|
Post by canbeer on Jan 5, 2009 14:38:57 GMT -4
I'd rather Malka over Tesink but...
While the Eagles have good size up front they are sorely lacking grit, toughness, physical play (whatever you want to call it) up front and on the team in general. CB while skilled was too easy to play against... they lacked what Clendenning, Lamontange and Prokopetz brought last year and Asselin, Fontaine, etc. in prior years.
I guess one of the tough parts though is that you had to move one of your grittier guys to get him and Tesink wouldn't really be my top choice.
I imagine a move like this seemed more necessary after seeing how things went vs. Halifax the other night. CB was hit hard all game and a few players were asking Malka to fight... they need someone who can step in in those type of games.
|
|
section5
Rookie
Waiting for new JUMBO TRON
Posts: 181
|
Post by section5 on Jan 5, 2009 14:43:57 GMT -4
I'd rather Malka over Tesink but... While the Eagles have good size up front they are sorely lacking grit, toughness, physical play (whatever you want to call it) up front and on the team in general. CB while skilled was too easy to play against... they lacked what Clendenning, Lamontange and Prokopetz brought last year and Asselin, Fontaine, etc. in prior years. I guess one of the tough parts though is that you had to move one of your grittier guys to get him and Tesink wouldn't really be my top choice. I imagine a move like this seemed more necessary after seeing how things went vs. Halifax the other night. CB was hit hard all game and a few players were asking Malka to fight... they need someone who can step in in those type of games. With all due respect I don't buy any of that. A small quick team gets knocked around but plays through it. This team was not likely to create fear in any other team other than on the score board. Adding Tesnik and losing Malka has done nothing to change that.
|
|
Jason
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 462
|
Post by Jason on Jan 5, 2009 14:44:06 GMT -4
Tesink can fight but he picks his fights very carefully. Most of his fights were against 17/18 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by caperguy on Jan 5, 2009 14:45:21 GMT -4
well there you go -- finally someone with a brighter side to the coin....
|
|
|
Post by canbeer on Jan 5, 2009 14:47:41 GMT -4
I'd rather Malka over Tesink but... While the Eagles have good size up front they are sorely lacking grit, toughness, physical play (whatever you want to call it) up front and on the team in general. CB while skilled was too easy to play against... they lacked what Clendenning, Lamontange and Prokopetz brought last year and Asselin, Fontaine, etc. in prior years. I guess one of the tough parts though is that you had to move one of your grittier guys to get him and Tesink wouldn't really be my top choice. I imagine a move like this seemed more necessary after seeing how things went vs. Halifax the other night. CB was hit hard all game and a few players were asking Malka to fight... they need someone who can step in in those type of games. With all due respect I don't buy any of that. A small quick team gets knocked around but plays through it. This team was not likely to create fear in any other team other than on the score board. Adding Tesnik and losing Malka has done nothing to change that. You don't buy what? You don't think CB made this move to add tough/physical play and size?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jan 5, 2009 14:49:35 GMT -4
Tesink can fight but he picks his fights very carefully. Most of his fights were against 17/18 year olds. Malka can fight too. If the goal was to add toughness, you shouldnt subtract the little bit of toughness you do have to add it. That's a reason the deal makes no sense. That and the fact Malka is just a better overall player, and a year younger. Trading for the sake of trading is all this is. Meanwhile the top teams are all adding impact players for kids and picks....
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jan 5, 2009 14:51:19 GMT -4
Maybe there is more to this deal then they are saying ? Only one can hope!
|
|
|
Post by brec7 on Jan 5, 2009 14:52:00 GMT -4
On top of that, our biggest weakness is our blueliners on the PP, and we just dealt away someone who somewhat frequently sees PP time...
canbeer's theory is the most logical on WHY we made the deal, but it's still a bad trade.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jan 5, 2009 14:52:21 GMT -4
Maybe there is more to this deal then they are saying ? Why would there be? Is that going to be our reaction to every deal now, hoping and praying there is more? It's straight up 1 for 1. That's it.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jan 5, 2009 14:54:33 GMT -4
Maybe there is more to this deal then they are saying ? Why would there be? Is that going to be our reaction to every deal now, hoping and praying there is more? It's straight up 1 for 1. That's it. As i said only one could hope ! I dont think there is more . But honestly i HATE this trade.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jan 5, 2009 14:57:04 GMT -4
On top of that, our biggest weakness is our blueliners on the PP, and we just dealt away someone who somewhat frequently sees PP time... canbeer's theory is the most logical on WHY we made the deal, but it's still a bad trade. Don't you have work to do?
|
|
|
Post by caperguy on Jan 5, 2009 15:00:21 GMT -4
Maybe there is more to this deal then they are saying ? Why would there be? Is that going to be our reaction to every deal now, hoping and praying there is more? It's straight up 1 for 1. That's it. It's our reaction because of the nature of the trades and we're not used to this 'tinkering without obvious purpose'. If it's not a big gain or big loss we should wait it out and see what is to come and/or what impact if any it has in the long run. We got so accustomed to Pascal's style, Mario comes in and starts doing what he's doing and we freak. I thought Malka may go but be part of a bigger trade. Not that I understand or agree either but let's see how things turn out. Watch he'll go make a last minute brilliant move and everyone will like him again. He has until the 8th to complete his moves, then a more true verdict can be made. sigh...meanwhile, just ignore me and keep on complaining
|
|
|
Post by canbeer on Jan 5, 2009 15:05:57 GMT -4
On top of that, our biggest weakness is our blueliners on the PP, and we just dealt away someone who somewhat frequently sees PP time... canbeer's theory is the most logical on WHY we made the deal, but it's still a bad trade. Agreed. I can easily see why that type of addition was made and that an one or two like that was needed... just the actual trade to get it done doesn't look all the great. To the Bathurst fans, has Tesink been playing forward this year or was he back again on D? I seem to remember him in Hali up front and would imagine that's where CB will use him. It's just tough you had to give up a decent, gritty 18 year old D to get him. I could see the same line of thinking in the MacDougall move but that was a much worse move IMO... made less sense.
|
|
|
Post by bois on Jan 5, 2009 15:07:02 GMT -4
very questionable move..... even moreso when combined with his other moves this trade period
|
|
|
Post by Murph on Jan 5, 2009 15:09:28 GMT -4
On top of that, our biggest weakness is our blueliners on the PP, and we just dealt away someone who somewhat frequently sees PP time... canbeer's theory is the most logical on WHY we made the deal, but it's still a bad trade. Rumor out of Halifax is that Ben MacAskill could find his way to Cape Breton. He'd replace Malka.... but yeah..... still a bad deal.
|
|