Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2008 23:23:56 GMT -4
Here's one folks.... To Moncton: Maxime Macenauer Jarred Struthers To R-N: Ted Stephens Matt Boyle 3rd round pick (2009) MacAusland, O'Brien and a 2nd rd pick... Boyle is marginal, he wouldnt be an upgrade on any of Rouyn-Noranda's 20's next year and Ted Stephens is good, but not to base a deal around. I mentioned MacAusland's name to the gentleman who informed me of this rumour. He said RN is not interested in him because he is "prone to injuries". I heard this rumour at the Thunder/Flyers midget game yesterday from a Q scout taking in the game.
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on Dec 22, 2008 23:27:32 GMT -4
MacAusland, O'Brien and a 2nd rd pick... Boyle is marginal, he wouldnt be an upgrade on any of Rouyn-Noranda's 20's next year and Ted Stephens is good, but not to base a deal around. I mentioned MacAusland's name to the gentleman who informed me of this rumour. He said RN is not interested in him because he is "prone to injuries". I heard this rumour at the Thunder/Flyers midget game yesterday from a Q scout taking in the game. I can pretty much assure you the Huskies are interested in MacAusland, and if they do swing a deal of any sort with Moncton, he will be in the deal.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Dec 22, 2008 23:33:04 GMT -4
Here's one folks.... To Moncton: Maxime Macenauer Jarred Struthers To R-N: Ted Stephens Matt Boyle 3rd round pick (2009) MacAusland, O'Brien and a 2nd rd pick... Boyle is marginal, he wouldnt be an upgrade on any of Rouyn-Noranda's 20's next year and Ted Stephens is good, but not to base a deal around. That would be a reasonable trade. At the end of the day it will be that type of call Flynn will have to make as GM. Option B...he can either make that type of deal or just a pick for an upgrade on Lahey. Plus maybe another small deal or 2. Option C...he can stand pat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2008 23:33:14 GMT -4
I mentioned MacAusland's name to the gentleman who informed me of this rumour. He said RN is not interested in him because he is "prone to injuries". I heard this rumour at the Thunder/Flyers midget game yesterday from a Q scout taking in the game. I can pretty much assure you the Huskies are interested in MacAusland, and if they do swing a deal of any sort with Moncton, he will be in the deal. You could be right. He will be a dynamite player in a year or 2. If he is fact included in this deal, would they want him now? Or could the Wildcats hold on to him til the end of the season and ship him to RN at the draft? Like how we got Brannon 2 seasons ago. Ted Stephens, Zach O'Brien and the 3rd round pick....Then at the draft, D-Mac to RN
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Dec 22, 2008 23:50:04 GMT -4
I can pretty much assure you the Huskies are interested in MacAusland, and if they do swing a deal of any sort with Moncton, he will be in the deal. You could be right. He will be a dynamite player in a year or 2. If he is fact included in this deal, would they want him now? Or could the Wildcats hold on to him til the end of the season and ship him to RN at the draft? Like how we got Brannon 2 seasons ago. Ted Stephens, Zach O'Brien and the 3rd round pick....Then at the draft, D-Mac to RN Your trade is a lot more expensive. I'd rather lose MacAusland now and keep Stephens(who's on a 45-50 yard pace), rather than losing both just to keep MacAusland another half year. With Struthers and Macenauer(in the suggested deal) the WC would have tons of depth.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gundy on Dec 23, 2008 0:32:58 GMT -4
ok, we'll just go after someone else then and Lewiston can keep a guy on their team for the next 3 months instead of getting something for him while they can. wish we'd done the same thing last year with Marquardt and Mangan. While your at it, you should trade Gormley to Halifax for Travis Randell...seems fair to me... i wouldn't trade a bag of used pucks for anyone on the mooseheads!
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gundy on Dec 23, 2008 0:39:38 GMT -4
i've said it before and i'll say it again: cameron or lessard and our 1st to Lewiston for Gratchev and their 1st. unlikely both cameron and lessard will be back next season, plus lewiston's 1st should be top 5 unless they get going on a long winning streak soon. That makes no sense from a WC perspective, you're giving up your 1st rounder plus a player with possibly 1 1/2 years left(who doesn't take a 20 year old slot, so you also lose Lahey) for a guy that's 15-20% better. The difference from Gratchev to Lessard or Cameron is not that great(5 points over a season). If all 4 19 year olds(Rio cameron lessard Brannon) are back, that's a pleasant problem to have, you have a very good asset to trade. you're starting to see my point. i'd keep Riopel and Brannon over Cameron and Lessard anyday, so what's the difference of trading one now or later. yes, you give up your first round pick, but to get Lewiston's would be huge, another top 5 pick. where's bad? as for lahey, he might/ will be traded anyway. anything we get for him is a victory since he was acquired for free.
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on Dec 23, 2008 1:19:11 GMT -4
While your at it, you should trade Gormley to Halifax for Travis Randell...seems fair to me... i wouldn't trade a bag of used pucks for anyone on the mooseheads! Its called a joke....much like your trade proposals.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gundy on Dec 23, 2008 2:15:48 GMT -4
i wouldn't trade a bag of used pucks for anyone on the mooseheads! Its called a joke....much like your trade proposals. nah, more like the franchise you cheer for! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Dec 23, 2008 8:10:59 GMT -4
That makes no sense from a WC perspective, you're giving up your 1st rounder plus a player with possibly 1 1/2 years left(who doesn't take a 20 year old slot, so you also lose Lahey) for a guy that's 15-20% better. The difference from Gratchev to Lessard or Cameron is not that great(5 points over a season). If all 4 19 year olds(Rio cameron lessard Brannon) are back, that's a pleasant problem to have, you have a very good asset to trade. you're starting to see my point. i'd keep Riopel and Brannon over Cameron and Lessard anyday, so what's the difference of trading one now or later. yes, you give up your first round pick, but to get Lewiston's would be huge, another top 5 pick. where's bad? as for lahey, he might/ will be traded anyway. anything we get for him is a victory since he was acquired for free. The difference is that you lose a top player, plus if Rio signs with a pro team and you have traded Lessard or Cameron then you have to trade assets to find another top 20 year old. If you trade Cameron or Lessard you lose a PPGM player so that just about completely offsets the gain in getting another player...plus I don't think Lewy is interested in adding 19 year olds.
|
|
bikerboy
Blue-Chip Prospect
i am french so sorry for my English
Posts: 427
|
Post by bikerboy on Dec 23, 2008 8:29:20 GMT -4
i just hope for one thing they are playing like warriors just b4 xmas but i just hope they don t flop come playoff time they give it all they got during the season come playoff they don t have anything left ........
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Dec 23, 2008 9:06:00 GMT -4
That makes no sense from a WC perspective, you're giving up your 1st rounder plus a player with possibly 1 1/2 years left(who doesn't take a 20 year old slot, so you also lose Lahey) for a guy that's 15-20% better. The difference from Gratchev to Lessard or Cameron is not that great(5 points over a season). If all 4 19 year olds(Rio cameron lessard Brannon) are back, that's a pleasant problem to have, you have a very good asset to trade. you're starting to see my point. i'd keep Riopel and Brannon over Cameron and Lessard anyday, so what's the difference of trading one now or later. yes, you give up your first round pick, but to get Lewiston's would be huge, another top 5 pick. where's bad? as for lahey, he might/ will be traded anyway. anything we get for him is a victory since he was acquired for free. What you are suggesting is like saying the Cats should have traded Goulet and Pineault in '06. You don't trade your top players when you are on top because you might not have room for them next year. You have all summer to trade them.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Dec 23, 2008 9:56:38 GMT -4
Here's one folks.... To Moncton: Maxime Macenauer Jarred Struthers To R-N: Ted Stephens Matt Boyle 3rd round pick (2009) MacAusland, O'Brien and a 2nd rd pick... Boyle is marginal, he wouldnt be an upgrade on any of Rouyn-Noranda's 20's next year and Ted Stephens is good, but not to base a deal around. Boyle is one of our best Dmen ... hardly marginal ... but he isn't the type of guy you build a trade around. He isn't an offensive guy by any means ... but he takes care of his own end better than most in the Q. Boyle has been very good for us this year.
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on Dec 23, 2008 10:04:27 GMT -4
MacAusland, O'Brien and a 2nd rd pick... Boyle is marginal, he wouldnt be an upgrade on any of Rouyn-Noranda's 20's next year and Ted Stephens is good, but not to base a deal around. Boyle is one of our best Dmen ... hardly marginal ... but he isn't the type of guy you build a trade around. He isn't an offensive guy by any means ... but he takes care of his own end better than most in the Q. Boyle has been very good for us this year. Marginal in terms of next year. Huskies right now have Tougas, Desjardins and Giguere as of now as 20's...Boyle is on par with Tougas, similar players, but Tougas is well liked by the coaching staff. Getting Boyle in the deal doesnt factor into the longterm plans. Im sure he can play in the Q as a 20, but he isnt the kind of guy you trade for when you have 3 pretty solid 20's coming back.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Dec 23, 2008 10:08:22 GMT -4
Boyle is one of our best Dmen ... hardly marginal ... but he isn't the type of guy you build a trade around. He isn't an offensive guy by any means ... but he takes care of his own end better than most in the Q. Boyle has been very good for us this year. Marginal in terms of next year. Huskies right now have Tougas, Desjardins and Giguere as of now as 20's...Boyle is on par with Tougas, similar players, but Tougas is well liked by the coaching staff. Getting Boyle in the deal doesnt factor into the longterm plans. Im sure he can play in the Q as a 20, but he isnt the kind of guy you trade for when you have 3 pretty solid 20's coming back. Right now he is an insurance policy for the WC if they lose both Cameron and Rio next year...if one of those 2 is back along with Lessard and Brannon, Boyle could be traded for a pick, best case a 4th or 5th, worst case 6th to 8th. He's be a nice #3-4 on a rebuilding team next year.
|
|