2018 OHL Trade Deadline Review & Report Cards

[Brock]

OHL Prospects: 2018 OHL Trade Deadline Report Cards

My annual review of this year's trade deadline action where I examine all the trades each team made and grade their performance.

Click to read more...

 

[aresknights]

Thanks for the summary. Well done

 

[Fischhaber]

OHL Prospects: 2018 OHL Trade Deadline Report Cards

My annual review of this year's trade deadline action where I examine all the trades each team made and grade their performance.

Wonderful job as always. I enjoyed reading the reviews.

With Tammela already playing for Syracuse, do you think there's a chance that he still comes to the OHL or has that ship sailed? The Hounds seemed very confident, almost certain, that he would report at the time of the trade.

 

[Brock]

Wonderful job as always. I enjoyed reading the reviews.

With Tammela already playing for Syracuse, do you think there's a chance that he still comes to the OHL or has that ship sailed? The Hounds seemed very confident, almost certain, that he would report at the time of the trade.

If he starts producing...yes. But if they find that he's a step behind the play because of how much time he's missed, it's a great option for them to have. Plus...it helps having him in an organization like Tampa which has a massive respect for the OHL. I don't think that ship has completely sailed yet.

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

I'd have loved to be in this class......one "C" as the worst mark over twenty "students"

Must have been one heckuva bell curve!

All kidding aside, I love all of the write ups and having all of the moves summarized in one place makes it very easy to compare who did what and who didn't.

I do think you were far too kind in the grades assigned. By your measure, every team did at least pretty well which I don't agree with. I like the rankings, but the there were definitely some failures at this deadline.

 

[Generalsupdates]

OHL Prospects: 2018 OHL Trade Deadline Report Cards

My annual review of this year's trade deadline action where I examine all the trades each team made and grade their performance.

Don't really understand your Commisso comment under the Gens section. He's a point per game guy already and will be back next year when the Gens will be very good, why would they trade him this deadline or next offseason? He and Brassard are locks to be Gens OA's next year

 

[OSA]

Dale DeGray deserves a much lower mark IMO

 

[Fischhaber]

If he starts producing...yes. But if they find that he's a step behind the play because of how much time he's missed, it's a great option for them to have. Plus...it helps having him in an organization like Tampa which has a massive respect for the OHL. I don't think that ship has completely sailed yet.

Thanks for your input. I hope that Tammela can either prove himself or be sent down in the near future so that he has time to integrate into the Hounds system.

 

[Brock]

Don't really understand your Commisso comment under the Gens section. He's a point per game guy already and will be back next year when the Gens will be very good, why would they trade him this deadline or next offseason? He and Brassard are locks to be Gens OA's next year

The same reason you trade a guy like Riley Stillman. Because you can capitalize on trading a player while their value is at its highest.

Now the Generals move into next year with a ton of 98's and not enough OA spots. A few will have to be moved this offseason, or in the case of Krastenbergs, likely released. Will there be a market for a guy like Henderson as an OA?

I used Commisso as the example because I had read several rumours surrounding him near the deadline. And it would make sense because of the team's center depth. Studnicka and McShane as the 1/2, and utilize MacLean as the 3rd line cengter. Can also move Nick Wong back to the middle, his natural position.

 

[Brock]

I'd have loved to be in this class......one "C" as the worst mark over twenty "students"

Must have been one heckuva bell curve!

All kidding aside, I love all of the write ups and having all of the moves summarized in one place makes it very easy to compare who did what and who didn't.

I do think you were far too kind in the grades assigned. By your measure, every team did at least pretty well which I don't agree with. I like the rankings, but the there were definitely some failures at this deadline.

Quite frankly, I don't think anyone had a terrible deadline and thus those grades were provided. I think some teams had subpar deadlines, but no one deserves a failing grade.

I disagree with what Mississauga did, but I see the reasoning and you can't argue with the results.

Peterborough did excellent in the Ang deal, even though I wish they had move more pieces out.

Owen Sound, who's to say that they didn't try to bring in a guy like Sokolov, but Sudbury preferred the Lipanov option? And in goaltending, what was out there? Rychel made it perfectly clear that he wasn't moving Dipietro. And I would hazard a guess that the Petes made the same call with Dylan Wells.

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

Quite frankly, I don't think anyone had a terrible deadline and thus those grades were provided. I think some teams had subpar deadlines, but no one deserves a failing grade.

I disagree with what Mississauga did, but I see the reasoning and you can't argue with the results.

Peterborough did excellent in the Ang deal, even though I wish they had move more pieces out.

Owen Sound, who's to say that they didn't try to bring in a guy like Sokolov, but Sudbury preferred the Lipanov option? And in goaltending, what was out there? Rychel made it perfectly clear that he wasn't moving Dipietro. And I would hazard a guess that the Petes made the same call with Dylan Wells.

I see what you mean, I just disagree. In my mind, "sub-par" translates to 'not good enough'. Semantics perhaps.

Whether through lack of try or lack of execution, the teams you mentioned (minus WSR in my opinion) and including a few others, didn't do enough to either cement themselves as a legit playoff threat or to turn current, mostly dead assets into futures.

Agree to disagree.

Anyway, thanks for all the info nonetheless!

 

[Generalsupdates]

The same reason you trade a guy like Riley Stillman. Because you can capitalize on trading a player while their value is at its highest.

Now the Generals move into next year with a ton of 98's and not enough OA spots. A few will have to be moved this offseason, or in the case of Krastenbergs, likely released. Will there be a market for a guy like Henderson as an OA?

I used Commisso as the example because I had read several rumours surrounding him near the deadline. And it would make sense because of the team's center depth. Studnicka and McShane as the 1/2, and utilize MacLean as the 3rd line cengter. Can also move Nick Wong back to the middle, his natural position.

Really I think they traded Stillman because you can upgrade on him pretty easily (he was terrible for the Gens this year). I don’t think you can easily upgrade on a point per game, 56% on draws centre. If the Gens weren’t ready to win next year then I’d agree with that, but they will be (last year with Studnicka and Keyser). Guys like Allen/Henderson/Ceci/Harrogate weren’t moved because you would get very little in return for them. And if someone actually wanted them, you could get the same small return in the off-season. Krastenbergs is a good player but the Euro market was basically non existent. Gens also had won 7/8 going into the deadline and I understand not wanting to ruin the team chemistry for a couple 5th round picks

 

[SaginawFan]

OHL Prospects: 2018 OHL Trade Deadline Report Cards

My annual review of this year's trade deadline action where I examine all the trades each team made and grade their performance.

Saginaw had 4 d-man and you are shocked they pick up a couple!! Maybe you need to get off the couch and go and actually see some games before you comment on a team or kids.

 

[OHL4Life]

I see what you mean, I just disagree. In my mind, "sub-par" translates to 'not good enough'. Semantics perhaps.

Whether through lack of try or lack of execution, the teams you mentioned (minus WSR in my opinion) and including a few others, didn't do enough to either cement themselves as a legit playoff threat or to turn current, mostly dead assets into futures.

Agree to disagree.

Anyway, thanks for all the info nonetheless!

i dont think thats what the trade deadline should be for? it should be to add a piece or two to help what you already have, not transform your team into a contender overnight.

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

i dont think thats what the trade deadline should be for? it should be to add a piece or two to help what you already have, not transform your team into a contender overnight.

I never said they had to transform overnight. I said (and you quoted) that they should be cementing themselves as contenders or selling mostly dead assets.

There are handful of teams that didn't do enough either way......Guelph, Owen Sound, Peterborough, Mississauga and even Barrie to an extent all had poor deadlines, IMO. In some cases it appears GM's didn't want to pay the acquisition cost for what was clearly needed. In other cases management held onto assets that will expire for nothing merely to "keep the team competitive" for the rest of the year, which is awfully short sighted. With the league being (in theory) so cyclical, the picks you give up can be reacquired in a year or two, and the picks acquired can be dealt in a year or two so I really don't understand the hesitancy.

This half pregnant approach that some teams use under the guise of keeping their fans happy is nothing more than an attempt to hide ownership's desire for playoff gate revenue, even if it might only be two dates. It's short sighted and doesn't really help anyone other than the owner's pocket book...and shockingly, it's a lot of the same teams doing it time after time.

 

[OHL4Life]

I never said they had to transform overnight. I said (and you quoted) that they should be cementing themselves as contenders or selling mostly dead assets.

There are handful of teams that didn't do enough either way......Guelph, Owen Sound, Peterborough, Mississauga and even Barrie to an extent all had poor deadlines, IMO. In some cases it appears GM's didn't want to pay the acquisition cost for what was clearly needed. In other cases management held onto assets that will expire for nothing merely to "keep the team competitive" for the rest of the year, which is awfully short sighted. With the league being (in theory) so cyclical, the picks you give up can be reacquired in a year or two, and the picks acquired can be dealt in a year or two so I really don't understand the hesitancy.

This half pregnant approach that some teams use under the guise of keeping their fans happy is nothing more than an attempt to hide ownership's desire for playoff gate revenue, even if it might only be two dates. It's short sighted and doesn't really help anyone other than the owner's pocket book...and shockingly, it's a lot of the same teams doing it time after time.

as brock mentioned, without knowing what was offered for anyone, its hard to criticize imo. guelph moved smith, was there a market for other players? im not sure there would be for what guelph would want for someone like mcewen? if they only get a 4th round pick offer, its not on them, its what the market dictates. it would make sense for owen sound and peterborough to hook up on goalies, but wells didnt get traded, so how can anyone know what the offer was?

i think its easy to take shots from afar, but simply judging teams based on what got moved, there wasnt alot of action after the big moves where made. barrie gave up a ton for luchuk, you can say 'why didnt they make the move for dipietro', but if dipietro didnt want to go, what can barrie do? its not on them if the kid doesnt want to go there.

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

Actually, I find it quite easy to criticize from my couch hahaha lol

In your McEwan example, if I was Guelph and someone offered anything, I would take it. He has no current value to the team in my opinion. This team is going to make the playoffs with or without him, and their success within them does not hinge on James. A 10th rounder would be better than the nothing the team will get when he moves on. Again, this is just how I see things. If management wants to treat the team as a business (high prices, ridiculous prices on concessions in the arena, few if any perks to fans STH etc) then I am going to evaluate the teams assets (players) as such.

As far as the goalie example....there is no price Owen Sound should have balked at. It is/was very important for them to get a tested, reliable goalie IMO, and they failed. Every player/team has it's price.....you just have to find it. To me, its just excuses from GM's trying to keep their jobs and make themselves look less incompetent. If Winsdor/PBO flat refused to trade their goalies, then they failed their teams and their fans and they should have received failing grades. If PBO/WSR were willing to trade, then Owen Sound failed for not ponying up what was needed.

Doesn't matter though. I'm often on my own when it comes to this all or nothing opinion. Thanks for the discussion though! You definitely make a strong case - especially in terms of the possibility of the non-moves being player dictated....I hadn't considered that.

 

[OHL4Life]

Actually, I find it quite easy to criticize from my couch hahaha lol

In your McEwan example, if I was Guelph and someone offered anything, I would take it. He has no current value to the team in my opinion. This team is going to make the playoffs with or without him, and their success within them does not hinge on James. A 10th rounder would be better than the nothing the team will get when he moves on. Again, this is just how I see things. If management wants to treat the team as a business (high prices, ridiculous prices on concessions in the arena, few if any perks to fans STH etc) then I am going to evaluate the teams assets (players) as such.

if your the owner and mcewen can be the difference between getting another home date in the playoffs or not, thats more valuable then a 10th round pick. plus, that extra home date may be enough to increase the budget to sign an american player. never that simple.

As far as the goalie example....there is no price Owen Sound should have balked at. It is/was very important for them to get a tested, reliable goalie IMO, and they failed. Every player/team has it's price.....you just have to find it. To me, its just excuses from GM's trying to keep their jobs and make themselves look less incompetent. If Winsdor/PBO flat refused to trade their goalies, then they failed their teams and their fans and they should have received failing grades. If PBO/WSR were willing to trade, then Owen Sound failed for not ponying up what was needed.

i remember reading in the sportsnet article that owen sound needs to be competitive every year or they lose the team. im going to guess thats probably why 'no price' doesnt work for them. and again, neither wells or dipietro where actually traded, so how can we know if there was any interest from peterborough/windsor to move them. rychel said he never considered it, im not sure thats actually the case but i do think dipietro wasnt going to waive to go anywhere.

if they missed out on a better goalie that was actually moved, then sure, but its hard to rip on a team for not trading for a guy that may never have been on the market. i can rip windsor for not trading for cam hillis, doesnt mean that he was ever an option. it takes two to tango.

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

if your the owner and mcewen can be the difference between getting another home date in the playoffs or not, thats more valuable then a 10th round pick. plus, that extra home date may be enough to increase the budget to sign an american player. never that simple.

I don't think McEwan is that difference maker, do you? Do you see a scenario where he is the difference in a series vs Kitchener where the series is extended to 6 games? Seems very unlikely to me.

Also, I didn't realize there was a cost to signing an American player? I thought that was against the rules? Regardless, McEwan doesn't move the needle enough to impact this even if it is allowed, IMO. Plus, wouldn't having a better team down the road make the city/team more attractive to a potential recruit rather than being a middling franchise?

i remember reading in the sportsnet article that owen sound needs to be competitive every year or they lose the team. im going to guess thats probably why 'no price' doesnt work for them. and again, neither wells or dipietro where actually traded, so how can we know if there was any interest from peterborough/windsor to move them. rychel said he never considered it, im not sure thats actually the case but i do think dipietro wasnt going to waive to go anywhere.

if they missed out on a better goalie that was actually moved, then sure, but its hard to rip on a team for not trading for a guy that may never have been on the market. i can rip windsor for not trading for cam hillis, doesnt mean that he was ever an option. it takes two to tango.

Just as you say that I can't know what or wasn't available when I make my argument, the same goes for you. We are both just guessing. Not sure why my scenario is any less reasonable than yours. We just disagree on whether or not I, as a paying fan, am able to criticize what was or was not done based on what the team's management is willing to share. I learned a long time ago that teams tell their fans what they need to hear, not the truth. Sometimes those might be the same thing, but there really is no reason for a team to disclose the truth about backroom dealing.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this one!

 

[OHL4Life]

Also, I didn't realize there was a cost to signing an American player? I thought that was against the rules? Regardless, McEwan doesn't move the needle enough to impact this even if it is allowed, IMO. Plus, wouldn't having a better team down the road make the city/team more attractive to a potential recruit rather than being a middling franchise?

i have a friend that works with the spitfires. theyre american education packages come in american dollars. canadian packages come in canadian dollars. its much more expensive to sign the ameican. adding an extra playoff date banks more money to pay $40k american vs $10k canadian.

Just as you say that I can't know what or wasn't available when I make my argument, the same goes for you. We are both just guessing. Not sure why my scenario is any less reasonable than yours. We just disagree on whether or not I, as a paying fan, am able to criticize what was or was not done based on what the team's management is willing to share. I learned a long time ago that teams tell their fans what they need to hear, not the truth. Sometimes those might be the same thing, but there really is no reason for a team to disclose the truth about backroom dealing.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this one!

i think the difference between the two arguments is we do know that no goalies where traded, which is what brock brought up at the top. we can guess that goalies may have been available or not, but its a guess, but what we know is that none where moved. in your situation your guessing, in mine im dealing with what happened.
im not a fan of guessing, i like facts, fancy stats, etc. so to say any team failed to trade for a player that was never traded seems odd to me. there where many teams looking for goalies the week leading up to the deadline, the fact that wells wasnt moved says that peterborough wasnt moving him. i find it hard to put that on other teams.

 

[RoyalCitySlicker]

i think the difference between the two arguments is we do know that no goalies where traded, which is what brock brought up at the top. we can guess that goalies may have been available or not, but its a guess, but what we know is that none where moved. in your situation your guessing, in mine im dealing with what happened.
im not a fan of guessing, i like facts, fancy stats, etc. so to say any team failed to trade for a player that was never traded seems odd to me. there where many teams looking for goalies the week leading up to the deadline, the fact that wells wasnt moved says that peterborough wasnt moving him. i find it hard to put that on other teams.

The FACT is that no goalies were moved; the rest is all opinion. You don't know why a goalie wasn't moved. You say it's likely because they weren't available. I say its because teams were unwilling to pony up. Both opinions, yours no more valid than mine. You're guessing on the why as much as I am.

Also, even if you are right and they weren't available, then I believe them being unavailable was a mistake by the teams who own their rights.

The only way I'd make an exception is if it was confirmed the reason players didn't move was due to NTC's.

 

[OHL4Life]

The FACT is that no goalies were moved; the rest is all opinion. You don't know why a goalie wasn't moved. You say it's likely because they weren't available. I say its because teams were unwilling to pony up. Both opinions, yours no more valid than mine. You're guessing on the why as much as I am.

Also, even if you are right and they weren't available, then I believe them being unavailable was a mistake by the teams who own their rights.

The only way I'd make an exception is if it was confirmed the reason players didn't move was due to NTC's.

could very well be the case, but if multiple teams tried to improve their goalies and none where moved, that probably means none where available. the fact that none where moved suggests that was indeed the case.

 

[OHL4Life]

Saginaw had 4 d-man and you are shocked they pick up a couple!! Maybe you need to get off the couch and go and actually see some games before you comment on a team or kids.

seriously? lol

 

[Finster8]

Saginaw only traded for 1 D and Millman is a prospect who was called up due to a need to an injury riddled D. Webb is an excellent addition for maybe 2.5 years if he stays around for an OA year. As far as why, they had to simple as that. lt doesn't change the teams chemistry and they develop another young D.

 

[OSA]

The issue is that the grading didn’t just involve the trade deadline; it was a grading based on the summation of trades made by teams up until the trade deadline.

By that grading standard, Dale DeGray deserves a clear F. There very well may not have been any goalies available by January, but there certainly were good ones available throughout Sept-Dec. Heck, he traded for one and then immediately shipped him out for a defenseman!! Like what the actual f*** are you doing??

I don’t think any hole on a team in the OHL was as glaringly obvious this year as the one in goal in Owen Sound. The team should have been battling with the Soo for best in the league. It is an absolute travesty that they are just hanging onto the final playoff spot at this point.