|
Post by JEagle on Dec 21, 2022 23:05:25 GMT -4
Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is the Eagles current draft picks in the first five rounds this season and next after the Buteau and Biggar trades. 2023 Round 1 Round 2 - Drummondville Round 2 - Saint John Round 2 - Victoriaville Round 4 - Quebec Round 4 - Sherbrooke Round 5 - Rouyn-Noranda 2024 Round 1 Round 1 - Blainville-Boisbriand Round 1 - Saint John Round 2 Round 2 - Blainville-Boisbriand Round 3 - Saint John Round 4 Round 4 - Moncton Round 5 - Charlottetown Round 5 - Val-d'Or They still have lots but just because you have lots, doesn’t mean you need to spend them on 19 YO D when you’re a bottom dweller. I get what you're saying but not all those picks are going to end up used for prospects for the Eagles so you might as well spend them when your defence looks like ours and you might still trade away your most experienced defenceman. Defence: (8) Trevor Thurston 20yo - 4th Year Veteran Career Games: 124 Zach Biggar 19yo - 3rd Year Veteran Career Games: 132 Conor Shortall 19yo - 3rd Year Veteran Career Games: 132 Jérémy Langlois 19yo - 4th Year Veteran Career Games: 158 Preston Pattengale 18yo - Rookie Career Games: 19 Xavier Daigle 17yo - Rookie Career Games: 37 Owen Arnold 17yo - Rookie Career Games: 30 Tomas Lavoie 16yo - Rookie Career Games: 24 Rookies Total GP: 110 Veteran Total GP: 546 So I'd rather bring in a quality 19yo like Biggar on the team that can help take pressure off our rookie d-men then a mediocre one and have the four rookies potentially burn out by the end of their first full season because they weren't insulated enough.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 21, 2022 23:27:56 GMT -4
JB I agree with you a lot of the time (and I've been reading this board much longer than I've been posting), but I don't even know where to start with this post. I really think we should try not to let our complete lack of faith in how this organization has been run colour how we view Sly's work specifically. I think it's absurd to be criticizing his moves he made this summer when he hasn't even been in the job for 6 months. We have literally no idea how most of the moves he has made so far will pan out. The only one that I think you can already see was a waste was Bergeron, and we still might get compensation for that. He handled the Lawrence and Belgarde situations very well, and I think we are all pretty optimistic about his draft. And you keep mentioning the moving out and 18 for a 19. I can't see who in the fan base that confused except for yourself. 2x 2nd and a 5th is great for Buteau. Getting an '03 defenceman made perfect sense as Langlois is also leaving and we can't roll with no experience on the blue line next year. I don't find that move to be confusing in the least, like many other posters. Yeah, I'd prefer he wasn't quite so trigger happy, but you are making a mountain of a molehill in your last paragraph, which is ironic considering the first 3 paragraphs are calling us silly for doing exactly that. And as for that part - we are on a hockey forum in a thread called "Eagles Roster Moves" at trade deadline. Yeah, there's probably not much in the Desruissault thing (although that poster has had info on the Sags before so it's not certain that he's wrong). But we speculate because we are bored and it is fun. I enjoy coming on here and discussing possible trades. If we removed all speculation, than this board would be a pretty boring place. I like you JB, it's clear how much you care about this team, and anyone who has followed as long as you should absolutely be jaded and pissed off. I am too, with Shaw, with Carriere, a bit with Irwin. But not every single move needs to mean the sky is falling, that seems like a very tiring way of looking at it. Re: Desruissault my only issue with the speculation is that I don't want to see players effected by an out of control rumor mill either. Is it a case of where there is smoke there is fire re: the french board post? Has anyone hear heard anything? Or are we speculating? Because if its only speculation....its rough to see that on a 16yr old unless there's more to it. That's all i'm saying...or asking I guess. Its just a bit deflating to see that as the talk vs some others. Re: the trades...The Buteau move was good. The Biggar deal was bad. Only if viewed through the lense of asset management by a bad team. Sold an 18 for 2 2nds and a 5th. Bought a 19 for a 2nd and a 3rd. Basically the net gain of moving up a round and gaining a 5th but sacrificing a year of service to do it. If viewed through the lense of winning hockey games between now and June its not as bad. But shouldn't we question buying vets at the cost as if we're buyers vs finding a vet of 2 across the league who can still eat minutes but not cost quite as much? Honest question: Do you think the overall trades Sly has made has moved the Eagles closer to changing the culture and contending or simply furthering the image that players don't want to be here and our management has a plan they're executing? I'm not seeing it. But i'm curious how others are viewing it.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 21, 2022 23:31:41 GMT -4
They still have lots but just because you have lots, doesn’t mean you need to spend them on 19 YO D when you’re a bottom dweller. I get what you're saying but not all those picks are going to end up used for prospects for the Eagles so you might as well spend them when your defence looks like ours and you might still trade away your most experienced defenceman. Defence: (8) Trevor Thurston 20yo - 4th Year Veteran Career Games: 124 Zach Biggar 19yo - 3rd Year Veteran Career Games: 132 Conor Shortall 19yo - 3rd Year Veteran Career Games: 132 Jérémy Langlois 19yo - 4th Year Veteran Career Games: 158 Preston Pattengale 18yo - Rookie Career Games: 19 Xavier Daigle 17yo - Rookie Career Games: 37 Owen Arnold 17yo - Rookie Career Games: 30 Tomas Lavoie 16yo - Rookie Career Games: 24 Rookies Total GP: 110 Veteran Total GP: 546 So I'd rather bring in a quality 19yo like Biggar on the team that can help take pressure off our rookie d-men then a mediocre one and have the four rookies potentially burn out by the end of their first full season because they weren't insulated enough. But wouldn't buying basically a younger D just make so much more sense? I could get it if we were really over achieving but we're still lingering around the bottom. Thats the frustration I have with it. Moving good picks to improve now just seems to be counter productive to the rebuild even if there's a good amount of assets. I've always thought the point of these assets were to draft elite talent and develop a pipeline of talent year over year. Its much harder to do that when you move 2 top 50 picks for 19yr olds when you're in 17th place. But clearly we're not taking that approach here and there's a lot more slight step forward/slight step back moves to come.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 21, 2022 23:38:53 GMT -4
The only thing with Biggar that I’d criticize is yes Cape Breton needs a veteran presence on the back end but you don’t have to pay a 2nd for a guy at 19 and 20 when you could probably spend less for that through 2 separate trades the next 2 years and got guys to fill those needs. Biggar is a good defenceman IMO but at 19, he’s the type of guy a contender should be trying to acquire to play a 2nd pairing type role for a 2nd and 3rd, not a team at the bottom of the league. He doesn’t move the needle enough to give up those picks when you’re a bad team who needs to build up to be in a contender. Those are valuable picks at this point in the rebuild. Squires left for a 6th, if that’s the return why not keep him to be a veteran instead of moving him? They traded down from 27 last year, got the 2nd they moved in the Biggar trade, a pick that turned into Waugh and a 4th. We’ll assume the 3rd’s wash themselves out, you turned pick 27 into 1.5 years of Biggar and a 4th round pick. When you’re a team at the bottom of the league. We’ll see if Bergeron gets moved and what you get back but you paid the 35th pick to acquire a 19 YO D from a contending team, when you’d think that’s the type of guy they’d want to keep in a year they want to win. That trade never really made sense. Arnold is only 17 but you give up a 3rd and a 6th for a guy picked in the 6th round the year before, does he look like a guy who’s worth a 3rd? I’m not so sure. I think the Buteau trade was a good return but Sly has a history of trading picks/players like candy. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, he isn’t the guy I’d want leading a rebuild because of his history. He seems to be doing more of the same. That’s a problem when you’re no where near contending. You should be using these assets to acquire prospects/players that help you build into a contender. Quite frankly trading them for veterans when you’re a bad team, is bad asset management and makes no sense. You’re either in for a rebuild or you’re not and it really doesn’t seem like they’re fully committed to it. I know you’ve been in it for a few years and it’s been fairly up and down but you can’t spend good assets to buy from the bottom with no real pay off for the valuable assets you’re giving up. I’d rather have the 16 YO kid who might actually turn into something productive for the team when you’re good or give you more ammunition to acquire pieces for when you’re good, instead of 19 YO D when you know the team is bad or project 17 YO’s that you acquired from your old team. This is how I see it too. If we kept Squires and used those 2 picks we used for Biggar along with a pick we got for Buteau don't we get a pretty good 17/18yr old that lines up with our cycle and keep the homegrown vet who happens to be the brother of one of our top young forwards? And get an extra half a season out of Squires too.
|
|
|
Post by gocapebreton on Dec 22, 2022 6:46:52 GMT -4
It is quite clear that acquiring Biggar is because of a pending Langlois trade. The reasoning, or value, of these moves will be determined after any Langlois move is completed. I would assume the net end result of these moves will be an 04 or 05 D plus at least a 1st. Rebuilding or not, the Eagles are limited on experienced D and cannot afford to loose Langlois without some form of experienced replacement. It is crucial to the team development and confidence.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 22, 2022 9:41:27 GMT -4
It is quite clear that acquiring Biggar is because of a pending Langlois trade. The reasoning, or value, of these moves will be determined after any Langlois move is completed. I would assume the net end result of these moves will be an 04 or 05 D plus at least a 1st. Rebuilding or not, the Eagles are limited on experienced D and cannot afford to loose Langlois without some form of experienced replacement. It is crucial to the team development and confidence. If having that vet D was so important why not move one of the overage forwards and acquire a cheap overage D? Paying a 2nd+3rd for a 19yr old because you're moving one will never make sense to me. We traded a 19yr old before the season for a 6th. We all agree Langlois has to go but replacing him with Biggar will never make sense to me when you look at what we've traded and more importantly who we brought in since Sly started here. You always had to have a Langlois replacement so why move anyone that may have been able to be a good leader here for the season? We're losing good picks to make up for our GM's mistakes and its only 6 months in. If youth starts moving there should be a heads spinning here.
|
|
|
Post by JEagle on Dec 22, 2022 12:20:19 GMT -4
I get what you're saying but not all those picks are going to end up used for prospects for the Eagles so you might as well spend them when your defence looks like ours and you might still trade away your most experienced defenceman. Defence: (8) Trevor Thurston 20yo - 4th Year Veteran Career Games: 124 Zach Biggar 19yo - 3rd Year Veteran Career Games: 132 Conor Shortall 19yo - 3rd Year Veteran Career Games: 132 Jérémy Langlois 19yo - 4th Year Veteran Career Games: 158 Preston Pattengale 18yo - Rookie Career Games: 19 Xavier Daigle 17yo - Rookie Career Games: 37 Owen Arnold 17yo - Rookie Career Games: 30 Tomas Lavoie 16yo - Rookie Career Games: 24 Rookies Total GP: 110 Veteran Total GP: 546 So I'd rather bring in a quality 19yo like Biggar on the team that can help take pressure off our rookie d-men then a mediocre one and have the four rookies potentially burn out by the end of their first full season because they weren't insulated enough. But wouldn't buying basically a younger D just make so much more sense? I could get it if we were really over achieving but we're still lingering around the bottom. Thats the frustration I have with it. Moving good picks to improve now just seems to be counter productive to the rebuild even if there's a good amount of assets. I've always thought the point of these assets were to draft elite talent and develop a pipeline of talent year over year. Its much harder to do that when you move 2 top 50 picks for 19yr olds when you're in 17th place. But clearly we're not taking that approach here and there's a lot more slight step forward/slight step back moves to come. Problem is acquiring those 17/18 year olds is not as simple as you make it sound, where are you getting those 17/18 year olds from for picks? most of the top ones are on teams with a cycle either exactly the same or near identical to the Eagles so your not going to be able to pry them from those teams without a major overpayment. Then if you look at the contenders with ones worth trading for most need them this season or are on cycles were they can contend for two seasons like Halifax and Victoriaville. And while drafting and developing a pipeline should be a main focus for the Eagles I agree with you there, you do need to insulate these young guys that eventually end up on the team cause if don't protect them and toss them into the deep end that's not a real recipe for future success in my eyes. Just look what happened at the beginning of this season injuries to key veteran blue liners that forced guys like Tomas Lavoie to play 25 minutes a night and while he survived not every player forced into that position would and for some it could even hurt their development. You keep bringing up the trade of Jacob Squires or going the cheap route when acquiring a veteran Jack but I'd rather our young guys learn from a higher quality player like Zach Biggar this year and next then a guy like a Jacob Squires who could very well be out of the league after this season.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 22, 2022 12:28:27 GMT -4
But wouldn't buying basically a younger D just make so much more sense? I could get it if we were really over achieving but we're still lingering around the bottom. Thats the frustration I have with it. Moving good picks to improve now just seems to be counter productive to the rebuild even if there's a good amount of assets. I've always thought the point of these assets were to draft elite talent and develop a pipeline of talent year over year. Its much harder to do that when you move 2 top 50 picks for 19yr olds when you're in 17th place. But clearly we're not taking that approach here and there's a lot more slight step forward/slight step back moves to come. Problem is acquiring those 17/18 year olds is not as simple as you make it sound, where are you getting those 17/18 year olds from for picks? most of the top ones are on teams with a cycle either exactly the same or near identical to the Eagles so your not going to be able to pry them from those teams without a major overpayment. Then if you look at the contenders with ones worth trading for most need them this season or are on cycles were they can contend for two seasons like Halifax and Victoriaville. And while drafting and developing a pipeline should be a main focus for the Eagles I agree with you there, you do need to insulate these young guys that eventually end up on the team cause if don't protect them and toss them into the deep end that's not a real recipe for future success in my eyes. Just look what happened at the beginning of this season injuries to key veteran blue liners that forced guys like Tomas Lavoie to play 25 minutes a night and while he survived not every player forced into that position would and for some it could even hurt their development. You keep bringing up the trade of Jacob Squires or going the cheap route when acquiring a veteran Jack but I'd rather our young guys learn from a higher quality player like Zach Biggar this year and next then a guy like a Jacob Squires who could very well be out of the league after this season. I'm confident that in a 17 team league there is a 17 or 18yr old defenceman available for the equivalent of 3 2nd round picks. Do they come with warts on them? Of course. So do the players we're trading away. But I would expect a veteran GM to be able to identify traits in younger players that make them attractive to his building plan. Just keeping 3 2nd rounders and using them on highly ranked kids is always an option too. If we kept Squires maybe we have an extra veteran body during this first half. The point in bringing up Squires is the move never made any sense and we're trying to justify moves to bring in the experience we moved him very cheaply for some reason. What difference does it make having Biggar vs Squires this year and next? In the big picture of new regime, culture change, rebuilding properly....adding a Biggar at that price right now will never make any sense. And yes giving away a Squires plays into that logic for me because it has to be acknowledged.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 13:14:16 GMT -4
JEagle is bang on, finding a quality 17/18 is not easy given the cycle of the teams where these prospects currently play. Here is some speculation, make a suggestion on who we should get rather then just critique what is done. I like the Bigger move, if he is hear for 1.5 years he is an upgrade in every way on what Buteau was offering this roster, and the cost was minimal to get it.
Sly is stuck still cleaning up the mess left by the previous regime, so working around a core while band-aiding a few deals to find the right fit is about the best he can do. Move a vet forward you say...who and where? Who needs what we have to offer right now for forwards?
We have 2 solid trade chips Langlois and Buteau, he did great on Buteau, let's see what happens with Langlois...to be fair to Sly, Buteau and Langlois are the first 2 deals where he has full control..everything else up until now has been reactionary. I say he is 1 for 1...anxious to see what Langlois brings.
|
|
|
Post by scotiahockey on Dec 22, 2022 14:06:24 GMT -4
JEagle is bang on, finding a quality 17/18 is not easy given the cycle of the teams where these prospects currently play. Here is some speculation, make a suggestion on who we should get rather then just critique what is done. I like the Bigger move, if he is hear for 1.5 years he is an upgrade in every way on what Buteau was offering this roster, and the cost was minimal to get it. Sly is stuck still cleaning up the mess left by the previous regime, so working around a core while band-aiding a few deals to find the right fit is about the best he can do. Move a vet forward you say...who and where? Who needs what we have to offer right now for forwards? We have 2 solid trade chips Langlois and Buteau, he did great on Buteau, let's see what happens with Langlois...to be fair to Sly, Buteau and Langlois are the first 2 deals where he has full control..everything else up until now has been reactionary. I say he is 1 for 1...anxious to see what Langlois brings. I don’t think anyone is questioning that Biggar is good and that he improves the team but the price that was paid is the price you pay when you’re a contender. Not when you’re 17th overall, if veteran D were so important they had the opportunity to retain or cheaply acquire guys to fill that veteran role. Keep Squires over Pattengale, if you’re only getting a 6th. Go get 19 year old Tessier or Carrier at the end of training camp for a 9th. You capitalize on a good return for Buteau but then you turn around and pay a premium for Biggar. You gotta insulate the young guys but I just don’t think you have to do it with a guy like Biggar if the cost is a 2nd and 3rd round pick.
|
|
|
Post by eagleeye on Dec 22, 2022 14:10:05 GMT -4
so we move Langlois , do we have to trade again for the second hole or stay with what we have and miss the playoffs which i don't think is a big deal ,play four games against the Remparts .i know sly wants to make the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by bois on Dec 22, 2022 14:28:46 GMT -4
You also forget other factors at play
Sly knows the player (Biggar) very well
Squires was acquired cheap because he simply is not very good and was dealt closer to home to a team that needed vet dmen more than the Eagles did lol
|
|
|
Post by hal on Dec 22, 2022 15:03:45 GMT -4
Sly wants to make the Playoffs ? .........Go to the Top Rung of the Ladder.....Simon wants the Playoffs ! ....He spoke last year about "not accepting losing" ....."we will be better"......so I think we can say that Sly must find a Balance of....... a Team to Make it to the Dance while having a Solid Foundation on which to construct what Simon has said he wants .....A True Title Contender at the Pre Determined 3rd Year of the Current Plan .
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 22, 2022 15:13:12 GMT -4
JEagle is bang on, finding a quality 17/18 is not easy given the cycle of the teams where these prospects currently play. Here is some speculation, make a suggestion on who we should get rather then just critique what is done. I like the Bigger move, if he is hear for 1.5 years he is an upgrade in every way on what Buteau was offering this roster, and the cost was minimal to get it. Sly is stuck still cleaning up the mess left by the previous regime, so working around a core while band-aiding a few deals to find the right fit is about the best he can do. Move a vet forward you say...who and where? Who needs what we have to offer right now for forwards? We have 2 solid trade chips Langlois and Buteau, he did great on Buteau, let's see what happens with Langlois...to be fair to Sly, Buteau and Langlois are the first 2 deals where he has full control..everything else up until now has been reactionary. I say he is 1 for 1...anxious to see what Langlois brings. Here is where we disagree: The cost was not minimal. We traded 2 top 50 picks....from 17th place. Nothing minimal about that. We did get a minimal return for Squires though who would have fit that checkbox of 19yr old vet.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 22, 2022 15:16:45 GMT -4
Sly wants to make the Playoffs ? .........Go to the Top Rung of the Ladder.....Simon wants the Playoffs ! ....He spoke last year about "not accepting losing" ....."we will be better"......so I think we can say that Sly must find a Balance of....... a Team to Make it to the Dance while having a Solid Foundation on which to construct what Simon has said he wants .....A True Title Contender at the Pre Determined 3rd Year of the Current Plan . When you're trading assets to make the QMJHL playoffs(ie move up from 17th/18th)....expecting a true title contender any time soon after is probably not much of a reality. The team isnt in a playoff spot because they have made terrible decisions. Making more terrible decisions to try and mask that doesnt improve the situation.
|
|