|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 19, 2014 14:53:01 GMT -4
So if a first rounder is not involved you make this deal? We drafted a guy in the first round last year that didnt even report. Roy didn't report either a first round pick here really doesn't matter much when they draft guys that say no. When they draft guys that say no before the draft and they still draft them. We drafted O'Leary because of the situation. He still has the same value because if he doesn't report we get another 1st rounder this year. We did that after already drafting in that 1st round and picking some kid named Dubois who, last time I checked anyway, reported....and is pretty good. Drafting Roy turned out pretty well for us in case you have not noticed.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 19, 2014 14:55:53 GMT -4
He doesn't know that no means no? Lol. Yes the Roy deal worked out but if anything that got lucky with that one. Keep in mind he likely could of sat a year and have been drafted again or signed with a different team. ( I'm not exactly sure on the protocal of guys not reporting) If you're not sure on the protocol then you can understand why those who are pretty sure on this stuff from 15 years of following the league say that trading 1sts for band aids will only make this situation much worse going forward. O'Leary and Roy are examples to NOT trade the picks. You do know that, right?
|
|
|
Post by gocapebreton on Dec 19, 2014 15:27:43 GMT -4
So if a first rounder is not involved you make this deal? We drafted a guy in the first round last year that didnt even report. Roy didn't report either a first round pick here really doesn't matter much when they draft guys that say no. When they draft guys that say no before the draft and they still draft them. We drafted O'Leary because of the situation. He still has the same value because if he doesn't report we get another 1st rounder this year. We did that after already drafting in that 1st round and picking some kid named Dubois who, last time I checked anyway, reported....and is pretty good. Drafting Roy turned out pretty well for us in case you have not noticed. I would think if Drummondville took a 1st for Guindon, that they would have approached Dumont about getting their own 1st back (which will probably end up in top 3). That being said, I can't see Dumont flipping any high end 1st, without significant return. You don't just trade away a 1st on anyone, because you have 3. I do agree with taking the chance on O'Leary.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 19, 2014 15:33:51 GMT -4
We drafted O'Leary because of the situation. He still has the same value because if he doesn't report we get another 1st rounder this year. We did that after already drafting in that 1st round and picking some kid named Dubois who, last time I checked anyway, reported....and is pretty good. Drafting Roy turned out pretty well for us in case you have not noticed. I would think if Drummondville took a 1st for Guindon, that they would have approached Dumont about getting their own 1st back (which will probably end up in top 3). That being said, I can't see Dumont flipping any high end 1st, without significant return. You don't just trade away a 1st on anyone, because you have 3. I do agree with taking the chance on O'Leary. Exactly. Some are not fully getting that point. Use Rimouski as an example: 1st for Guindon. Their own 1st, probably 15th-18th overall. So our potential ~FOUR~ 1sts all hold more value then that. Especially those belonging to teams in the bottom half of the league. You don't fill holes on a team like this with picks like that. You move depth like 5th rounders and prospects not in future plans. If the player is an untouchable then you have the picks to get in the discussion. No players mentioned here though fall into that category.
|
|
|
Post by hal on Dec 19, 2014 15:40:20 GMT -4
Bell over Sprong............man was that a day to forget !
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Dec 19, 2014 15:40:41 GMT -4
Victoriaville dropped Francois Treamblay. Could we possibly pick him up? Would be worth a look for a few weeks...
|
|
|
Post by bois on Dec 19, 2014 15:44:30 GMT -4
I would think if Drummondville took a 1st for Guindon, that they would have approached Dumont about getting their own 1st back (which will probably end up in top 3). That being said, I can't see Dumont flipping any high end 1st, without significant return. You don't just trade away a 1st on anyone, because you have 3. I do agree with taking the chance on O'Leary. Exactly. Some are not fully getting that point. Use Rimouski as an example: 1st for Guindon. Their own 1st, probably 15th-18th overall. So our potential ~FOUR~ 1sts all hold more value then that. Especially those belonging to teams in the bottom half of the league. You don't fill holes on a team like this with picks like that. You move depth like 5th rounders and prospects not in future plans. If the player is an untouchable then you have the picks to get in the discussion. No players mentioned here though fall into that category. Listen i'm not going to argue over this... i commented on a post that suggested a rumour based on something someone read off a quebec board in which you trade a 19 year old with no hope of being a 20 in the league, and the goalie that has been unceremoniously dumped on all year long and is 20.. for a 20 year old d who is whether you like him or not... a very good two way veteran d and a once very highly touted goaltending prospect... the rumour was a pick would be sent as well.... since the team doing the dealing is the defending Presidents Cup champions who have no choice but to rebuild..... I said they probably don't do that deal unless a first is involved.. considering you guys have 3 of them right now they definitely don't do it for a 5th... that is ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by bois on Dec 19, 2014 15:49:08 GMT -4
Victoriaville dropped Francois Treamblay. Could we possibly pick him up? Would be worth a look for a few weeks... his numbers are worse than all the other goalies being talked about here lol 4.73 GAA and .852 save percentage
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 19, 2014 15:58:15 GMT -4
Exactly. Some are not fully getting that point. Use Rimouski as an example: 1st for Guindon. Their own 1st, probably 15th-18th overall. So our potential ~FOUR~ 1sts all hold more value then that. Especially those belonging to teams in the bottom half of the league. You don't fill holes on a team like this with picks like that. You move depth like 5th rounders and prospects not in future plans. If the player is an untouchable then you have the picks to get in the discussion. No players mentioned here though fall into that category. Listen i'm not going to argue over this... i commented on a post that suggested a rumour based on something someone read off a quebec board in which you trade a 19 year old with no hope of being a 20 in the league, and the goalie that has been unceremoniously dumped on all year long and is 20.. for a 20 year old d who is whether you like him or not... a very good two way veteran d and a once very highly touted goaltending prospect... the rumour was a pick would be sent as well.... since the team doing the dealing is the defending Presidents Cup champions who have no choice but to rebuild..... I said they probably don't do that deal unless a first is involved.. considering you guys have 3 of them right now they definitely don't do it for a 5th... that is ridiculous You don't have to argue. I agree. So why do you? I didn't say they have to AGREE to what I would trade. You seem to be missing the point. Being the devils advocate is fine, it's a role you certainly relish, but opinion from fans is always slanted towards their own team. Personally I don't do that trade for the reasons I listed that CB shouldnt. You're essentially arguing(while NOT arguing, apparently) that we need to look at it from Val d'Or's perspective for some reason. This isn't a buyer/seller scenario so i'm not sure why the 17th ranked team moving 1sts has to look at the other teams perspective. I agree Frasier is a good 2 way veteran. He's also 20. In the history of the league how many 2nd last overall teams overpaid in terms of 1st rounders for overagers? It's really not a trade to get so bent out of shape over, but it certainly hit a tone with you for some reason. Considering we have 3 1sts EVERY team will want to trade with us. It doesn't mean every trade we do has to include those picks though and that we can't improve without moving them. Perhaps if a 2nd or 3rd is coming back moving a 1st can be justified. Otherwise, I'm very confident we won't see that trade happen as listed because it makes no sense to 1 of the 2 teams.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 19, 2014 15:59:38 GMT -4
Would be worth a look for a few weeks... his numbers are worse than all the other goalies being talked about here lol 4.73 GAA and .852 save percentage Yeah even if he's free i'm not sure why we'd waste our time. Would rather keep what we have them gamble on players with those kinds of numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 19, 2014 16:01:21 GMT -4
Bell over Sprong............man was that a day to forget ! It's actually worse considering we traded our 2014 1st to get into the 2013 1st round to draft Bell.
|
|
|
Post by hal on Dec 19, 2014 16:12:31 GMT -4
Bell over Sprong............man was that a day to forget ! It's actually worse considering we traded our 2014 1st to get into the 2013 1st round to draft Bell. Thanks Johnny...........you couldn't leave well enough alone . That's the equivalent of getting kicked in the nuts "twice" in one day !
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 19, 2014 16:15:06 GMT -4
It's actually worse considering we traded our 2014 1st to get into the 2013 1st round to draft Bell. Thanks Johnny...........you couldn't leave well enough alone . That's the equivalent of getting kicked in the nuts "twice" in one day ! Have you heard of Jacob Lagace?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Dec 19, 2014 16:34:42 GMT -4
Would be worth a look for a few weeks... his numbers are worse than all the other goalies being talked about here lol 4.73 GAA and .852 save percentage It costs nothing asset wise to bring him in...maybe it lights a fire under Brassard...last year after the tarde to Victo he went on a tear...
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 19, 2014 16:37:37 GMT -4
his numbers are worse than all the other goalies being talked about here lol 4.73 GAA and .852 save percentage It costs nothing asset wise to bring him in...maybe it lights a fire under Brassard...last year after the tarde to Victo he went on a tear... What does lighting a fire under Brassard do? Did you see the highlights from last night? It's not simply stable goaltending that we need. It's a complete fundamental change to how we approach playing the proper way. 1 average overage netminder doesn't do any of that for us so we might as well just keep the one we have unless we can find someone younger.
|
|