|
Post by Briwhel on Jul 14, 2015 12:32:21 GMT -4
And if you want to know why Bathurst struggles, they've drafted ONE top 6 forward (Lalancette), TWO top 4 D (Brisebois and Gosselin) and 0 starters in the last 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by nsvees on Jul 14, 2015 13:10:28 GMT -4
I would still go with the rebuild. Move Meier, Brassard, Donaghey, etc. I doubt Ehlers is back. If he is, trade him too. Would you go watch a last place team? You don't need to sell the team for a rebuild, the scouts have done a good job finding good talent.Getting kids to report is the problem and no one wants to come so a crap team with little chance of winning. Having the kids there who are drafted gives NHL clubs looks at people they normally wouldn't. Although I do agree with trading Brassard and Donaghey. I would if I lived in the HRM (which I don't; I live about 3 hours outside of the city). I went to a couple games a year during the 2008-2010 bottoming out years. If I know what the direction of the team is and know it will likely lead to future success, I would continue to go. You would probably get the kids that are just looking for an opportunity. That makes them hungry and want to show the hockey world what they can do. On a rebuilding team, a high end kid knows he will play alot, thus enhancing his opportunity for development. Russell didn't quite go into a full "fire sale" last year because he couldn't trade Ehlers (he didn't want to be moved/activated his no trade clause). Of course he did move Fucale and some other pieces (Murphy in the Fucale deal and Lussier, etc.), but Ehlers would've brought back the most in terms of a asset return (goalies don't have the value most think. I think Ehlers would've brought back more than Fucale did). This would be the first year of a full fire sale, if he chooses to go that route (I hope he does. JMO).
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Jul 14, 2015 13:17:01 GMT -4
My point though was that you can't say that Halifax has a GREAT draft record when comparing your last 5 years (which is the year before the MacKinnon draft forward with only one reduced pick draft) to a team like Saint John (which had all their players graduate in the middle of the cycle like you are at now) yields that we had less top 6 forwards (17 to 14) but more drafted by us (10 to 7). We had one more top 4 D (9 to 8), but 5 more drafted by us (7 to 2), and you've drafted 2 starting goalies to our 1. I took SJ as a SJ fan, but if you took Charlottetown, I would expect comparable numbers (though worse obviously). If you took one of the Quebec teams other than Quebec, things would likely look uglier. Did someone say Halifax has a GREAT draft record? All I see is the comment that Halifax scouts have done a good job finding talent... which is true - whether it be a FA or a trade, they had done a good job filling out the roster with talent and/or leadership. Guys like Murphy and Hardie were on Halifax's wishlist before they were drafted, and the team pulled off the moves to get them ultimately.
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on Jul 14, 2015 13:32:03 GMT -4
My point though was that you can't say that Halifax has a GREAT draft record when comparing your last 5 years (which is the year before the MacKinnon draft forward with only one reduced pick draft) to a team like Saint John (which had all their players graduate in the middle of the cycle like you are at now) yields that we had less top 6 forwards (17 to 14) but more drafted by us (10 to 7). We had one more top 4 D (9 to 8), but 5 more drafted by us (7 to 2), and you've drafted 2 starting goalies to our 1. I took SJ as a SJ fan, but if you took Charlottetown, I would expect comparable numbers (though worse obviously). If you took one of the Quebec teams other than Quebec, things would likely look uglier. Did someone say Halifax has a GREAT draft record? All I see is the comment that Halifax scouts have done a good job finding talent... which is true - whether it be a FA or a trade, they had done a good job filling out the roster with talent and/or leadership. Guys like Murphy and Hardie were on Halifax's wishlist before they were drafted, and the team pulled off the moves to get them ultimately. The issue is that someone mentioned that the team should not sell because it would be harder to get talent. You can definitely trade for talent as a winner or loser, and you can draft in both scenarios. The only thing you cannot do is recruit quite as well (looking at that list, all 3 of your invites still come to Halifax as a bottom team and most of the forwards DID come to Halifax as a bottom team)
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jul 14, 2015 13:38:33 GMT -4
My point though was that you can't say that Halifax has a GREAT draft record when comparing your last 5 years (which is the year before the MacKinnon draft forward with only one reduced pick draft) to a team like Saint John (which had all their players graduate in the middle of the cycle like you are at now) yields that we had less top 6 forwards (17 to 14) but more drafted by us (10 to 7). We had one more top 4 D (9 to 8), but 5 more drafted by us (7 to 2), and you've drafted 2 starting goalies to our 1. I took SJ as a SJ fan, but if you took Charlottetown, I would expect comparable numbers (though worse obviously). If you took one of the Quebec teams other than Quebec, things would likely look uglier. Did someone say Halifax has a GREAT draft record? All I see is the comment that Halifax scouts have done a good job finding talent... which is true - whether it be a FA or a trade, they had done a good job filling out the roster with talent and/or leadership. Guys like Murphy and Hardie were on Halifax's wishlist before they were drafted, and the team pulled off the moves to get them ultimately. The person making the comment is saying things like 'if Eichel showed' or the fact you've had great Euros while saying you don't need to sell the farm to rebuild to be a contender again. Bottoming out and getting high picks is what led to players like Gadoury and Ehlers choosing Halifax. Some people think drafting Eichel was a sign your scouts can find talent. Identifying MacKinnon, Drouin, Fucale as attainable pillars of a contending team and finding a way to acquire them is great scouting and management. Impossible to argue with that. But saying today that selling the farm is not necessary due to your great scouting is puzzling to me because I personally don't think your scouts have unearthed talent better then any other team in the past couple of midget drafts and that's a reason for looking to rebuild now. If anything selling and giving those scouts more high picks makes a hell of a lot more sense based on where your team is today. Without the Euro's you'd have bottomed out to a top 3 pick this past season but we all get why you couldn't sell them off.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Jul 14, 2015 14:36:36 GMT -4
Did someone say Halifax has a GREAT draft record? All I see is the comment that Halifax scouts have done a good job finding talent... which is true - whether it be a FA or a trade, they had done a good job filling out the roster with talent and/or leadership. Guys like Murphy and Hardie were on Halifax's wishlist before they were drafted, and the team pulled off the moves to get them ultimately. The person making the comment is saying things like 'if Eichel showed' or the fact you've had great Euros while saying you don't need to sell the farm to rebuild to be a contender again. Bottoming out and getting high picks is what led to players like Gadoury and Ehlers choosing Halifax. Some people think drafting Eichel was a sign your scouts can find talent. Identifying MacKinnon, Drouin, Fucale as attainable pillars of a contending team and finding a way to acquire them is great scouting and management. Impossible to argue with that. But saying today that selling the farm is not necessary due to your great scouting is puzzling to me because I personally don't think your scouts have unearthed talent better then any other team in the past couple of midget drafts and that's a reason for looking to rebuild now. If anything selling and giving those scouts more high picks makes a hell of a lot more sense based on where your team is today. Without the Euro's you'd have bottomed out to a top 3 pick this past season but we all get why you couldn't sell them off. I agree with the sell mentality in this case for sure. I just didn't see the indication that the Halifax scouts will draft good enough players to compete again. I read it as the scouts will find good talent, which to me isn't limited to the midget draft. If that poster meant we will draft our way to the top with mid range picks, then I agree, it's silly to assume that can be done and our past record (and most teams really) doesn't prove that can be done.
|
|
|
Post by Citris on Jul 14, 2015 14:45:21 GMT -4
Briwhel's post above really highlight a problem that I've seen for a long time: Halifax has NEVER drafted well on the blueline. All our good Defensemen were acquired via trade or free agency and none are NHL calibur.
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on Jul 14, 2015 14:58:16 GMT -4
Briwhel's post above really highlight a problem that I've seen for a long time: Halifax has NEVER drafted well on the blueline. All our good Defensemen were acquired via trade or free agency and none are NHL calibur. It's kinda scary that Halifax used higher picks on the goalies than they did on the D. They took Flower at 26 which is the highest D pick since Tremblay who lasted 2 months with the team. The other D close to that range that they have taken since 2009 are Bishop and Desmarais. Halifax has not used a first rounder on a D. Looking at your D, you have 1 1st rounder (Donaghey) and 2 2nd rounders (Ford and Flowers). Everything else is 3rd rounders or further.
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on Jul 14, 2015 15:14:26 GMT -4
Briwhel's post above really highlight a problem that I've seen for a long time: Halifax has NEVER drafted well on the blueline. All our good Defensemen were acquired via trade or free agency and none are NHL calibur. It's kinda scary that Halifax used higher picks on the goalies than they did on the D. They took Flower at 26 which is the highest D pick since Tremblay who lasted 2 months with the team. The other D close to that range that they have taken since 2009 are Bishop and Desmarais. Halifax has not used a first rounder on a D. Looking at your D, you have 1 1st rounder (Donaghey) and 2 2nd rounders (Ford and Flowers). Everything else is 3rd rounders or further. Let's add some context to your post... 1) Tremblay was traded after two months for Austyn Hardie so great asset management there. 2) Lepage and Charlesbois drafted in the 3rd round this year were rated higher or were injured and fell as a result. 3) Nauss is a 5th rounder but should have gone higher- I'm glad we got him where we did. 4) Other than Fucale who are you talking about with the Mooseheads taking higher goalies than D? Most of our goalie picks have been mid rounders, between 6th and 10th rounds... except for Fucale of course.
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on Jul 14, 2015 15:20:51 GMT -4
It's kinda scary that Halifax used higher picks on the goalies than they did on the D. They took Flower at 26 which is the highest D pick since Tremblay who lasted 2 months with the team. The other D close to that range that they have taken since 2009 are Bishop and Desmarais. Halifax has not used a first rounder on a D. Looking at your D, you have 1 1st rounder (Donaghey) and 2 2nd rounders (Ford and Flowers). Everything else is 3rd rounders or further. Let's add some context to your post... 1) Tremblay was traded after two months for Austyn Hardie so great asset management there. 2) Lepage and Charlesbois drafted in the 3rd round this year were rated higher or were injured and fell as a result. 3) Nauss is a 5th rounder but should have gone higher- I'm glad we got him where we did. 4) Other than Fucale who are you talking about with the Mooseheads taking higher goalies than D? Most of our goalie picks have been mid rounders, between 6th and 10th rounds... except for Fucale of course. You took Corbeil and Fucale higher than the two D you developed. I don't know that saying Tremblay for Hardie is great asset management. At best it's a wash (you got the older D). Lepage and Charlebois's status is irrelevant. They both went in the 3rd round. Same with Nauss in the 5th. They are not more valuable than their draft spot. The issue isn't that you use picks on D. It's that you don't ever use 1sts on D. Take a look at the D drafted after Eichel. Every single one would have put Halifax in a better position. My point is that Halifax gets a first round pick and immediately think Best Forward Available instead of Best Player Available. They draft BPA after the first, but Halifax rarely ever ends up with 4 quality D at once because they count on hitting longshots.
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on Jul 14, 2015 15:28:15 GMT -4
Right now, assuming that you want to split the Euros (because they are rookies) and split Fortier and Moynihan (because they are your top forwards), you'd have something like:
Moynihan - Moynihan - Euro Watt - Euro - Fortier
You are realistically in a spot where you need to buy or sell. Standing pat doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Y Ddraig Goch on Jul 14, 2015 15:52:44 GMT -4
Right now, assuming that you want to split the Euros (because they are rookies) and split Fortier and Moynihan (because they are your top forwards), you'd have something like: Moynihan - Moynihan - Euro Watt - Euro - Fortier You are realistically in a spot where you need to buy or sell. Standing pat doesn't make sense. I don't think Moynihan will be playing top 6. At least not early in the season. Shewfelt may be better there or maybe a more offensively gifted rookie (or bowers ) But regardless the Moose should be in sell mode. Standing pat I still think they're bottom third.
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on Jul 14, 2015 16:00:07 GMT -4
Let's add some context to your post... 1) Tremblay was traded after two months for Austyn Hardie so great asset management there. 2) Lepage and Charlesbois drafted in the 3rd round this year were rated higher or were injured and fell as a result. 3) Nauss is a 5th rounder but should have gone higher- I'm glad we got him where we did. 4) Other than Fucale who are you talking about with the Mooseheads taking higher goalies than D? Most of our goalie picks have been mid rounders, between 6th and 10th rounds... except for Fucale of course. You took Corbeil and Fucale higher than the two D you developed. I don't know that saying Tremblay for Hardie is great asset management. At best it's a wash (you got the older D). Lepage and Charlebois's status is irrelevant. They both went in the 3rd round. Same with Nauss in the 5th. They are not more valuable than their draft spot. The issue isn't that you use picks on D. It's that you don't ever use 1sts on D. Take a look at the D drafted after Eichel. Every single one would have put Halifax in a better position. My point is that Halifax gets a first round pick and immediately think Best Forward Available instead of Best Player Available. They draft BPA after the first, but Halifax rarely ever ends up with 4 quality D at once because they count on hitting longshots. I guess we'll have to come back and revisit this in a couple years - to say Nauss is not worth more than his draft position is hilarious to put it politely. I know he wasn't drafted first overall like Luke Green was but if that draft were to be done over Nauss would be picked higher than the 5th round.
|
|
|
Post by MikeC on Jul 14, 2015 17:05:11 GMT -4
Briwhel's post above really highlight a problem that I've seen for a long time: Halifax has NEVER drafted well on the blueline. All our good Defensemen were acquired via trade or free agency and none are NHL calibur. It's kinda scary that Halifax used higher picks on the goalies than they did on the D. They took Flower at 26 which is the highest D pick since Tremblay who lasted 2 months with the team. The other D close to that range that they have taken since 2009 are Bishop and Desmarais. Halifax has not used a first rounder on a D. Looking at your D, you have 1 1st rounder (Donaghey) and 2 2nd rounders (Ford and Flowers). Everything else is 3rd rounders or further. Seeing as a team averages 1 pick per round, it really only makes sense that only around 2 out of every 6 picks are defencemen. EDIT Just to add to this, in the last 8 drafts, Halifax has had 18 picks in the top 2 rounds. They have taken 12 F, 5 D, 1 G. That's about as even as it gets when you typically play 12 F, 6 D, 2 G.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Strap on Jul 14, 2015 17:52:34 GMT -4
Alexandre Picard. There was a good 1st round defenseman pick. I know that was awhile ago.
|
|