|
Post by wingman on May 28, 2007 19:03:33 GMT -3
I think those first 2 lines are a concern. I'm not trying to knock HF99 for the lines he came up with because there isn't much to work with and I would probably go with the same lines as he did. But I would be more comfortable having Latal start on the second line and see if he is capable of showing a scoring touch before relying on him to be a top line point producer.
IMO Locke is not a second line player. In the playoffs he finally started playing some hockey and it looked like he could be a second line player for the upcoming season, but we were saying the exact same thing about him after last season. He looked like he could have been a second line player for the Rocket after the 05-06 playoffs but instead he coasted through this past training camp and through the regular season. I think he is better suited for third or fourth line.
Since last season Savard has traded away Bolduc, Hawes, Levesque and Lund for basically draft choices. Mind you we got Lomanno for Lund, but right now our roster has nothing to show for that trade and also the trades involving the players I mentioned above. These players may not have been goal scorers, and they were traded for one reason or another but those players in a package might have gotten us at least a second line winger instead of 3 draft choices. They were a 2nd round & a 7th round pick in the upcoming draft and a 3rd round in 2008. It is good to have draft picks, but those picks are not going to be much help for the upcoming season and likely won't have an impact, if any, for another 2 seasons.
When the Hawes deal was made, I remember Savard saying they were thinking of the long-term. Well it's been "long-term" thinking for so long, when are they going to build a team for now and make a championship run instead of just trying to make the playoffs or being content with winning a round or two in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Hockeyfan99 on May 28, 2007 20:11:55 GMT -3
Great well thought out post Wingman and just to counter it with my thoughts I first want to say that I wasn't suggesting line combinations simply suggesting where I would pencil in players to start the season based on the Rocket's current roster (eg. Locke 2nd line, Cliche 3rd line, etc).
Having said that in relation to Locke IMO he should be a 2nd line player as his style is better suited as a offensive forward more than a 3rd line checker. However, you are right that myself and others were pencilling him in as a 2nd line forward last season and he certainly didn't perform like one. BUT where I am hoping the difference will be this season is in his attitude and preparation. Now this may not be fair as I don't know Locke at all but my impression from last season was that after impressing as a rookie I don't think Locke worked as hard as he should have in the offseason and was a little too confident in training camp. This kind of resulted in him being a step behind at the start of the year. But the great news is that Locke worked hard during the season to earn his ice time and I loved that at the end of the season he showed a willingness to fill a checking role which isn't really his style. And so I hope that with the benfit of last season's experience we will see Locke come to camp much more prepared to earn his ice time this season.
As for your comments about trades I think you are being a little selective which presents an unfair picture. The last couple of season the Rocket were rebuilding so rightfully so the focus was on the long term. But over that time Savard has also made moves to bring in players like Doucet, Guilbault, Mealy, Walker who all made an immediate impact and those trades were balanced with some trades which had an expected future impact (eg. Mior, Trukhno, etc).
And the players you mentioned like Bolduc, Levesque, Lund & Haddad were players who weren't contributing much to the present, most of them unhappy and from a GM's point of view were moves that that HAD to be made for whatever value could be obtained otherwise they would have been lost for nothing.
Hawes was the really the only trade of the ones that you mentioned that was sacrificing the present for long-term planning. And I think getting a 2nd round pick and providing players like Locke & Cliche more opportunity to develop was a good move.
And IMO after a few seasons of building, this team should improve on last year's results and be very competitive both this season and next. Time will tell if we have a team that can make a championship run or not but I bet if the Rocket look like potential contenders at Christmas Savard will make additions to help with a run.
|
|
|
Post by wingman on May 28, 2007 20:42:19 GMT -3
I hope you're right. But IMO I think the Rocket have to think of a championship run before the season not at mid season. Last year when Moncton and Quebec had their big seasons, they didn't wait until mid-season before deciding to make a run, they were building for it before the season started. Same with Lewiston, Val D'Or and to some extent Cape Breton this season. Cape Breton made a big move at the trade deadline to get Bourdon for a run, but they still had a team that was capable of making a run before that trade. Right now I don't see the Rocket having that same calibre team for a championship run this year and if they are wanting to do it the season after, they are going to have to basically decide on that now and not wait to do it once that season has started.
|
|
|
Post by Hockeyfan99 on May 29, 2007 7:57:36 GMT -3
The difference was that in the offseason teams like Quebec, VdO, and CB all had teams that were at the end of their development cycle and on paper looked like potential contenders. As a result their GM's went out and made moves to sacrafice some future assets to help make a run. Moncton was an exception as their were Memorial Cup hosts and Lewiston used a different strategy as they didn't load up.
But here is the difference. As it stands right now on Paper PEI isn't a potential contender IMO the Rocket should be very competitive but as things look on paper right now are in the same range as teams like Lewiston, Halifax & Bathurst and that is just in the east. As well the Rocket are not at the end of a development cycle meaning that as a GM you want to be careful not to subtract from next season which should be a good one as well. And in order to separate the Rocket from the rest we would have to make big impact moves like what CB or Quebec made meaning PEI would have to give up Top draft picks (1st or 2nd rounders) or great young prospects like Malouin. And happend if the Savard made a move like that and the team ended up losing in the 2nd or 3rd round?
As you notice the league is getting away from the load up and then completely rebuild strategy that many teams used in the past because there is more parity now and the cost of failure is very high.
Personally I really like the team we have right now although of course we have some question marks which is why I am not opposed to make a minor addition or two right now and then reassess things at Christmas. Then if the Rocket have a team that looks like it is a potential contenders more significant moves can be made. (just my opinion).
|
|
|
Post by SwallowMyBitterPill on May 29, 2007 10:50:08 GMT -3
I think the Rocket could absorb the loss of one top prospect like Malouin to add a player that can contribute this year and next towards a potential contender
Fine and dandy to look on paper and be rosy.. truth is standing pat year after year spinning your wheels leads to nothing but mediocrity.. you'd be hardpressed to find a team with a worse track record in terms of overall performance than the Rocket have had in their entire history
I don't think we need to empty the cupboards at all.. but it would be nice to show your fans you are serious about trying.. otherwise why add a marquis player like Morrison last year at all?
|
|
|
Post by Krang7 on May 29, 2007 10:58:06 GMT -3
I think the Rocket could absorb the loss of one top prospect like Malouin to add a player that can contribute this year and next towards a potential contender Fine and dandy to look on paper and be rosy.. truth is standing pat year after year spinning your wheels leads to nothing but mediocrity.. you'd be hardpressed to find a team with a worse track record in terms of overall performance than the Rocket have had in their entire history I don't think we need to empty the cupboards at all.. but it would be nice to show your fans you are serious about trying.. otherwise why add a marquis player like Morrison last year at all? Couldn't agree with you more BP. Attendance is floundering year after year and one playoff series victory since they moved here is unacceptable. I would welcome a huge push by management not only to have a team that could contend, but also to perhaps save a franchise from leaving this city. It won't be too many more years of mediocrity (or worse) and this team will be in big trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Hockeyfan99 on May 29, 2007 11:02:15 GMT -3
I think the Rocket could absorb the loss of one top prospect like Malouin to add a player that can contribute this year and next towards a potential contender As much as I love Malouin the problem is that him alone won't land you the impact player needed so the question is would people be satisfied if Savard went out and made a major deal moving Malouin & the 11th overall pick for a 19 yr old 40 goal scorer? I wouldn't because even making that kind of impact addition doesn't put us ahead of other potential contenders. And for anyone who says yes what happends if the Rocket make the move and lose to Hal/Lew in the 2nd round or a team like RN in the 3rd. Would be saying at least we took a shot at a championship or pissed that we significantly subtracted from next season? Personally I think the Rocket have too many question marks right now to make any offseason impact trades. And especially with the Rocket expected to be very strong this season and next what is wrong with waiting until Christmas to assess if this is a team that can make a run or not?
|
|
|
Post by SwallowMyBitterPill on May 29, 2007 11:14:13 GMT -3
I'd move Malouin and the 11th pick for a proven scorer in a heartbeat
You don't need 3 17 year old dmen
and there is never a guarantee you won't lose a playoff series you're favoured in.. but if that's your line of thinking then we'll never have a contender here
I also fail to see how that type of move would significantly subtract from next season
|
|
|
Post by Hockeyfan99 on May 29, 2007 11:20:07 GMT -3
I'd move Malouin and the 11th pick for a proven scorer in a heartbeat You don't need 3 17 year old dmen and there is never a guarantee you won't lose a playoff series you're favoured in.. but if that's your line of thinking then we'll never have a contender here I also fail to see how that type of move would significantly subtract from next season If a trade like that was made, the following season the Rocket wouldn't have Malouin as a Top 4 defenseman, the 11th overall pick wouldn't be a 2nd line/3rd line player and a top 19 yr old doesn't return at 20. The Rocket then need to fill those 3 holes if they want to be strong again the following season. And I never said don't make big trades because there isn't a gaurantee for playoff success but you have to consider that this is still a developing team with questions so what happends if the Rocket make that kind of big move at the draft the player they get produces as hoped but as a team the Rocket only end up being 3rd/4th in the East? My thinking is lets give this team some time to assess how players have developed and what this team's potential might be. And if they show they are a legitimate potential contender then make the necessary moves. But I don't see the sense making big moves if the team isn't ready to make a run.
|
|
|
Post by SwallowMyBitterPill on May 29, 2007 11:45:36 GMT -3
so was adding Morrison and Gervais not a big move?
|
|
|
Post by Hockeyfan99 on May 29, 2007 11:49:58 GMT -3
so was adding Morrison and Gervais not a big move? Morrison was a 19 yr old expected to be back as a 20 and Gervais was an 18 yr old. These players were added from Gatineau for 19 yr old Mior who lost his starting role and 20 yr old Guilbault. I think this was a very good trade which at the time was considered temporarily subtracting from the current (last season) with a view to building for the future (upcoming season). If the Rocket made another deal like this I would be estatic. But what you are suggesting is subtracting from the future to add to the present which is a completely different scenario.
|
|
|
Post by SwallowMyBitterPill on May 29, 2007 11:52:44 GMT -3
you said you didnt see the sense in making big trades if a team is not prepared to contend
i feel adding a top 10 scorer who will be one of the best overagers a big trade.. we obviously weren't contending last year.. that type of deal should only have been made (using your logic which i agree with) if we had an eye to contend this year.. true or false?
If we were not planning to contend .. I see no reason to bother acquiring a Morrison
Losing one defenseman and one draft pick is not a loss that can't be overcome
|
|
|
Post by Hockeyfan99 on May 29, 2007 13:04:14 GMT -3
Again IMO you are talking about 2 different completely scenarios.
If you are suggesting that Savard try to improve this team by trading a 19/20 yr old 1 yr player and draft picks for a younger better 18/19 yr old 2 yr player then I completely AGREE but that is a tough deal to find.
If you are suggesting that Savard try to improve this team by trading a 1st/2nd round draft pick and/or a quality prospect like Malouin for a 1 yr player then I completely DISAGREE.
Also question how would you have felt about the Morrison/Gervais deal if it had cost Southorn and a 1st round pick? Personally I think that would have been a horrible move given that I don't think the Rocket were/are a contending team.
Generally trades involve one team subtracting from the future for the present and vice versa for the other team. Trades which improve both the current and future for one team without substantially subtracting from the future are hard to find as it means the other team made a very bad deal.
And the younger and more established a player is the more a trade will cost and less likely that he will be available for anything but an unreasonable price. And what you are suggesting that you want the Rocket to add an 18 yr old forward who is expected to score 30 plus goals this season. And of those forwards can you even name 1 that might be available for anything even close to Malouin & a 1st? (Guys like Perron, Esposito, MacMillian, don't move for reasonable prices they move at a big cost just like Marchand and Bourdon did when they were 18).
And so I can't see how the Rocket can make a BIG TRADE which contributes to this year and next without substantially subtracting from the future. If Savard is somehow able to pull that kind of deal off at the draft then he may deserve GM of the year consideration at the conclusion of the upcoming season.
|
|
|
Post by SwallowMyBitterPill on May 29, 2007 14:17:18 GMT -3
You never answered me.. did you consider that a big deal?
And if it only makes sense to make big deals when teams are contending than don't you think we should be primed to be contending THIS YEAR?
I never once suggested Malouin and a 1st would get us an 18 year old star player so stop putting words in my mouth... I said if we could land a proven goal scorer at the cost of one defense prospect who may or may not be a top 4 guy SOMEDAY and a high draft pick i'd do it to show the fans that yes we are serious about trying to win more than a first round playoff series.. thank you for your patience over the past 3 years of complete bumblefuckness
and there are lots of 19 year old players who could be had with 2 years of Q service left.. nobody suggested an 18 y/o had to be acquired... it'a not my job to go find who they may be that's Serge's job.. you asked if I would be okay with dealing Malouin and our 11th pick for a 40 goal scorer and I answered you
|
|
|
Post by SwallowMyBitterPill on May 29, 2007 14:18:53 GMT -3
and basically if we had used a 2nd or 3rd round pick to fill our third overage slot with somebody like Pare or Caciotti we wouldn't even be having this discussion
|
|