Matt Bartkowski's arrival leads to further questions

Ryan Pike
February 16 2017 10:00AM

The arrival of defenseman Matt Bartkowski on a professional tryout deal is an interesting development when it comes to the Calgary Flames. The 28-year-old American is the textbook definition of a "tweener" defenseman, having played about as many games in the National Hockey League as the American Hockey League.

His recruitment from a steady job with the AHL's Providence Bruins could have several implications moving forward, both in the immediate and not-too-distant future.

The Expansion Draft

The prime thing that Bartkowski brings to the table is he's expansion draft eligible. He also helps the Flames meet their expansion draft exposure requirements, as he played 80 games with the Vancouver Canucks last year. Teams have to expose a defenseman who's (a) under contract or is a qualified restricted free agent and (b) played either 40 games in 2016-17 or 70 games between 2015-16 and 2016-17.

If he signs, he helps the Flames meet their requirements without having to rush a decision on somebody like Jyrki Jokipakka for next season. Much of the discussion surrounding Jokipakka so far this season has involved the phrase "...yeah, but they need him for expansion." Given the likelihood of the Flames signing Bartkowski soon, that may mean that there are other moves to follow.

Short-Term Options

So what happens with Bartkowski in the short term?

  • Nothing, he gets released without signing a contract (ala Douglas Murray).
  • He signs an NHL deal and is assigned to Stockton after clearing waivers (ala Tom McCollum).
  • He signs an NHL deal and stays in Calgary, displacing either Jokipakka or Brett Kulak.

The first option is very unlikely. Bartkowski was on an AHL contract in Providence and the thought is he wouldn't have left a good spot with a good AHL club for just the mere possibility of an NHL contract, so my gut says he's going to end up signing quite soon. Barring something unforeseen, he's in Calgary because he's going to sign.

Based on what happened with McCollum, Bartkowski doesn't need to be on the Flames' active roster while he goes through the waivers process. This means the Flames won't necessarily need to reassign somebody else to make room for Bartkowski unless he's staying with the NHL club. Given that nobody else has signed him to an NHL deal by now, if Bartkowski is placed on waivers he'll clear, and then he can head down to Stockton to be another veteran blueliner to help mentor the kids down there. (For what it's worth, I don't believe McCollum was physically in Calgary during the waivers process so Bartkowski's presence means he might be sticking around.)

If he is signing and sticking on the NHL roster, there are probably a few bits of logic behind it. Jokipakka hasn't been very good and Kulak has played infrequently (and given his age, he should be playing a ton). If he's staying, my thought is Bartkowski and Jokipakka jostle for third pairing duty while Kulak goes back to Stockton to play a ton. That said, perhaps the Flames have seen everything they care to see from Jokipakka and are planning on sending him to Stockton, keeping Bartkowski and Kulak to rotate through the third pairing spot.

Thinking Ahead

If Bartkowski flew across the continent to skate with the Flames, he's here to sign and stick around. If he hangs around, that means he's displacing somebody. This could merely be a short-term move to give the Flames an upgrade on their bottom pairing or it could be a precursor to further moves.

We'll likely find out very soon.

51a8cdc527ce12d222fdc583f3cf4368
Ryan Pike has covered the Calgary Flames since 2010. He's Senior Contributing Editor at FlamesNation, a Senior Writer covering the Flames and the NHL Draft for The Hockey Writers, and a correspondent for the Fischler Report. You can see his hand or the side of his head on TV sometimes.
Avatar
#1 The Fall
February 16 2017, 10:18AM
Trash it!
15
trashes
Props
18
props

AHL depth: send him to Stockton and bring up Andersson.

...and bench Wideman.

Avatar
#2 Danomitee
February 16 2017, 10:20AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
23
props

Please God be a precursor to other moves. We have some good players, but we have a number of plugs that are just crushing us this year.

Avatar
#3 jupiter
February 16 2017, 10:28AM
Trash it!
14
trashes
Props
1
props

So, Boston just gave him away.

Avatar
#4 Longshot1977
February 16 2017, 10:31AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
22
props

I'm hoping that Bartkowski sticks in Calgary for now, with JJ being sent to Stockton.

While I certianly had reserved optimism for Kevin when we first came on board, he just doesn't seem to have what it takes to be impactful.

Kulak should stay with the NHL squad, and be handed increasing minutes.

If Bartkowski ends up a bust, oh well, I guess.

Avatar
#5 everton fc
February 16 2017, 10:42AM
Trash it!
9
trashes
Props
28
props

Another option;

Keep Bartkowski here, assigned Wideman to Stockton.

Avatar
#6 The Fall
February 16 2017, 10:47AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
24
props
everton fc wrote:

Another option;

Keep Bartkowski here, assigned Wideman to Stockton.

NMC.

Avatar
#7 GriffinJeff
February 16 2017, 10:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
18
props

I was excited when I though Matt was a Flames in 2013, and although I am slightly less optimistic now, it seems like it was fate. Welcome to the Flames organization Matt even if it is a few years later than it should have been.

Avatar
#8 everton fc
February 16 2017, 10:51AM
Trash it!
28
trashes
Props
3
props
The Fall wrote:

NMC.

We can't waive Wideman? We can't re-assign him because of his NMC?

Then he becomes part of a package involving our 1st round pick next season. A team w/cap space who desperately wants a #1 this summer because they don't have one themselves... That would be ideal.

I know - I'm dreaming....

Avatar
#9 Prototype369
February 16 2017, 11:03AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
11
props
everton fc wrote:

Another option;

Keep Bartkowski here, assigned Wideman to Stockton.

Can't, NMC -.-

Honestly, if I could punch Feaster, I would.

Avatar
#10 The Fall
February 16 2017, 11:05AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
18
props
everton fc wrote:

We can't waive Wideman? We can't re-assign him because of his NMC?

Then he becomes part of a package involving our 1st round pick next season. A team w/cap space who desperately wants a #1 this summer because they don't have one themselves... That would be ideal.

I know - I'm dreaming....

yeah, "No Movement..." means just that. Only way off ice for him is a stint in the press box.

Perhaps he can get a job at the Saddledome as a turnstile...?

Avatar
#11 everton fc
February 16 2017, 11:20AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
8
props
Prototype369 wrote:

Can't, NMC -.-

Honestly, if I could punch Feaster, I would.

What a bad signing, hey? Didn't look good when it happened.

Avatar
#12 wot96
February 16 2017, 11:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
12
props

@The Fall

Can't. Not fast enough to do that job either.

Avatar
#13 PrairieStew
February 16 2017, 11:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
14
props
wot96 wrote:

Can't. Not fast enough to do that job either.

Turnstiles generally only turn one way as well...

Avatar
#14 cjc
February 16 2017, 11:50AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
10
props

I think we see Bartkowski on the active roster if they sign him. He's not going to traipse across the country to play in Stockton, he already has a full time AHL gig with a better team. At 28, he's going to want NHL minutes if he uproots himself.

That means someone else is getting demoted (Jokipakka or more likely Kulak), or a trade is in the works and we're seeing a defenceman moved out (Wotherspoon, Jokipakka or less likely Engelland).

I can't help but say "Bartkowski is the best you could do?" Yes he'll meet the exposure requirements, but there have to be better options out there.

Avatar
#15 ThisBigMouthIsRight
February 16 2017, 12:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
10
props
cjc wrote:

I think we see Bartkowski on the active roster if they sign him. He's not going to traipse across the country to play in Stockton, he already has a full time AHL gig with a better team. At 28, he's going to want NHL minutes if he uproots himself.

That means someone else is getting demoted (Jokipakka or more likely Kulak), or a trade is in the works and we're seeing a defenceman moved out (Wotherspoon, Jokipakka or less likely Engelland).

I can't help but say "Bartkowski is the best you could do?" Yes he'll meet the exposure requirements, but there have to be better options out there.

Good question, it is concerning that Bartkowski couldn't beat out the abysmal d-men on the Canucks current roster... c'mon Vancouver went with Sbisa, Stecher, Biega and Philip Larsen ahead of him... That is worrisome and I don't believe there were any cap issue either. I guess we'll just have to see how it all pans out and hope Bartkowski becomes that diamond in the rough.

Avatar
#16 everton fc
February 16 2017, 12:25PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
15
props
ThisBigMouthIsRight wrote:

Good question, it is concerning that Bartkowski couldn't beat out the abysmal d-men on the Canucks current roster... c'mon Vancouver went with Sbisa, Stecher, Biega and Philip Larsen ahead of him... That is worrisome and I don't believe there were any cap issue either. I guess we'll just have to see how it all pans out and hope Bartkowski becomes that diamond in the rough.

Is Bartkowski really better than Jokipaaka? I don't see Jokipaaka going down. Kulak's more likely. But Kulak's ready. He should be here.

Avatar
#17 Raffydog
February 16 2017, 12:32PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
9
props

Here's a scary thought. Maybe the powers that be don't think there is a better option then Wideman in the entire organization.

Avatar
#18 jakethesnail
February 16 2017, 12:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
9
props
The Fall wrote:

yeah, "No Movement..." means just that. Only way off ice for him is a stint in the press box.

Perhaps he can get a job at the Saddledome as a turnstile...?

Dennis "No Movement" Wideman! Now that is catchy...No movement off the ice and on the ice!

Avatar
#19 PlacidSeanMonahan
February 16 2017, 01:05PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props
cjc wrote:

I think we see Bartkowski on the active roster if they sign him. He's not going to traipse across the country to play in Stockton, he already has a full time AHL gig with a better team. At 28, he's going to want NHL minutes if he uproots himself.

That means someone else is getting demoted (Jokipakka or more likely Kulak), or a trade is in the works and we're seeing a defenceman moved out (Wotherspoon, Jokipakka or less likely Engelland).

I can't help but say "Bartkowski is the best you could do?" Yes he'll meet the exposure requirements, but there have to be better options out there.

Not for free there isn't

Post a Comment

Login. Not a citizen? Sign up!

Remember to read our Comments Code.

(This will not be displayed)

(Optional)


Comments are moderated. Pretend your mom is reading over your shoulder.