|
Post by Murph on Nov 2, 2009 13:33:44 GMT -4
What do you consider a "true #1". Joanthan Boutin and Jason Churchill were both #1's in this league, even if you don't consider Yetman a "true #1". If by "true #1", you mean a top 5 goaltender, then no he didn't. But there are more than 5 teams in the league. There are more than 5, #1 goalies. But over an 8 year period, we are talking much more than 5 guys ... probably not 40 guys, as some guys would be top 5 for multiple seasons (but not that many) ... so lets say that over 8 years, 25 goalies came through the league that would have been considered top-5 at some point in their careers ... if none of them were drafted by Patenaude, then to me that represents below average performance ... was it because he couldn't identify good goalies? Probably not, because he did well stealing a few guys in trades ... In all likelihood, he probably just didn't place as much importance on drafting a goalie as some teams do ... because he figured he could get one somewhere else on the cheap later on ... sometimes that worked out (Lavallee, Duchesne), other times he got caught with his pants down (the Pelletier/Yetman combo on a top team comes to mind) ... Sharrow said he never drafted a #1 goalie. I questioned his assment of what exactly a #1 goalie was. I never presumed to say Patenaude was successful in drafting goalies.... just pointing out that his landed more than zero.... which was the initial claim made by Sharrow.
|
|
|
Post by Murph on Nov 2, 2009 13:34:51 GMT -4
Except the mess the team was in, isn't solely because of the trading of picks over the course of 8 years. For one, the Marchand deal was huge. Two 1sts, and a 3rd gone. That wasn't his deal though, so you can't hang that on him. Smith wanted Marchand for financial reasons, and because he thought Marchand and Giroux were even players.... which certainly wasn't the case. That deal had huge implication as to the mess were were in last year. Another problem, wasn't even with the trading of picks. It was bad drafting. Cichy, MacAskill, Daniel Smith..... they had picks then, they just didn't make smart decisions. Ultimately, Patenaude is responsible for that..... however it doesn't play into the theory that all his trading of picks hamstrung the franchise. There was also his relucatance to sell off Brine, Carnegie, Cabana. I don't know who's call that was, but that hurt the team too. It's not only having picks, but knowing when to sell, is a big part of staying competitive. Nobody can win every year, so you have to know when it's not your year. Now Halifax is in a strong position with regards to picks. Patenaude has a hand in that as well, by turning Logan MacMillian into 4 picks. Patenaude made some mistakes with regards to picks, but nobody was complaining (except Gman) when the team was a top team for 6 of 7 years (5 of those Patenaude's doing). The guy gets shit on for how he finished up. However the two biggest factors in that IMO, were the failure to sell in 2006 and the Marchand deal. I know for sure the Marchand deal was a Bobby Smith call, and I have a feeling Smith played a big role in the 2006 situation as well, but I can't say for sure. Thankfully for Halifax fans, Bobby Smith appears to be steering the team in the right direction, and is giving Russell some rope. Something I don't think Patenaude got very much of.... or at least as much as he should have. Do you know for a fact that it was Smith that wanted Marchand or are you just making up your own theory because it fits your argument? You can't jusy blame Smith when Patenaude screws up and give him credit when he does something good, ultimately he is the GM and what happens is on his watch. I know for a fact with regards to Marchand
|
|
|
Post by Murph on Nov 2, 2009 13:50:41 GMT -4
...but nobody was complaining (except Gman) when the team was a top team for 6 of 7 years (5 of those Patenaude's doing). Huh? Firstly, your definition of "top team" and mine must be really different. By my calculations, they had 3 top 5 teams during Patenaude's time here. Two of them were successful by way of the now illegal boomerang trade, and one was a total clusterfuck which BARELY finished top 5 despite the wealth of talent. Second, when Patenaude was let go, I made a post outlining the predicament he put the franchise in. Was it not factual? You listed off the bad trades he made, but failed to mention just how bad they were by giving the details of how those players were acquired. A lot of top 3 round picks were pissed away to acquire those guys. Even the "good" trades he made certainly didn't come cheaply. Ask yourself, and be honest. Did Patenaude get good value on any of his trades besides the following? Dallaire Lavallee Duchesne (see a pattern here?) Brine Voracek I can't think of any other trade he made where he came out on top in terms of getting good value from it. Trading a 1st and 2nd+ for Sparre and Beaulieu hardly qualifies as a good trade. That's simply spending for talent. I consider a top team, a team that's in the top 3rd of the league. That gives the Mooseheads 99,00,01,02,03,05. 6 of 7 years, and I indicated the first 2, pre-dated Patenaude. I never said league powerhouse, which is apparently your defination of a "top team". As far as other "wins", not counting those that canbeer mentioned, and not counting those which involved players as well as picks like Scandella/Vrana)..... there's: Laprise/Mandeville for a 1st and 3rd. he then flipped Laprise for a 3rd, and then dealt Mandeville for 3 picks, which I think ended up as Sharrow, Boutin... can't recall the other. That seems like a good deal as well. I consider the Sparre deal a big win. A 1st and 2nd for 1st line winger. Back then, had Halifax had waited until the trading period the following year, they would have paid more than that.... plus they got Beaulieu on top of it. I consider Thatcher Bell in the same context, though not as big of a win.... certainly not "pissing away" a draft pick, which was the initial claim. "Pissing away" would imply Halifax got nothing of value in return, would it not? Even if you want to argue they overpaid for a guy, go ahead. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the insinuation, that Patenaude pissed away these picks.
|
|
|
Post by donger on Nov 2, 2009 14:30:16 GMT -4
why doesn't every one just focus on how to correct problems and stop talking about who caused them.with the worst start in the league we have to point the finger totally at Mr.Russell and believe me i have no problem doing this for when you have the record he had last year and again this year, i have trouble with the fact that he is still gm/coach' then in the metro he says," that was the worst he ever seen his team play"( referring to the last game the moose played .well cam, wake up! it's the coaches job to motivate his team and get them ready.you are the gm/coach and the buck stops with you.this was the team that russell decided to go with and he had the power to make whatever changes he wanted.so lets give up talking about rebuilding and talk about re-coaching an re - gm. any one who believes a five game home stand will change things , better think again.all the fans that used to attend games will decide russell's fate.his door is closing slowly but make no mistake it will soon close all the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 14:30:35 GMT -4
Huh? Firstly, your definition of "top team" and mine must be really different. By my calculations, they had 3 top 5 teams during Patenaude's time here. Two of them were successful by way of the now illegal boomerang trade, and one was a total clusterfuck which BARELY finished top 5 despite the wealth of talent. Second, when Patenaude was let go, I made a post outlining the predicament he put the franchise in. Was it not factual? You listed off the bad trades he made, but failed to mention just how bad they were by giving the details of how those players were acquired. A lot of top 3 round picks were pissed away to acquire those guys. Even the "good" trades he made certainly didn't come cheaply. Ask yourself, and be honest. Did Patenaude get good value on any of his trades besides the following? Dallaire Lavallee Duchesne (see a pattern here?) Brine Voracek I can't think of any other trade he made where he came out on top in terms of getting good value from it. Trading a 1st and 2nd+ for Sparre and Beaulieu hardly qualifies as a good trade. That's simply spending for talent. I consider a top team, a team that's in the top 3rd of the league. That gives the Mooseheads 99,00,01,02,03,05. 6 of 7 years, and I indicated the first 2, pre-dated Patenaude. I never said league powerhouse, which is apparently your defination of a "top team". As far as other "wins", not counting those that canbeer mentioned, and not counting those which involved players as well as picks like Scandella/Vrana)..... there's: Laprise/Mandeville for a 1st and 3rd. he then flipped Laprise for a 3rd, and then dealt Mandeville for 3 picks, which I think ended up as Sharrow, Boutin... can't recall the other. That seems like a good deal as well. I consider the Sparre deal a big win. A 1st and 2nd for 1st line winger. Back then, had Halifax had waited until the trading period the following year, they would have paid more than that.... plus they got Beaulieu on top of it. I consider Thatcher Bell in the same context, though not as big of a win.... certainly not "pissing away" a draft pick, which was the initial claim. "Pissing away" would imply Halifax got nothing of value in return, would it not? Even if you want to argue they overpaid for a guy, go ahead. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the insinuation, that Patenaude pissed away these picks. I am right in saying this period was when moosehead owned the team and Cameron was president? Then you look at the next 4 years (5 when you count this season) we only had a team in the top third of the legue once. This would be the Bobby Smith era. Marcel seemed to have some success before Bobby Smith controlled the team. Maybe Bobby is finally getting it but I believe he deserves as much of the blame as Marcel for the mess that we are in. Did Marcel all of a sudden run out of luck or was someone micro managing him? I mean why would you ever draft Daniel Smith when you could have just invited him to camp. I am not saying that Marcel was a genus as a GM and like most GM's he had his weaknesses. But somtimes the guy at the top has to take some of the blame.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Nov 2, 2009 14:34:17 GMT -4
Do you know for a fact that it was Smith that wanted Marchand or are you just making up your own theory because it fits your argument? You can't jusy blame Smith when Patenaude screws up and give him credit when he does something good, ultimately he is the GM and what happens is on his watch. I know for a fact with regards to Marchand Sorry, I didn't realise you and Marcel shared an office...
|
|
|
Post by Gman on Nov 2, 2009 14:36:35 GMT -4
I consider a top team, a team that's in the top 3rd of the league. That gives the Mooseheads 99,00,01,02,03,05. 6 of 7 years, and I indicated the first 2, pre-dated Patenaude. I never said league powerhouse, which is apparently your defination of a "top team". As far as other "wins", not counting those that canbeer mentioned, and not counting those which involved players as well as picks like Scandella/Vrana)..... there's: Laprise/Mandeville for a 1st and 3rd. he then flipped Laprise for a 3rd, and then dealt Mandeville for 3 picks, which I think ended up as Sharrow, Boutin... can't recall the other. That seems like a good deal as well. I consider the Sparre deal a big win. A 1st and 2nd for 1st line winger. Back then, had Halifax had waited until the trading period the following year, they would have paid more than that.... plus they got Beaulieu on top of it. I consider Thatcher Bell in the same context, though not as big of a win.... certainly not "pissing away" a draft pick, which was the initial claim. "Pissing away" would imply Halifax got nothing of value in return, would it not? Even if you want to argue they overpaid for a guy, go ahead. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the insinuation, that Patenaude pissed away these picks. I am right in saying this period was when moosehead owned the team and Cameron was president? Then you look at the next 4 years (5 when you count this season) we only had a team in the top third of the legue once. This would be the Bobby Smith era. Marcel seemed to have some success before Bobby Smith controlled the team. Maybe Bobby is finally getting it but I believe he deserves as much of the blame as Marcel for the mess that we are in. Did Marcel all of a sudden run out of luck or was someone micro managing him? I mean why would you ever draft Daniel Smith when you could have just invited him to camp. I am not saying that Marcel was a genus as a GM and like most GM's he had his weaknesses. But somtimes the guy at the top has to take some of the blame. Can't invite a 16 YO to camp, but I agree, Patenaude's performance took a definite hit once Smith took over.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Nov 2, 2009 14:37:09 GMT -4
I consider a top team, a team that's in the top 3rd of the league. That gives the Mooseheads 99,00,01,02,03,05. 6 of 7 years, and I indicated the first 2, pre-dated Patenaude. I never said league powerhouse, which is apparently your defination of a "top team". As far as other "wins", not counting those that canbeer mentioned, and not counting those which involved players as well as picks like Scandella/Vrana)..... there's: Laprise/Mandeville for a 1st and 3rd. he then flipped Laprise for a 3rd, and then dealt Mandeville for 3 picks, which I think ended up as Sharrow, Boutin... can't recall the other. That seems like a good deal as well. I consider the Sparre deal a big win. A 1st and 2nd for 1st line winger. Back then, had Halifax had waited until the trading period the following year, they would have paid more than that.... plus they got Beaulieu on top of it. I consider Thatcher Bell in the same context, though not as big of a win.... certainly not "pissing away" a draft pick, which was the initial claim. "Pissing away" would imply Halifax got nothing of value in return, would it not? Even if you want to argue they overpaid for a guy, go ahead. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the insinuation, that Patenaude pissed away these picks. I am right in saying this period was when moosehead owned the team and Cameron was president? Then you look at the next 4 years (5 when you count this season) we only had a team in the top third of the legue once. This would be the Bobby Smith era. Marcel seemed to have some success before Bobby Smith controlled the team. Maybe Bobby is finally getting it but I believe he deserves as much of the blame as Marcel for the mess that we are in. Did Marcel all of a sudden run out of luck or was someone micro managing him? I mean why would you ever draft Daniel Smith when you could have just invited him to camp. Yes the drafting of Smith so early, and the Marchand trade (although I still think a better/more capable coaching staff could have got alot more out of that offensive roster) are two of the more glaring "hands on" owner decisions that hurt the team.
|
|
|
Post by canbeer on Nov 2, 2009 14:43:38 GMT -4
why doesn't every one just focus on how to correct problems and stop talking about who caused them.with the worst start in the league we have to point the finger totally at Mr.Russell and believe me i have no problem doing this for when you have the record he had last year and again this year, i have trouble with the fact that he is still gm/coach' then in the metro he says," that was the worst he ever seen his team play"( referring to the last game the moose played .well cam, wake up! it's the coaches job to motivate his team and get them ready.you are the gm/coach and the buck stops with you.this was the team that russell decided to go with and he had the power to make whatever changes he wanted.so lets give up talking about rebuilding and talk about re-coaching an re - gm. any one who believes a five game home stand will change things , better think again.all the fans that used to attend games will decide russell's fate.his door is closing slowly but make no mistake it will soon close all the way. Give up talking about rebuilding? So does a rebuild usually only take 20 games and then it's back to contending? Should this team go with older players and maybe be buyers at Christmas? Do you think they should have kept O'Connor and Piette? Maybe the prior ways were right in never selling and rebuilding because now that they're actually getting younger it's sad to see fans freaking out over their record.
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Nov 2, 2009 14:50:11 GMT -4
why doesn't every one just focus on how to correct problems and stop talking about who caused them.with the worst start in the league we have to point the finger totally at Mr.Russell and believe me i have no problem doing this for when you have the record he had last year and again this year, i have trouble with the fact that he is still gm/coach' then in the metro he says," that was the worst he ever seen his team play"( referring to the last game the moose played .well cam, wake up! it's the coaches job to motivate his team and get them ready.you are the gm/coach and the buck stops with you.this was the team that russell decided to go with and he had the power to make whatever changes he wanted.so lets give up talking about rebuilding and talk about re-coaching an re - gm. any one who believes a five game home stand will change things , better think again.all the fans that used to attend games will decide russell's fate.his door is closing slowly but make no mistake it will soon close all the way. Give up talking about rebuilding? So does a rebuild usually only take 20 games and then it's back to contending? Should this team go with older players and maybe be buyers at Christmas? Do you think they should have kept O'Connor and Piette? Maybe the prior ways were right in never selling and rebuilding because now that they're actually getting younger it's sad to see fans freaking out over their record. Yeah there are a few regular posters (Sharrow etc) who can't deal with the situation. Most feel that despite the losses, we are on the right track with young players and alot of picks to use in the future. Sadly though, with attendance dropping so much, it appears the endless debate on this board over the years saying "Rebuild! The fans will support it!" may not be entirely true lol. Then again, attendance is down quite a bit in many makets for reasons discussed in other threads.
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on Nov 2, 2009 15:05:38 GMT -4
I know for a fact with regards to Marchand Sorry, I didn't realise you and Marcel shared an office... Im backing up Muprh on this...Marcel wanted Giroux and actually negotiated a better deal where Halifax gave Oconnor as futures and got to keep every 1st rd pick...which would have allowed them to draft 1st overall instead of trading Oconnor for the 15th pick
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Nov 2, 2009 15:13:27 GMT -4
why doesn't every one just focus on how to correct problems and stop talking about who caused them.with the worst start in the league we have to point the finger totally at Mr.Russell and believe me i have no problem doing this for when you have the record he had last year and again this year, i have trouble with the fact that he is still gm/coach' then in the metro he says," that was the worst he ever seen his team play"( referring to the last game the moose played .well cam, wake up! it's the coaches job to motivate his team and get them ready.you are the gm/coach and the buck stops with you.this was the team that russell decided to go with and he had the power to make whatever changes he wanted.so lets give up talking about rebuilding and talk about re-coaching an re - gm. any one who believes a five game home stand will change things , better think again.all the fans that used to attend games will decide russell's fate.his door is closing slowly but make no mistake it will soon close all the way. Not even Scotty Bowman could change Halifax's situation. Russell has done nothing but a good job running the team to this point. The problem is that fans like you have no idea what patience and developing are about. That team is working hard, and as a fan that's all you can ask for. It's not Cam's fault there's no veteran talent to work with.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Nov 2, 2009 15:16:14 GMT -4
I am right in saying this period was when moosehead owned the team and Cameron was president? Then you look at the next 4 years (5 when you count this season) we only had a team in the top third of the legue once. This would be the Bobby Smith era. Marcel seemed to have some success before Bobby Smith controlled the team. Maybe Bobby is finally getting it but I believe he deserves as much of the blame as Marcel for the mess that we are in. Did Marcel all of a sudden run out of luck or was someone micro managing him? I mean why would you ever draft Daniel Smith when you could have just invited him to camp. I am not saying that Marcel was a genus as a GM and like most GM's he had his weaknesses. But somtimes the guy at the top has to take some of the blame. Can't invite a 16 YO to camp, but I agree, Patenaude's performance took a definite hit once Smith took over. What was the rush to have him at 16? Couldn't he of just moved to Halifax and played a year or Midget or Jr A?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 15:18:55 GMT -4
Can't invite a 16 YO to camp, but I agree, Patenaude's performance took a definite hit once Smith took over. What was the rush to have him at 16? Couldn't he of just moved to Halifax and played a year or Midget or Jr A? That should have been what happened then when it was determined he was not good enough to even play triple a midget that might have been the end of the experiment.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Nov 2, 2009 15:28:32 GMT -4
why doesn't every one just focus on how to correct problems and stop talking about who caused them.with the worst start in the league we have to point the finger totally at Mr.Russell and believe me i have no problem doing this for when you have the record he had last year and again this year, i have trouble with the fact that he is still gm/coach' then in the metro he says," that was the worst he ever seen his team play"( referring to the last game the moose played .well cam, wake up! it's the coaches job to motivate his team and get them ready.you are the gm/coach and the buck stops with you.this was the team that russell decided to go with and he had the power to make whatever changes he wanted.so lets give up talking about rebuilding and talk about re-coaching an re - gm. any one who believes a five game home stand will change things , better think again.all the fans that used to attend games will decide russell's fate.his door is closing slowly but make no mistake it will soon close all the way. Not even Scotty Bowman could change Halifax's situation. Russell has done nothing but a good job running the team to this point. The problem is that fans like you have no idea what patience and developing are about. That team is working hard, and as a fan that's all you can ask for. It's not Cam's fault there's no veteran talent to work with. Russell seems to have laid the groundwork for a decent rebuild as GM ... but I have yet to see anything since he has been in charge to suggest that he is anything other than a lousy coach ... His teams underachieve regardless of skill level (loaded, mid-pack, rebuilding) ...As I said, he shows potential as GM, but I don't know how much longer you justify keeping him as head coach - this year is already a lost cause ... but if the Moose keep their current pace, should he be back as coach next year?
|
|