|
Post by Jack Bauer on Sept 2, 2014 14:43:08 GMT -4
"....If Cam is/was serious about trading Fucale then he would have done it already, or he has a deal in place that will be announced at Xmas. Unfortunately, I am leaning towards the fact that he does not want to trade him. I think we will get the proverbial "nobody was willing to pay" bullshit after the trade deadline passes, and that would be the 1st kink in the 'Cam Russell Aromur'. The organization have NEVER traded a superstar at the right time for a tidy sum." ---------------- Every time I read this It bugs me and this is why. Halifax does not need to bottom out like some teams to get good players. Lets face it that Cam has a market advantage that most teams just do not have. He can get players that refuse to report to other teams - he can persuade sometimes players that exposure in Halifax will be better for their careers than going NCAA route. He can also promise them that he will not trade them without agreement or warning and it will entice them. I think there is a reputation to be upheld. Players also do not want to come here and play on teams that only win 15 games. So making trades to get the biggest take in return I do not always think is the right thing to do. You may like that way, but perhaps that would hurt the ability to make lesser deals and get players putting Halifax at the top of their list of places they like to play. Maybe its just good business sense to make no deal or get beat to a deal sometimes. Halifax finally deciding to stop living in the middle of the league and bottoming out is what led to its Championship. Why would you want to go back to how you ran things when you were winning nothing and ignore what led to a championship? History tells me that a team with resources like Halifax that gets high picks is eventually going to have a tough team to beat. You seem to believe living off 2nd round NCAA kids is the way to go. What reputation do you think you're upholding exactly? Other then the unhappy STH who doesn't want to watch a rebuilding team after 3 years of being a top team. It's amazing really that you would argue for the method of building a team that drove so many away. Don't fool yourself: keeping Fucale for the full year is a big mistake and something the rest of the division really hopes you do as it just makes life easier for our teams when trying to match up vs Halifax over the next few seasons.
|
|
|
Post by yesisaiditfirst on Sept 2, 2014 14:53:15 GMT -4
"You do realize that is highly unlikely Fucale will be a Moosehead next year." ------------ Everybody knows the plan is to move him during the WJC tournament. But when he leaves it would be wise to have a young goalie come in. Or u will only end up trading draft picks to get that next goalie for the next push. No I do not consider Resop "that" goalie - Resop may be the goalie to fill the cage while several things mature like on D but they really do well to get a young goalie back and that is why Cam will wait. He can play the league - contenders this year and would be Q contenders next year (even in division) if they are willing to give up that prospect who can stay in Halifax net for 3 years. There is not a hurry to make this trade. Lots can happen in the next three months to shake out a buyer and name your price. Injuries, what the standings look like, etc...
|
|
|
Post by yesisaiditfirst on Sept 2, 2014 14:59:04 GMT -4
"Don't fool yourself: keeping Fucale for the full year is a big mistake and something the rest of the division really hopes you do as it just makes life easier for our teams when trying to match up vs Halifax over the next few seasons." ---------------- Didn't say this anywhere on this board today. Do not agree they should have already traded him either. Some here have suggested they can make a bigger killing having moved him already or at the last draft. I disagree with that. I am insinuating though that Cam wants another goalie back. That may or may not happen.
|
|
|
Post by Gman on Sept 2, 2014 15:08:35 GMT -4
Can't speak for anyone else, but I would not continue to support a team that does not know when to part with assets. Like JB said, that kind of mis-management is what brought Halifax to the basement for 3 years. I'm sure they've learned that refusing to lose a bit of attendance short term creates a huge plunge in attendance long term, followed by another short spike, etc. Nasty cycle. Best to do the "build" right.
|
|
|
Post by nsvees on Sept 2, 2014 15:12:32 GMT -4
Trade Fucale to Quebec for a package involving Callum Booth?
It was very clear that the road the Mooseheads took to try to win the Presidents Cup/Memorial Cup in the pre-2007 years did not work. they were good, but not good enough to win a league title. They were bad at times, but not bad enough to get a top 2-3 draft pick. They didn't unload veterans when they weren't contenders to build up for future years. In junior hockey you almost have to "bottom out" for a couple of years to get back to the top (or at least be a top contender). Back then, they tried to compete for a league title and rebuild (not give away the future for a run) at the same time. That's not easy to do, and rarely works, despite some of the advantages the Moose as an organization has (big arena, large fan base, big market, etc.)
To get back to that top contender status again, Russell should deal Fucale, Hardie and/or Murphy, and whoever else has real value for picks/prospects to help the rebuild and go for a run in the not too distant future.
|
|
|
Post by melly on Sept 2, 2014 15:14:35 GMT -4
"Don't fool yourself: keeping Fucale for the full year is a big mistake and something the rest of the division really hopes you do as it just makes life easier for our teams when trying to match up vs Halifax over the next few seasons." ---------------- Didn't say this anywhere on this board today. Do not agree they should have already traded him either. Some here have suggested they can make a bigger killing having moved him already or at the last draft. I disagree with that. I am insinuating though that Cam wants another goalie back. That may or may not happen. "So making trades to get the biggest take in return I do not always think is the right thing to do. You may like that way, but perhaps that would hurt the ability to make lesser deals and get players putting Halifax at the top of their list of places they like to play. Maybe its just good business sense to make no deal or get beat to a deal sometimes".......sounds to me like you want to keep Fucale.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Sept 2, 2014 15:25:03 GMT -4
Can't speak for anyone else, but I would not continue to support a team that does not know when to part with assets. Like JB said, that kind of mis-management is what brought Halifax to the basement for 3 years. I'm sure they've learned that refusing to lose a bit of attendance short term creates a huge plunge in attendance long term, followed by another short spike, etc. Nasty cycle. Best to do the "build" right. I think the 'plunge' in attendance is always over blown as well. Good teams tend to trend upward attendance wise after xmas and bad teams trend downwards. Bad teams that have good players don't sell any more tickets. Not managing your assets right will also push off the next playoff run and in turn push off the next pay day for the owners. This managing your roster to not lose handfuls of ticket sales over half a season is incredibly short sighted and in general absolutely insane for a team like Halifax. They should be begging for more high picks.
|
|
|
Post by yesisaiditfirst on Sept 2, 2014 15:31:22 GMT -4
"Don't fool yourself: keeping Fucale for the full year is a big mistake and something the rest of the division really hopes you do as it just makes life easier for our teams when trying to match up vs Halifax over the next few seasons." ---------------- Didn't say this anywhere on this board today. Do not agree they should have already traded him either. Some here have suggested they can make a bigger killing having moved him already or at the last draft. I disagree with that. I am insinuating though that Cam wants another goalie back. That may or may not happen. "So making trades to get the biggest take in return I do not always think is the right thing to do. You may like that way, but perhaps that would hurt the ability to make lesser deals and get players putting Halifax at the top of their list of places they like to play. Maybe its just good business sense to make no deal or get beat to a deal sometimes".......sounds to me like you want to keep Fucale. So making trades to get the biggest take in return I do not "always" think is the right thing to do. (Get "the right players back or right prospects back" - its not a piszing match with the other teams that are moving players)
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Sept 2, 2014 15:36:37 GMT -4
"So making trades to get the biggest take in return I do not always think is the right thing to do. You may like that way, but perhaps that would hurt the ability to make lesser deals and get players putting Halifax at the top of their list of places they like to play. Maybe its just good business sense to make no deal or get beat to a deal sometimes".......sounds to me like you want to keep Fucale. So making trades to get the biggest take in return I do not "always" think is the right thing to do. (Get "the right players back or right prospects back" - its not a piszing match with the other teams that are moving players) It's all relative. Getting the right return is almost irrelevant as long as you get equal value. Look at Charlottetown and their Goaltending situation last year. Using your logic since Bibeau for MacDonald wasn't available they should have kept Bibeau. Getting creative is always needed in a league that ends up with 5 buyers, 5 sellers, and a bunch in the middle. You don't get to simply dictate your return and lose the player for nothing if you can't have it met.
|
|
|
Post by Gman on Sept 2, 2014 15:53:20 GMT -4
Can't speak for anyone else, but I would not continue to support a team that does not know when to part with assets. Like JB said, that kind of mis-management is what brought Halifax to the basement for 3 years. I'm sure they've learned that refusing to lose a bit of attendance short term creates a huge plunge in attendance long term, followed by another short spike, etc. Nasty cycle. Best to do the "build" right. I think the 'plunge' in attendance is always over blown as well. Good teams tend to trend upward attendance wise after xmas and bad teams trend downwards. Bad teams that have good players don't sell any more tickets. Not managing your assets right will also push off the next playoff run and in turn push off the next pay day for the owners. This managing your roster to not lose handfuls of ticket sales over half a season is incredibly short sighted and in general absolutely insane for a team like Halifax. They should be begging for more high picks. Sorry I meant attendance on a year by year basis. Like they keep assets and stay competitive this year, but end up being horrible for 2-3 years and having really bad attendance because of it. Before MacKinnon came along it was not unusual to have less than 4000 people at a game. If they never want to see that again, they will manage assets properly.
|
|
|
Post by yesisaiditfirst on Sept 2, 2014 16:06:28 GMT -4
So making trades to get the biggest take in return I do not "always" think is the right thing to do. (Get "the right players back or right prospects back" - its not a piszing match with the other teams that are moving players) It's all relative. Getting the right return is almost irrelevant as long as you get equal value. Look at Charlottetown and their Goaltending situation last year. Using your logic since Bibeau for MacDonald wasn't available they should have kept Bibeau. Getting creative is always needed in a league that ends up with 5 buyers, 5 sellers, and a bunch in the middle. You don't get to simply dictate your return and lose the player for nothing if you can't have it met. Thats nonsense. If you have a team with great defensive depth and are comfortable there, but lack scoring you shop for the team that has the package to help you build your scoring. Ya that might mean picks. But if you are getting rid of a goalie and you need to address that position going forward you look for the best way to do that. There are some teams not offering what you want. And if you want draft picks some teams do not have the picks you want...you will not deal with them anyway unless forced to. And yes some GMs are better at three-way deals than others....
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Sept 2, 2014 18:29:41 GMT -4
It's all relative. Getting the right return is almost irrelevant as long as you get equal value. Look at Charlottetown and their Goaltending situation last year. Using your logic since Bibeau for MacDonald wasn't available they should have kept Bibeau. Getting creative is always needed in a league that ends up with 5 buyers, 5 sellers, and a bunch in the middle. You don't get to simply dictate your return and lose the player for nothing if you can't have it met. Thats nonsense. If you have a team with great defensive depth and are comfortable there, but lack scoring you shop for the team that has the package to help you build your scoring. Ya that might mean picks. But if you are getting rid of a goalie and you need to address that position going forward you look for the best way to do that. There are some teams not offering what you want. And if you want draft picks some teams do not have the picks you want...you will not deal with them anyway unless forced to. And yes some GMs are better at three-way deals than others.... As a contender you can pick and choose what you need or want to put you over the top. When rebuilding you take what you can get and worry on filling in the holes later. Maybe later is an hour later or maybe it's 6 months but as a rebuilding team you just worry about getting full value for your asset. If you have great D depth and your best offer for Fucale is more D depth you think it's better to take nothing rather then flip your strength to fill a weakness when Fucale is long gone. THAT is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on Sept 2, 2014 18:45:33 GMT -4
Thats nonsense. If you have a team with great defensive depth and are comfortable there, but lack scoring you shop for the team that has the package to help you build your scoring. Ya that might mean picks. But if you are getting rid of a goalie and you need to address that position going forward you look for the best way to do that. There are some teams not offering what you want. And if you want draft picks some teams do not have the picks you want...you will not deal with them anyway unless forced to. And yes some GMs are better at three-way deals than others.... As a contender you can pick and choose what you need or want to put you over the top. When rebuilding you take what you can get and worry on filling in the holes later. Maybe later is an hour later or maybe it's 6 months but as a rebuilding team you just worry about getting full value for your asset. If you have great D depth and your best offer for Fucale is more D depth you think it's better to take nothing rather then flip your strength to fill a weakness when Fucale is long gone. THAT is nonsense. I need to clarify something here. Are you saying the Moose are or should be in rebuild mode?
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on Sept 2, 2014 19:17:48 GMT -4
Thats nonsense. If you have a team with great defensive depth and are comfortable there, but lack scoring you shop for the team that has the package to help you build your scoring. Ya that might mean picks. But if you are getting rid of a goalie and you need to address that position going forward you look for the best way to do that. There are some teams not offering what you want. And if you want draft picks some teams do not have the picks you want...you will not deal with them anyway unless forced to. And yes some GMs are better at three-way deals than others.... As a contender you can pick and choose what you need or want to put you over the top. When rebuilding you take what you can get and worry on filling in the holes later. Maybe later is an hour later or maybe it's 6 months but as a rebuilding team you just worry about getting full value for your asset. If you have great D depth and your best offer for Fucale is more D depth you think it's better to take nothing rather then flip your strength to fill a weakness when Fucale is long gone. THAT is nonsense. Ya you take what is worth more. It can always be flipped later and often gives more flexibility as teams come knocking for the excess assets. You can never have too much D or offence. The parts can be molded by a good coach and we have seen some deals where Cam can get picks for parts that many said were worth nothing. Filling holes during summer when picks are high value is easier, thats how Cam built his team for the run.
|
|
|
Post by Citris on Sept 2, 2014 19:34:08 GMT -4
The Moosehead's power is expiring. We had the single best draft in team history, maybe even (recent) league history in 2011, followed by our worst draft in 2012, followed by an okay draft in 2013 and an okay draft in 2014.
We badly need to move into the first round to build this team, and not just having a pick in the first round, we need like 5-6 picks in the first 2 rounds to make another serious run, in my opinion. We've drafted some solid players in the previous 2 drafts, but I don't think we've drafted the kind of players that are going to put us back into the elite status we've enjoyed the previous years.
Currently, our best assets to trade are Fucale, Murphy, Falkenham, Vuic and, if the offer is right, Ehlers. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we would or should trade all of them, but come christmas, if a team comes knocking on our door with multiple picks looking for one of those guys, you have to seriously consider pulling the trigger.
|
|