|
Post by bois on Apr 2, 2010 20:42:50 GMT -4
Cant see how Ashley could be promised 2nd line minutes in SJ next year if they bring back Kirkpatrick, Galiev, Jurco, Huberdeau, MacAulay,Anthony, Phillips etc..no room to guarantee a rookie that kind of ice interesting... would Ben Duffy and our 10th pick be enough for your 2nd overall and say Garrett Clarke? just a thought Garrett Clarke has shown a hell of a lot more then Duffy. Duffy and you 1st pick for Clarke and a 10th would be closer to the true value. Give your head a shake Bois. our firstpick is tenth webber my head shakes everytime i read you post
|
|
|
Post by mikeb on Apr 2, 2010 20:50:16 GMT -4
Cant see how Ashley could be promised 2nd line minutes in SJ next year if they bring back Kirkpatrick, Galiev, Jurco, Huberdeau, MacAulay,Anthony, Phillips etc..no room to guarantee a rookie that kind of ice interesting... would Ben Duffy and our 10th pick be enough for your 2nd overall and say Garrett Clarke? just a thought Garrett Clarke has shown a hell of a lot more then Duffy. Duffy and you 1st pick for Clarke and a 10th would be closer to the true value. Give your head a shake Bois. Clarke is a time bomb. That drops his value somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by howitzer on Apr 2, 2010 20:55:07 GMT -4
We cant win anything!! In all seriousness though, what does it matter. Sure it would have been nice to be #1 but regardless, we're still going to get a great player at #2 (if we keep the pick). I'm all for trading down too. If there is no consensus #1-#2 guys then why not maximize the asset, move down a few spots and pick up an extra pick or 2 or a 17-18 yr old who can step in and help. I wouldnt want us to drop out of the top 6-7 picks. But it seems the drop off from the 1-2 spots down to 6-7 in this draft is marginal, so I think you'll see Cam get creative with the pick. Based on your logic, why would any team want to trade up? Because certain teams might like certain players and not want to risk that player being off the board at #5 or #6 so they may want to move up to grab them. Maybe a team absolutely loves Taylor Burke, and wants him more then any other prospect. Take Val D'or for example. Maybe they want Burke but hear Chicoutimi is going to take him at #3. So they make a deal to move up. Halifax might rank a group of 5-6 players they like as the top prospects, but another team might have a list only consisting of 2-3 players. Halifax would have a different mindset going into the draft compared to that other team. It all depends how motivated the other team is to move up. Maybe they want to make a splash with a big deal. Just because one organization evaluates the talent one way, doesnt mean all the other teams feel the same way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2010 22:29:40 GMT -4
Garrett Clarke has shown a hell of a lot more then Duffy. Duffy and you 1st pick for Clarke and a 10th would be closer to the true value. Give your head a shake Bois. our firstpick is tenth webber my head shakes everytime i read you post I thought you meant a tenth round pick, I am high on Clarke I do not want to lose him. Even so I dont thing Clarke for Duffy happens unless we get something else.
|
|
|
Post by Hfx2012 on Apr 3, 2010 2:15:18 GMT -4
our firstpick is tenth webber my head shakes everytime i read you post I thought you meant a tenth round pick, I am high on Clarke I do not want to lose him. Even so I dont thing Clarke for Duffy happens unless we get something else. Web, I'm with you. Clarke will be a Moose or he goes to Quebec or Drummondville, not another maritime team. And he's definitely shown much more than Duffy has.
|
|
|
Post by Fred The Moose on Apr 3, 2010 5:50:24 GMT -4
I really think Clarke will stay and start year here unless there is a big deal offered,but if he does not come around to where Cam wants him he will be a suitcase in December to Val D'Or....
|
|
|
Post by Murph on Apr 3, 2010 7:57:39 GMT -4
Garrett Clarke has shown a hell of a lot more then Duffy. Duffy and you 1st pick for Clarke and a 10th would be closer to the true value. Give your head a shake Bois. Clarke is a time bomb. That drops his value somewhat. Yeah somewhat..... but he's a late '92 that has already shown signs he could be a top pairing defenceman as early as next year. If he didn't have on-ice discipline issues, he's value would be huge. I wouldn't trade Clarke straight up for Duffy, and I doubt many Moosehead people would, despite all Clarke's short comings. A better deal would be Duffy and #10, for Clarke and #19. The draft this year falls off after the top 2, and then again after say #8, so going from 2 to 10, is huge. Take Clarke out of the equasion, and maybe Duffy and #10 is worth #2.
|
|
|
Post by sharrow on Apr 3, 2010 10:13:56 GMT -4
that would be my guess as well Murph, PEI are seeking a top D-man prospect so it could equate to Duffy and their 10th overall pick to Halifax for our 2nd overall pick and hopefully our player that we like is still there at #10.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Strap on Apr 3, 2010 10:56:34 GMT -4
that would be my guess as well Murph, PEI are seeking a top D-man prospect so it could equate to Duffy and their 10th overall pick to Halifax for our 2nd overall pick and hopefully our player that we like is still there at #10. Wasn't Murph saying that we keep our #2 and and trade Clarke and #19 to PEI for Duffy and #10. That makes the most sense. If we trade away our 2nd overall pick for a #10 pick and Duffy I will be totally pissed. What is the big facination with Duffy. He is from Halifax and he has been mostly a bust so far. We want to give up our 2nd overall pick for an unsure thing. That is pretty stupid in my humble opinion.
|
|
jpro
Draft Pick
Posts: 21
|
Post by jpro on Apr 3, 2010 11:33:16 GMT -4
I am new to this board and like to join this interesting discussion. The moose may want to wait to see what BC will select for their first pick. If the top D (that the mooseheads may want) is still available, then select him and perhaps deal Clarke for a valued upgrade forward + a pick. I too like Clarke and hopes he remains in Hfx, however, if the opportunity to improve the team, short or long term is there, go for it.
I must agree, Duffy has not played to what was expected of him and may be a gamble.
|
|
|
Post by Score on Apr 3, 2010 11:37:57 GMT -4
. I must agree, Duffy has not played to what was expected of him and may be a gamble. Clarke too is a gamble for the Moose...for any team. He's been in the "dog house" most season it seemed.....I doubt Cam will put up with much more.....if any....of his antics.
|
|
|
Post by canbeer on Apr 3, 2010 11:43:19 GMT -4
Why would we move Clarke for Duffy and move down in the draft? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
I wouldn't mind having Duffy (offensive 18 year old would be nice to add) but his value would be over estimated in that deal. Clarke had better PPG number than Duffy last year. Duffy took a big step back last year and while he has upside if his upside and offensive game doesn't materialize he's not exactly a guy that would be a role player. He was under 50% on faceoffs and he's about a soft as they come. I wouldn't mind having him and I get the sense there's a good chance a deal with PEI will be made but I'm not exactly a fan and the price would need to be right.
Our 1st rd pick and Clarke are both big assets for the Moose and using both in a deal targeting Duffy would be a horrible idea. Oligny would have to be part of the equasion for that to make sense.
If we trade Clarke we're just going to be in the market for another top Dman next year... may as well give him the opportunity to work out this year. He could be one of our leading scorers next year as well as most physical player, provide toughness and be a big part of a great, young developing D squad.
|
|
jpro
Draft Pick
Posts: 21
|
Post by jpro on Apr 3, 2010 11:48:52 GMT -4
Agree. However, I would imagine, he was the subject of many discussiond around the league. Who knows, someone else may want to take the gamble. He certainly has a lot of potential that may be worth the gamble.
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Slick on Apr 3, 2010 12:32:02 GMT -4
Who cares maybe work our favour to get the Mem cup. The Mooseheads organization cares, I care and I'm sure a decent chunk of fellow fans care as well... Oh ya and losing the coin toss might give us an advantage in hosting the Memorial Cup too. I'm actually pretty disappointed that Halifax didn't get the draft in 2011. I attended the draft in Sydney and the one here in Moncton and it was a blast each time. Both the draft itself and the night out on the town afterward ;D Was looking forward to attending another one soon but I guess that will have to wait.
|
|
|
Post by Murph on Apr 3, 2010 13:15:47 GMT -4
. I must agree, Duffy has not played to what was expected of him and may be a gamble. Clarke too is a gamble for the Moose...for any team. He's been in the "dog house" most season it seemed.....I doubt Cam will put up with much more.....if any....of his antics. The only issues with Clarke is that he takes too many bad penalties. That's a very coachable downfall for any player, even one that seems difficult to coach. Clarke will be entering his draft year, and his stock has fallen to do his lack of discipline, so he'll be extra motivated to stay out of the box and turn that aspect of his game around. With Duffy, he just looks like a bust. That to me, is far worse. How much potential is left with Duffy? Duffy's the bigger gamble than Clarke. At least with Clarke you know exactly what to fix, and you know that if it does get fixed, he'll be an elite player. With Duffy, it's unsure what the problem is exactly, but he's an offensive player who doesn't score. There's no gaurentee he'll ever amount to anything, even with great coaching.
|
|