|
Post by eagleeye on Dec 28, 2022 12:54:32 GMT -4
yes Langlois's game picked up a lot over the past month especially when your getting trade to your home town and such a big rink to play in . i still think we will get a player or draft if he plays as an OA
|
|
|
Post by blueeagle on Dec 28, 2022 13:03:39 GMT -4
A couple of things I find very frustrating as I follow the Eagles, the fans and all passion on these boards. The fans have basically said by current ticket sales they are not coming back until we have a winning team, which causes Simon to pull strings forcing the hand of management to react and try to make the play-offs now vs a proper re-build. I personally see this more in the way the team is being coached vs what Sly is actually doing. Let's look at the Langlois deal. Was this deal based on what Langlois wanted or what was best for the Eagles, more importantly is the return in line of what he is really worth or what we the fans think he is worth. We pick apart the deal like we should have done way better, but maybe, just maybe we took what we could get. Langlois is without question playing way below his potential, so if I am a GM I am not overpaying for a player is playing worse at 19 then he was at 17. Does anyone actually think that Langlois is 9 months away from playing pro hockey as a 20? At this point I am not confident he will even play top 4 in QUE. We look at him as the 17 year old that had Pro potential, but with 6 points 5v5 in 27 games, I am not convinced we got anymore then we deserved. Desruisseaux (Newcombe) now with a 2nd 1st coming in, love the deal. I don't love the fact that he wanted out, but Cape is not the only team going thru these type of requests. Biggar - still like the deal, although no one agrees with me Schmitt - This one boggles my mind, the only thing I can see is we got into a bidding war with another team and we were dead set on getting him here in CB, so we overpaid. What I can say about all this, if you look at the way Langlois was playing currently and the fact that Buteau is extremely overrated, we are better today then yesterday on the back end. Did we overpay to get there, yes by 2 2nd round picks in my opinion. Chalk full of great points IMO, especially Langlois, completely agree that he played his way out of being the best available defensemen. He is no longer worth what we were expecting for him. 2+3+decent future is pushing the upper limit of what I'd be willing to pay before moving on to someone else if I were a contender. I don't know Schmitt and Biggar well enough to say for certain, but I don't believe it's a long shot to say that they should end up being an upgrade on the Langlois and Buteau we were watching. The only issue I have with this deadline is the overpay for Schmitt. I even probably would have been ok with something like a 1st and 3rd, 1st and 2nd at a push but I'd still think that was expensive. I think theres a 90% chance of him still being in the league at 20 and if it's with us he's a key piece on a contending team. Those saying it's got Shaw and Simon all over it, I mean we really shouldn't be surprised by that. Sadly, rushed rebuilds are probably the reason Sly was targeted in the first place. He has said he would prefer to draft and develop and the situation in Bathurst was unique, but I'm afraid he may have typecast himself as a wheeler-dealer now, and I think it's probably what upper brass is demanding.
|
|
|
Post by blueeagle on Dec 28, 2022 13:14:49 GMT -4
Young teams need vets, leadership. But not at that cost. The point CB is at, they should be shopping in the bargain bins for these guys. Not paying xmas premium ++ prices. Also, its ok to trade picks. You can't use them all. But why so many, and why now? Again, where CB is in their cycle, they should be leveraging top picks at draft time, when teams are desperate. Instead, CB is acting desperate. They've had two good drafts, some major building blocks are in place, let it play out a bit. If this was next year, and they wanted to push things along a bit, I could see the reasoning. But now is not the time to be trading 4 top picks for a character defenseman. Which is what people have been saying but somehow the Biggar move was “justified” by fans because of the things he brings in the locker room and the fact they need experience on the back end. Like you said, you acquire that on the cheap when you’re a team in the situation Cape Breton is in. You don’t go paying a premium. While the moves are baffling and don’t make sense as a rebuilding team, it’s becoming quite clear they don’t view themselves as a rebuilding team. They want to ice a competitive winning product as soon as possible. While I still don’t think it makes any sense to do what they’re doing, it makes a lot more sense when you consider the guys steering the ship have no intention of rebuilding the right way or probably even know how to do that type of rebuild. I feel bad for the fans of Cape Breton because this is headed down a path they’re all too familiar with, buying from the middle of the pack to try and get a winner because the guys running the operation don’t have the patience necessary to let things play out in a league that turns players over every 5 years. I asked this question of people pushing this point in another thread, and got no response whatsoever, so I will ask it again but slightly rephrased for the context of this thread - Do you really think it wouldn't negatively affect development of our young players if we had no veteran top pairing defenceman?If you spend a low pick (say a 5th or 6th) you have a Tessier or Squires. It simply doesn't fill a need for this team to go get a 18/19yo bottom pairing defenceman. In the other thread someone used keeping Repcik and Squires instead of getting Biggar and playing Ivan as a 20yo. Imagine how much worse that team would be than we already are. To me it just seems obvious that if you remove Ivan and replace Buteau and Langlois with players you only pay late picks for, then you are asking a bunch of rookies to play huge roles in a team that is going to get its ass kicked every single night. 16 and 17 yos won't develop playing in a glorified Junior A team. And they'll probably be asking for moves even faster than they are already. Before you go there, yes Schmitt is an overpay and I don't like that deal. But you can't ice a team of rookies backed by 19yos who are only worth late picks and expect those rookies to thrive. Chasing the puck for 60 minutes isn't good for anyone's development.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 28, 2022 13:22:31 GMT -4
I thought Langlois's game picked up a lot over the past month. I believe he had 10 points in his last 9 games. We'll wait and see how he performs with a better defensive core. Great deal for the Remparts. Not so much for the Eagles. To be fair though nobody even knows what the deal is. It cant be great for CB when the return is still a complete unknown.
|
|
|
Post by eagleeye on Dec 28, 2022 13:24:32 GMT -4
Which is what people have been saying but somehow the Biggar move was “justified” by fans because of the things he brings in the locker room and the fact they need experience on the back end. Like you said, you acquire that on the cheap when you’re a team in the situation Cape Breton is in. You don’t go paying a premium. While the moves are baffling and don’t make sense as a rebuilding team, it’s becoming quite clear they don’t view themselves as a rebuilding team. They want to ice a competitive winning product as soon as possible. While I still don’t think it makes any sense to do what they’re doing, it makes a lot more sense when you consider the guys steering the ship have no intention of rebuilding the right way or probably even know how to do that type of rebuild. I feel bad for the fans of Cape Breton because this is headed down a path they’re all too familiar with, buying from the middle of the pack to try and get a winner because the guys running the operation don’t have the patience necessary to let things play out in a league that turns players over every 5 years. I asked this question of people pushing this point in another thread, and got no response whatsoever, so I will ask it again but slightly rephrased for the context of this thread - Do you really think it wouldn't negatively affect development of our young players if we had no veteran top pairing defenceman?If you spend a low pick (say a 5th or 6th) you have a Tessier or Squires. It simply doesn't fill a need for this team to go get a 18/19yo bottom pairing defenceman. In the other thread someone used keeping Repcik and Squires instead of getting Biggar and playing Ivan as a 20yo. Imagine how much worse that team would be than we already are. To me it just seems obvious that if you remove Ivan and replace Buteau and Langlois with players you only pay late picks for, then you are asking a bunch of rookies to play huge roles in a team that is going to get its ass kicked every single night. 16 and 17 yos won't develop playing in a glorified Junior A team. And they'll probably be asking for moves even faster than they are already. Before you go there, yes Schmitt is an overpay and I don't like that deal. But you can't ice a team of rookies backed by 19yos who are only worth late picks and expect those rookies to thrive. Chasing the puck for 60 minutes isn't good for anyone's development.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 28, 2022 13:27:10 GMT -4
Which is what people have been saying but somehow the Biggar move was “justified” by fans because of the things he brings in the locker room and the fact they need experience on the back end. Like you said, you acquire that on the cheap when you’re a team in the situation Cape Breton is in. You don’t go paying a premium. While the moves are baffling and don’t make sense as a rebuilding team, it’s becoming quite clear they don’t view themselves as a rebuilding team. They want to ice a competitive winning product as soon as possible. While I still don’t think it makes any sense to do what they’re doing, it makes a lot more sense when you consider the guys steering the ship have no intention of rebuilding the right way or probably even know how to do that type of rebuild. I feel bad for the fans of Cape Breton because this is headed down a path they’re all too familiar with, buying from the middle of the pack to try and get a winner because the guys running the operation don’t have the patience necessary to let things play out in a league that turns players over every 5 years. I asked this question of people pushing this point in another thread, and got no response whatsoever, so I will ask it again but slightly rephrased for the context of this thread - Do you really think it wouldn't negatively affect development of our young players if we had no veteran top pairing defenceman?If you spend a low pick (say a 5th or 6th) you have a Tessier or Squires. It simply doesn't fill a need for this team to go get a 18/19yo bottom pairing defenceman. In the other thread someone used keeping Repcik and Squires instead of getting Biggar and playing Ivan as a 20yo. Imagine how much worse that team would be than we already are. To me it just seems obvious that if you remove Ivan and replace Buteau and Langlois with players you only pay late picks for, then you are asking a bunch of rookies to play huge roles in a team that is going to get its ass kicked every single night. 16 and 17 yos won't develop playing in a glorified Junior A team. And they'll probably be asking for moves even faster than they are already. Before you go there, yes Schmitt is an overpay and I don't like that deal. But you can't ice a team of rookies backed by 19yos who are only worth late picks and expect those rookies to thrive. Chasing the puck for 60 minutes isn't good for anyone's development. There were other cheaper routes to finding a veteran D becomes the counter argument. If Thurston cant be it...why keep him? Cut him and bring in an overager. Ivan's taking up 2 roles...cut him and keep the younger Euro (finding him game now that he's gone btw) and bring in an overager. Charlottetown is basically doing what many here are wondering why the Eagles are not doing. We're just making it harder on ourselves. Our owner should have the financial clout to see a rebuild through properly at least once. Yet again we're here just making moves that make no sense because we've randomly decided its time to try and win and not trying to just follow the cycle that the teams we keep chasing are following.
|
|
|
Post by blueeagle on Dec 28, 2022 13:36:42 GMT -4
There were other cheaper routes to finding a veteran D becomes the counter argument. If Thurston cant be it...why keep him? Cut him and bring in an overager. Ivan's taking up 2 roles...cut him and keep the younger Euro (finding him game now that he's gone btw) and bring in an overager. Charlottetown is basically doing what many here are wondering why the Eagles are not doing. We're just making it harder on ourselves. Our owner should have the financial clout to see a rebuild through properly at least once. Yet again we're here just making moves that make no sense because we've randomly decided its time to try and win and not trying to just follow the cycle that the teams we keep chasing are following. Yes, but what I don't understand about that counter argument is that it just assumes that all veteran D are equal. They aren't. It can be rehashed all we like, but Zach Biggar =/= Jacob Squires. This team still needs Lavoie and Daigle to play 22+ minutes a night if it has Squires but not Biggar. I'm convinced this will be bad for their development. We are already pretty well as bad as we can afford to be. On Ivan, that also doesn't make sense to me. Why keep a Euro who doesn't bring anything that remotely resembles what Ivan brings (Repcik), and then pay to go get an OA that can play 1st line centre? You're not getting that for a late pick. Surely that contradicts the idea that we shouldn't move for Biggar-type players when you can get Squires-type players for cheaper. You are paying for something that you already had, but moved out just because he takes up two special roster spots. I'm not trying to be facetious or argumentative. I just genuinely don't get it. I agree with the last two paragraphs in your post.
|
|
|
Post by jboyz on Dec 28, 2022 13:40:18 GMT -4
Pat will have a live interview with Sly during the 2nd intermission for anyone interested.
|
|
|
Post by scotiahockey on Dec 28, 2022 13:43:22 GMT -4
Which is what people have been saying but somehow the Biggar move was “justified” by fans because of the things he brings in the locker room and the fact they need experience on the back end. Like you said, you acquire that on the cheap when you’re a team in the situation Cape Breton is in. You don’t go paying a premium. While the moves are baffling and don’t make sense as a rebuilding team, it’s becoming quite clear they don’t view themselves as a rebuilding team. They want to ice a competitive winning product as soon as possible. While I still don’t think it makes any sense to do what they’re doing, it makes a lot more sense when you consider the guys steering the ship have no intention of rebuilding the right way or probably even know how to do that type of rebuild. I feel bad for the fans of Cape Breton because this is headed down a path they’re all too familiar with, buying from the middle of the pack to try and get a winner because the guys running the operation don’t have the patience necessary to let things play out in a league that turns players over every 5 years. I asked this question of people pushing this point in another thread, and got no response whatsoever, so I will ask it again but slightly rephrased for the context of this thread - Do you really think it wouldn't negatively affect development of our young players if we had no veteran top pairing defenceman? If you spend a low pick (say a 5th or 6th) you have a Tessier or Squires. It simply doesn't fill a need for this team to go get a 18/19yo bottom pairing defenceman. In the other thread someone used keeping Repcik and Squires instead of getting Biggar and playing Ivan as a 20yo. Imagine how much worse that team would be than we already are. To me it just seems obvious that if you remove Ivan and replace Buteau and Langlois with players you only pay late picks for, then you are asking a bunch of rookies to play huge roles in a team that is going to get its ass kicked every single night. 16 and 17 yos won't develop playing in a glorified Junior A team. And they'll probably be asking for moves even faster than they are already. Before you go there, yes Schmitt is an overpay and I don't like that deal. But you can't ice a team of rookies backed by 19yos who are only worth late picks and expect those rookies to thrive. Chasing the puck for 60 minutes isn't good for anyone's development. They paid a contenders price for Biggar when they’re in 17th place, no matter which way you slice it that’s an overpayment. If you wanted him as a 20, you could do it for less. You don’t pay that price for a 19 YO D, if you’re in 17th place. That’s poor roster construction to be in this spot and management by Sly. You don’t want kids getting caved in every night either but I don’t see how Biggar moves the needle enough to think this team still won’t get their asses kicked? Would you get your asses kicked with cheaper options? Absolutely but Tessier, Squires and other 19 YO D out there can fill the role of eating some minutes and you’d be in the same place. All while maintaining assets to acquire players when you’re in a position to contend. Use those picks at the draft to get 18/19 YO’s that line up better, don’t use it for a 19 YO D when you’re in 17th place and hoping to be mid pack next year because the core to take a big leap towards contender status isn’t in the organization yet. IMO Lavoie/Daigle can play top 4 minutes, maybe you don’t want it every night because they can’t sustain the pace but you don’t have to play them there every night. If they’re wearing down, you give them less ice and let them regroup. Manage the ice time, let them play in roles they’re a little uncomfortable with and grow as players. These aren’t fringe guys you’re trying to turn into Q players, these are guys who are Q ready, they don’t need the same coddling as a 16 YO 4th round pick. I don’t think the organization is in a better position today then they were 2 weeks ago. I don’t think the organization is willing to stomach a proper rebuild. I think they’re trying to shortcut the rebuild again because they’ve made so many mistakes the last 2 years and can’t stomach still being in the situation they are.
|
|
|
Post by Briwhel on Dec 28, 2022 13:43:45 GMT -4
Pat will have a live interview with Sly during the 2nd intermission for anyone interested. "We like the character of the players we acquired and what they bring to the team"
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 28, 2022 13:46:39 GMT -4
There were other cheaper routes to finding a veteran D becomes the counter argument. If Thurston cant be it...why keep him? Cut him and bring in an overager. Ivan's taking up 2 roles...cut him and keep the younger Euro (finding him game now that he's gone btw) and bring in an overager. Charlottetown is basically doing what many here are wondering why the Eagles are not doing. We're just making it harder on ourselves. Our owner should have the financial clout to see a rebuild through properly at least once. Yet again we're here just making moves that make no sense because we've randomly decided its time to try and win and not trying to just follow the cycle that the teams we keep chasing are following. Yes, but what I don't understand about that counter argument is that it just assumes that all veteran D are equal. They aren't. It can be rehashed all we like, but Zach Biggar =/= Jacob Squires. This team still needs Lavoie and Daigle to play 22+ minutes a night if it has Squires but not Biggar. I'm convinced this will be bad for their development. We are already pretty well as bad as we can afford to be. On Ivan, that also doesn't make sense to me. Why keep a Euro who doesn't bring anything that remotely resembles what Ivan brings (Repcik), and then pay to go get an OA that can play 1st line centre? You're not getting that for a late pick. Surely that contradicts the idea that we shouldn't move for Biggar-type players when you can get Squires-type players for cheaper. You are paying for something that you already had, but moved out just because he takes up two special roster spots. I'm not trying to be facetious or argumentative. I just genuinely don't get it. I agree with the last two paragraphs in your post. The Squires argument would be to keep him and never have a Thurston and move say a 4th rounder for an overage defenceman so you have Squires during the first half when we just needed bodies and have an overager you can acquire to play a top 4 role and bring leadership. But even if was to keep Squires over acquiring Biggar...we're not trying to win this year so the picks moved for Biggar outweigh the entire discussion for a team coming off an 18th place finish and currently sitting in 17th place. Ivan vs Repcik seems obvious enough to me. 18yr old vs overager import. Repcik has put up some points in Charlottetown. He has 5 goals in 25 games...Ivan has 8 in 29. Also producing at the WJHC as an 18yr old. It seems like sometimes people forget that the basis of all this is keeping the older players and paying to acquire veterans while in 17th while coming off an 18th place finish. Trying to rush it at this point just seems like an obvious bad idea and yes rushing it is making decisions like keeping Ivan vs maximing the import and leadership spots on a non-contender while people are justifying why there's a need to overpay for experience.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Dec 28, 2022 13:49:57 GMT -4
I'll bring this up as it does deserve its own post:
Why are we keeping overagers around that bring so little leadership? Thurston and Ivan could have been upgraded on for less than a Biggar cost and you would still be able to acquire a Biggar in June for next season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2022 14:22:27 GMT -4
I'll bring this up as it does deserve its own post: Why are we keeping overagers around that bring so little leadership? Thurston and Ivan could have been upgraded on for less than a Biggar cost and you would still be able to acquire a Biggar in June for next season. Thurston cost nothing...$3000 in an inter league transfer payment and there is someone in this organization who actually thinks he a solid D-man at this level, personally I just don't see it. So I guess the argument is, he can play top 6 for free right now. I would send him packing and bring up Waugh.
|
|
|
Post by sherwood1020 on Dec 28, 2022 14:23:30 GMT -4
Maybe Sly will move Squires to Charlottetown for a few 18yr olds. To CB: Jelley-18 Allen-18 Todd-18 Vos-18 To Charlottetown; Squires 🤣 Couturier, if you happen to be reading this Don't get any funny ideas.
|
|
|
Post by sherwood1020 on Dec 28, 2022 14:30:09 GMT -4
I'll bring this up as it does deserve its own post: Why are we keeping overagers around that bring so little leadership? Thurston and Ivan could have been upgraded on for less than a Biggar cost and you would still be able to acquire a Biggar in June for next season. If I'm being honest, I would be OK with sending either one packing and bringing in Huard Jr. Who seems to be on his way out in Halifax for the rest of this season. That being said the Eagles management should be keeping their ear to the ground and seeing who could potentially be available on waivers after the deadline to fill some gaps
|
|