|
Post by trueblue on Nov 7, 2023 21:09:47 GMT -4
It’s tough, I like the conservative option. The team is so age balanced. The possible questionable trait next season is our defence, losing both Furlong and Moravec, we have a ton of ‘06’s ready to step up. Vidicek and Rousseau might be back as 20’s, it’s hard because I would love to see them pull the trigger all in this year but then there’s next year to think about too. Good point about maybe going all in next year and contending for 3 years straight. Maybe they just use picks this year to get what they feel they need and then go all in next year with potentially Rousseau, Vidicek & Shultz as your 20 yr olds. You’ll still have Cataford, Makinnon, Martin, Crosby, Levesque, Peitzsche, Phillips & Killfoil. The great thing about junior hockey is that there's always a next year to think about haha. So I'll present everyone with this hypothetical: How mad are all of you going to get if we NEVER go all in? Say, for the next 10 years we are a perennial contender, hover around a .650 regular season win percentage, constantly tinker by adding 1, maybe 2 players every year? Maybe we make 2 or 3 finals in this 10 year period, and make it to at least the 2nd round 8 out of the 10 years.I sure as heck don't think that's the end of the world (especially as a season ticket holder going to 90%+ of our home games) - but in today's world of instant gratification I'm sure there's many on this board that wouldn't agree.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on Nov 7, 2023 21:14:10 GMT -4
I agree and backup that can take some pressure off Rousseau shouldn’t be expensive, it’s just there’s not a lot in those cupboards. Let’s say 2 new 20’s come in my guess is that will cost Levesque, 2025/26 1st round picks, 2025/26 2nd round picks and maybe their 2024 3rd rounder. Maybe only maybe Schultz as a future too. He for some reason I think might be available in a futures trade. So if a team will trade a backup for some 4th rounders then there’s really nothing left to get another defender with out dipping into the future talk. Trading Levesque actively makes the team worse, like, this year. I’ve said this a dozen times on these threads before. There’s no term for it in Hockey but in baseball it’s called W.A.R. It stands for Wins Above Replacement. Each player in MLB has a W.A.R rating. Hockey doesn’t have this but a quick example would be Levesque or Peitzsche. Levesque has provided more to help the team to win games. On this team the player who probably has the biggest war might surprise some but I think is Rousseau then Dumais. I’m just throwing that out there to give an outlook of how war works. My point is there’s no way you can say the team will be worse off if Levesque is traded. Let’s say Gatineau calls and says we can have Luneau but won’t except any trade with out Levesque in it. Do you really think the only roster player being lost is Levesque and we add Luneau the team is worse?
|
|
|
Post by Citris on Nov 7, 2023 21:54:33 GMT -4
Trading Levesque actively makes the team worse, like, this year. I’ve said this a dozen times on these threads before. There’s no term for it in Hockey but in baseball it’s called W.A.R. It stands for Wins Above Replacement. Each player in MLB has a W.A.R rating. Hockey doesn’t have this but a quick example would be Levesque or Peitzsche. Levesque has provided more to help the team to win games. On this team the player who probably has the biggest war might surprise some but I think is Rousseau then Dumais. I’m just throwing that out there to give an outlook of how war works. My point is there’s no way you can say the team will be worse off if Levesque is traded. Let’s say Gatineau calls and says we can have Luneau but won’t except any trade with out Levesque in it. Do you really think the only roster player being lost is Levesque and we add Luneau the team is worse? I'm aware of the concept of WAR. I'm also fairly sure you're using it pretty poorly here. I mean, Levesque has already given the Mooseheads wins above an replacement level player. I understand your point is Luneau would win you more games than Levesque...I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise... but my problem is the cost. One thing that nobody really seems to respect in this league is teams that go "all-in" to the point where they turn over a good portion of their team to compete... have in recent memory not had a great success rate vs. teams that were already good and just added a couple key pieces. I don't think it's worth it to blow the future on adding 4-5 players, because I don't think that's a good way to build a winning team. Gatineau and Sherbrooke both made a ton of significant adds and were crowned champions of the trade period... and they both lost in the semi-finals to teams that spent less. Val-d'Or fell to Victoriaville who only made a few adds. Saint John lost in the first round. Drummondville lost to Halifax in 2019 after adding more pieces. I'm all for adding a couple impact players, and paying the price, but I don't want to put the team in a situation where you're turning over half the roster.
|
|
|
Post by canbeer on Nov 7, 2023 23:19:15 GMT -4
Trading Levesque actively makes the team worse, like, this year. I’ve said this a dozen times on these threads before. There’s no term for it in Hockey but in baseball it’s called W.A.R. It stands for Wins Above Replacement. Each player in MLB has a W.A.R rating. Hockey doesn’t have this but a quick example would be Levesque or Peitzsche. Levesque has provided more to help the team to win games. On this team the player who probably has the biggest war might surprise some but I think is Rousseau then Dumais. I’m just throwing that out there to give an outlook of how war works. My point is there’s no way you can say the team will be worse off if Levesque is traded. Let’s say Gatineau calls and says we can have Luneau but won’t except any trade with out Levesque in it. Do you really think the only roster player being lost is Levesque and we add Luneau the team is worse? I think the war angle has some use in hockey but I don’t think it’s as good as it may be in baseball… certainly in a number of scenarios anyways. Baseball you can compare the war of 1st baseman A vs. B but what if in baseball you needed three 1st basemen because you had to switch them every three innings and what you need isn’t to replace your top guy but to add another top guy. If your problem is you don’t have enough great 1st basemen or in the Mooseheads case forwards then shipping out your 4th best forward for a better top 4 forward may improve the team but they would still need another player. I think where the war term would fit well with the Moose would be with backup goalie options. Or let’s say they added Rolens… then you looked at the war of Mianscum vs. Fournier. So I think Levesque vs. a 20 year old forward would be a tough one. Now Luneau would be a different equation but if Luneau was added then maybe you need to factor in a forward addition at the cost of Phillips as well.
|
|
|
Post by scotiahockey on Nov 8, 2023 0:36:14 GMT -4
One variable in all this no one knows, is the Simons. What do they want to do? Do they want to go all-in? Will they be ok sacrificing a lot of future or giving up the likes of Cataford in a futures trade? Will they take a measured approach? Will they be conservative? We don't know. They seem like smart, reasonable business people, so I'm sure they'll listen to Cam and his opinions (if they know what's good for them). But at the end of the day, they have the final say. I'm sure Cam didn't want to pull the Desnoyers to SJ deal, but Bobby made the final call, and the deal was nixed. Regarding the Simons... I've said since the beginning that they will model the Mooseheads franchise off the gold standard that is the London Knights. www.hockeydb.com/stte/london-knights-6618.htmlTake a look at those winning percentages. They've only had two seasons below .600 since 03. Then most importantly, take a look at the attendance column. (Hint: that's where the money is made.) I have little doubt that the Simons are looking to replicate what the Hunter brothers have done in London, and that includes not really ever going "all in" and bottoming out. We've seen them put their money where their mouth is on the hockey ops side. Adding to the scouting staff as I predicted. Bringing in a HC that coached at the NHL level (read: not cheaping out). Don't think for a second that Kilfoil switches his commitment over the summer without us providing him with the absolute maximum that we were allowed to put in his recruitment package. I'm sure they are encouraging Cam to give this squad the best chance possible to win the Presidents Cup, but I doubt it will be at the expense of the future. That’s the model teams should try to run and it’s near impossible for most but maybe it’s possible for Halifax. They have the market to do it, they get players to report and aren’t run cheaply so players will want to come. The truly difficult part is that there’s just less players to pick from in the region, there’s also less teams but you don’t get the same number of Americans coming to Halifax as London gets. The hard part that most teams won’t do, is even if you’re really good if you don’t think you’re going to win the league, you need to sell those players that are going to age out. You acquire more players/picks and continue on the cycle, until you have the right core in place to make the moves necessary to win. In the meantime, you continue to ice a great product and no one has to sit through the super down years because you don’t have to sell the farm when it’s time to compete and when the time comes, your chalk full of picks to continue bringing in talented players.
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on Nov 8, 2023 10:15:01 GMT -4
I’ve said this a dozen times on these threads before. There’s no term for it in Hockey but in baseball it’s called W.A.R. It stands for Wins Above Replacement. Each player in MLB has a W.A.R rating. Hockey doesn’t have this but a quick example would be Levesque or Peitzsche. Levesque has provided more to help the team to win games. On this team the player who probably has the biggest war might surprise some but I think is Rousseau then Dumais. I’m just throwing that out there to give an outlook of how war works. My point is there’s no way you can say the team will be worse off if Levesque is traded. Let’s say Gatineau calls and says we can have Luneau but won’t except any trade with out Levesque in it. Do you really think the only roster player being lost is Levesque and we add Luneau the team is worse? I'm aware of the concept of WAR. I'm also fairly sure you're using it pretty poorly here. I mean, Levesque has already given the Mooseheads wins above an replacement level player. I understand your point is Luneau would win you more games than Levesque...I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise... but my problem is the cost. One thing that nobody really seems to respect in this league is teams that go "all-in" to the point where they turn over a good portion of their team to compete... have in recent memory not had a great success rate vs. teams that were already good and just added a couple key pieces. I don't think it's worth it to blow the future on adding 4-5 players, because I don't think that's a good way to build a winning team. Gatineau and Sherbrooke both made a ton of significant adds and were crowned champions of the trade period... and they both lost in the semi-finals to teams that spent less. Val-d'Or fell to Victoriaville who only made a few adds. Saint John lost in the first round. Drummondville lost to Halifax in 2019 after adding more pieces. I'm all for adding a couple impact players, and paying the price, but I don't want to put the team in a situation where you're turning over half the roster. I know you understand WAR. I was laying out for everyone to understand. I also agree with Levesque has an okay WAR rating himself right now but to get you have to give. I also understand this moment right now Levesque is on pace for a 30 goal season. Do we really think that is going to happen? I also feel I should say I like Levesque and think he’s going to have a great Q career. Here where me and you differ greatly. I only said Levesque is the guy who is probably moved. That’s it. He has the most value that we know wouldn’t have a no trade connected to him. Yes I did use Luneau in my example and that is extreme example. But my point stands Cam has emptied the cupboards and Levesque has played himself into an asset. Right now I see it as 2 1st rounders 2 2nd rounders and Levesque as top assets. Teams probably value Levesque over the 2 2nds. Also to your point which is summed up to “we can lose.” Yes they can lose, actually Halifax has only won once in 30 years. If we think like that why ever trade anything. If we always play to the odds we will never win again. Some times you have to try and stack the deck. When you have the best player in the CHL and maybe the best Goalie in the CHL too when else should you try and get over the top?
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on Nov 8, 2023 10:22:16 GMT -4
I’ve said this a dozen times on these threads before. There’s no term for it in Hockey but in baseball it’s called W.A.R. It stands for Wins Above Replacement. Each player in MLB has a W.A.R rating. Hockey doesn’t have this but a quick example would be Levesque or Peitzsche. Levesque has provided more to help the team to win games. On this team the player who probably has the biggest war might surprise some but I think is Rousseau then Dumais. I’m just throwing that out there to give an outlook of how war works. My point is there’s no way you can say the team will be worse off if Levesque is traded. Let’s say Gatineau calls and says we can have Luneau but won’t except any trade with out Levesque in it. Do you really think the only roster player being lost is Levesque and we add Luneau the team is worse? I think the war angle has some use in hockey but I don’t think it’s as good as it may be in baseball… certainly in a number of scenarios anyways. Baseball you can compare the war of 1st baseman A vs. B but what if in baseball you needed three 1st basemen because you had to switch them every three innings and what you need isn’t to replace your top guy but to add another top guy. If your problem is you don’t have enough great 1st basemen or in the Mooseheads case forwards then shipping out your 4th best forward for a better top 4 forward may improve the team but they would still need another player. I think where the war term would fit well with the Moose would be with backup goalie options. Or let’s say they added Rolens… then you looked at the war of Mianscum vs. Fournier. So I think Levesque vs. a 20 year old forward would be a tough one. Now Luneau would be a different equation but if Luneau was added then maybe you need to factor in a forward addition at the cost of Phillips as well. I get what you’re saying but WAR isn’t actually made to be apples to apples. As you said first baseman to first baseman. By all means it can be. The way it actually works is I have player A valued at say 10. I’m giving him up and getting 2 players that each equal 6 for a total of 12. So yes I giving up a lot but over a season I should get more out of the 2 then I would have got from the 1. WAR is sort of position less.
|
|
|
Post by Citris on Nov 8, 2023 11:04:42 GMT -4
Also to your point which is summed up to “we can lose.” Yes they can lose, actually Halifax has only won once in 30 years. If we think like that why ever trade anything. If we always play to the odds we will never win again. Some times you have to try and stack the deck. When you have the best player in the CHL and maybe the best Goalie in the CHL too when else should you try and get over the top? Is that what you got from my post? That might be on me, I haven't been very thorough with my posting the last few days. Yes, any team can lose, my point is that the evidence of the last 10+ years suggest that massive roster turnovers at the deadline do not equal championships - in fact we have evidence of the opposite, that teams that build either through the draft or by acquiring their core years in advance tend to have the upper hand when things get tough. Look at Quebec last year, yes, Robidas and Langlois were significant additions, but they were brought in to compliment the group that had already been established, they were never the backbone of that team, just a couple pieces to round out the roster. Halifax this year is not as good as Quebec last year, especially in terms of the depth and experience of that forward group, yes, but they're already a team that's sitting at the top of the standings with the majority of the team having the experience of a deep playoff run. We all acknowledge there are a few holes, but, what halifax needs most is depth, especially at center. They have the star caliber talent. Now, would Luneau be a nice addition? Absolutely. He could have an almost Noah Dobson type impact on the D core. Personally, I think the Shultz - Phillips pairing is a weakness of the team. Not because either guy is a bad defenseman, I just think 2 right-shot, offense-first 5'11" defenseman don't make a lot of sense together. I think both guys would be better served playing with someone else. If the defense can be upgraded, it would be this pairing... but overall we know this defense is pretty good. My thing is mostly, I don't want to spend what it would take to acquire Luneau without having figured out the forward situation first. I have thoughts on this, but I'll save them for a different post to stop from bogging this one down.
|
|
|
Post by islander19 on Nov 8, 2023 11:47:28 GMT -4
How about a Carter Bickle for your backup spot? He has been fairly solid for us, considering he was a free agent pickup.. Niko Boudreau had initially cracked our roster but got sent down to Jr A and has been playing great, I’m sure management want to see him up with the Isles at some point.
Obviously not a ton of value in Bickle. Maybe Todd and a late round pick?
|
|
|
Post by Score on Nov 8, 2023 12:07:19 GMT -4
How about a Carter Bickle for your backup spot? He has been fairly solid for us, considering he was a free agent pickup.. Niko Boudreau had initially cracked our roster but got sent down to Jr A and has been playing great, I’m sure management want to see him up with the Isles at some point. Obviously not a ton of value in Bickle. Maybe Todd and a late round pick? I thought the same thing
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on Nov 8, 2023 12:09:06 GMT -4
Also to your point which is summed up to “we can lose.” Yes they can lose, actually Halifax has only won once in 30 years. If we think like that why ever trade anything. If we always play to the odds we will never win again. Some times you have to try and stack the deck. When you have the best player in the CHL and maybe the best Goalie in the CHL too when else should you try and get over the top? Is that what you got from my post? That might be on me, I haven't been very thorough with my posting the last few days. Yes, any team can lose, my point is that the evidence of the last 10+ years suggest that massive roster turnovers at the deadline do not equal championships - in fact we have evidence of the opposite, that teams that build either through the draft or by acquiring their core years in advance tend to have the upper hand when things get tough. Look at Quebec last year, yes, Robidas and Langlois were significant additions, but they were brought in to compliment the group that had already been established, they were never the backbone of that team, just a couple pieces to round out the roster. Halifax this year is not as good as Quebec last year, especially in terms of the depth and experience of that forward group, yes, but they're already a team that's sitting at the top of the standings with the majority of the team having the experience of a deep playoff run. We all acknowledge there are a few holes, but, what halifax needs most is depth, especially at center. They have the star caliber talent. Now, would Luneau be a nice addition? Absolutely. He could have an almost Noah Dobson type impact on the D core. Personally, I think the Shultz - Phillips pairing is a weakness of the team. Not because either guy is a bad defenseman, I just think 2 right-shot, offense-first 5'11" defenseman don't make a lot of sense together. I think both guys would be better served playing with someone else. If the defense can be upgraded, it would be this pairing... but overall we know this defense is pretty good. My thing is mostly, I don't want to spend what it would take to acquire Luneau without having figured out the forward situation first. I have thoughts on this, but I'll save them for a different post to stop from bogging this one down. When did Brady Schultz become a right shot defenceman?😜
|
|
|
Post by Citris on Nov 8, 2023 12:25:57 GMT -4
When did Brady Schultz become a right shot defenceman?😜 Lol omg. I'm getting too old and tired for this I guess haha.
|
|
|
Post by Herd Fan on Nov 8, 2023 13:48:06 GMT -4
Also to your point which is summed up to “we can lose.” Yes they can lose, actually Halifax has only won once in 30 years. If we think like that why ever trade anything. If we always play to the odds we will never win again. Some times you have to try and stack the deck. When you have the best player in the CHL and maybe the best Goalie in the CHL too when else should you try and get over the top? Is that what you got from my post? That might be on me, I haven't been very thorough with my posting the last few days. Yes, any team can lose, my point is that the evidence of the last 10+ years suggest that massive roster turnovers at the deadline do not equal championships - in fact we have evidence of the opposite, that teams that build either through the draft or by acquiring their core years in advance tend to have the upper hand when things get tough. Look at Quebec last year, yes, Robidas and Langlois were significant additions, but they were brought in to compliment the group that had already been established, they were never the backbone of that team, just a couple pieces to round out the roster. Halifax this year is not as good as Quebec last year, especially in terms of the depth and experience of that forward group, yes, but they're already a team that's sitting at the top of the standings with the majority of the team having the experience of a deep playoff run. We all acknowledge there are a few holes, but, what halifax needs most is depth, especially at center. They have the star caliber talent. Now, would Luneau be a nice addition? Absolutely. He could have an almost Noah Dobson type impact on the D core. Personally, I think the Shultz - Phillips pairing is a weakness of the team. Not because either guy is a bad defenseman, I just think 2 right-shot, offense-first 5'11" defenseman don't make a lot of sense together. I think both guys would be better served playing with someone else. If the defense can be upgraded, it would be this pairing... but overall we know this defense is pretty good. My thing is mostly, I don't want to spend what it would take to acquire Luneau without having figured out the forward situation first. I have thoughts on this, but I'll save them for a different post to stop from bogging this one down. I tend to agree with your comment. They are both great players, but they do not jive well together. Schultz is not a righty but they are both smaller D and both offensive minded. There are many, many turnovers and odd man rushes with these two. The problem I have is, the other 2 pairs have been working well together. So, do you disrupt the other 2 pair to help limit the odd man rushes/turnovers with the one pair. I dont know what the answer is or what they should do. But this early in the season, it would not hurt to dabble with some other D combinations.
|
|
|
Post by islander19 on Nov 8, 2023 14:38:48 GMT -4
Hopefully they don't give up a roster player and a draft pick for a backup from Ontario - insert Barney Rubble laugh here. If the Moose want to actually contend, they’re gonna need 2-3 forwards…Todd will certainly be expendable, if not just straight up released. Seems Moose posters say he’s been playing better this year, but most had him not even making the team this year. There’s a good chance you’re not finding a quality backup with major junior experience for free. Todd and a late pick is a very minuscule price to pay to ensure you’re not running with Milner in the case of a Rousseau injury down the stretch
|
|
|
Post by statsman18 on Nov 8, 2023 15:07:59 GMT -4
Also to your point which is summed up to “we can lose.” Yes they can lose, actually Halifax has only won once in 30 years. If we think like that why ever trade anything. If we always play to the odds we will never win again. Some times you have to try and stack the deck. When you have the best player in the CHL and maybe the best Goalie in the CHL too when else should you try and get over the top? Is that what you got from my post? That might be on me, I haven't been very thorough with my posting the last few days. Yes, any team can lose, my point is that the evidence of the last 10+ years suggest that massive roster turnovers at the deadline do not equal championships - in fact we have evidence of the opposite, that teams that build either through the draft or by acquiring their core years in advance tend to have the upper hand when things get tough. Look at Quebec last year, yes, Robidas and Langlois were significant additions, but they were brought in to compliment the group that had already been established, they were never the backbone of that team, just a couple pieces to round out the roster. Halifax this year is not as good as Quebec last year, especially in terms of the depth and experience of that forward group, yes, but they're already a team that's sitting at the top of the standings with the majority of the team having the experience of a deep playoff run. We all acknowledge there are a few holes, but, what halifax needs most is depth, especially at center. They have the star caliber talent. Now, would Luneau be a nice addition? Absolutely. He could have an almost Noah Dobson type impact on the D core. Personally, I think the Shultz - Phillips pairing is a weakness of the team. Not because either guy is a bad defenseman, I just think 2 right-shot, offense-first 5'11" defenseman don't make a lot of sense together. I think both guys would be better served playing with someone else. If the defense can be upgraded, it would be this pairing... but overall we know this defense is pretty good. My thing is mostly, I don't want to spend what it would take to acquire Luneau without having figured out the forward situation first. I have thoughts on this, but I'll save them for a different post to stop from bogging this one down. Your example of Quebec is actually really bad. You should go look at how many trades they made last year. If you go back to the preseason trade period they made 16 trades last year. Then add the future part for Langlois that was another 2. So what does last year Quebec win prove? If we’re going by that model the maybe 3 or 4 guys coming that I’m suggesting isn’t enough!
|
|