|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 3, 2020 13:01:33 GMT -4
Maybe this is just becoming the new norm - the insane cost of buying a championship. There are 2 ways to do this: Spend deep 2-3 years into the future, or stockpile assets in advance to use as currency. We are seeing both approaches play out. Bathurst spent deep into 2020 for their 2018 run, and Rouyn and Drummondville both spent deep into 2021 for their runs in 2019. Now the Cats are spending deep into 2022 for their 2020 run. You could argue that Chicoutimi paid even more than the Wildcats to contend this year, the difference being they had a stockpile of picks before hand to use as currency. Gatineau and Saint John both appear to be taking stockpile first, spend later approach as well. Unfortunately It's really only the one team at the end with the trophy that can say we did it right. This year we don't have that. The big advantage of stock piling assets before a run is, even after you make your deals, you still have the assets to rebuild afterwards and you don't have to ice a Jr.a team in the Q for a year or two. After the big rebuild, the cats were set for a run and not needing to empty the cupboards, they wasted it on bad deals and poor asset management. Fans will now pay the price the next 2 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 3, 2020 13:03:35 GMT -4
Maybe this is just becoming the new norm - the insane cost of buying a championship. There are 2 ways to do this: Spend deep 2-3 years into the future, or stockpile assets in advance to use as currency. We are seeing both approaches play out. Bathurst spent deep into 2020 for their 2018 run, and Rouyn and Drummondville both spent deep into 2021 for their runs in 2019. Now the Cats are spending deep into 2022 for their 2020 run. You could argue that Chicoutimi paid even more than the Wildcats to contend this year, the difference being they had a stockpile of picks before hand to use as currency. Gatineau and Saint John both appear to be taking stockpile first, spend later approach as well. It does seem to be the new norm. We certainly see the evidence at the Memorial Cup. I would be all for a league with more parity in the future, where it would actually feel like half the teams in the league have a shot in the playoffs. I'm not sure what the solution is though. I don't want to see rules that lead to teams trading 25 draft picks going back 6 years. All CHL leagues should come together on some uniform rules across all 3 leagues to benefit/save everyone from these all in's. Something where you can't move picks beyond 2 years down the road would be a good place to start. And maybe even if you move a 1st your next 1st is frozen like in the NBA. Or your 2nd is frozen in the same year you move the 1st. The bigger issue to me is GM's and coaches are on short term contracts. Fans are on long term. So a GM has no issues trading 3 years down the road along with all his prospects. It's going to be someone elses mess to clean up. But the season ticket price is likely only higher 3 years down the road while the fans are watching a bad team but has a banner in the rafters (if they're lucky). |
|
|
|
Post by catzfans on Jun 3, 2020 13:11:33 GMT -4
After that draft 4 years ago I was actually quite happy with the position we were in. We had landed Pelletier and Bellamy and had 2 firsts the following year. But then a few weeks later for some reason we abandoned what we were doing and traded everything for Anderson MacDonald. I don't mean to pick on him, because it doesn't really matter who the player was but we emptied our cupboards while rebuilding so we weren't going for it that year and we didn't have any picks to build with the following year. And sure enough we are still paying for that trade today. Yeah the MacDonald and Bellamy moves had a big impact on the cost of going for it in 2020. there were also a lot of picks wasted on non contending teams in 17-18 and 18-19. The issue with Bellamy was Rumble playing mediocre 18 and 19 year olds and he was in the stands which forced a trade. It's funny that we made that trade with Sherbroke and they ended up being the #1 team in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by seadogs10 on Jun 3, 2020 13:15:55 GMT -4
It does seem to be the new norm. We certainly see the evidence at the Memorial Cup. I would be all for a league with more parity in the future, where it would actually feel like half the teams in the league have a shot in the playoffs. I'm not sure what the solution is though. I don't want to see rules that lead to teams trading 25 draft picks going back 6 years. All CHL leagues should come together on some uniform rules across all 3 leagues to benefit/save everyone from these all in's. Something where you can't move picks beyond 2 years down the road would be a good place to start. And maybe even if you move a 1st your next 1st is frozen like in the NBA. Or your 2nd is frozen in the same year you move the 1st. The bigger issue to me is GM's and coaches are on short term contracts. Fans are on long term. So a GM has no issues trading 3 years down the road along with all his prospects. It's going to be someone elses mess to clean up. But the season ticket price is likely only higher 3 years down the road while the fans are watching a bad team but has a banner in the rafters (if they're lucky). It could work, but I would be fearful of how Q teams would perform at the Memorial Cup. They tend to need to go "all in" just to have a chance to win when going up against the teams from the OHL, due to them having a stronger pool of players to pull from. Some would still compete and win due to the probability of a small tournament like that, but it would definitely be more challenging for them. |
|
|
|
Post by catzfans on Jun 3, 2020 13:23:30 GMT -4
Maybe this is just becoming the new norm - the insane cost of buying a championship. There are 2 ways to do this: Spend deep 2-3 years into the future, or stockpile assets in advance to use as currency. We are seeing both approaches play out. Bathurst spent deep into 2020 for their 2018 run, and Rouyn and Drummondville both spent deep into 2021 for their runs in 2019. Now the Cats are spending deep into 2022 for their 2020 run. You could argue that Chicoutimi paid even more than the Wildcats to contend this year, the difference being they had a stockpile of picks before hand to use as currency. Gatineau and Saint John both appear to be taking stockpile first, spend later approach as well. Unfortunately It's really only the one team at the end with the trophy that can say we did it right. This year we don't have that. The big advantage of stock piling assets before a run is, even after you make your deals, you still have the assets to rebuild afterwards and you don't have to ice a Jr.a team in the Q for a year or two. After the big rebuild, the cats were set for a run and not needing to empty the cupboards, they wasted it on bad deals and poor asset management. Fans will now pay the price the next 2 years. Exactly. Of course it's expensive to go all in. But you need to be prudent with your assets in the years in between so you don't have multipole holes to fill. In other years we would only add 1 or 2 players. This year we needed a Goalie, 2 Centres and a D. If you remember, both times we've made the Memorial Cup we've followed it up with above .500 seasons. The problem now is we've been filling holes with future currency for the last few years even when we weren't going for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 3, 2020 13:40:35 GMT -4
All CHL leagues should come together on some uniform rules across all 3 leagues to benefit/save everyone from these all in's. Something where you can't move picks beyond 2 years down the road would be a good place to start. And maybe even if you move a 1st your next 1st is frozen like in the NBA. Or your 2nd is frozen in the same year you move the 1st. The bigger issue to me is GM's and coaches are on short term contracts. Fans are on long term. So a GM has no issues trading 3 years down the road along with all his prospects. It's going to be someone elses mess to clean up. But the season ticket price is likely only higher 3 years down the road while the fans are watching a bad team but has a banner in the rafters (if they're lucky). It could work, but I would be fearful of how Q teams would perform at the Memorial Cup. They tend to need to go "all in" just to have a chance to win when going up against the teams from the OHL, due to them having a stronger pool of players to pull from. Some would still compete and win due to the probability of a small tournament like that, but it would definitely be more challenging for them. So we're all willing to sit through 3 years of garbage in order to plan for the 1 in 18 team champion to be a contender during a round robin tournament a week after our league championship? To me you base your rules around your league. If we can't compete we shouldn't need the awful product which also doesn't help us make up any gap. And your league strength is what it is....reinforcing it by trading picks 3 years away isn't even guaranteeing you any success. We've seen great champions go 1-2 or 0-3 at the Memorial Cup just do to having a rough ride to getting there. I'm not arguing what you're saying. But if that's the argument used for the all ins....it's an easy one to rationalize a change for. As nice as a Memorial Cup win is....the league title is why we play 68 games and 4 playoff rounds in my opinion. The Memorial Cup is a cherry on top for 3 of 60 teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 3, 2020 17:54:07 GMT -4
Wow. This is brutal. The Anderson McDonald trade just keeps on giving. We just gave up 2 picks that we desperately need wth nothing in return. The trade that they overpaid was the McIsaac and Groulx one, even for Fortier, that was a lot to give up for a guy under 1PPGM. L'heureux(worth 3 1sts) Desnoyer(1st) 2021 1st and 2022 1st for a half season of Groulx and Mcisaac. I like both players bit 6 1sts is a big time overpayment. I would have passed and moved on to plan B until the price dropped 30-40%. Fortier for Hebert 2nd 2nd 3rd 4th. Also seems like a lot. Chi got Mercer + Pagliarulo for Rochette 1st 2nd and 4th Rim got Bergeron for 1st 1st 2nd and 4th + Brisson but he will play at 20. Chi got Lavoie for a 1st 2nd 2nd and 3rd |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 4, 2020 8:56:40 GMT -4
Apparently the cats are getting a lot of offers on Pelletier and Spence. They are looking for 3 assets each. What do you guys think? would you move them now at 75-80% of value or hold on until the trade period/deadline to try and get maximum?
The risk is that Covid uncertainty pushes the price down more. Both are signed so you have to assume they are gone pro in 2021.
|
|
|
|
Post by joehockey on Jun 4, 2020 9:03:34 GMT -4
Apparently the cats are getting a lot of offers on Pelletier and Spence. They are looking for 3 assets each. What do you guys think? would you move them now at 75-80% of value or hold on until the trade period/deadline to try and get maximum? The risk is that Covid uncertainty pushes the price down more. Both are signed so you have to assume they are gone pro in 2021. I would be hesitant to hold onto them because you really don’t know when the season will start and maybe teams will be less inclined to move big assets when the season could be short. While normally I’d argue that you hold onto them, I think this is a weird situation and it’s probably best to get what you can now (assuming the offers are reasonable). I’d tell teams that I was looking for a similar return as what Halifax got from Moncton. Apparently on the French board there is a rumour that Val D’Or offered one of their firsts this year, a first next year and a 17 or 18 year old player for Pelletier. That’s hard to turn down with the uncertainty surrounding next season. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jun 4, 2020 9:05:41 GMT -4
Apparently the cats are getting a lot of offers on Pelletier and Spence. They are looking for 3 assets each. What do you guys think? would you move them now at 75-80% of value or hold on until the trade period/deadline to try and get maximum? The risk is that Covid uncertainty pushes the price down more. Both are signed so you have to assume they are gone pro in 2021. I would be hesitant to hold onto them because you really don’t know when the season will start and maybe teams will be less inclined to move big assets when the season could be short. While normally I’d argue that you hold onto them, I think this is a weird situation and it’s probably best to get what you can now (assuming the offers are reasonable). I’d tell teams that I was looking for a similar return as what Halifax got from Moncton. Apparently on the French board there is a rumour that Val D’Or offered one of their firsts this year, a first next year and a 17 or 18 year old player for Pelletier. That’s hard to turn down with the uncertainty surrounding next season. Risk you take as the seller is needing to give assets back if there's no season. But i'd much rather that dilemma vs not trading them at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 4, 2020 9:12:47 GMT -4
Apparently the cats are getting a lot of offers on Pelletier and Spence. They are looking for 3 assets each. What do you guys think? would you move them now at 75-80% of value or hold on until the trade period/deadline to try and get maximum? The risk is that Covid uncertainty pushes the price down more. Both are signed so you have to assume they are gone pro in 2021. I would be hesitant to hold onto them because you really don’t know when the season will start and maybe teams will be less inclined to move big assets when the season could be short. While normally I’d argue that you hold onto them, I think this is a weird situation and it’s probably best to get what you can now (assuming the offers are reasonable). I’d tell teams that I was looking for a similar return as what Halifax got from Moncton. Apparently on the French board there is a rumour that Val D’Or offered one of their firsts this year, a first next year and a 17 or 18 year old player for Pelletier. That’s hard to turn down with the uncertainty surrounding next season. If you can get two 1sts and a decent young player for Pelletier it's hard to pass up. I don't see them getting as much as what Halifax got though. Best case is about 75%. |
|
|
|
Post by joehockey on Jun 4, 2020 9:16:28 GMT -4
I would be hesitant to hold onto them because you really don’t know when the season will start and maybe teams will be less inclined to move big assets when the season could be short. While normally I’d argue that you hold onto them, I think this is a weird situation and it’s probably best to get what you can now (assuming the offers are reasonable). I’d tell teams that I was looking for a similar return as what Halifax got from Moncton. Apparently on the French board there is a rumour that Val D’Or offered one of their firsts this year, a first next year and a 17 or 18 year old player for Pelletier. That’s hard to turn down with the uncertainty surrounding next season. If you can get two 1sts and a decent young player for Pelletier it's hard to pass up. I don't see them getting as much as what Halifax got though. Best case is about 75%. Yeah, Moncton paid through the nose for them so I doubt anyone will offer that. But I think you set the market there and see what gets offered. Tomorrow could be extremely interesting or extremely boring for wildcat fans. Does the trade period only open exactly when the draft starts or does it open slightly before? |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Jun 4, 2020 9:24:05 GMT -4
I would be hesitant to hold onto them because you really don’t know when the season will start and maybe teams will be less inclined to move big assets when the season could be short. While normally I’d argue that you hold onto them, I think this is a weird situation and it’s probably best to get what you can now (assuming the offers are reasonable). I’d tell teams that I was looking for a similar return as what Halifax got from Moncton. Apparently on the French board there is a rumour that Val D’Or offered one of their firsts this year, a first next year and a 17 or 18 year old player for Pelletier. That’s hard to turn down with the uncertainty surrounding next season. Risk you take as the seller is needing to give assets back if there's no season. But i'd much rather that dilemma vs not trading them at all. It's the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Jun 4, 2020 9:24:13 GMT -4
I would be hesitant to hold onto them because you really don’t know when the season will start and maybe teams will be less inclined to move big assets when the season could be short. While normally I’d argue that you hold onto them, I think this is a weird situation and it’s probably best to get what you can now (assuming the offers are reasonable). I’d tell teams that I was looking for a similar return as what Halifax got from Moncton. Apparently on the French board there is a rumour that Val D’Or offered one of their firsts this year, a first next year and a 17 or 18 year old player for Pelletier. That’s hard to turn down with the uncertainty surrounding next season. Risk you take as the seller is needing to give assets back if there's no season. But i'd much rather that dilemma vs not trading them at all. I would do it ... even if you have to send something back later. We basically have no picks or young talent in our system (exaggerating a bit, but you get the drift) ... if we can add 3-4 guys that can play next year, to me we do it given the shape of our current roster. I think you can craft something with a bit of shared risk ... we get something of value now, they get the rights to the player, and either they pay more later, or we return something later ... Something like: To Moncton 2020 1st To Val d'Or Pelletier If 2020-21 season is cancelled, we send Val d'Or a 2nd or 3rd in the 2021 draft (ignoring for the moment which picks we have - you get the idea) If season proceeds, we get 2021 1st from Val d'Or End result - if no season, VD traded a 1st for a future 2nd or 3rd; if a season, Moncton traded Pelletier for 2 1sts (which I am assuming is a bit of a discount) |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Jun 4, 2020 9:33:58 GMT -4
I would be hesitant to hold onto them because you really don’t know when the season will start and maybe teams will be less inclined to move big assets when the season could be short. While normally I’d argue that you hold onto them, I think this is a weird situation and it’s probably best to get what you can now (assuming the offers are reasonable). I’d tell teams that I was looking for a similar return as what Halifax got from Moncton. Apparently on the French board there is a rumour that Val D’Or offered one of their firsts this year, a first next year and a 17 or 18 year old player for Pelletier. That’s hard to turn down with the uncertainty surrounding next season. Risk you take as the seller is needing to give assets back if there's no season. But i'd much rather that dilemma vs not trading them at all. I think you take the deal. The risk that we face now is not being able to trade these two high asset players to spark our rebuild. I'd rather get into a deal that could go sour than not get into a deal at all. Chances are that there will be a 20-21 season in some form ... especially after the world sees Pro sports back to work. But lets say that Moncton gets a 2020 1st (and other assets) and drafts a kid, and then the season gets called off. Does that mean we just give them the kid we drafted ? What if the season gets going and we all play 15 games, and then the wheels fall off and COVID is back in a big way and we all shut down and stay home again ? That would seem to me to be a completed trade and not reversible. If we are sellers and the buyers are calling, we should be setting the terms. Its like selling a house and 3 offers come in, all conditional on a home inspection. You counter them all with a price and "no home inspection" ... no conditions. Somebody always wants it bad enough to take it as is. |
|
