|
Post by Arnold Slick on Jan 7, 2016 15:32:36 GMT -4
For those wishing to see the team built into a powerhouse from the bottom up, well I think the Cats have been a victim of their own success in a way. You could also argue they've been a victim of CB and Charlottetown being completely incompetent franchises and never living up to expectations, but I digress...
This year for example, most expected the Cats to be in the bottom three of the division and likely looking to sell at mid-season. Instead they've overachieved once again while the supposed powerhouses of the division in CB and Charlottetown have underachieved...yet again.
Therefore the Cats plans to sell are thrown out the window and they start looking to add some players. They obviously made the decision that they were going to buy, but not buy in a way that completely sacrifices all future assets. Not saying I agree with the half-ass run philosophy while those around you at the top of the standings significantly load up, but that's clearly the direction they decided to go in.
Also you can’t really compare this to what Halifax did this trade period. They were near last place so of course they sold off their big assets and will be better off for it down the road.
If they just would have upgraded the goaltending then I think everyone is a lot happier right now. That's probably what makes it such a tough pill to swallow. It’s still a pretty good team overall, but as I said earlier they’re not in the same class as the big three.
Those wishing for the big rebuild there’s still hope for next season. They should finally take a step back in the standings without Garland and have some pretty good pieces like Askew, Holwell and maybe even the Klimas to move. I do believe they were going to start building towards 2019 this season, but those plans got derailed by a stronger than expected team. That shouldn’t be the case next season.
|
|
Eagle
Draft Pick
Posts: 42
|
Post by Eagle on Jan 7, 2016 15:40:28 GMT -4
Definitely a fan of Garland's but by far prefer watching a strong team than a star player. You can't win a memorial cup with Garland alone. If they put a shadow on him during the playoffs, were done. Seen it in the past.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Jan 7, 2016 16:21:36 GMT -4
Definitely a fan of Garland's but by far prefer watching a strong team than a star player. You can't win a memorial cup with Garland alone. If they put a shadow on him during the playoffs, were done. Seen it in the past. Will definitely be interesting to see ... one thing that might work in Garland's favour is that he is more of a playmaker than a shooter ... he is such a good passer, if teams try to shadow or over pursue him he could end up making them look silly when he passes to the open man. If I were playing Garland, my plan would be to try and keep him from getting the puck in the first place as much as possible, and when he does get it, hopefully he has burned more energy than he would like to do so - or is that much further from the net so he has to work that much harder once he gets the puck ... all in the goal of eventually wearing him down ... the other part that would be hand in hand would be hit him as often as possible, again in hopes that you can eventually wear him down and limit his effectiveness. Easier said than done though ...
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Jan 7, 2016 16:31:25 GMT -4
Garland looked worn out and frustrated by the end of the Halifax series last year (of course, he still put up big points against us). He then went pointless in 3 of the 4 games against Quebec. I assume he didn't look/play very energetic or effectively in that series.
Would you say you are a better team this year than last? Seems he had a better cast around him last year especially with Barbeshev - advantages on D and in goal also.
It seems like you will see a repeat of last year..easy first round, probably challenged in round 2, and out in round 3 - barring a "put the team on my back" performance for the ages from Garland.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Jan 7, 2016 16:36:12 GMT -4
Garland looked worn out and frustrated by the end of the Halifax series last year (of course, he still put up big points against us). He then went pointless in 3 of the 4 games against Quebec. I assume he didn't look/play very energetic or effectively in that series. Would you say you are a better team this year than last? Seems he had a better cast around him last year especially with Barbeshev - advantages on D and in goal also. It seems like you will see a repeat of last year..easy first round, probably challenged in round 2, and out in round 3 - barring a "put the team on my back" performance for the ages from Garland. That sounds about right to me ... Unlikely to yield a championship, but plenty of franchises would kill for back to back final four appearances - especially in two years in which they weren't really going for it. In any given year, each team has a 22% chance of making the final four mathematically (4/18) ... doing it two years in a row is about a 5% chance ... 4/18*4/18 ...
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Jan 7, 2016 16:36:18 GMT -4
Garland looked worn out and frustrated by the end of the Halifax series last year (of course, he still put up big points against us). He then went pointless in 3 of the 4 games against Quebec. I assume he didn't look/play very energetic or effectively in that series. Would you say you are a better team this year than last? Seems he had a better cast around him last year especially with Barbeshev - advantages on D and in goal also. It seems like you will see a repeat of last year..easy first round, probably challenged in round 2, and out in round 3 - barring a "put the team on my back" performance for the ages from Garland. IMO, the forward group is stronger this year and deeper. We did lose Barbashev but Weiderer, the Klimas and the improvement of Askew, Murphy and others fully compensate for his loss. The D is about the same. Kosack replaces Talbot-Tassi, while Holwell has taken a big leap forward. Sweeney and Malatesta are about the same (not as good a year for Sweeney), plus we just added Donaghey. The huge difference is in nets. Dubeau was a steady presence in nets.
|
|
|
Post by lirette on Jan 7, 2016 16:49:04 GMT -4
I am not going to bother getting in arguments with the people who cant see past their hate of a 19 year old kid to argue with any sort of logic but I will put a couple statements/questions out there for these same people to think about. 1. Where is this team in the standings today without Garland? Lots had the Cats to finish in the bottom half of the division this season 2. If the Cats win a championship it will very likely be due to Garland. If they dont it will be because they did not make the correct moves to surround him with a supporting cast to take on the other top teams(ie: a goaltender who can steal a win). Hockey is not a sport where you can win based on one player but Garland at times almost changes that argument. It actually baffles me after watching this kid for 3 seasons people can continue to make the same arguments about his game yet he continues to deliver results. Please continue to come here with your entertaining tall tales of Garland practically putting a suit on and coaching the team himself, they are hilarious, I've watched him at home for over 100 home games sitting near the Cats bench, im well aware of his personality. Seems like people would be happier with a team full of third line Danny Flynn grinders instead of watching , for my money , the most entertaining player Ive watched in my 15 years following the team. I have no issue with Garland(and I don't think that was aimed at me). However, I think it will be hard to win with so much centered around one guy, that's why I was hoping for Meier or Timshov for another line. That way you don't have to play Garland on two lines(which won't work at playoff time). Garland has his flaws but he's been a HUGE part of where the cats are, so the positives far outweigh the negatives. No not aimed at you at all, there's be an influx of new posters hopping on the Cats board, mostly eagles fans or whatever divisional team the Cats beat that night as well as some Cats fans that love to come on here with a brand new story of why no one should like Garland. We've heard it all before but I'm sure they'll continue to come back with new revelations as to why he "wont make it in the pros"
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Jan 7, 2016 17:12:16 GMT -4
I am not going to bother getting in arguments with the people who cant see past their hate of a 19 year old kid to argue with any sort of logic but I will put a couple statements/questions out there for these same people to think about. 1. Where is this team in the standings today without Garland? Lots had the Cats to finish in the bottom half of the division this season 2. If the Cats win a championship it will very likely be due to Garland. If they dont it will be because they did not make the correct moves to surround him with a supporting cast to take on the other top teams(ie: a goaltender who can steal a win). Hockey is not a sport where you can win based on one player but Garland at times almost changes that argument. It actually baffles me after watching this kid for 3 seasons people can continue to make the same arguments about his game yet he continues to deliver results. Please continue to come here with your entertaining tall tales of Garland practically putting a suit on and coaching the team himself, they are hilarious, I've watched him at home for over 100 home games sitting near the Cats bench, im well aware of his personality. Seems like people would be happier with a team full of third line Danny Flynn grinders instead of watching , for my money , the most entertaining player Ive watched in my 15 years following the team. I have no issue with Garland(and I don't think that was aimed at me). However, I think it will be hard to win with so much centered around one guy, that's why I was hoping for Meier or Timshov for another line. That way you don't have to play Garland on two lines(which won't work at playoff time). Garland has his flaws but he's been a HUGE part of where the cats are, so the positives far outweigh the negatives. Garland was only playing on two lines when we were short bodies. We'd dress 7 D and he'd rotate in with the two 4th liners a few shifts per period.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jan 7, 2016 17:46:01 GMT -4
I have no issue with Garland(and I don't think that was aimed at me). However, I think it will be hard to win with so much centered around one guy, that's why I was hoping for Meier or Timshov for another line. That way you don't have to play Garland on two lines(which won't work at playoff time). Garland has his flaws but he's been a HUGE part of where the cats are, so the positives far outweigh the negatives. Garland was only playing on two lines when we were short bodies. We'd dress 7 D and he'd rotate in with the two 4th liners a few shifts per period. Some games he rotated in with the Klimas, basically 1st and 2nd or 1st and 3rd lines. Even when he is just on one line he plays a ton, long shifts and full PP.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jan 31, 2016 18:03:15 GMT -4
Here are the players added during the trade period after a bout a month:
Bouchard 3.84 GAA .871% Richard 9 GP 3-3-6 +1 Karabacek 7 GP 1-1-2 -6 Donaghey 13 GP 1-10-11 -6 Pickard 5 GP 0-0-0 -1
Other than Donaghey, the other deals have not paid off...at all. Hopefully it turns around...
|
|
|
Post by bois on Feb 1, 2016 10:43:39 GMT -4
Richard seems to have paid off....
|
|
|
Post by hockey1981 on Feb 1, 2016 11:06:01 GMT -4
Here are the players added during the trade period after a bout a month: Bouchard 3.84 GAA .871% Richard 9 GP 3-3-6 +1 Karabacek 7 GP 1-1-2 -6 Donaghey 13 GP 1-10-11 -6 Pickard 5 GP 0-0-0 -1 Other than Donaghey, the other deals have not paid off...at all. Hopefully it turns around... Bouchard 3.48 & .867%
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Feb 1, 2016 12:18:23 GMT -4
Here are the players added during the trade period after a bout a month: Bouchard 3.84 GAA .871% Richard 9 GP 3-3-6 +1 Karabacek 7 GP 1-1-2 -6 Donaghey 13 GP 1-10-11 -6 Pickard 5 GP 0-0-0 -1 Other than Donaghey, the other deals have not paid off...at all. Hopefully it turns around... Bouchard 3.48 & .867% I went by the Q site...must not have been updated...
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Feb 1, 2016 16:39:43 GMT -4
I went by the Q site...must not have been updated... 3.48 and 0.867 are his numbers just in Moncton ... you took his overall numbers where he had a stronger team in front of him for half the year.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Feb 1, 2016 18:00:27 GMT -4
I went by the Q site...must not have been updated... 3.48 and 0.867 are his numbers just in Moncton ... you took his overall numbers where he had a stronger team in front of him for half the year. I wanted his Moncton numbers, must have grabbed the totals by mistake. It's my first mistake of the year. Hopefully my last
|
|