|
Post by jamesnorris on Apr 9, 2015 12:48:38 GMT -4
Wasn't my favorite trade at the time, jury will still be out for a few years yet.
|
|
|
Post by aquilae on Apr 9, 2015 13:47:05 GMT -4
If the Eagles select 4th, they should draft Baribeau (G) or Chartier (D). I watched a couple of Quebec games from the CWG and really liked him. He's already over 200 pounds at 15 and plays a high tempo type game but does so responsibly. I've never seen Baribeau but he's suppose to be the best goalie in the draft and is 6-foot-4.
|
|
|
Post by looneytunes on Apr 9, 2015 13:52:14 GMT -4
Wasn't my favorite trade at the time, jury will still be out for a few years yet. Indeed but you do not think getting a #1 defenceman with leadership was worth it? Perhaps not worth #1 overall but I am willing to bite the bullet and remain satisfied with #4.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Apr 9, 2015 14:03:11 GMT -4
Stings a bit but LeBlanc will be the favourite to win the Kevin Lowe trophy next year and the Eagles still have some decent picks. Good trade. It's an average trade from the Eagles perspective. Too much value in a #1 pick alone to call it good. Plus we gave up Bell.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Apr 9, 2015 14:05:34 GMT -4
Wasn't my favorite trade at the time, jury will still be out for a few years yet. Indeed but you do not think getting a #1 defenceman with leadership was worth it? Perhaps not worth #1 overall but I am willing to bite the bullet and remain satisfied with #4. Could have a acquired a #1 D at the draft or Xmas after which you know where your picks are and what their value really is. We were not a top 5 team trying to put ourselves over the top so we jumped the gun. At minimum we should have protected the higher of the 3 picks as Leblanc is simply not worth a #1 overall pick. These are the kinds of deals that undo a lot of the good done in the Roy and Carrier deals.
|
|
|
Post by hal on Apr 9, 2015 14:10:54 GMT -4
Indeed but you do not think getting a #1 defenceman with leadership was worth it? Perhaps not worth #1 overall but I am willing to bite the bullet and remain satisfied with #4. Could have a acquired a #1 D at the draft or Xmas after which you know where your picks are and what their value really is. We were not a top 5 team trying to put ourselves over the top so we jumped the gun. At minimum we should have protected the higher of the 3 picks as Leblanc is simply not worth a #1 overall pick. These are the kinds of deals that undo a lot of the good done in the Roy and Carrier deals. Bingo.......lots of picks enter into the equation when it comes to Bell ....both coming and going . Frustrating as hell , especially for a guy who contributed ( so far ) next to nothing .
|
|
|
Post by jamesnorris on Apr 9, 2015 14:25:16 GMT -4
Indeed but you do not think getting a #1 defenceman with leadership was worth it? Perhaps not worth #1 overall but I am willing to bite the bullet and remain satisfied with #4. Could easily make an argument both ways to be honest. I was skeptical at first, the hindsight of the #1 pick doesn't exactly help. I'm not close minded enough to say "SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE THIS TRADE, FIREZ DUMONTS!"
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Apr 9, 2015 14:27:43 GMT -4
Could have a acquired a #1 D at the draft or Xmas after which you know where your picks are and what their value really is. We were not a top 5 team trying to put ourselves over the top so we jumped the gun. At minimum we should have protected the higher of the 3 picks as Leblanc is simply not worth a #1 overall pick. These are the kinds of deals that undo a lot of the good done in the Roy and Carrier deals. Bingo.......lots of picks enter into the equation when it comes to Bell ....both coming and going . Frustrating as hell , especially for a guy who contributed ( so far ) next to nothing . Exactly. People need to understand this was supposed to be year 1 of 2 of being competitive. We all think we gained a ton of experience by playing game 7 in Quebec...do those same people realize the teams we'll be competing against next year are still playing? If next year wasn't a 'go for it' year I could really see the optimism but we'll be going into next year with 0 developed 20's and Bishop as the only home grown 19 not counting the Euros. We all know how that lack of leadership has killed teams in the past. I'm almost a fan of doing less at the draft and making the picks then waiting till Xmas to see where we are and making a call on who to move. Dubois alone is a reason I wouldn't like to move another 1st after already giving up the best player in this draft.
|
|
|
Post by jamesnorris on Apr 9, 2015 14:30:33 GMT -4
Could have a acquired a #1 D at the draft or Xmas after which you know where your picks are and what their value really is. We were not a top 5 team trying to put ourselves over the top so we jumped the gun. At minimum we should have protected the higher of the 3 picks as Leblanc is simply not worth a #1 overall pick. These are the kinds of deals that undo a lot of the good done in the Roy and Carrier deals. *cough cough* We also have 2 other '1-3 picks'. If it's the 6th pick and we have 2 other top 5's then is it really a huge value loss? Saint John does well asset wise, but short of holding the 3 1sts for 2-3 years and seeing how they turn out I think trading what seems to be the 3rd best one isn't a terribly bad idea. If we trade ours and the bottom falls out of things here and we give them a #1 pick it looks worse. There's a downside for sure, but that's the case with most deals at this level when you get into the shuffling of major assets. At least we spent the assets on a player the fans should love watching and should help address every area people want addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Apr 9, 2015 14:31:25 GMT -4
Indeed but you do not think getting a #1 defenceman with leadership was worth it? Perhaps not worth #1 overall but I am willing to bite the bullet and remain satisfied with #4. Could easily make an argument both ways to be honest. I was skeptical at first, the hindsight of the #1 pick doesn't exactly help. I'm not close minded enough to say "SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE THIS TRADE, FIREZ DUMONTS!" No but that doesn't mean the decision shouldn't be analyzed. God knows people would love to do it if Halifax of Bathurst gave away the #1 overall pick in a year they finished in the 13th overall position. We all know you choose not to have an opinion without hindsight anyway or have we finally moved past that discussion?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Apr 9, 2015 14:40:08 GMT -4
Could have a acquired a #1 D at the draft or Xmas after which you know where your picks are and what their value really is. We were not a top 5 team trying to put ourselves over the top so we jumped the gun. At minimum we should have protected the higher of the 3 picks as Leblanc is simply not worth a #1 overall pick. These are the kinds of deals that undo a lot of the good done in the Roy and Carrier deals. *cough cough* We also have 2 other '1-3 picks'. If it's the 6th pick and we have 2 other top 5's then is it really a huge value loss? Saint John does well asset wise, but short of holding the 3 1sts for 2-3 years and seeing how they turn out I think trading what seems to be the 3rd best one isn't a terribly bad idea. If we trade ours and the bottom falls out of things here and we give them a #1 pick it looks worse. There's a downside for sure, but that's the case with most deals at this level when you get into the shuffling of major assets. At least we spent the assets on a player the fans should love watching and should help address every area people want addressed. Yup, and when the downside of the worst possible scenario happens you need to revisit why the trade was done. I was taught that being a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. No trade done today shouldn't be revisited based on how the team ends up and where draft picks end up being. My comments, if you bothered to read them, clearly state that "trading what seems to be the 3rd best one isn't a terribly bad idea"....so when what we trade ends up as the best one....and the best one in the entire draft...then you need to revisit the logic and reasoning behind the trade. Do we have your permission to do so? We missed your comments on the Quebec series.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Apr 9, 2015 14:48:35 GMT -4
And to dump a whole bucket of salt in the wound: The Q has invited Veleno to the combine. Very good chance they let him in the draft.
Helps the Eagles in a way as picking 4th should mean a better player, but makes moving that pick a hell of a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by bois on Apr 9, 2015 14:51:42 GMT -4
I don't wanna pick sides in an argument but you really can't revisit trades made with unknown variables
I think you JB have argued in the Toronto thread against people who bring up the Seguin Hamilton for Kessel trade based on hindsight of draft positioning
Now you're doing the very same thing here
You got a known entity for a year and a half ..... outside chance of 2 and a half years for a very unkown variable at the time.... one of three first round draft picks
It's okay for both teams to win in a trade.... and that is what happened here...... if Leblanc doesn't get hurt.. you guys probably aren't playing Quebec in first round... and if you are playing them you may well have won an extra game and you'd still be playing
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Apr 9, 2015 14:58:49 GMT -4
I don't wanna pick sides in an argument but you really can't revisit trades made with unknown variables I think you JB have argued in the Toronto thread against people who bring up the Seguin Hamilton for Kessel trade based on hindsight of draft positioning Now you're doing the very same thing here You got a known entity for a year and a half ..... outside chance of 2 and a half years for a very unkown variable at the time.... one of three first round draft picks It's okay for both teams to win in a trade.... and that is what happened here...... if Leblanc doesn't get hurt.. you guys probably aren't playing Quebec in first round... and if you are playing them you may well have won an extra game and you'd still be playing Exactly. This is pretty much the same position. I'm purposely playing the devils advocate and playing both sides to prove a point and happen to have a situation which is pretty much the same as the Kessel trade Non-Leaf fans sit back and say the Leafs got robbed. Leaf fans sit back and say well we moved 2 maybes for 1 sure thing so how can that be so awful? In 12 months time Eagle fans might not care who SJ got if Leblanc is a #1 pairing all star D. We can go back and forth on whether the trade is/is not good based on the side you want to pick to argue. The poster now thinking he's a genius pointing out my inconsistency doesn't see that it's his logic from 6 months ago i'm actually poking fun of. He only wants to evaluate and make plans with hindsight, it's really hard to be wrong when that's the position you take. GM's don't get that benefit when making deals.
|
|
|
Post by jamesnorris on Apr 9, 2015 15:21:06 GMT -4
No but that doesn't mean the decision shouldn't be analyzed. God knows people would love to do it if Halifax of Bathurst gave away the #1 overall pick in a year they finished in the 13th overall position. We all know you choose not to have an opinion without hindsight anyway or have we finally moved past that discussion? Do you even realize what you're saying? You're bashing me for not changing my mind every 3 months. If the SJ pick is bad and the 4/6 picks are Dubois-ish, you'll change your mind again. Not saying you'd be wrong for changing your mind but don't try to berate me for not flip flopping as often as you.
|
|