|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on May 2, 2015 9:56:21 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. I don't think that 38th pick was the one dealt for the Shawinigan one was it? Maybe it was, but something makes me think there was more to it. I seem to remember Steve arguing something about us passing on the 2nd euro pick as being a wasted asset - that we should have drafted someone, brought them over, then traded them. But in all honesty, what calibre player would that be, what expense would that be to do that knowing the guy won't make the team, and above all else, what euro would come over under the premise they may not even be good enough to make the team and if they are, they will be shipped off to some other market? If it has happened (teams set at euro, who draft and bring them over anyway and then trade them right away) it certainly is not a common thing.
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on May 2, 2015 10:12:18 GMT -4
theqmjhl.ca/transactions/seasons/178/The pick was straight up trade for Sherbrooke Euro pick the Shawinigan Euro pick also was dealt for, they gave up more for it. It was after pre-season. Shaw pick was the one where 2014 first went and came back for Boudreau. A 2nd (BC) and a couple swapped players that did not play also included.
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on May 2, 2015 11:22:34 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. In all fairness that 38th overall in 2012 became Sherbrooke's 12th overall in 2013 which is Timo Meier but still great asset management. The 6th overall in 2013 from Shawinigan was added in late November/early December which became Ehlers which was also great asset management.
|
|
|
Post by paulmcswain on May 2, 2015 17:12:15 GMT -4
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. In all fairness that 38th overall in 2012 became Sherbrooke's 12th overall in 2013 which is Timo Meier but still great asset management. The 6th overall in 2013 from Shawinigan was added in late November/early December which became Ehlers which was also great asset management. Ahhh ok that was the part I wasn't certain of. I knew it was a 2013 pick...thought it was 6 but part of thought it could've been 12. Still....great trade
|
|
|
Post by nsvees on May 8, 2015 18:59:44 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on May 16, 2015 21:49:34 GMT -4
Just to put it out there, as Halifax has different scenarios for drafting and using it imports, apparently since the trade mess Gat and PEI went through on not trading imports before one year, the rule has changed.
Imports will be eligible to trade after 1 season instead of full calendar year. So if Moose draft 2 guys this year and want to trade one to use first pick next year, they can, after the season but before the draft.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Strap on May 17, 2015 11:21:33 GMT -4
Just to put it out there, as Halifax has different scenarios for drafting and using it imports, apparently since the trade mess Gat and PEI went through on not trading imports before one year, the rule has changed. Imports will be eligible to trade after 1 season instead of full calendar year. So if Moose draft 2 guys this year and want to trade one to use first pick next year, they can, after the season but before the draft. I don't know man. You know how "loyal" the Mooseheads are. You also hear how they don't want to piss off any agents by committing to a Euro and then trading him damaging their future recruits. If Ehlers comes back and Meier is here, the Mooseheads could really stack up on first rounders for the 2016 draft and the future with trades. Also if they trade Donaghey that should be another first. Maybe Veleno could be in the cards for next year.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Strap on Jun 9, 2015 17:06:29 GMT -4
So with the unfortunate news about Falkenham we have for 20's next Season:
D. Moynihan S. Leblanc K. Bent B. Vuic E. Brassard
So it looks like it will be between Leblanc, Bent and Vuic for the last spot. Not an overly exciting bunch of guys. I guess if the Mooseheads are looking to rebuild, I doubt the will "upgrade" the overage spot this upcoming season. I guess I would pick Bent out of that group.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Phil on Jun 9, 2015 17:56:44 GMT -4
A definite toss-up. Assuming Brassard will be pencilled in as the starter, you would have to assume that the last spot will be between Leblanc and Bent.
Leblanc could certainly play the Falkenham role as a defensive leader/key faceoff specialist (I think someone in the Falkenham thread likened him to possibly being in the Bety-mold? Might be a bit of a stretch).
But Bent brings something that no one else on the team can offer: in-your-face physicality and antagonism. Coupled with some recklessness, though.
Would be fine with Leblanc. Would be fine with Bent. Would be fine with neither (they played with two 20s for the better part of a season that they made the 7th game of the 2nd round, so why not in a full-on rebuild year?).
|
|
|
Post by Citris on Jun 9, 2015 18:13:50 GMT -4
Neither is an interesting possibility as well. I kind of think Bent would be a good example to the young guys. He brings it every night, and Leblanc can help take responsibility off of the younger guys.
There's also a possibility one of our overagers it traded during camp. Moncton is rolling the dice on Fortin, and SJ may be looking for an upgrade in goal come camp. Bathurst needs an OA. Idk, just speculating.
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on Jun 9, 2015 18:38:13 GMT -4
A definite toss-up. Assuming Brassard will be pencilled in as the starter, you would have to assume that the last spot will be between Leblanc and Bent. Leblanc could certainly play the Falkenham role as a defensive leader/key faceoff specialist (I think someone in the Falkenham thread likened him to possibly being in the Bety-mold? Might be a bit of a stretch). But Bent brings something that no one else on the team can offer: in-your-face physicality and antagonism. Coupled with some recklessness, though. Would be fine with Leblanc. Would be fine with Bent. Would be fine with neither (they played with two 20s for the better part of a season that they made the 7th game of the 2nd round, so why not in a full-on rebuild year?). That was because of trade at Xmas though. Expect 3 to start with possible same trade scenario at Xmas, gives extra time to ease in someone who has shown they deserve the ice time. Right deal anytime works though with a 20.
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on Jun 9, 2015 19:14:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Strap on Jun 9, 2015 20:09:40 GMT -4
Is it a 55 man protected list? There are 54 players including Falkenham. I guess they are leaving a spot open for the import draft.
|
|
|
Post by MikeC on Jun 10, 2015 6:37:52 GMT -4
A definite toss-up. Assuming Brassard will be pencilled in as the starter, you would have to assume that the last spot will be between Leblanc and Bent. Leblanc could certainly play the Falkenham role as a defensive leader/key faceoff specialist (I think someone in the Falkenham thread likened him to possibly being in the Bety-mold? Might be a bit of a stretch). But Bent brings something that no one else on the team can offer: in-your-face physicality and antagonism. Coupled with some recklessness, though. Would be fine with Leblanc. Would be fine with Bent. Would be fine with neither (they played with two 20s for the better part of a season that they made the 7th game of the 2nd round, so why not in a full-on rebuild year?). With the lack of depth up front, I wouldn't be against using a 3rd or a 4th to upgrade the third 20 year old.
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on Jun 10, 2015 6:45:25 GMT -4
A definite toss-up. Assuming Brassard will be pencilled in as the starter, you would have to assume that the last spot will be between Leblanc and Bent. Leblanc could certainly play the Falkenham role as a defensive leader/key faceoff specialist (I think someone in the Falkenham thread likened him to possibly being in the Bety-mold? Might be a bit of a stretch). But Bent brings something that no one else on the team can offer: in-your-face physicality and antagonism. Coupled with some recklessness, though. Would be fine with Leblanc. Would be fine with Bent. Would be fine with neither (they played with two 20s for the better part of a season that they made the 7th game of the 2nd round, so why not in a full-on rebuild year?). With the lack of depth up front, I wouldn't be against using a 3rd or a 4th to upgrade the third 20 year old. Ugh why piss away a 3rd or 4th round pick on a team which isn't going to do anything next year when they have guys in Leblanc and/or Bent who can fulfill the role and don't cost us anything? Just seems like a Patenaude move.
|
|