|
|
Post by IslandersHKY on Aug 30, 2007 12:20:38 GMT -4
Tesink will give the Titan his services for the next 3 years, plus he can actually evolve into a top-3 D-man down the road as he is only 18 this season. The Titan also have 2 former first round picks, Desnoyers and Sigouin, who could become top-3 Ds. I am not gonna throw the towel in Tesink's case and he is a very good team player. This being said, no doubt that there were plenty of cases where that happened on a lot of teams.... I can think of Malouin in PEI, Lund,MacAskill........ Sawyer did not develop into a top-3 D before reaching 19 YO. I would say the Titan do give ice time to their Ds to develop. If not they trade them like they did with MA Dorion and Lamontagne. I am very confident to see all 3 of these former first round picks become dominant by nest season. And we also have Blanchard, Renaud and Tannel in the system. I am curious to see how Chamberland evolves this season. IMPO the outoftowners really underestimate the defensive capability of the Titan team. I think you completely missed the point. I wasn't knocking Tesink simply explaining that as a 1st round pick he was a flop for Gatineau. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he is a flop for Bathurst. Bathurst added Tesink for roughly the value of a mid 3rd (considering the other components). He appears to have benefited from the change of scenery and was a regular for you. IMO this season and next if he develops into a 4th/5th guy (likely) it will be a good move for Bathurst. But that doesn't change what Tesink was for Gatineau as a draft pick. As for your examples Lund was a flop for us but even after we moved him to Halifax he still didn't show anything more. Which IMO suggests that it is more the case of the player than team development and I wouldn't consider it bad drafting as he was widely considered a top 5 player. Simply a player who didn't live up to expectations and turned out to be a flop. Malouin was a 3rd round draft pick who played with us as a 16 yr old and figures to have a more prominent role this season. Not sure how you could consider that a flop. MacAskill is simply another example of a 2005 draft pick who didn't pan out as hoped. But was drafted by Halifax and continues to play there so I don't understand why you are using him as an example with PEI players. And I dislike how you continue to label how out-of-towners continue to "undervalue" your defense. As I have always said I really like Desnoyers and Sigouin impressed me in the playoffs. And as I have said I expect your defense to improve over last season. However as a whole I still consider them only average. But I guess if your expecting Desnoyers & Sigouin to suddenly become top defensemen and Tesink/Chamberland/Renaud to all be better than average maybe by comparision my expectation is would appear to be "undervaluing" since you seem to be "overvaluing" them so much. I guess we will see. |
|
|
|
Post by IslandersHKY on Aug 30, 2007 12:40:00 GMT -4
Gatineau missed the boat on a lot of players in the last few years....Walker,Brophy,Morrison,Graham,Escott,Tesink....and they were all from the East. I for one do not consider them as the gospel of hockey development. Gatineau hasn't missed the boat on a lot of players Gatineau has two factors which make them different. One is high risk drafting and the other is a strict coach who requires a high work ethic. Look at their top draft picks from the last 3 yrs. 2006 Stacey - taken 13th (ranked 53rd) 2005 Escott - taken 3rd (ranked 2nd round) Tesink - taken 15th (ranked 2nd round) 2004 Poulin - taken 5th (ranked 5th) Generally scouting services agree with the top 10 - 15 guys and there is usually a clear separation between them and 3rd round guys. With the work ethic requirement some players simply don't fit the mold. A guy like Walker is a perfect example. Tremendous skills but at 17 didn't have the same work ethic other players do because up until then he never had to. However, he has matured a lot and now has the motivation of an AHL contract to work for. And Morrison wasn't someone they missed the boat on. He was a top line forward for them. However, last season Gatineau was making a run and needed a goalie and had some flexibility at forward. It was a costly trade for them but one they felt they needed to make in order to contend. |
|
|
|
Post by chsb on Aug 30, 2007 13:08:23 GMT -4
What about Cam Fergus?
The bottom line is that Gatineau traded or let go a lot of their top end players because they thought that these did not fit in their long term plans.
Funny how on one hand you admit that there is a clear separation between the top 10-15 of first round and then you get 3rd round value.....and on the same token criticize the Titan for drafting Critchlow saying he is 3rd round value(not you necessarily but a lot of out of towners did...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Score on Aug 30, 2007 13:11:15 GMT -4
What about Cam Fergus? The bottom line is that Gatineau traded or let go a lot of their top end players because they thought that these did not fit in their long term plans. You think thats why this certain players got dealt from Gatineau??? Benoit is a tough coach. VERY hard on his players, and expects a lot from them. Certain players are up to the task, and others are not. Plain and simple. ask around, it;s no secret. |
|
|
|
Post by IslandersHKY on Aug 30, 2007 13:12:28 GMT -4
What about Cam Fergus? The bottom line is that Gatineau traded or let go a lot of their top end players because they thought that these did not fit in their long term plans. Now Fergus would be a good example. He scored 15 as an 18 yr old rookie and was on pace for 30 as a 19 yr old before Gatineau felt a late 2nd round pick was worth trading him for. Little did they know he would go on to score 53 goals and 98 pts the following year. There may have been other reasons for him moving but on the surface looks like that would be one example of a trading mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by chsb on Aug 30, 2007 13:13:41 GMT -4
Tesink will give the Titan his services for the next 3 years, plus he can actually evolve into a top-3 D-man down the road as he is only 18 this season. The Titan also have 2 former first round picks, Desnoyers and Sigouin, who could become top-3 Ds. I am not gonna throw the towel in Tesink's case and he is a very good team player. This being said, no doubt that there were plenty of cases where that happened on a lot of teams.... I can think of Malouin in PEI, Lund,MacAskill........ Sawyer did not develop into a top-3 D before reaching 19 YO. I would say the Titan do give ice time to their Ds to develop. If not they trade them like they did with MA Dorion and Lamontagne. I am very confident to see all 3 of these former first round picks become dominant by nest season. And we also have Blanchard, Renaud and Tannel in the system. I am curious to see how Chamberland evolves this season. IMPO the outoftowners really underestimate the defensive capability of the Titan team. I think you completely missed the point. I wasn't knocking Tesink simply explaining that as a 1st round pick he was a flop for Gatineau. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he is a flop for Bathurst. Bathurst added Tesink for roughly the value of a mid 3rd (considering the other components). He appears to have benefited from the change of scenery and was a regular for you. IMO this season and next if he develops into a 4th/5th guy (likely) it will be a good move for Bathurst. But that doesn't change what Tesink was for Gatineau as a draft pick. As for your examples Lund was a flop for us but even after we moved him to Halifax he still didn't show anything more. Which IMO suggests that it is more the case of the player than team development and I wouldn't consider it bad drafting as he was widely considered a top 5 player. Simply a player who didn't live up to expectations and turned out to be a flop. Malouin was a 3rd round draft pick who played with us as a 16 yr old and figures to have a more prominent role this season. Not sure how you could consider that a flop. MacAskill is simply another example of a 2005 draft pick who didn't pan out as hoped. But was drafted by Halifax and continues to play there so I don't understand why you are using him as an example with PEI players. And I dislike how you continue to label how out-of-towners continue to "undervalue" your defense. As I have always said I really like Desnoyers and Sigouin impressed me in the playoffs. And as I have said I expect your defense to improve over last season. However as a whole I still consider them only average. But I guess if your expecting Desnoyers & Sigouin to suddenly become top defensemen and Tesink/Chamberland/Renaud to all be better than average maybe by comparision my expectation is would appear to be "undervaluing" since you seem to be "overvaluing" them so much. I guess we will see. The point was that, in 4 months of hockey in Bathurst, Desnoyers and in 6 months of hockey Sigouin improved drastically their play and we could all see that when came the playoffs. They will continue to improve no doubt under Francoeur who is known as a good teacher. |
|
|
|
Post by chsb on Aug 30, 2007 13:16:03 GMT -4
What about Cam Fergus? The bottom line is that Gatineau traded or let go a lot of their top end players because they thought that these did not fit in their long term plans. You think thats why this certain players got dealt from Gatineau??? Benoit is a tough coach. VERY hard on his players, and expects a lot from them. Certain players are up to the task, and others are not. Plain and simple. ask around, it;s no secret. I don't expect Francoeur to be easier. When you are playing junior major, you got to be ready to put the effort in and there is not ONLY Gatineau asking for that dedication from the boys.... Some teams do have a much better retention ratio...... |
|
|
|
Post by IslandersHKY on Aug 30, 2007 13:21:07 GMT -4
Funny how on one hand you admit that there is a clear separation between the top 10-15 of first round and then you get 3rd round value.....and on the same token criticize the Titan for drafting Critchlow saying he is 3rd round value(not you necessarily but a lot of out of towners did...) I think your contradicting yourself there because that is exactly why I "questioned" (not critized) drafting Critchlow 14th overall. IMO gererally the top 10-15 are pretty well established and in terms of drafting there normally is a big difference between a mid 1st and mid 3rd round player. That doesn't mean that players taken later can't develop into great players but I bet most scouts will tell you that at 15 yr olds you can see a clear difference in the players ranked early first round vs mid 3rd round. Reading their HPO's scouting report on them they sound very similar. Travis Stacey (ranked 53rd) Big, banging winger who loves to battle it out on the boards. He uses his imposing size to his advantage to win puck battles. He is very solid on his skates and hard to knock down. He protects the puck well and has a wide variety of shots. He has the potential to become an excellent third liner as well as a penalty kill specialist at the major junior level. Also he may be able to handle himself in the fighting department. Gms 43 Pts 13 Pims 86 Cameron Critchlow (ranked 52nd) Critchlow is like a bowling ball on skates, and we mean that in a good way. He plays with a reckless abandon, and that’s bad for players playing against him. He is only an average skater but that doesn’t hold him back in terms of the style he plays. He has average puck skills and hockey sense. He is effective in the defensive zone along the wall, especially at chipping pucks out of the zone. He creates chaos for opposing defensemen on the forecheck. We project him to be an intense energy player at the next level and if he chips in with a couple goals that will be a bonus. Gms - 42 Pts 17 Pims - 123 That is why I am being consitent when I questioned why both were taken a mid first rounders. I am not knocking the player as they will very likely become solid Q players but you want top line players from first round picks which their scouting report does not make them sound like. |
|
|
|
Post by IslandersHKY on Aug 30, 2007 13:25:34 GMT -4
The point was that, in 4 months of hockey in Bathurst, Desnoyers and in 6 months of hockey Sigouin improved drastically their play and we could all see that when came the playoffs. They will continue to improve no doubt under Francoeur who is known as a good teacher. Desnoyers was a great player before he was traded to Bathurst that is why he was traded for Carle. Sigouin was drafted in the first round for a reason because he has skill. He apparently didn't fit in well in Drummondville and needed a change. They didn't suddenly get better there was likely an adjustment period for both as they are young and were entering new situations. That is why they looked better at the end. Their development curve didn't just suddenly skyrocket because they were playing with the Titan. As I said like both Desnoyers and Sigouin. But IMO to expect both to be above average number 2/3 defensemen at 18 is a little much. Maybe next season. |
|
Jason
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 462
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 14:28:07 GMT -4
Carle propbly had less value on the trade because he wanted out of bathurst
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeb on Aug 30, 2007 15:08:28 GMT -4
Gatineau missed the boat on a lot of players in the last few years....Walker,Brophy,Morrison,Graham,Escott,Tesink....and they were all from the East. I for one do not consider them as the gospel of hockey development. Gatineau has never been a great drafting team, they have had their share of busts and more since I started following the Q. It's the Giroux trade(getting Talbot) plus adding quality FA's each year that has helped them be a perennial contender in the early 2000's. And all the good players they've had from rounds 5 and up. They did great with later picks like Daoust and O'Brien etc. |
|
|
|
Post by aspen on Aug 30, 2007 16:44:00 GMT -4
[
From Gatineau's point of view Tesink was a complete flop. He was a first round pick (#15th) overall who they were hoping would become an impact player. Instead he wasn't even really a regular in their lineup and they ended up basically trading him for a draft pick.
But that doesn't mean that he is necessarily a flop from Bathurst's perspective. You guys used a draft pick to add Tesink and so far he has contributed to your team. Over the next two seasons Tesink could develop into a stable 4th/5th kind of defenseman which is worth it for Bathurst.
But that doesn't change the fact that he was a flop for Gatineau. Although looking back that 2005 draft wasn't a great one for a lot of teams especially in the first round.[/quote]
Just because Tesink didn't become the player Gatineau expected doesn't mean he was a flop. When you look at him, what would have been his attributes as a 15 year-old? His size. He's by no means a great skater, was not very mobile, didn't have a great shot, and only contributed a bit offensively.
Maybe it would be better to say that Gatineau didn't draft well. He would have been considered less of a flop if he had been selected 3rd round.
Lots of players are selected in rounds where they shouldn't be, but that does not change who they are. Most people have no idea why Gabriel Carle was even drafted at all...but he was taken early. He is one of the least talented players I've ever seen in bathurst, but Drummondville(?) selected him , I believe , im the 1st round. Was he a flop, or did Drummond draft badly?
|
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on Aug 30, 2007 17:14:17 GMT -4
I suppose, except being from SJ and playing against him one could always argue Gaitneau made a bad choice drafting him that high. Or you could make the case they didn't develop him properly... Its possible he needed more time to mature? I mean if i draft a kid to play D, who has played D for 16 years...Putting him as a depth forward (and i'm pretty sure he got more then depth minutes up front) isn't a great way to help him to move a long? imho The reason Gatineau picked him was because one of their Atlantic scouts also coached for the Saint John Vito's... Tesink was ranked around that range though...so its not like Gatineau went off the board like with Escott. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeb on Aug 31, 2007 6:56:36 GMT -4
I suppose, except being from SJ and playing against him one could always argue Gaitneau made a bad choice drafting him that high. Or you could make the case they didn't develop him properly... Its possible he needed more time to mature? I mean if i draft a kid to play D, who has played D for 16 years...Putting him as a depth forward (and i'm pretty sure he got more then depth minutes up front) isn't a great way to help him to move a long? imho The reason Gatineau picked him was because one of their Atlantic scouts also coached for the Saint John Vito's... Tesink was ranked around that range though...so its not like Gatineau went off the board like with Escott. Darn scouting organizations.... just can't trust them..  |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Aug 31, 2007 9:10:23 GMT -4
In Tesink's defense ... he was drafted two seasons ago ... just before the Q officiating started cracking down on obstruction type penalties ... forcing Dmen to change the way they play their position. Instead of utilizing brute size and strength to defend your zone a premium was now being placed on mobility rather than physicality ... body positioning being the key word ... no hands and sticks allowed.
Tesink was a big kid at 16 and we have all seen the bigger rookies look a bit awkward for a few years until they seem to fill out a little more. Tesink didn't adapt to the new style of playing D very well .. mainly because mobility wasn't his strong suit ... but physicallity, size and strength was ... but the officials were starting to take those weapons away from him.
He was a big kid that came along at exactly the worst possible time for him. We often say that we don't see Dmen make their true impact until they are 19 and have played a few years in the league. Tesink missed a good year and a half of playing hockey where he wasn't a regular or wasn't a Dman ... and so you may never see him develop into the player he once was projected to be.
|
|
