|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Aug 27, 2007 19:40:00 GMT -4
I think that in general, the coaches like to keep a couple free agents every year (or at least for part of the year) cause if they come back emptyhanded from all the hard work of recruiting, it makes the scouting look bad. I'm not saying that's the only reason they sign free agents cause Wilson and Gomes are definitely in the top 8 defenceman in this camp but it also boosts you're scouting reputation a bit if you keep a few every year. It's probably also why Neil Hodge writes an article on a lot of them after they sign the try-out offer and makes them all seem like huge steals. From what I have seen so far, Gomes and Wilson are legit top 6 guys on this team, FA or not. If anything the team would keep it's draft picks ahead of the FA's because they actually have a cost attatched to them. |
|
rudolph
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 391
|
Post by rudolph on Aug 27, 2007 19:42:42 GMT -4
sorry a bit off topic but, what are the actual cost of FA's that you are refering to ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Aug 27, 2007 19:59:30 GMT -4
sorry a bit off topic but, what are the actual cost of FA's that you are refering to ? Draft picks cost the team ressources...FA's do not. |
|
|
|
Post by buckybuckbuck on Aug 27, 2007 20:09:54 GMT -4
They also cost by undermining the draft procedure. If you get drafted into the Q by the Wildcats then you want to feel good about it, not "great I might as well hold out for NCAA".
|
|
rudolph
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 391
|
Post by rudolph on Aug 27, 2007 20:47:25 GMT -4
sorry a bit off topic but, what are the actual cost of FA's that you are refering to ? Draft picks cost the team ressources...FA's do not. my bad, missread  I agree but FA's also cost the team ressources in scouting and the scous have to justify their salerey somehow! |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Aug 28, 2007 7:58:54 GMT -4
Draft picks cost the team ressources...FA's do not. my bad, missread I agree but FA's also cost the team ressources in scouting and the scous have to justify their salerey somehow! You have that scouting cost whether you keep a FA kid or not ... simply a cost of doing business. We probably have a much broader scouting network than most teams in the Q ... maybe even in the CHL. There is no sense having scouts in Ontaio and out west if you aren't going to follow through on their recommendations. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Aug 28, 2007 8:19:02 GMT -4
Well, we brought in the FA because we didn't have anyone better. You'd rather we play someone like Brousseau just because he's local? Besides, the players likely being bumped...Tolles and/or Herr...aren't from Quebec or the Maritimes either. It's all about putting the best team possible on the ice. I don't care where they're from. Maybe we should get rid of Euros, too, they're taking up roster spots. Didn't I just say "FA's should be relied on when nobody in your territory is better than them"  I was making a general point....for example why bring in a guy like Tolles all the way from out West when i'm sure they're all kinds of players around the maritimes or even in Quebec that are as good as Tolles.....see what I mean....of course you'd use Brouseau as an example. Euro's make the league better,but if say a Martikanen is brought in then it's stupid...90% of euro's in the league are probably top 5 players on their Q team why get rid of them. I think you'll find that most kids in Quebec and the Maritimes (Q region) that have the skills to play in the Q ... are probably already on somebody's protected list. There just aren't that many skilled players in the Q region that are not already affilaited with somebody ... and the ones that are not affiliated are likely holding on to NCAA eligibility (Andrew MacDonald for example). I don't care where the players come from ... if they are the 25 best position players we can get our hands on then I want them on our team ... if that means cutting a future "Christian Gaudet" then thems the breaks. I'm not fond of bringing in 19 YO FAs and cutting 18 YOs. But this year we needed to desperately add experience to our defense and so Gomes and Eastman were added. Wilson is 18 and earned a spot ... it was not given to him ... looks to be an excellent freebie ... but I liked Meceli better than all 3 that made it. I can't recall all the articles that Hodge wrote but it seems to me that it was stated that Eastman (or Gomes or Both) was not playing in the OHL because he had held onto his NCAA eligibility. So whichever one (or both) it was is not your typical Jr A player trying to crack a roster as a role player (Herr, Campbell, Tolles, Watson). We may be getting another Andrew MacDonald ... or not. What I like about Gomes is that he does not panic with the puck ... Tolles was very panicky ... and Goyens was just scary with the puck. I saw Eastman on day 1 of rookie camp ... but I spent the time just trying to figure out who was who rather than evaluating who could play. Eastman didn't stand out to me ... but thats not a bad thing for a Dman. Goyens was a bad trade for Torchetti ... one of the few bad moves he made ... it sucks that we have to give him up with no chance of recouping any of that cost. Maybe he'll clear waivers and we can keep him as an affiliate and look for a very minor trade down the road ... as he can be a spare part on a contending team ... somebody trying to add depth to their D. I'd almost rather keep Goyens over Herr if Goyens was willing to take on the enforcer role. He was always willing last year to drop the gloves and did just as good as Herr in that department. Herr is a mistake IMO. Yes he plays with a nasty edge ... and yes he will drop the gloves with anybody ... but he doesn't scare anybody and he also doesn't win many fights. After awhile sending Herr out to lose another fight will become demoralizing to the team. Our guys aren't going to be playing like they have no fear because Herr has their back.  |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Aug 28, 2007 8:22:35 GMT -4
Didn't I just say "FA's should be relied on when nobody in your territory is better than them" I was making a general point....for example why bring in a guy like Tolles all the way from out West when i'm sure they're all kinds of players around the maritimes or even in Quebec that are as good as Tolles.....see what I mean....of course you'd use Brouseau as an example. Euro's make the league better,but if say a Martikanen is brought in then it's stupid...90% of euro's in the league are probably top 5 players on their Q team why get rid of them. I think you'll find that most kids in Quebec and the Maritimes (Q region) that have the skills to play in the Q ... are probably already on somebody's protected list. There just aren't that many skilled players in the Q region that are not already affilaited with somebody ... and the ones that are not affiliated are likely holding on to NCAA eligibility (Andrew MacDonald for example). I don't care where the players come from ... if they are the 25 best position players we can get our hands on then I want them on our team ... if that means cutting a future "Christian Gaudet" then thems the breaks. I'm not fond of bringing in 19 YO FAs and cutting 18 YOs. But this year we needed to desperately add experience to our defense and so Gomes and Eastman were added. Wilson is 18 and earned a spot ... it was not given to him ... looks to be an excellent freebie ... but I liked Meceli better than all 3 that made it. I can't recall all the articles that Hodge wrote but it seems to me that it was stated that Eastman (or Gomes or Both) was not playing in the OHL because he had held onto his NCAA eligibility. So whichever one (or both) it was is not your typical Jr A player trying to crack a roster as a role player (Herr, Campbell, Tolles, Watson). We may be getting another Andrew MacDonald ... or not. What I like about Gomes is that he does not panic with the puck ... Tolles was very panicky ... and Goyens was just scary with the puck. I saw Eastman on day 1 of rookie camp ... but I spent the time just trying to figure out who was who rather than evaluating who could play. Eastman didn't stand out to me ... but thats not a bad thing for a Dman. Goyens was a bad trade for Torchetti ... one of the few bad moves he made ... it sucks that we have to give him up with no chance of recouping any of that cost. Maybe he'll clear waivers and we can keep him as an affiliate and look for a very minor trade down the road ... as he can be a spare part on a contending team ... somebody trying to add depth to their D. I'd almost rather keep Goyens over Herr if Goyens was willing to take on the enforcer role. He was always willing last year to drop the gloves and did just as good as Herr in that department. Herr is a mistake IMO. Yes he plays with a nasty edge ... and yes he will drop the gloves with anybody ... but he doesn't scare anybody and he also doesn't win many fights. After awhile sending Herr out to lose another fight will become demoralizing to the team. Our guys aren't going to be playing like they have no fear because Herr has their back. The part that really confuses me is keeping Herr ahead of Lamoureux. I think Lamoureux can do the job as well as Herr now with more hockey skill, plus he is a year younger, could be a top 5 guy at 19 and maybe stick at 20 if he can put up 35-40 points. |
|
|
|
Post by CatsFan on Aug 28, 2007 13:06:26 GMT -4
I think Lamoureux could of done the job. I think him being a forward is what got him off this team. If Lamoureux was a D, he would have been here and not Herr. Herr being here doesn't make me happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Aug 28, 2007 15:32:38 GMT -4
I think Lamoureux could of done the job. I think him being a forward is what got him off this team. If Lamoureux was a D, he would have been here and not Herr. Herr being here doesn't make me happy. That doesn't make sense because the Wildcats are why he was changed to forward. We drafted him as a D.  |
|
|
|
Post by curtis on Aug 28, 2007 15:49:54 GMT -4
I think Lamoureux could of done the job. I think him being a forward is what got him off this team. If Lamoureux was a D, he would have been here and not Herr. Herr being here doesn't make me happy. That doesn't make sense because the Wildcats are why he was changed to forward. We drafted him as a D. If he was able to play D, I'm sure they would have left him there. |
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Aug 28, 2007 16:00:15 GMT -4
That doesn't make sense because the Wildcats are why he was changed to forward. We drafted him as a D. If he was able to play D, I'm sure they would have left him there. HA! But no, they changed him from D to F because it only makes sense. Having your "goon" as a D is STUPID.(Hence Nathan Saunders stopped fighting) You dress 6 D and 12 forwards(That's double the amount of forwards for those lacking the mathematic knowledge) You fight you get 5 mins sometimes a 10 and boom your team is down to 5 Dman for most of the period OR your team could be down to 11 forwards which is a lot smaller of a problem. Also, it's easier to make a forward ride the bench if he's lacking the hockey skills, you keep him as your 12th forward till you feel your team needs the spark. It's not rocket appliances. |
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Aug 28, 2007 16:49:17 GMT -4
my bad, missread I agree but FA's also cost the team ressources in scouting and the scous have to justify their salerey somehow! You have that scouting cost whether you keep a FA kid or not ... simply a cost of doing business. We probably have a much broader scouting network than most teams in the Q ... maybe even in the CHL. There is no sense having scouts in Ontaio and out west if you aren't going to follow through on their recommendations. I hope you guys aren't accountants  Most of the costs are already sunk. There's little additional direct cost in keeping either player except for differences in education costs and living expenses. There is an opportunity cost of not keeping draftees as stated: you affect the payback of that and future dratees. But the same can be said, to a much lesser degree, for FA's. When the cost differences between two players plays a big factor, I think your franchise might be in trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by thedoubled on Aug 28, 2007 16:55:47 GMT -4
Lameroux imo was somewhat of a phony, you can tell he didn't want to be a tough guy instead an up and down winger i don't think he had the personality to want to fight every night which in fact is what he said he wanted to do, if he had that personality like herr than he would of defently stood up for bezak and lepage and got his 2 fights and he would of fought twice in bathurst as well
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Aug 28, 2007 17:19:07 GMT -4
Lameroux imo was somewhat of a phony, you can tell he didn't want to be a tough guy instead an up and down winger i don't think he had the personality to want to fight every night which in fact is what he said he wanted to do, if he had that personality like herr than he would of defently stood up for bezak and lepage and got his 2 fights and he would of fought twice in bathurst as well The Cats don't need a nutjob like Taylor Moore, they needed another Lariviere type like Lamoureux will be. |
|
I agree but FA's also cost the team ressources in scouting and the scous have to justify their salerey somehow!
Most of the costs are already sunk. There's little additional direct cost in keeping either player except for differences in education costs and living expenses. There is an opportunity cost of not keeping draftees as stated: you affect the payback of that and future dratees. But the same can be said, to a much lesser degree, for FA's.