|
Post by catnut on May 1, 2015 9:13:50 GMT -4
You're acting like the money is guaranteed though. If every seller could guarantee themselves $400K by not selling no players would ever get traded. It's a fluke happening that isn't something you can really plan around. 1 unlucky bounce and you're on here whining about how much was lost from an entire Forum series, not listing the $400K as if Halifax was counting on that money after not making any deal with Ehlers. They didn't trade Ehlers because of the deal made to bring him in. Any financial windfall is in spite of that, not because of it. If they could have traded him and got 3 1sts rounders but got swept and make no money they probably do that if they had the option at the time. But dont let me keep you from talking like the $400K in hindsight was the plan all along. It might be very relevant to you but for a team like Halifax after 3 straight playoff runs, it's really just a drop in the bucket. Like you or I working an 8 hour OT shift...it's nice to have, but you're not going to ruin your future for the slightly extra bump on your next pay. Ok I'll give you a bit on this. Hindsight your right it $400,000 because it was 3 games. I do think you can plan to push for the 2nd round. With out Ehlers they know they get maybe only 2 games at the forum, but with Ehlers this team always has a chance. And the moose in the playoffs average 7500 fans at the SBC. So they would have been looking and aiming for at lest 2 more home games. They make roughly $132,000 a game at those number with tickets alone. So instead of the 400k they mighted have only made 250 to 270 mark. Don't let it foil anyone here, they lost a shit load of money those 3 games at the forum. They didn't get any money for the Box's. Nothing near the norm Beer money. And the food wouldn't be there either. If they truly didn't want to make a little run in the playoffs they would have also flipped Brassard. No need to keep him really. So they can keep a team they think give them a chance to push them to that round. Also if they didn't really care about the playoffs they sit Meier, Ehlers, Gadoruy that make up game against Moncton and let what happens, happen. Then maybe play BB instead of hoping to play Shawingian. Yes anything can happen in the playoffs but if people didn't think this team tried and hoped for this out come, they should look at things a little harder. Like the Wilcats, the Mooseheads probably get a $$$ compensation for games where they are forced to move to the Forum.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on May 1, 2015 9:14:18 GMT -4
Halifax' draft with the added picks would have been like: 2015 Halifax : 1-1-2-2-2-3-3-3-4-6-6-7--8-9-10-11-12-13-14 (7th, 16th, 25th, 30th, 34th, 43th, 47th, 52th, ...) 2016 Halifax : 1-1-1-2-2-3-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14 And more and more teams are entering off seasons like that as teams trade 1sts into the future. In reality though if you had 2 straight drafts of actually using all those 1sts and 2nds alone you have no room for the other picks. Picks are currency as much as they are to be used to draft players. But to casual fans having 3 1sts next year is more attractive then Donaghey who is a top pairing defencemen who will fetch you a 1st and 2nd come Christmas time. That doesn't show in a draft pick list but it's just as important of an asset. I don't really know and need to ask what is your point in this post? Are you saying they should have or made the right move (by not making the move)? I personally would have loved to see him make the move and well see how it would have played out. Now it's just a what if, or what could have been. But then again that's what this website is really all about.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on May 1, 2015 9:17:35 GMT -4
Ok I'll give you a bit on this. Hindsight your right it $400,000 because it was 3 games. I do think you can plan to push for the 2nd round. With out Ehlers they know they get maybe only 2 games at the forum, but with Ehlers this team always has a chance. And the moose in the playoffs average 7500 fans at the SBC. So they would have been looking and aiming for at lest 2 more home games. They make roughly $132,000 a game at those number with tickets alone. So instead of the 400k they mighted have only made 250 to 270 mark. Don't let it foil anyone here, they lost a shit load of money those 3 games at the forum. They didn't get any money for the Box's. Nothing near the norm Beer money. And the food wouldn't be there either. If they truly didn't want to make a little run in the playoffs they would have also flipped Brassard. No need to keep him really. So they can keep a team they think give them a chance to push them to that round. Also if they didn't really care about the playoffs they sit Meier, Ehlers, Gadoruy that make up game against Moncton and let what happens, happen. Then maybe play BB instead of hoping to play Shawingian. Yes anything can happen in the playoffs but if people didn't think this team tried and hoped for this out come, they should look at things a little harder. Like the Wilcats, the Mooseheads probably get a $$$ compensation for games where they are forced to move to the Forum. I don't think they would get the same compensation though. They don't have Irving working out their deals. And I think it's very different Moncton had to leave town Halifax played at their practice rink.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on May 1, 2015 9:25:23 GMT -4
I hope he goes with a forward at the first pick though. Man they have enough defence. Like I've said before unless the guy they pick is a player like Luke Green why bother. The only guy I would think about up grading is Tallifer, and he actually grew on me towards the end. He'll need to bulk up some and he'll be fine next year. The other thing Cam needs to bring in is some size. If the BPA after the 2nd round is a small guy but next is a monster I want them going after the monsters. The first 3 picks I'm for BPA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2015 10:06:13 GMT -4
I hope he goes with a forward at the first pick though. Man they have enough defence. Like I've said before unless the guy they pick is a player like Luke Green why bother. The only guy I would think about up grading is Tallifer, and he actually grew on me towards the end. He'll need to bulk up some and he'll be fine next year. The other thing Cam needs to bring in is some size. If the BPA after the 2nd round is a small guy but next is a monster I want them going after the monsters. The first 3 picks I'm for BPA. Who would make your top 4 on D that special that they shouldn't draft a D if that's the BPA?
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 1, 2015 10:28:07 GMT -4
According to Mikael Lalancette of TVA Sports, Blainville-Boisbriand offered 1+1+2+2+3 + prospect for Ehlers but Halifax declined. Sounds bad, but we had heard earlier in the year that Ehlers didn't want to be traded. You run the risk of a guy like him "going home" if you trade him. If that was indeed the case, that offer really didn't mean much. I doubt he'd go home ... he has a career ahead of him that would be harmed by that move. But you have to respect the player's wishes if he has that "no trade" power in his agreement. Next time you try to convince a player to report, all of the agents know who they can trust and who can't be trusted, and you won't get favourable consideration going forward. It may work against you for years ... even after Cam has moved on.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 1, 2015 10:30:20 GMT -4
According to Mikael Lalancette of TVA Sports, Blainville-Boisbriand offered 1+1+2+2+3 + prospect for Ehlers but Halifax declined. i seriously doubt that if a team is that willing to make a big move they usually do so....... Blainville added nothing at the deadline of significance I'm in agreement with you ... that goes against the way they operate year after year. They are a team that wants to be competitive year after year and that move would defeat that approach for several years.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 1, 2015 10:40:06 GMT -4
There I saw it again...have you seen Donaghey play? Numerous times i have seen his name on these posts as the D saviour for the Moose. You will not get a 1st rounder if trading him at christmas unless there is a huge improvement in his game from where it was before the injury. He was maybe #4 before his injury on that team and probably would have moved to 5th when they brought in Murphy.there are some young d men on moose now that would fetch more. Flawed logic. If Donaghey doesn't get hurt ... he is playing in Moncton come January 8th and Sweeney is in Quebec. Murphy probably was not even part of the picture until the Moncton-Quebec trade got scuttled.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 1, 2015 10:48:07 GMT -4
Like the Wilcats, the Mooseheads probably get a $$$ compensation for games where they are forced to move to the Forum. I don't think they would get the same compensation though. They don't have Irving working out their deals. And I think it's very different Moncton had to leave town Halifax played at their practice rink. The Wildcats got paid because they worked out a deal a few years ago that guaranteed them their home dates for the playoffs. That was not part of any previous agreement ... just the current one. When the City couldn't deliver ... they had to negotiate a settlement to cover the losses the Wildcats would face. All part of getting this new Events Centre deal off the ground was locking the Wildcats up as major tenant for several years ... and that took place 2 or 3 years ago now. Smith may have a similar type of arrangement when he threatened to move to the Forum awhile back. He hardballed the City and Metro Centre and ultimately got what he needed.
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on May 1, 2015 10:55:18 GMT -4
I hope he goes with a forward at the first pick though. Man they have enough defence. Like I've said before unless the guy they pick is a player like Luke Green why bother. The only guy I would think about up grading is Tallifer, and he actually grew on me towards the end. He'll need to bulk up some and he'll be fine next year. The other thing Cam needs to bring in is some size. If the BPA after the 2nd round is a small guy but next is a monster I want them going after the monsters. The first 3 picks I'm for BPA. I think there is always the opportunity to trade down when the best player is not your ideal pick. Some other team will see that player as their need and make an offer. At that point they have to decide if dropping down still gets them what they want. Its the same for having too many picks, you can always trade some for the following years and keep options open while increasing your assets. When teams start going for need over best player thats when you see teams reap the reward later. Its possible this happens at 7th pick. Teams may want to jump up or take the goalies they are afraid Halifax sees as best available like they do. I just have a feeling, looking at the players and reports, that this will be a year teams are all over the place on BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on May 1, 2015 10:57:59 GMT -4
And more and more teams are entering off seasons like that as teams trade 1sts into the future. In reality though if you had 2 straight drafts of actually using all those 1sts and 2nds alone you have no room for the other picks. Picks are currency as much as they are to be used to draft players. But to casual fans having 3 1sts next year is more attractive then Donaghey who is a top pairing defencemen who will fetch you a 1st and 2nd come Christmas time. That doesn't show in a draft pick list but it's just as important of an asset. I don't really know and need to ask what is your point in this post? Are you saying they should have or made the right move (by not making the move)? I personally would have loved to see him make the move and well see how it would have played out. Now it's just a what if, or what could have been. But then again that's what this website is really all about. I'm saying people see 1-1-2-2-2 and 1-1-2-2-2 in back to back years and see the huge potential in those picks but realistically using those 10 picks has pros and cons as it. Inevitably some of those kids, and all the others, end up losing some development as they're behind others on the depth chart. We went into the last draft in a similar situation and I think having 3 2nds actually ended up with us losing some value long term with how all 3 played out situation wise. Using some of the high picks as currency for vets and focusing on 2 or 3 top players and leaving room for the rest of the draft picks to earn a spot seems to be the best thing for all. I agree with the logic of 'the more picks the better' but I feel that what picking say 4 or 5 1sts and 2nds in 1 draft does to an organization in terms of hurting other players progress is not really discussed.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on May 1, 2015 11:04:40 GMT -4
I hope he goes with a forward at the first pick though. Man they have enough defence. Like I've said before unless the guy they pick is a player like Luke Green why bother. The only guy I would think about up grading is Tallifer, and he actually grew on me towards the end. He'll need to bulk up some and he'll be fine next year. The other thing Cam needs to bring in is some size. If the BPA after the 2nd round is a small guy but next is a monster I want them going after the monsters. The first 3 picks I'm for BPA. Who would make your top 4 on D that special that they shouldn't draft a D if that's the BPA? It's kinda tricky really. As it stands right now, I guess I'd break it into 3 parts. Top 3 guys are Ford, Fitzgerald, and Donaghey. This is where it's a little tricky and might have to wait and see who becomes the best of the rest maybe. I personally like Nauss but he needs to bulk up and work on his overall strength. Tallifer came along way at the end of the year and only gets a slight edge over Hunter because he's a better skater (my opinion of course). Then Hunter is the other guy that you have to add in to the middle 3. And lastly you got Argento as your 7th guy who I just haven't seen enough to say he better then anyone in the middle. Are you saying there's players in this draft better then those guys that will come in and be better then A 17yo Nauss, Tallifer and an 18yo Hunter? Like I said if there is a Green like guy there that would be then yes I'd like it. I just don't think that type of player is in this draft or will be there at 7. There is one player I would take though. The kid from Cole Harbour who would be a 15yo next year. Can't think of his name but that kid fits the type of player I'm talking about. I think he could have gotten exceptional status. Just don't think he'd be in talks for this year top pick but maybe top defencemen.
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on May 1, 2015 11:07:41 GMT -4
I don't really know and need to ask what is your point in this post? Are you saying they should have or made the right move (by not making the move)? I personally would have loved to see him make the move and well see how it would have played out. Now it's just a what if, or what could have been. But then again that's what this website is really all about. I'm saying people see 1-1-2-2-2 and 1-1-2-2-2 in back to back years and see the huge potential in those picks but realistically using those 10 picks has pros and cons as it. Inevitably some of those kids, and all the others, end up losing some development as they're behind others on the depth chart. We went into the last draft in a similar situation and I think having 3 2nds actually ended up with us losing some value long term with how all 3 played out situation wise. Using some of the high picks as currency for vets and focusing on 2 or 3 top players and leaving room for the rest of the draft picks to earn a spot seems to be the best thing for all. I agree with the logic of 'the more picks the better' but I feel that what picking say 4 or 5 1sts and 2nds in 1 draft does to an organization in terms of hurting other players progress is not really discussed. True but that is part of management. You can always trade picks and get more picks in future years. Then it becomes a question of, did your GM manage those picks well. Russell did it to get Mackinnon and CB could have done it to get Velano but gave it up for Leblanc.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on May 1, 2015 11:11:10 GMT -4
I hope he goes with a forward at the first pick though. Man they have enough defence. Like I've said before unless the guy they pick is a player like Luke Green why bother. The only guy I would think about up grading is Tallifer, and he actually grew on me towards the end. He'll need to bulk up some and he'll be fine next year. The other thing Cam needs to bring in is some size. If the BPA after the 2nd round is a small guy but next is a monster I want them going after the monsters. The first 3 picks I'm for BPA. I think there is always the opportunity to trade down when the best player is not your ideal pick. Some other team will see that player as their need and make an offer. At that point they have to decide if dropping down still gets them what they want. Its the same for having too many picks, you can always trade some for the following years and keep options open while increasing your assets. When teams start going for need over best player thats when you see teams reap the reward later. Its possible this happens at 7th pick. Teams may want to jump up or take the goalies they are afraid Halifax sees as best available like they do. I just have a feeling, looking at the players and reports, that this will be a year teams are all over the place on BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE. Here's my thing about that. I think it might and will be best BPA on that teams list. Yeah I know every team does have different list but I think this year it's going to be even wider spread then usually. I do agree with everything else you say about trading down. Hell Cam might be able to trade up a few spots himself with the picks he has. And by that I'm not saying go for Bowers at 2 like I have before. Just saying maybe he jumps up to 4 or 5 for the 7th and maybe a 3rd round. It could happen not saying it's going to.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on May 1, 2015 11:18:42 GMT -4
I don't really know and need to ask what is your point in this post? Are you saying they should have or made the right move (by not making the move)? I personally would have loved to see him make the move and well see how it would have played out. Now it's just a what if, or what could have been. But then again that's what this website is really all about. I'm saying people see 1-1-2-2-2 and 1-1-2-2-2 in back to back years and see the huge potential in those picks but realistically using those 10 picks has pros and cons as it. Inevitably some of those kids, and all the others, end up losing some development as they're behind others on the depth chart. We went into the last draft in a similar situation and I think having 3 2nds actually ended up with us losing some value long term with how all 3 played out situation wise. Using some of the high picks as currency for vets and focusing on 2 or 3 top players and leaving room for the rest of the draft picks to earn a spot seems to be the best thing for all. I agree with the logic of 'the more picks the better' but I feel that what picking say 4 or 5 1sts and 2nds in 1 draft does to an organization in terms of hurting other players progress is not really discussed. Well you say it like it was a bad thing. Those player you guys pick ended up being currency. You got McSween and a 3rd for one of them and then you Gosselin for the other 2nd round pick last year. Those are pieces that can play not big but Key rolls on your team next year. I think you guys made out alright with what you had.
|
|