*TRADE* Johnsson and Leddy to Chicago for Cam Barker

Per Strib

Link

Wh00p! Didn't expect that one!

Young and talented D-man in Barker, but I hate to lose such a high prospect so soon. Going to have to wait a while before we know if this was a good move or not.. I have my doubts at the moment.

I'm glad we moved Johnsson if he wasn't in the plans to re-sign, but it feels like we gave away our first rounder from the last draft at this point.

Wild Acquires Barker From Hawks
Friday, 02.12.2010 / 3:45 PM / News
By Glen Andresen - Managing Editor

Since he took the job Minnesota Wild’s General Manager position last spring, Chuck Fletcher has shown a willingness to make deals. He completed a doozy on Friday afternoon, just minutes before the NHL-imposed Olympic break roster freeze took effect.

The Wild has acquired defenseman Cam Barker from the Chicago Blackhawks in exchange for Kim Johnsson, and last year’s first-round draft pick, Nick Leddy.

Barker, 23, has played 51 games for the Hawks this season, and scored four goals and 10 assists with a +7 rating. He is coming off his best season a year ago, when he posted six goals and 34 assists in 68 regular season games. He went on to register three goals and six assists in 17 games during last year’s playoffs.

Barker was selected with the third overall pick in the 2004 NHL Entry Draft behind Alexander Ovechkin and Evgeni Malkin. Last year, he ranked tied for sixth among NHL defensemen in power play points with five goals and 24 assists.

While very talented, his ice time was limited due to playing behind the likes of Brent Seabrook, Brian Campbell, Duncan Keith and Brent Sopel.

"He already scored 40 points in the League last year," said General Manager Chuck Fletcher. "There's about 20 defensemen every year that are capable of scoring 40 points in the League. We're very excited to acquire a player of his size, talent and youth."

Johnsson was due to become a free agent after this season, which arguably has been his best in Minnesota. He had registered six goals, which was his highest total in four seasons with the Wild.

"It's important to thank Kim Johnsson for all of his contributions to the Wild in the past four seasons," said Fletcher. "He logged a lot of minutes for us, and was a very important part of our team for a few years. Nick Leddy is a terrific, young prospect whose best days are ahead of him.

We feel we paid a significant price in acquiring Cam Barker, but we're very excited about it. It's not too often you get the opportunity to a acquire a 23-year-old defenseman who is 6-foot-3, can shoot the puck and play on the power play. And he's a young player that hasn't even entered the prime of his career."

It’s been reported that the Wild has been making a concerted effort to re-sign Marek Zidlicky. If that happens, it was doubtful that the team would also be able to keep Johnsson beyond this year.

The big surprise is the inclusion of Leddy in the deal. The Eden Prairie native was selected in the first round last summer, and was considered a key building block for the team’s future. However, his freshman season at the University of Minnesota hasn’t gotten off to a great start. Early in the season, he suffered a fractured jaw. Since returning, he’s posted one goal and four assists since December 4.

"It's (tough)," admitted Fletcher when asked about giving up the rights to Leddy. "This is not a reflection on Nick at all, in the sense that we didn't feel he was going to be a good player, or we didn't feel he had value. This says the opposite in the fact that we were able to get a player like Barker for him. The only way you trade a player like Leddy is if you're acquiring a young player back."

gotta tell you... I fucking love it!

Well, Cam Barker must be 20x the d-man people have been making him out to be, or Fletcher should be fired right now.

Oh come on let's not get rash...

This trade reeks of comparisons to the Lats deal....young guy (23) with high expectations (picked 3rd overall) without a chance to get a lot of ice time (behind Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjarmllson) and in need of a change in scenery.

What did we really lose in this deal? Our D pool is HUGE...isn't that when you're supposed to deal players...when you have a surplus of them?

And like others have said...don't blame Fletch for the Leddy pick..when it was Thompson who advised it.

Dee Oh Cee wrote:

Oh come on let's not get rash...

This trade reeks of comparisons to the Lats deal....young guy (23) with high expectations (picked 3rd overall) without a chance to get a lot of ice time (behind Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjarmllson) and in need of a change in scenery.

What did we really lose in this deal? Our D pool is HUGE...isn't that when you're supposed to deal players...when you have a surplus of them?

And like others have said...don't blame Fletch for the Leddy pick..when it was Thompson who advised it.

Fletcher said first rounders are like gold. With how these forwards are going, I believe KJ was worth a 1st. You're telling me that a 23 year old d-man playing 13 minutes a game is worth 2 first round picks?

Agree... I think Johnssons value for a playoff team was quite high as well... that's why it feels like we just gave away Leddy.

As with the Lats trade I will be open minded and see how it turns out... but I do have my doubts as of right now.

TaLoN wrote:

Agree... I think Johnssons value for a playoff team was quite high as well... that's why it feels like we just gave away Leddy.

As with the Lats trade I will be open minded and see how it turns out... but I do have my doubts as of right now.

I'm less upset about Leddy TBH. Barker is going to be here for the long-term, Schultz is signed long-term, Burns is likely to stick around, and we have 2 solid prospects in Cuma and Scandella, while also possible depth guys in Noreau and Falk. GMCF better sell off his other guys now for quality prices to make up for this.

Russo was saying that we were trying to re-sign Zidlicky and move Johnsson, so if we re-sign Zidlicky for 3.5 or so we'll still have an overpaid #5 like we did before this trade, which will hinder our ability to address our forward needs. I really don't know who Barker plays with, Johnsson would have been the ideal compliment to his game. Can't play him with Burns, and if Zid/Zanon stick together that makes Barker our #5(as I feel Burns >). Then again, he'd get PP time with us, so he'd get closer to 20 than the 13 he was getting as Chicago's #5.

I like this trade a lot more now than I did when I first read the news at work this afternoon. Only had time to skim it and I was thinking Johnsson, our 1st AND Leddy. So always eat your veggies and always read your hockey news carefully. So basically we lost a guy we probably weren't going to re-sign and a prospect that I wasn't too high on anyway for a young, big PP QB. I like this trade. We solidified our blueline for the coming seasons without hurting us for this season. I think this is a good trade for both teams.

Yes, Barker will be here long term and the Wild have depth at D for the future, that does not mean the value of your most recent 1st rounder should be devalued.

I thik we could have gotten more in return than just Barker.

I like the trade mainly because Leddy is going to take many years to develop and lost a lot of development time this year with injuries (from what I hear). At the draft, CF said that the scouts work from last year would be used. Apparently, he wasn't happy with TTs pick and it seems like further proof that TT will get canned soon.

TaLoN wrote:

Yes, Barker will be here long term and the Wild have depth at D for the future, that does not mean the value of your most recent 1st rounder should be devalued.

I thik we could have gotten more in return than just Barker.

Leddy was/is the lowest valued piece in this deal IMO. The problem IMO is Kim Johnsson as a rental is/was worth as much as Cam Barker. Thing is, Chicago wasn't going to maximize Johnsson's value as they already have 4 solid d-men. At the end of the day, I'd be happier with Nick Leddy + a different return for Kim Johnsson(NJ for Eckford + pick?).

i was eating a delicious sammich (chipotle steak from subway) watching TSN say KJ and Leddy and was like fuck yeah we got Sharp, then Barkerks name came up and i lost my appetite.

Barker better fucking turn out well, my feeling is we are going to move Zits as well, Stoner is out 2-4 with hernia, so he could be back before Mar 3, w/out Zits this gives us

Burns, Barker, Shultz, Zannon, Sifers and Stoner,

in a way what this has done is opened the door for us to get a Forward like say a Muller. Barker will have his chance to be the top guy getting top minutes, but i'm just saying maybe get a 2nd-4th round prospect from Chicago. If leddy turns this shit around and becomes a good player we're fucked. I'm torn i love we got rid of Johnnson and his deal, but dammit did it have to be leddy? I'm sorry i'm emotional i just got my period i need to eat ice cream and cry.

Also this inhibits our chances to land Martin this year, unless we're moving Burns as well, i really do Zits being moved because of this deal, look at our cap, Burns is making 3.5cap hit, Barker is going to be at 3mil as well, shultz 3.5 (way more then it should be) Zannon @ 1.93 thats a total of 11.983mil on D, we give Zits a 3.5mil deal will make that a 15.483 but Zits don't bring the great defensive play and thats what i feel is why we got Barker he seems to be a great PP guy, so i see us moving zits, hope its for a decent forward. If we do move Zits we cold get Martin still for a LTD of a 5ish mil cap hit.

I still See Zits being moved, Still shames me we couldn't get a prospect from them.

Opinion. TBD.

On the bright side Barker has put up good points last year, but with the D depth that Chi has its hard to get the minutes, which will change here, and also GMCF did want i wanted him to do, move our UFA's we have no interest in for future while not hindering our chances to compete, the guys in the locker room probably will like the energy and offence Barker brings, too bad he can't play tonight.

I think we gave up Leddy because Chi would take him and of all the D prospects he had the lowest value.

Now please get rid of Zits

forthewild wrote:

I think we gave up Leddy because Chi would take him and of all the D prospects he had the lowest value.

Now please get rid of Zits

Disagree. Leddy was IMO our #2 prospect value-wise, regardless of how bad he has been he was a 1st round pick of the new regime. Marco Scandella being the only one ahead of him.

Leddy was kind of a new regime draft. It may have happened on Fletch's watch, but it was still a TT pick. Fletch barely got his desk organized by the time the draft rolled around.

Marlowe Syn wrote:

Leddy was kind of a new regime draft. It may have happened on Fletch's watch, but it was still a TT pick. Fletch barely got his desk organized by the time the draft rolled around.

I hate how people see we got rid of Leddy and all the sudden the kid is a bust and it was a bad pick, no idea what he will turn into, yes he hasn't done this year what we though he would, it could also be that we didn't want to wait for him to develop, he needs 2 more years at the U then AHL a year or two. It could also be that Chicago wanted him, we have to remember that pro teams have scouts that scout players, they don't usually do dart board tricks ala DR.

Don't write Leddy off because he was traded

Marlowe Syn wrote:

Leddy was kind of a new regime draft. It may have happened on Fletch's watch, but it was still a TT pick. Fletch barely got his desk organized by the time the draft rolled around.

I agree with this. Tommy Thompson's job security just got a whole lot shakier with news of this trade, as Leddy was "his" pick and the word is that Fletcher and the Wild were not thrilled with Leddy's development so far at the UofM.

I like this trade. The Wild were not going to be able to re-sign both Johnsson and Zidlicky...And we do have a pretty deep stable of defensive prospects that are more NHL-ready than Leddy is at the moment. So they move Johnsson and Leddy and bring back a highly-skilled blueline in Barker who still has two more years left on his deal. Stat watchers need to consider when they are talking about Barker's season is that it can be pretty easy for a young defenseman to get lost in a blueline corps as solid and deep as Chicago's is.

With the probable signing of Zidlicky, our own corps of blueliners look pretty solid going into next season: Burns, Schultz, Barker, Zidlicky and Zanon under contract. What Fletcher would need to do is sign another physical blueliner like Hnidy to round out the squad.

I think what the Pouliot/Latendresse trade showed us is that there doesn't need to be a winner or loser when it comes to deals. I think Chicago got themselves a veteran defenseman who can move the puck which should help them this season as they head into the playoffs and a prospect for the future in exchange for clearing cap space. It sounds like the Wild will be looking to deal for Sharp in the off-season, establishing a good working relationship between the GMs of Chicago and Minnesota may help in getting that deal done as well.

Quote :

To counter the idea that somehow Fletcher "gave up" on Leddy and was just looking to move him, here's the Chicago GM:

"He was a big part of the deal," Bowman said. "We've been very high on him since last year when we were trying to trade up to get him in the draft. His speed is something that has been talked about quite a bit. He just plays the style we play here. We have that puck-possession game and he can really skate. He had to be in the mix for this to work."


Get it, folks. . .Johnsson is the throw in here (to make salary work on both sides without hurting the Hawks chances this year), not Leddy. Since Leddy was NOT going to be playing for the Wild the next two years, what just happened is we saved $2M/year the next two seasons while getting a young d-man who is better offensively than Johnsson, and bigger and more physical in his own end too.

I want to see him skating for us for a few games before I come to a final conclusion, but I just can't hate on this deal at this point.

jacked this from WMB so geo-1 you get credit

Umm from the sounds of Bowman Leddy was the meat, Johnsson was the side

forthewild wrote:

Quote :

To counter the idea that somehow Fletcher "gave up" on Leddy and was just looking to move him, here's the Chicago GM:

"He was a big part of the deal," Bowman said. "We've been very high on him since last year when we were trying to trade up to get him in the draft. His speed is something that has been talked about quite a bit. He just plays the style we play here. We have that puck-possession game and he can really skate. He had to be in the mix for this to work."


Get it, folks. . .Johnsson is the throw in here (to make salary work on both sides without hurting the Hawks chances this year), not Leddy. Since Leddy was NOT going to be playing for the Wild the next two years, what just happened is we saved $2M/year the next two seasons while getting a young d-man who is better offensively than Johnsson, and bigger and more physical in his own end too.

I want to see him skating for us for a few games before I come to a final conclusion, but I just can't hate on this deal at this point.

jacked this from WMB so geo-1 you get credit

Umm from the sounds of Bowman Leddy was the meat, Johnsson was the side

The "meat" was getting rid of Barker's salary, make no question about it. We ALL knew that Chicago was going to be forced to deal some good players due to the offer-sheet snafus from last summer. It's pretty much guaranteed that had that issue not happened, they would not have traded Barker. Johnsson helps them this year and Leddy, maybe 3-5 years down the road.

However, the Wild HAVE soured a bit on Leddy. Lou Nanne is as plugged in as anyone to both the Gophers and the Wild and his sources told him that was the case. That could be more of an indictment on Lucia then Leddy, himself, though.

I think both sides come out of this deal looking good. We get a good player who is under contract for the next two seasons, and only RFA-eligible after that. The Blackhawks get a veteran presence on the blueline, cap space and a future prospect. What's not to like for EITHER side?

Agree with ya M&G i like this deal because it helps us Now with a solid D prospect, and we don't have to lose KJ for nothing. If Barker can turn it around with better minutes he could be a big boost of energy.

forthewild wrote:

Quote :

To counter the idea that somehow Fletcher "gave up" on Leddy and was just looking to move him, here's the Chicago GM:

"He was a big part of the deal," Bowman said. "We've been very high on him since last year when we were trying to trade up to get him in the draft. His speed is something that has been talked about quite a bit. He just plays the style we play here. We have that puck-possession game and he can really skate. He had to be in the mix for this to work."


Get it, folks. . .Johnsson is the throw in here (to make salary work on both sides without hurting the Hawks chances this year), not Leddy. Since Leddy was NOT going to be playing for the Wild the next two years, what just happened is we saved $2M/year the next two seasons while getting a young d-man who is better offensively than Johnsson, and bigger and more physical in his own end too.

I want to see him skating for us for a few games before I come to a final conclusion, but I just can't hate on this deal at this point.

jacked this from WMB so geo-1 you get credit

Umm from the sounds of Bowman Leddy was the meat, Johnsson was the side

Like I said, Kim Johnsson to Chicago to be a #4/5 has ALOT less value than KJ to Ottawa or NJ, where he'd be a #2/3. Keith and Seabrook play nearly half the game.

Richards want to be a "run and gun" team, yet he trades for a d-man who is a terrible skater? We essentially got Kurtis Foster back, only now he's a lefty with hands, but still slow, not physical, not smart, and worse of all he's making over 3M.

If we're giving Barker a top-4 role our top-4 next year is
Zanon - Burns
Schultz - Barker

Hello 3.5 GAA Backstrom.