|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on May 1, 2015 9:16:52 GMT -4
It depends on each situation. We used Konrad Abeltshauser as a 20 in our Memorial Cup year. We didn't expect him back and he was going to leave a big hole for a top pairing defenseman (not to mention the rest of the defense core for that year). When he was returned, we didn't need to go trade for a top defenseman, or a top end euro to fill that void if needed. Sometimes using that 20 spot on a euro is the best option depending on your needs or potential trade assets etc. Yes, the player has to be enough of an impact to be better than the combination of an alternate Euro and an alternate 20 YO. There aren't many like that who will actually play in the Q at 20. Yes, but also the trade assets of the team will play a part too. If Konrad stuck in the ECHL/AHL that year, we would have had to use assets on a top defenseman (break the bank) and filling a euro spot (not sure what we had for a pick that year, and lets assume we added only a decent 17 year old euro). Sometimes if the fit is right, it can save a team spending assets for upgrades. It's not ideal to have a 20 year old euro, but does anyone regret using Konrad that year? We may have replaced his impact via trades but we wouldn't have had many of the assets we had the last two years either.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 1, 2015 9:56:13 GMT -4
Yes, the player has to be enough of an impact to be better than the combination of an alternate Euro and an alternate 20 YO. There aren't many like that who will actually play in the Q at 20. Yes, but also the trade assets of the team will play a part too. If Konrad stuck in the ECHL/AHL that year, we would have had to use assets on a top defenseman (break the bank) and filling a euro spot (not sure what we had for a pick that year, and lets assume we added only a decent 17 year old euro). Sometimes if the fit is right, it can save a team spending assets for upgrades. It's not ideal to have a 20 year old euro, but does anyone regret using Konrad that year? We may have replaced his impact via trades but we wouldn't have had many of the assets we had the last two years either. I agree ... in that season it was ultimately the wise move ... for the reasons you stated. But Cam chose to not draft an extra Euro even though he could ... so it wasn't the best approach to management ... sort of a wish and a prayer. The analysis can be much larger ... You have the option of drafting new Euros (1 or 2) ... and you have an option of bringing back 20 YOs. But if the 20s you are bringing back aren't going to be impact players ... and the 2nd Euro you draft isn't any sort of certainty ... then the 20 YO Euro option becomes a stronger case. I can't recall what your 20 YO options were that year ... and you ultimately added Fournier and Macaulay ... so any 20s you had as an option to start the year never made it to the end of the year ... except KA. I remember Gillard being moved out ... and some fans felt that was cold hearted ... but can't remember who else you had. It is tough to fault any move when you win it all.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on May 1, 2015 11:24:07 GMT -4
Yes, but also the trade assets of the team will play a part too. If Konrad stuck in the ECHL/AHL that year, we would have had to use assets on a top defenseman (break the bank) and filling a euro spot (not sure what we had for a pick that year, and lets assume we added only a decent 17 year old euro). Sometimes if the fit is right, it can save a team spending assets for upgrades. It's not ideal to have a 20 year old euro, but does anyone regret using Konrad that year? We may have replaced his impact via trades but we wouldn't have had many of the assets we had the last two years either. I agree ... in that season it was ultimately the wise move ... for the reasons you stated. But Cam chose to not draft an extra Euro even though he could ... so it wasn't the best approach to management ... sort of a wish and a prayer. The analysis can be much larger ... You have the option of drafting new Euros (1 or 2) ... and you have an option of bringing back 20 YOs. But if the 20s you are bringing back aren't going to be impact players ... and the 2nd Euro you draft isn't any sort of certainty ... then the 20 YO Euro option becomes a stronger case. I can't recall what your 20 YO options were that year ... and you ultimately added Fournier and Macaulay ... so any 20s you had as an option to start the year never made it to the end of the year ... except KA. I remember Gillard being moved out ... and some fans felt that was cold hearted ... but can't remember who else you had. It is tough to fault any move when you win it all. Fournier was added at the draft. He was here all season. MaCaulay was added and that's when they dropped Gillard. But technically we had Fournier as our option.
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on May 1, 2015 11:40:25 GMT -4
I agree ... in that season it was ultimately the wise move ... for the reasons you stated. But Cam chose to not draft an extra Euro even though he could ... so it wasn't the best approach to management ... sort of a wish and a prayer. The analysis can be much larger ... You have the option of drafting new Euros (1 or 2) ... and you have an option of bringing back 20 YOs. But if the 20s you are bringing back aren't going to be impact players ... and the 2nd Euro you draft isn't any sort of certainty ... then the 20 YO Euro option becomes a stronger case. I can't recall what your 20 YO options were that year ... and you ultimately added Fournier and Macaulay ... so any 20s you had as an option to start the year never made it to the end of the year ... except KA. I remember Gillard being moved out ... and some fans felt that was cold hearted ... but can't remember who else you had. It is tough to fault any move when you win it all. Fournier was added at the draft. He was here all season. MaCaulay was added and that's when they dropped Gillard. But technically we had Fournier as our option. Cuzner was dropped as a 20 who could have been around if no Fournier. Size was an issue.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on May 1, 2015 11:55:16 GMT -4
Fournier was added at the draft. He was here all season. MaCaulay was added and that's when they dropped Gillard. But technically we had Fournier as our option. Cuzner was dropped as a 20 who could have been around if no Fournier. Size was an issue. Cuzner didn't come back. He went right to X once we got Fournier. At Christmas he did however play 3 games at Christmas time when X was on break and Konrad was injured.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 1, 2015 12:11:09 GMT -4
I agree ... in that season it was ultimately the wise move ... for the reasons you stated. But Cam chose to not draft an extra Euro even though he could ... so it wasn't the best approach to management ... sort of a wish and a prayer. The analysis can be much larger ... You have the option of drafting new Euros (1 or 2) ... and you have an option of bringing back 20 YOs. But if the 20s you are bringing back aren't going to be impact players ... and the 2nd Euro you draft isn't any sort of certainty ... then the 20 YO Euro option becomes a stronger case. I can't recall what your 20 YO options were that year ... and you ultimately added Fournier and Macaulay ... so any 20s you had as an option to start the year never made it to the end of the year ... except KA. I remember Gillard being moved out ... and some fans felt that was cold hearted ... but can't remember who else you had. It is tough to fault any move when you win it all. Fournier was added at the draft. He was here all season. MaCaulay was added and that's when they dropped Gillard. But technically we had Fournier as our option. Doesn't matter when you added Fournier ... assets were spent and other assets were eliminated because of it ... all part of the total cost.
|
|
|
Post by Citris on May 1, 2015 12:14:06 GMT -4
I agree ... in that season it was ultimately the wise move ... for the reasons you stated. But Cam chose to not draft an extra Euro even though he could ... so it wasn't the best approach to management ... sort of a wish and a prayer. The analysis can be much larger ... You have the option of drafting new Euros (1 or 2) ... and you have an option of bringing back 20 YOs. But if the 20s you are bringing back aren't going to be impact players ... and the 2nd Euro you draft isn't any sort of certainty ... then the 20 YO Euro option becomes a stronger case. I can't recall what your 20 YO options were that year ... and you ultimately added Fournier and Macaulay ... so any 20s you had as an option to start the year never made it to the end of the year ... except KA. I remember Gillard being moved out ... and some fans felt that was cold hearted ... but can't remember who else you had. It is tough to fault any move when you win it all. The Mooseheads crop of '91 and '92 born players were really terrible. That's why for those 2 seasons we traded for all our OA's. Our best '91 was Travis Randell, for perspective. Gillard was our best '92, it was Hannay and Cuzner after that. EDIT- Gabriel Desjardins was a a '92 as well, but we got an okay deal for him. Duke and a First vs. Desjardins and 2 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on May 1, 2015 13:11:42 GMT -4
Fournier was added at the draft. He was here all season. MaCaulay was added and that's when they dropped Gillard. But technically we had Fournier as our option. Doesn't matter when you added Fournier ... assets were spent and other assets were eliminated because of it ... all part of the total cost. The assets were minimal. We got him for a 3rd and 7th.
|
|
|
Post by paulmcswain on May 1, 2015 14:13:08 GMT -4
Yes, but also the trade assets of the team will play a part too. If Konrad stuck in the ECHL/AHL that year, we would have had to use assets on a top defenseman (break the bank) and filling a euro spot (not sure what we had for a pick that year, and lets assume we added only a decent 17 year old euro). Sometimes if the fit is right, it can save a team spending assets for upgrades. It's not ideal to have a 20 year old euro, but does anyone regret using Konrad that year? We may have replaced his impact via trades but we wouldn't have had many of the assets we had the last two years either. I agree ... in that season it was ultimately the wise move ... for the reasons you stated. But Cam chose to not draft an extra Euro even though he could ... so it wasn't the best approach to management ... sort of a wish and a prayer. Actually this is very incorrect. It was incredible asset management by Cam actually. That year the Sharks announced prior to the euro draft that Abeltshauser would return to junior. I remember that as I had not seen it announced that early before for a 20 year old like Konrad. So the Moose knew going into the euro draft that they already had Frk and Abeltshauser. They then traded their 2012 first round euro pick to Sherbrooke in exchange for Sherbrooke's 2013 first round euro pick....that turned out to be Nik Ehlers. Not too shabby.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 1, 2015 14:28:54 GMT -4
Doesn't matter when you added Fournier ... assets were spent and other assets were eliminated because of it ... all part of the total cost. The assets were minimal. We got him for a 3rd and 7th. I'm not suggesting it was costly ... he was a great acquisition no matter what the cost. You win championships with guys like him and MacAulay. But that is all part and parcel of the decision to keep KA or go in another direction. A decision gets made and all of that stuff has to be weighed in the decision. Cam's Thinking: I could draft another Import ... he'll take some adaption time ... maybe he'll be great ... maybe not. I can get Fournier pretty cheap ... great character guy. We'll start the year with Gillard and Cuzner and see what the options are. ...... Suddenly (he was hoping for it) ... KA is available but it means cutting Cuzner ... no big deal ... we have room for an extra Euro, and the difference between KA and Cuzner is huge. Then MacAulay's unfortunate situation makes him available. Who goes ... Gillard ... KA ... or Fournier ... pretty obvious. Gillard reminded me a lot of Adam Holwell on Moncton ... or maybe Holwell reminds me of Gillard. Good reliable player ... plays the game honestly ... willing to take the hit to make the play ... chips in offensively here and there ... but not really an impact player. Of Course Holwell is only 17 and has a few more years to add impact to his resume ... but I see a lot of similarities in the two. So all I'm saying is that keeping KA worked out ... because he was a true impact player and played big minutes ... and you guys were trying to win the big prize. Any other year and you probably want a younger guy that can develop with the team.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 1, 2015 14:33:52 GMT -4
I agree ... in that season it was ultimately the wise move ... for the reasons you stated. But Cam chose to not draft an extra Euro even though he could ... so it wasn't the best approach to management ... sort of a wish and a prayer. Actually this is very incorrect. It was incredible asset management by Cam actually. That year the Sharks announced prior to the euro draft that Abeltshauser would return to junior. I remember that as I had not seen it announced that early before for a 20 year old like Konrad. So the Moose knew going into the euro draft that they already had Frk and Abeltshauser. They then traded their 2012 first round euro pick to Sherbrooke in exchange for Sherbrooke's 2013 first round euro pick....that turned out to be Nik Ehlers. Not too shabby. I don't remember it that way. I remember it being up in the air until the season started and KA was returned from NHL camp. Nothing was a certainty until then ... although I think there was heavy speculation he was back. I'm not sure why a big guy like KA wasn't pegged for AHL ... was it a case of numbers in the Sharks system and too many Dmen ahead of him ? Where is he now anyway ? The part of the asset management that was poor was you had the right to draft another Euro ... bring him to camp ... and then trade him (you were allowed to back then) for whatever you could get. Thats the only part of the decision I fault. You left money on the table ... thats all.
|
|
|
Post by paulmcswain on May 1, 2015 14:41:29 GMT -4
Actually this is very incorrect. It was incredible asset management by Cam actually. That year the Sharks announced prior to the euro draft that Abeltshauser would return to junior. I remember that as I had not seen it announced that early before for a 20 year old like Konrad. So the Moose knew going into the euro draft that they already had Frk and Abeltshauser. They then traded their 2012 first round euro pick to Sherbrooke in exchange for Sherbrooke's 2013 first round euro pick....that turned out to be Nik Ehlers. Not too shabby. I don't remember it that way. I remember it being up in the air until the season started and KA was returned from NHL camp. Nothing was a certainty until then ... although I think there was heavy speculation he was back. I'm not sure why a big guy like KA wasn't pegged for AHL ... was it a case of numbers in the Sharks system and too many Dmen ahead of him ? Where is he now anyway ? The part of the asset management that was poor was you had the right to draft another Euro ... bring him to camp ... and then trade him (you were allowed to back then) for whatever you could get. Thats the only part of the decision I fault. You left money on the table ... thats all. Ya it was a strange situation but it did happen that the Moose knew in advance Abletshauser was returning. Not sure why the Sharks decided to announce that so early but I know they did. I suppose from the viewpoint they didn't add anything to help in 2013, you could say it was poor asset management. But they did turn that euro pick into a pretty valuable asset (understatement) for these past 2 seasons. Cam actually made 2 trades that year that were actually more for the future than that present team...the other adding 17 year old Murphy. Risky....but the team lost 10 games all year (6 in regulation), so hard to argue he didn't use his assets wisely. I do see what you are saying though
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on May 1, 2015 14:58:36 GMT -4
Actually this is very incorrect. It was incredible asset management by Cam actually. That year the Sharks announced prior to the euro draft that Abeltshauser would return to junior. I remember that as I had not seen it announced that early before for a 20 year old like Konrad. So the Moose knew going into the euro draft that they already had Frk and Abeltshauser. They then traded their 2012 first round euro pick to Sherbrooke in exchange for Sherbrooke's 2013 first round euro pick....that turned out to be Nik Ehlers. Not too shabby. I don't remember it that way. I remember it being up in the air until the season started and KA was returned from NHL camp. Nothing was a certainty until then ... although I think there was heavy speculation he was back. I'm not sure why a big guy like KA wasn't pegged for AHL ... was it a case of numbers in the Sharks system and too many Dmen ahead of him ? Where is he now anyway ? The part of the asset management that was poor was you had the right to draft another Euro ... bring him to camp ... and then trade him (you were allowed to back then) for whatever you could get. Thats the only part of the decision I fault. You left money on the table ... thats all. metronews.ca/sports/253148/sharks-planning-to-return-abeltshauser-to-mooseheads/Nope. We traded our euro pick in a year we didn't need it, for another euro pick the following year when we would need it. Not sure where ours was in 2012, but I don't think it was higher than 2013. Seems like a great move, not really leaving money on the table.
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on May 1, 2015 18:26:53 GMT -4
I don't remember it that way. I remember it being up in the air until the season started and KA was returned from NHL camp. Nothing was a certainty until then ... although I think there was heavy speculation he was back. I'm not sure why a big guy like KA wasn't pegged for AHL ... was it a case of numbers in the Sharks system and too many Dmen ahead of him ? Where is he now anyway ? The part of the asset management that was poor was you had the right to draft another Euro ... bring him to camp ... and then trade him (you were allowed to back then) for whatever you could get. Thats the only part of the decision I fault. You left money on the table ... thats all. metronews.ca/sports/253148/sharks-planning-to-return-abeltshauser-to-mooseheads/Nope. We traded our euro pick in a year we didn't need it, for another euro pick the following year when we would need it. Not sure where ours was in 2012, but I don't think it was higher than 2013. Seems like a great move, not really leaving money on the table. The Mooseheads finished 6th overall in 2011-2012 and the league added Sherbrooke the summer of 2012 and the Q picks started off at 2 so 2,5,8,11,14,17,20,23,26,29,32,35 and that makes the Mooseheads pick at #38. I didn't check your link but I do know that it was in June sometime before the Euro draft. They already knew their OAs were KA, Fournier and Gillard to start the year off and that Cuzner was going to X. San Jose did us a huge favor by returning KA and also letting the Mooseheads know well in advance that it was happening.
|
|
|
Post by paulmcswain on May 2, 2015 8:26:12 GMT -4
The Mooseheads finished 6th overall in 2011-2012 and the league added Sherbrooke the summer of 2012 and the Q picks started off at 2 so 2,5,8,11,14,17,20,23,26,29,32,35 and that makes the Mooseheads pick at #38. I didn't check your link but I do know that it was in June sometime before the Euro draft. They already knew their OAs were KA, Fournier and Gillard to start the year off and that Cuzner was going to X. San Jose did us a huge favor by returning KA and also letting the Mooseheads know well in advance that it was happening. So a 38th overall euro pick. Steve do you still think Cam had poor asset management with that? Had we traded that for something in 2013 what do you honestly think we could've gotten? There's only a handful of teams that ever bothered trading for euro picks, and I doubt they would pay much for 38 overall. Instead Cam dealt it for what turned out to be pick #6 the following year. Instead of adding a marginal piece in 2013, that may or may not have helped us or even made our team, he added Ehlers for the 2 years following. Knowing the complete picture now, really can't see how anyone could call that poor asset management.
|
|