|
|
Post by bois on Oct 30, 2007 17:37:33 GMT -4
We're talking about Morrison here.. a 2nd rounder won't get it done I'm not talking about Morrison, we don't need another 20. Then you probably should be talking about in on your board since you jumped into a conversation where regdunlop specifacally mentioned trading Morrison and CB as a possibility  |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Oct 31, 2007 8:27:10 GMT -4
I'm not talking about Morrison, we don't need another 20. Then you probably should be talking about in on your board since you jumped into a conversation where regdunlop specifacally mentioned trading Morrison and CB as a possibility It was the "I know they've played over their heads so far but I still fully expect them to fall back soon and they will not be adding at xmas imo" part of your post I was responding to. Next time i'll dumb down the quote function for you  |
|
|
|
Post by coreyapple on Oct 31, 2007 9:47:09 GMT -4
Moving Boots was the right move.. we had a shit team and a young goalie in Mior who needed a chance to start and coreyapple 18's are not the backbone of your team but you certainly do need a few for a team to have a successful stretch of seasons...... Moving Boots was NOT the right move - the disastrous performance in goal during the second half of the season doomed the team in 04-05, we missed the playoffs, and this triggered the decrease in fan interest - it wasn't the sole cause, obviously, but it certainly got things going in the wrong direction. As for the importance of 18-year-olds, perhaps I should rephrase that. 18-year-olds are the core of your team - they are, for the most part, players who were here at 16 or 17, and they'll likely be around for another year or two. Having several good 18-year-olds shows that you can develop young players, and the fans still have something to look forward to for the following year - that's why I referred to 18-year-olds as the backbone of a Major Junior team. Assuming a 20-player roster, the ideal breakdown in age, IMO, is: 20-year-olds............2 or 3 19-year-olds............5 18-year-olds............6 or 7 16-17-year-olds......6 ....giving your team an average of........18! The Rocket are far, far away from such an age distribution, and that's a huge part of the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 31, 2007 12:40:49 GMT -4
Moving Boots was the right move.. we had a shit team and a young goalie in Mior who needed a chance to start the problem was two fold.. year one we only added Boutin.. didnt go all out to win then the next year we only sold Boutin.. didn't go all out to rebuild and coreyapple 18's are not the backbone of your team but you certainly do need a few for a team to have a successful stretch of seasons.... I do like how MacKinley is developing.. but next year looks very poor if we are to go into the year with 2 maybe 3 19 year olds.... thats ugly.. Chouinard will definitely be looking to add some 18's I think at trade time.. or else maybe he can land us some free agents.. something we've historically sucked ass at I didn't realize that you lacked 18 YOs. I think we showed earlier that you are losing 9 players next year (current 20's and all but 3 of your 19's) ... unless you make changes this season and add 18 YOs you'll be filling those 9 slots with rookies or FA's ... that becomes a very young team ... Rimouski young. I would expect that PEI will become sellers at Xmas looking to move Walker, Morrison, Latal ... Bathurst might be interested in Latal. |
|
