Cam Barker Buyout... A Bad Idea?

by Georgie Fruit on Jun 26, 2011 6:58 PM CDT

Cam Barker was undeniably bad in his first whole season with the Minnesota Wild. As an offensive defenceman, he put up 5 points in 53 games with a -10. Putrid. I believe Nathan's review attached to his (well-deserved) F grade last year was simply "Fuck Cam Barker".

Because of this, there are reports from Russo that the Wild is willing to buy out the last year of Cam Barker's contract, which only a third of his contract would count on the Wild's cap this season. On the surface, it seems like a no-brainer. Dude sucked ass, and showed not a whole lot of effort. So if you can dump him for less than the going rate of most players, you do that, right?

I don't think so. As bad as Cam Barker has been last year, I think buying out his contract would be a big mistake.

Since I'm taking a leap anyway, why don't you go follow me after the jump.

I'm not going to sit here and defend Cam Barker's performance last year, because he was the hockey equivalent of a festering pile of shit. However, the fact remains that he's only 25. There's no denying the potential he had as a 3rd overall pick, and he's shown that he can be productive in Chicago and Minnesota, with some seasons logging 18, 19 minutes a night (at a younger age) with good PPG totals, and reasonable, if unspectacular defence.

There are only two reasons to cut him now, either you think he's making too much money, or you're just giving up on him. While Barker is making 3.25 million (cap hit of 3.08) next season, the Wild aren't going to get a big free agent in, and have about 12 million under the cap to fit 6 guys in. Even before buying out Barker, the Wild are looking at putting three guys in their lineup with 130 games between them (If Barker is bought out, Prosser will likely be the guy, making it 132 games between them). I don't expect this defence to be good right away. And in looking at the free agent class, there doesn't appear to be a guy that you could bring in that would match the upside that Barker still has, not for the term of one year and cost of three million.

Also, Barker's buyout will put close to one million dollars on our cap over the next two years (combined). I would rather bite the bullet on a guy with one year left at a not great, but livable price, given our cap flexibility, than defer any dead money to the cap in the future.

The thinking that I have is this: Keep Barker (you're going to be paying him anyway) in a Wild uniform this year. The team was not responsive to Richards, so the hope is that Mike Yeo can get through to Barker. The worst case scenario is that Yeo is unable to do so, and you cut bait on him later in the year, either by sending him to waivers or the minors. The best case scenario is that Yeo gets Barker to show more effort and play more soundly, and then the Wild suddenly have an asset on their hands that they can flip at the deadline (to recoup his value) in Pouliot-esque fashion, or have a defenceman that they want to keep around for the next few years (which wouldn't be bad, given the Wild's lack of blue-line blue-chips).

I just think, at this point, the potential good of having Barker around, even if it's unlikely, is worth suffering through the likely downside. It's probably easier for me to say this because I'm not spending money on him, in the form of being Leipold, or in having season tickets, but it's quite simple: The Wild are rebuilding, and it's going to take some patience, the defence is in flux, and there will likely be losing. If any team can risk having a half season of dead weight from a defenceman, it's a team like the Wild.

A team like the Wild simply isn't in a position where it should be giving up on 25 year old, former number 3 overall picks who have had decent seasons in the NHL before, no matter how bad last year was.

The opinions posted here are not those of Hockey Wilderness

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't want to be too hard on this, because it is damn fine post, but...

Cam Barker is the worst defenseman to ever don a Wild sweater, and that is saying a lot. He is worse than Skoula, worse than Kuba, worse than anyone they ever drafted, included Medvec. Yuk.

Barker had one semi-good season, a 40 point year in Chicago playing with one of the most talented teams ever assembled. He was dead weight there, and they robbed the Wild in dropping him. His point totals are 8, 18, 40, 21, and wait for it… 5. FIVE.

Barker was supposed to be a physical, offensive d-man. He turned out to be a guy afraid of his own shadow who shows zero emotion and couldn’t score on Roberto Luongo. He serves no purpose, except to take up space on the roster, and keep it from a kid who would actually play.

You mention the lack of blue chippers on the blue line. That is the only place the Wild have near NHL ready talent. Spurgeon, Prosser, Scandella, Falk… heck, at this point I would take Cuma over Barker, and I don’t trust his health at all.

The luster of being the third overall pick has kept him in the league to this point, but it has tarnished completely. He needs to be shown the door. I take only paying him a third of his deal and walking away every day of the week and twice on Sunday. See ya, Cam.

Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN

Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.

by BReynolds on Jun 26, 2011 7:49 PM CDT reply actions

Ok so if we assume he's going to be dumped

does that 6th spot go immediately to Prosser or Scandella, or do the Wild pursue someone in free agency?

by nemo1107 on Jun 26, 2011 8:07 PM CDT reply actions

I am of course assuming Spurge makes the roster

by nemo1107 on Jun 26, 2011 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions

D looks like this:

Zanon – Zidlicky
Stoner – Schultz
Spurgeon – ?

Seveth dman

So, two guys will make the team. Who will they be? Fletcher mentioned Nate Prosser’s name repeatedly this weekend, as did Yeo. That doesn’t mean a spot is his, but it certainly gives him the leg up. Falk, Scandella, Palmer, Cuma… all could potentially compete for the spot. Hell, even Drew Bagnall might get a shot at it. Yeo loves the guy, and he had a great session with the Wild last season. Could make the team out of camp.

Editor:Hockey Wilderness Editor:In Lax We Trust Now with more Twitterness: ReynoldsSBN

Rule #17: You may not impersonate representatives of Hockey Wilderness and handout NHL themed wrist bands.

by BReynolds on Jun 26, 2011 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions

I disagree on some of those pairings

Schultz-Scandella
Spurgeon-Stoner

Extra D – Prosser

by cgp711 on Jun 27, 2011 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Would you rather...

pay someone $30 dollars to continually kick over your hard-made sandcastles, or would you rather pay the same person $10 to walk away and hide in a cave, never to be seen again. That’s the decision the Wild face. Barker, with his underwhelming play, just ruins any progress the team is trying to make. He eats up a roster spot that someone else deserves while draining the team of good money.
Also, the Wild can’t just make Barker disappear. Even if they send him to the minors, the team is still on the hook for his contract. The team also can’t buy him out once the season starts. If they cut him later, they still pay his contract price. So there’s no good way to “cut bait” with him unless someone chooses to claim him off waivers. He still gets his money even if he’s in the minors.
Now, the team did not respond to Richards, but that’s not an excuse for terrible play. Guillaume Latendresse had more points than Barker, and he only played 11 games. Zanon, who has no real offensive prowess, put up more points. Clayton Stoner, also with limited offensive abilities, still put up more points and played better defense. Spurgeon produced better in both ends than Barker, and he lacks the physical tools and “upside” that Barker has. Nick Schultz, who is never mentioned when talking about offense, still produced better. All of these players were coached by the same guy, yet Cam was outproduced by rookies and defensive-defensmen.
Everyone would like Barker to have worked out, but he had his opportunities. He was supposed to supply points from the blueline, and failed to do so. He was supposed to be a powerplay specialist, and played his way out of any real PP time. Barker and his size was supposed to supply a gritty, tough defenseman as well, and that didn’t happen. Sometimes it’s just better to cut your losses and walk away, and this is definitely one of those times.

by JDesthubert on Jun 27, 2011 12:04 AM CDT reply actions

Opening sentence = Brilliance

You’re right, Barker had more than his fair share of chances, he’s done. Why waste a perfectly good spot for a young d-man on Barker? It’s likely we don’t make the playoffs this year anyway, so why not develop one of our up and comers instead?

JS, Champion of the first ever Hockey Wilderness Playoff Bracket Challenge! WHOOOOOOOO!

Author, watchdog, enforcer and french-canadian connection for Hockey Wilderness.

twitter: BubbleWild48

by JSLandry on Jun 27, 2011 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions

not sure about the rules

but can Barker just take a huge paycut? I’m sure he knows he sucks

Hockey Wilderness - Front Page Writer
CircularTheory - Follow me for prospect updates!
General Manager of the Singapore Slings of the Hockey Wilderness League
General Manager of the Asian Invasion of the Bulldog Hockey Leagye

by danccchan on Jun 27, 2011 12:08 AM CDT reply actions

I believe there is no option of renegotiating a contract in the CBA. Which means they either cut him for the mil over a couple years or let him finish out his contract and maybe try trade him for a bag of used pucks at some point.

by ThatGuy22 on Jun 27, 2011 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions

Could he not be shipped to the Panthers or Jackets or Islanders or Hurricanes?

Wouldn’t some team be interested in him, I mean he’s still young? haha

Trade him for a 6th round pick, some teams need to reach the cap floor and might like the project? Hopefully.

by Kingpin45 on Jun 27, 2011 9:03 AM CDT reply actions

I was thinking the same thing

I mean Florida, even with trading for Cambell, is like 25 million under the floor still. They have to give money to someone right?

by ThatGuy22 on Jun 27, 2011 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions

I think Fletch has tried to trade him and no luck.

by cgp711 on Jun 27, 2011 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions

If you were a GM, would you be all that interested? If a team has to overpay just to reach the floor, they might as well get a mediocre player instead of a terrible player. At $3 million, the Wild didn’t even get half value out of the guy. Plus, with all the talk surrounding cutting the guy, teams who would be interested might just wait until free agency and put in a bid once he’s released. At least then they don’t have to give anything up on a player who has recently shown he doesn’t have the mental makeup and dedication to get better at the game.

by JDesthubert on Jun 27, 2011 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions

BReynolds and oni_link_04

I totally understand your points, but I just don’t understand what the Wild really have to lose? The team is rebuilding, they might as well see if Yeo can get something out of the guy, just to make sure. The only hockey-risk is losing a few more games than you would with a rookie defenceman (and that yields a higher draft pick- Fletch and Yeo seem to have a license to lose a few more this year), and not bringing in someone like Prosser to be the 7th D-man until the middle of the year.

The guy isn’t nothing. The year before his 40 point year wasn’t bad, and he’s produced in his limited playoff experience (9 points in 19 games). Your points are completely valid, and I think the Wild are going to buy the guy out, but I just don’t think the downside is any major setback with the plan of developing players, and sticking through the low points and trying to rebuild his value might yield dividends for that plan.

"You don't understand anything, man. Leave your STUPID comments in your POCKET!"

by Georgie Fruit on Jun 27, 2011 6:21 PM CDT reply actions

What do the Wild have to lose?

Well, outside of the extra $2 million that Leipold would have to shell out, they lose:
1) A roster spot that another player could use to develop. You only list Prosser, but Scandella, Falk, and Bagnall have all done more to show they actually deserve the spot. Plus, if Cuma can stay healthy, he has a great shot of being the puck-moving defenseman that the Wild are looking for.
2) Time developing a guy that has had his shot. With a team that will be this young, Yeo and his assistants should not be holding Barker’s hand at this point. Why should the development of other players on the team have to get set back just because Barker is on the roster. He has played in 6 NHL seasons, so I’m done waiting for the guy to “develop”. He’s played too many games to be considered a project. The time wasted on a guy with this much experience could be used to improve Falk or Scandella for the 6th spot.
3) True fan respect. If you actually believe that Barker deserves another shot, then I’m sorry to say that you really haven’t paid any attention to the guy. You’re hanging your hat on a guy that had 1 good season on a STACKED!!!!! team. In 71 games with the Wild, Barker has produced a whopping total of 12 points. I don’t want to see that on the ice, and I feel insulted as a paying fan when that’s what my money is going to.

I’m just not seeing enough evidence to convince me that Barker can turn it around. I do understand your position, but there isn’t really any evidence in Barker’s body of work to justify keeping him at the extra $2 million. In professional sports, there is a “What have you done for me lately” attitude, and Barker has done very little. Right now, the breakout season he had just seems like a product of the Blackhawks system.

As for Prosser being the first guy, I think you’re probably off on that assumption. Considering that Falk and Scandella both got a shot before Prosser last year, I think they are a safer bet to make the NHL roster. Nate Prosser, while good, is still a project. If Falk played with more of a physical edge, he would definitely be on the roster. That is actually something that can be taught by a good coach. Scandella had some unfortunate injuries, but has shown more promise and sheer talent than Prosser.

Also, I do have a problem with this line

The Wild are rebuilding, and it’s going to take some patience, the defence is in flux, and there will likely be losing. If any team can risk having a half season of dead weight from a defenceman, it’s a team like the Wild.

The losing is exactly why the Wild can’t wait around to just see if Barker can turn things around. They need to get different guys in that can play the position and will help the team down the road. Let’s say that Barker doesn’t turn it around, and the Wild waste at least half a season on the guy. Those were games that another player could have used to get comfortable in the NHL. That’s a setback that a losing team shouldn’t just shrug their shoulders at. Even if the Wild are losing, there should be signs of improvement, not just a “ho-hum” attitude at losing.

by JDesthubert on Jun 27, 2011 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions

Fair enough

All I have to say is that I just assumed that Scandella would make the roster, whereas Prosser was a contender for the last spot, which is hardly a good retort.

"You don't understand anything, man. Leave your STUPID comments in your POCKET!"

by Georgie Fruit on Jun 28, 2011 1:18 AM CDT up reply actions