team
Havlat – we’re hoping last year was an abnormality and he’ll get back to form
PBM – we’re hoping he’ll somehow be the player he was before getting his brain knocked around.
Sheppard — we’re hoping that somehow he’ll have a good training camp this year
Lats — we’re hoping last year wasn’t an anomaly and he’ll continue to produce
Backstorm — we’re hoping he’ll return from just being good to being great
Harding — we’re hoping he’s going to become a tradeable asset again post-surgery.
Barker — Again, we’re hoping that his upside will shine through next season
I’d feel a lot better if we had better predictability from our roster.
Don’t get me wrong, we’re not the only team in this position. I don’t envy Vancouver’s GM Mike Gillies — especially with how Luongo played last year. If he doesn’t bounce back that situation goes critical in a hurry.
I’d feel better, too, but right now, patience is all we’ve got that won’t make us insane.
For every one of your reasons above and then some, this is going to be a tough year. Because of that, and the fact Leddy will most likely still be playing college hockey next year, it is my opinion that it may be way too early call this trade one way or the other.
We do agree on the root of the matter: this team is in a very unenviable position.
Let's Go Twins!
Minnesota Wild Off-season: In Fletch We Trust.
You sound like a very nervous season ticket holder, good sir. I truly hope all of this hope works out. For your sake, and for theirs.
Hockey Wilderness
Assistant Editor:SBN Minnesota
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
Meh, my season ticket holder status isn’t at risk, but traveling to see games on the road may be. Watching them get shutout 0-5 vs Nashville then flying to Columbus the next day to watch them get destroyed again wasn’t quite the experience I had hoped for.
It sucks when you spend the money and make the effort to see your team play on the road only to see they didn’t show up. I just hope this roster can pull together and find some chemistry or this is going to be another long frustrating season.
Calling it even
[For disclosure purposes I’m a Hawks fan, though the Wild would be my #2 team]
Given what we know right now about both teams, I’d call this even. Chicago didn’t so much “give up” on Barker, but wanted to lock-in clear core players. Suppose you’re Chicago GM and you’re looking at your cap hits over the next year (let’s leave forward positions out of the equation). Your probably stuck with Brian Campbell, and you want to lock in Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook long term. That’s three top 3 defenseman. You also have Hjalmarsson who seems pretty comparable to Barker and will have a lower price tag. So at this point, Barker is a 4-6 slot D-man in the Hawks system. To keep Barker, you’re going to have to commit something pretty substantive, since he still has pretty good upside — something you don’t really want to do for those slots. So really, getting anything with a lower cap hit that can fill the 4-5 D slot is what you want.
Let’s face it: the Wild’s defense isn’t comparable to the Hawks, meaning Barker not only will get the opportunity to compete for one of the top slots on the Wild, he might succeed. So Barker now is competing for the 1-4 D slots (and probably fitting best now in the 2nd line pairing).
KJ looked to be a perfect one year solution, but ended up being a big zero — but he’s off the books now. Leddy on the other hand has pretty strong offensive upside — to the point that some are claiming that he could be a Brian Campbell type d-man. Also, it should be added that Joel Quenneville has an excellent track record of developing young defenseman. In the end, the Hawks didn’t really give up anything, and may have found in Leddy someone who can spend some time in 2010-11 on the 5th or 6th D slot (a place of need for the Hawks). It looks like a pretty win-win situation for both teams. Risk involved for both, but something that should help both teams in the short run.
Good luck with Havlat, by the way. Should have paired him with Boogard when you could’ve!
Good luck with Havlat, by the way. Should have paired him with Boogard when you could’ve!
And that would’ve done… what exactly? Havlat with Latendresse > Havlat with Boogaard. All Boogaard does is fight, so putting Havlat with Boogaard (which would’ve been on our 4th line since Boogaard isn’t top 6 or top 9) would’ve been POINTLESS (kinda like how Boogaard’s been goalless for over 200 games— see what I did there? haha). All that would’ve done is drop Havlat’s numbers considerably, which would’ve done us no good at all. Havlat is perfectly fine where he is, on the 2nd line with Lats as the other winger and Cullen centering that line.
by Call of the Wild on Jul 27, 2010 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Pretty sure he was making fun of Havlat… saying that putting him on a line with Boogaard would have served his talent better. While I also disagree, I am fairly certain it was mentioned in jest.
Hockey Wilderness
Assistant Editor:SBN Minnesota
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
Yes, Just a Joke
I wasn’t serious about pairing Havlat with Boogard. Havlat’s biggest problem as a Hawk was recurring injuries and problems with physical play. If he can stay injury free — big if — I think the Cullen, Lats pairing should work well.
I would be exceedingly surprised to see Leddy in the NHL anytime before 2011-2012
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
twitter: BubbleWild48
by BubbleWild48 on Jul 28, 2010 12:33 AM CDT up reply actions
It seems people are forgetting his impact for the Hawks 2 years ago..
68 GP, 6 goals, 34 assists. That alone is pretty good.
His TOI was 18:19, and his PPTOI was 3:26.
If you compare those numbers to last year, the big difference is TOI. He didn’t make as big of an impact this year compared to last because he wasn’t getting the ice time. He’s proven that he can contribute on an NHL level. Any more developing and he’ll easily be a top pairing d-man.
I feel like too many people are writing him off because he was quiet last year. HE’S GOOD PEOPLE.
As for the trade, I can agree with SpaethCo that we gave up a little bit more than we should have. With Johnsson gone we don’t have a primary puck mover, and Leddy was a big candidate to fill that spot down the road.
I still think that Barker is going to be better than Leddy in the long run, and I’m very happy with this trade.
.. but were his numbers from 2 years ago representative of what Barker can bring to the table, or are they inflated numbers from a better-than-average player on a roster stacked with talent?
Havlat went from being Chicago’s points leader in 08-09 to being an early bust for the Wild in 09-10. That plays heavily into my uncertainty with Barker, because for the 19 games he played at the end he wasn’t looking impressive at all. As I stated earlier, that could just be due to the team itself being horrible down the stretch… maybe?
Yea, it definitely does help that he was on a good team, but he was a good player himself. For example, Duncan Keith may not get 69 points on the Oilers but he’d still be one of the best defensemen around.
Barker showed through the 2008-2009 that if he’s given the responsibility he can deliver. Hopefully that translates to the Wild this year, and I bet he can get 30 points at minimum with 19ish minutes on the ice and good time on the PP.
Plus, he will be an AUTOMATIC improvement on the PP pairing of Schultz and Hnidy. That pairing makes me want to puke.
Plus, he will be an AUTOMATIC improvement on the PP pairing of Schultz and Hnidy. That pairing makes me want to puke.
I had actually suppressed my memory of Hnidy playing on the PP. That was definitely one of those cases where the concept of having “The Sheriff” on our team was a lot better than the reality.
For me...
Barker has scored 40 pts. 40 Pts is all I could have hoped for from Leddy. Johnsson was going to become a UFA for sure.
So it was Leddy for Barker. Both with similar upsides, but one has reached it once already.
Barker for me
Hockey Wilderness - Front Page Writer
CircularTheory - Follow me for prospect updates!
Trade with Buffalo:
Barker, PMB and pick? for Vanek (Can be a consistent 40 goal scorer)
Trade with Philly:
Clutterbuck, Harding and pick for JVR (Big body, loads of potential, baby Lats)
Trade with Chicago:
Bruno and pick(s)/prospect(s) for Sharp (Cap trouble, Sharp would fit great with Koivu)
Thoughts?
The Buffalo trade is interesting, though I doubt they’d buy in on PMB without seeing him hit the ice and not look lost. At this point he’s damaged goods until he can show people he’s okay.
For the Philly trade I’d love to see us move Harding there. It gets him in the Eastern Conference and puts him on a team where he has a legitimate chance to fight for a starting position. The problem with this trade is the inclusion of Clutterbuck — sure his points totals are lower than JVR, but his contributions to the team in sheer work ethic make him incredibly valuable in the roster. He’s a role player, but he’s exceedingly good at his role as an agitator. This trade also grabs a right winger roster spot and replaces it with a left. We badly need a better right wing than Mittens to play on the line with Koivu and Brunette.
The trade for Sharp I’d do in a heartbeat, and that’s saying something because of the respect I have for Andrew Brunette. I’d throw Bruno and picks at Chicago if I thought we could get Sharp — but I don’t see that happening. Sharp’s stock is just too high after his performance in the playoffs, and I think Chicago will make a number of other moves before they are forced to deal him away.
Been gone for a while, but now I'm back and ready for action!
I was the first one to say that we shouldn’t dismiss Barker just yet. EVERYONE started pretty horribly with this new system, it’s only normal Barker would struggle also. This year will be better for everyone because everything will be a lot more organized than it was the first time around.
As for the trade suggestions, I would be rather surprised if the Sabres gave up Vanek, but at the same time he hasn’t been performing at the rate they were hoping for when they signed him. It would be great to have him pot goals off of Koivu’s passes! JVR would also be sweet, but also surprising. He’s starting to find himself in the NHL, he’s only going to get better. I agree with Eric that trading Clutterbuck, a fan favorite and two-time league leader for hits, would be a no-no. Wouldn’t want to have to hate Clutterbuck seeing as he would become a Broad Street Bully and would have his mind slowly poisoned. That said, in my perfect world we would be acquiring Claude Giroux, who’s been one of my favorite players since his days in the QMJHL. Sharp is reportedly out of the market, but you never know what the trade deadline’s going to bring! All in all, the suggestions wouldn’t be too bad, but apart from the Sharp trade, they’re pipe dreams.
Leddy for Barker… we don’t know for sure what Leddy will become, but he’ll likely never be Barker caliber if you ask me. In Barker, we have a young player with a few years left in his contract and who has yet to reach his prime. He’s going to bounce back, I can feel it.
JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!
twitter: BubbleWild48
by BubbleWild48 on Jul 28, 2010 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions
BRey
Some great analysis that makes me feel better about Leddy for Barker (anyone who argues Kim was important need not listen).
I truly believe in Fletcher and believe this season is the start of something magical.
That looks like a very friendly cap hit
Only $900,000 with no performance bonuses? That can’t be right, can it?
That still might be too rich for the big club, but if Leddy performs in Rockford, expect to see him called up if any of the Big Four gets severely injured.
by Spezzal Teams Playa on Jul 28, 2010 5:15 AM CDT reply actions
It can be right, for exactly the reasons described. He is unproven. Right now, he is a nobody, and has proven nothing. It’s the same deal Nate Prosser signed, and Leddy signed it because he knows the Hawks are hurting for cap space, and a cap friendly deal gives him a shot to make the team.
Great deal for both sides.
Hockey Wilderness
Assistant Editor:SBN Minnesota
Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.
Inconclusive.
The Blackhawks got money off the books and a fringe first round prospect. The Wild got a former #3 pick who is still young and is still developing. Barker will help the Wild this year. Leddy could help the Hawks in a couple years, outside of some spot duty.
There are some questions about Barker’s footwork. Leddy always skates with his head down, even after getting his jaw broken last year. The bottom line is that Barker is a young NHL veteran that still has upside, and has proved to be successful when given opportunities. Leddy has a lot of talent, but is undersized for his position. We won’t know for 5 years who got the best end of this deal. We know that the deal is helping the Wild on the ice this year.
As a side bonus, we have a lot of young D-Men with potential. This gives the team an opportunity to have a lot of competition for ice time… let the best guys win. Hopefully the other guys can be moved in a trade to bring back something nice.
To me, ultimately, I think of Leddy like Petteri Nummelein… a very talented skater, stick handler, awesome in the shootout, but ultimately too small to play in the NHL. This remains to be seen with Leddy, but that is where I am leaning right now.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Hockey Wilderness
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Daddy chats with Paul Bissonnette about his triumphant return to Twitter, plans for a bum tattoo
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
