|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 4, 2009 14:11:00 GMT -4
I'm sure we'll find a way to get our guy in the Euro draft. And if Stinziani is here that means one of Ward and Piscacek are not which means we also need a top pairing defenceman...and we're running out of assets Why are you so sure you'll get your guy in the Euro draft? You have a bad pick, and a bad history of getting quality players. Bad history? Bathurst has a bad history. We've usually found a way to get our guy. We had to settle for Benda when SJ took Pielmeier but we also got Piscacek later on. We got Demkov last year late and even though he never really fit in here he was still a good player. I know we're not Quebec who can get who they want where they want but if the team is willing to spend the money to bring over a good player then they'll find a way to get one in the 40's. |
|
|
|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Jun 4, 2009 14:12:11 GMT -4
Maybe I'm giving your GM too much credit here...you guys would know better than I would but....
Maybe he's thinking he makes these moves for Doyle and Adam, and if the other guys like Ward return, he gets to see where your team stands come Xmas. If you're doing good, maybe he does more moves to try and make you even better. If you're struggling he turns around and moves those guys, hoping prices at Xmas lead to a better return than what he paid to get them. Those two guys could fetch a high price I think come early January.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 4, 2009 14:14:38 GMT -4
Maybe I'm giving your GM too much credit here...you guys would know better than I would but.... Maybe he's thinking he makes these moves for Doyle and Adam, and if the other guys like Ward return, he gets to see where your team stands come Xmas. If you're doing good, maybe he does more moves to try and make you even better. If you're struggling he turns around and moves those guys, hoping prices at Xmas lead to a better return than what he paid to get them. Those two guys could fetch a high price I think come early January. What's left to trade for more? Once we get into players like Roy as futures then we're going from puzzling to flat out reckless and dangerous. I think the goal is to get everyone back and add 1 or 2 small pieces in January rather then have to make another huge deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Jun 4, 2009 14:25:38 GMT -4
Well if you're doing super good with Doyle and Adam maybe he does trade off guys like Roy as futures, and all your draft pciks for the next 2 years, and goes for it in Rimouski-esque proportions.  I do think he could trade for those guys, use them for a half year, then dump them at Xmas for a return as big or bigger than what was paid to get them. Is that a bad scenario? |
|
|
|
Post by bois on Jun 4, 2009 14:45:25 GMT -4
If you add a solid Euro scorer and maybe find another serviceable veteran forward along the way you're arguably in better shape than this time last year
I don't know why you'd trade Holden tho...... now if you're going for it you likely need to add a capable goalie to push Roy and fill in when he's out
and I don't know why we'd acquire him for Doyle if we're also acquiring Francois Levesque and already had Evan Mosher as a capable backup
very puzzling if true
|
|
|
|
Post by Score on Jun 4, 2009 14:48:06 GMT -4
I and I don't know why we'd acquire him for Doyle if we're also acquiring Francois Levesque and already had Evan Mosher as a capable backup That's what I do not understand....... Perhaps they will finally trade Mosher |
|
|
|
Post by caperguy on Jun 4, 2009 14:48:12 GMT -4
If you add a solid Euro scorer and maybe find another serviceable veteran forward along the way you're arguably in better shape than this time last year I don't know why you'd trade Holden tho...... now if you're going for it you likely need to add a capable goalie to push Roy and fill in when he's out and I don't know why we'd acquire him for Doyle if we're also acquiring Francois Levesque and already had Evan Mosher as a capable backup very puzzling if true i thought an article over the last week had Mario keeping Holden for exactly that reason - fill in for Roy when he's (hopefully for him) at WJHC. Unless we're getting one of your goalies in return.....but why send him in the 1st place? If Mario's stacking up, why not stay with the more-than-capable Holden, not someone we're unfamiliar with and/or a younger kid and/or a draft pick 16yo rookie |
|
|
|
Post by bois on Jun 4, 2009 14:50:25 GMT -4
I and I don't know why we'd acquire him for Doyle if we're also acquiring Francois Levesque and already had Evan Mosher as a capable backup That's what I do not understand....... Perhaps they will finally trade Mosher Yeah but they will only get a mid level draft pick by dealing Mosher now |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 4, 2009 15:02:42 GMT -4
I was just talking to a guy that said that they are close on a deal for Doyle but , Mario is very hesistant to move Ellis and is trying to find away around that .
|
|
|
|
Post by caperguy on Jun 4, 2009 15:05:16 GMT -4
I was just talking to a guy that said that they are close on a deal for Doyle but , Mario is very hesistant to move Ellis and is trying to find away around that . as he should be |
|
|
|
Post by canucklehead on Jun 4, 2009 15:07:25 GMT -4
If I'm the PEI GM I would have to insist on Ellis being part of any deal involving Doyle
|
|
|
|
Post by Score on Jun 4, 2009 15:09:26 GMT -4
If I'm the PEI GM I would have to insist on Ellis being part of any deal involving Doyle For sure |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 4, 2009 15:10:37 GMT -4
That guy also told me that PEI & Gatineau were in talks over Doyle but PEI insisted in getting Labrie & Hugo Laporte in return and Gatineau didnt bite.
|
|
|
|
Post by bois on Jun 4, 2009 15:11:13 GMT -4
If I'm the PEI GM I would have to insist on Ellis being part of any deal involving Doyle there is no way he is not the centerpiece to that deal |
|
|
|
Post by bois on Jun 4, 2009 15:11:37 GMT -4
That guy also told me that PEI & Gatineau were in talks over Doyle but PEI insisted in getting Labrie & Hugo Laporte in return and Gatineau didnt bite. I'd prefer that deal |
|
