|
|
Post by habh8er on Jan 15, 2008 1:01:46 GMT -4
Well IF he's the guy they should have traded Fullerton this year and gave him more playing time I wouldn't be surprised if that was the plan at the stat of the year....to move Fullerton at Christmas and go with Mayer,Passingham down the stretch...but who picked us to be in top spot at the break....not even Jacques could have forseen that after last year. So the plan may have changed on the fly  . |
|
|
|
Post by canucklehead on Jan 15, 2008 1:07:46 GMT -4
Well IF he's the guy they should have traded Fullerton this year and gave him more playing time because he's gonna go into next season as it stands with 2 games the year prior. I guess we'll see what happens Killer hell maybe I'm wrong I hope he turns out to be awesome and proves me wrong it's not like I want the kid to fail or anything ;D We are in a race for first place why would we take a step back by moving Fully just for the sake of moving him.................. Fullerton will play his best in the playoffs, I have seen him carry teams on his shoulders at the AAA and Junior A levels. The bigger the game, the better he plays. He is the kind of guy I would feel confident in heading into the playoffs. The reason I'm saying that is because if Passingham is the guy to back up Mayer next year should he not play more then 2 games against Moncton the year before? We'll see in training camp I guess cuz I think most people thought it would be Dopud as the #3 guy so we'll see Now I'm curious does anyone know how many games he played the year before this? |
|
|
|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Jan 15, 2008 1:33:32 GMT -4
Now I'm curious does anyone know how many games he played the year before this? From the greatly detailed Sea Dogs site! 2006-07 Stats: 2.54 G.A.A., 21 W with the Vaughan Kings (GTHL) Brutal, so I searched a bit more. This was all I could find before crashing: Troy Passingham - Vaughan Kings AAA Midget (GTHL) League All-Star: 21 wins - 6 losses - 6 ties - 2.07 G.A.A. |
|
|
|
Post by berner on Jan 15, 2008 6:34:56 GMT -4
Well IF he's the guy they should have traded Fullerton this year and gave him more playing time because he's gonna go into next season as it stands with 2 games the year prior. I guess we'll see what happens Killer hell maybe I'm wrong I hope he turns out to be awesome and proves me wrong it's not like I want the kid to fail or anything ;D Canucklehead, you're really getting off on a tangent here. First you seem to think the Dogs chances next season hinge on a backup goaltender, then go so far as to suggest Fullerton should have been dumped at Christmas. That's wild! Why are you so worried about who the backup is next year? It's like worrying about who the 13th forward will be, wow we better have someone with some experience to sit on the bench most nights. Why deal assets in a go-for-it year to acquire someone that is bound to see little action? Passingham will work out as good as anyone. To me, there isn't much difference between an 'experienced' backup and a kid like Passingham. It's still a backup, if the starter goes down for any length of time do you think a Q backup will carry the team? And trading Fullerton when the team is in first place, with him having played a large part in that record, ... wow. That's just silly. Youd' never get anything close in return to what his value is with the Dogs. But trade him anyway so we can make sure our third goaltender is prepared for the role of BACKUP next season. Maybe you should re-think your position? |
|
|
|
Post by mrlittlewolf on Jan 15, 2008 6:47:00 GMT -4
I hate to do this Berner, but I totally concur!!!............lol
|
|
|
|
Post by canucklehead on Jan 15, 2008 7:45:22 GMT -4
Well IF he's the guy they should have traded Fullerton this year and gave him more playing time because he's gonna go into next season as it stands with 2 games the year prior. I guess we'll see what happens Killer hell maybe I'm wrong I hope he turns out to be awesome and proves me wrong it's not like I want the kid to fail or anything ;D Canucklehead, you're really getting off on a tangent here. First you seem to think the Dogs chances next season hinge on a backup goaltender, then go so far as to suggest Fullerton should have been dumped at Christmas. That's wild! Why are you so worried about who the backup is next year? It's like worrying about who the 13th forward will be, wow we better have someone with some experience to sit on the bench most nights. Why deal assets in a go-for-it year to acquire someone that is bound to see little action? Passingham will work out as good as anyone. To me, there isn't much difference between an 'experienced' backup and a kid like Passingham. It's still a backup, if the starter goes down for any length of time do you think a Q backup will carry the team? And trading Fullerton when the team is in first place, with him having played a large part in that record, ... wow. That's just silly. Youd' never get anything close in return to what his value is with the Dogs. But trade him anyway so we can make sure our third goaltender is prepared for the role of BACKUP next season. Maybe you should re-think your position? Nope not gonna happen NHL teams do it every year if they don''t have an experienced back up they go find one happens all the time. I never said I wanted them to trade Fullerton this year I said if Passingham is gonna be the backup next year he should be playing more then 2 games against the Wildcats. I'm also not going off on a tangent I'm making a point just like you are I will just say I will agree only to disagree. Where were all the Passingham supporters in training camp? Oh he played a couple games against the Wildcats yeah he's good to go next year ;D Simply put I will agree to disagree unless he shows in training camp that he is a much improved goaltender and don't get me wrong I hope he does improve and can step in and do the job and save the team having to make a trade. It's not like I have a big hate on for Passingham just an opinion that differs call it what you will. |
|
|
|
Post by bjindaho on Jan 15, 2008 7:52:55 GMT -4
improved? but wouldn't that require that he play enough to judge what the real passy is. you don't like a backup that has been practicing against our offense all year who will hopefully only play about 20 games next year?
|
|
|
|
Post by canucklehead on Jan 15, 2008 7:56:59 GMT -4
improved? but wouldn't that require that he play enough to judge what the real passy is. you don't like a backup that has been practicing against our offense all year who will hopefully only play about 20 games next year? Practice is not a game situation absolutely not. Yes it might require being able to watch him more but how can you judge that he'll be fine same thing he's not gonna get any more game action this year unless something happens to one of other 2 guys. Also I said at the end I will wait and see next season in training camp and I hope we don't have to make any moves read the whole thing next time BJ |
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Jan 15, 2008 10:43:40 GMT -4
The backup matters next year because Mayer has not yet shown he's a number one and because it will likely be his last season with us. Ideally we'd draft a ringer and groom him for the future. We've not done very well drafting or developing goalies.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjindaho on Jan 15, 2008 10:59:05 GMT -4
We've drafted St. Laurent who was a project, Dopud (who never really got a chance), and Dunnett who was a piece in getting Owes...that is an awfully small sample to say we haven't drafted well in nets.
|
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 15, 2008 11:12:35 GMT -4
We've drafted St. Laurent who was a project, Dopud (who never really got a chance), and Dunnett who was a piece in getting Owes...that is an awfully small sample to say we haven't drafted well in nets. Small sample?? Since we came into this league we have not drafted a goalie besides a high end euro pick that has made our opening day roster..................... that is not good seeing as cycles go 3 or 4 years. Dupod had his chance towards the end of last season and came into came and actually looked to take a step back. Had a very weird style between the pipes which seemed to hurt his game at this level. St Laurent and Dupod were taken in the top 5 rounds so they are far from project picks but as of yet have not panned out for us. |
|
|
|
Post by dogbert on Jan 16, 2008 13:28:53 GMT -4
Correct in that it is too small a sample to make any judgements on management's and coach's abilities, especially as we're on GM#2 and coach#2, but you can definately say we have done poorly.
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Jan 16, 2008 13:53:25 GMT -4
Well IF he's the guy they should have traded Fullerton this year and gave him more playing time I wouldn't be surprised if that was the plan at the stat of the year....to move Fullerton at Christmas and go with Mayer,Passingham down the stretch...but who picked us to be in top spot at the break....not even Jacques could have forseen that after last year. So the plan may have changed on the fly . I would say that is bang on .... nobody keeps 3 goaltenders unless the plan is to deal one away later on. Your strong first half simply changed the plans ... and Fullerton is a very large part of why you guys are around the top of the Q. If you guys had gone with Mayer and Pashingham right out of training camp you'd probably be down between Lew and PEI in the standings. |
|
|
|
Post by reddogbluedog on Jan 16, 2008 15:26:12 GMT -4
I was down at every scrimmage and I thought he performed quite well as I have mentioned in previous posts. He served our provincial programs well and I am not surprised at all by this. He was in no way good enough to knock of a high paid player like Mayer but he could have been Passingham for sure. He could have played regularly with his local team and get called up for games as required. Passingham gave up an entire year for a couple of starts and chances are he will not be here next year. Utterly ridiculous post. I guess my question is, why is it ridiculous? Dunnett could have played two games for us even if he lost both. And he could have continued to play full time, much like Andrew Langan did for his midget team. Passingham could have played every game back home. You yourself state that it does not matter who a back up is so I still say Passingham wasted a year in my opinion. If he is back as our second goalie next year then I was wrong. However do you think that everyone who is promised something by a GM on a Q team actually has those promises fulfilled. Tell me any kid who would be thrilled at 16 to play two games a year? Do the teams taking a run this year have two quality goalies? We certainly do. I met Passignham, he is a great kid, but I bet he is having second thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by bjindaho on Jan 16, 2008 15:43:36 GMT -4
So does nearly every other kid from time to time. He just has to hang in, and he will be here next year as backup.
|
|
.
