London Knights 2018-19 Season Thread (Part 6)

[EON]

Continued from: London Knights 2018-19 Season Thread (Part 5)

Click to read more...

 

[Gloverone2020]

The giveaways are horrible.

 

[Nabru]

Knights making unforced turnovers but also having trouble with Windsor’s forcheck. That’s how you beat London.

And Windsor isn’t an overly fast team.

Fortunate to be up 5-3 through two.

Stranges is the best playmaking forward this team has. He should be on PP1.

 

[aresknights]

"What about Timms?

Hypothetical...

Timms traded somewhere for a couple 3rds

London trades the two 3rds received for Timms + two 2nds and a 4th for Hancock

OR

London trades Evangelista + two 2nds for Suzuki

See where I am going here?"

I like what Hancock could bring to a club, playing on any line effectively. But that is a bit pricey for me. But I wouldnt be too upset.

Timms getting flipped for picks wouldnt hurt the club at all. ( i dont know if any1 would be upset lol)
Enough players on the back end to move the puck without the TOs.

Seems a fair price for a Suzuki type player for sure. Maybe even underpriced.
I would like the combo deal at first glance if they cone together. Grit n talent up front. And a fair deal.

Its really in Suzukis hands. He will get the choice from OS if he wants to move and he will pick his destination.

 

[OMG67]

"What about Timms?

Hypothetical...

Timms traded somewhere for a couple 3rds

London trades the two 3rds received for Timms + two 2nds and a 4th for Hancock

OR

London trades Evangelista + two 2nds for Suzuki

See where I am going here?"

I like what Hancock could bring to a club, playing on any line effectively. But that is a bit pricey for me. But I wouldnt be too upset.

Timms getting flipped for picks wouldnt hurt the club at all. ( i dont know if any1 would be upset lol)
Enough players on the back end to move the puck without the TOs.

Seems a fair price for a Suzuki type player for sure. Maybe even underpriced.
I would like the combo deal at first glance if they cone together. Grit n talent up front. And a fair deal.

Its really in Suzukis hands. He will get the choice from OS if he wants to move and he will pick his destination.

What I meant was you can trade Timms and a couple 2nds and a 4th for Hancock OR you can trade Evangelista and picks for Suzuki. To me, if you are dressing an OA D-Man on the 3rd pair and scratching capable defenders, maybe it would be better and cheaper to upgrade the OA spot instead of paying through the nose for a 19 year old forward that give you the same production.

 

[aresknights]

What I meant was you can trade Timms and a couple 2nds and a 4th for Hancock OR you can trade Evangelista and picks for Suzuki. To me, if you are dressing an OA D-Man on the 3rd pair and scratching capable defenders, maybe it would be better and cheaper to upgrade the OA spot instead of paying through the nose for a 19 year old forward that give you the same production.

I dont disagree in theory.
It also depends on cards left. Some say 1 some say 2. If its 2 Id pay the price for both deals (for any 2 players of that quality at that price)
If only 1 card is left, I dont care the price. Pay for the player you value more as an addition to your team. No time to bargain hunt. Prioritize and pay the price for what you want if only 1 card left.

 

[OMG67]

I dont disagree in theory.
It also depends on cards left. Some say 1 some say 2. If its 2 Id pay the price for both deals (for any 2 players of that quality at that price)
If only 1 card is left, I dont care the price. Pay for the player you value more as an addition to your team. No time to bargain hunt. Prioritize and pay the price for what you want if only 1 card left.

Would you classify Hancock as a downgrade enough to say it is a bargain hunt?

Personally, I think Hancock is a solid player, maybe even as good as Suzuki if you look only at OHL production and don't consider future NHL considerations etc.

 

[CarriageRider]

"What about Timms?

Hypothetical...

Timms traded somewhere for a couple 3rds

London trades the two 3rds received for Timms + two 2nds and a 4th for Hancock

OR

London trades Evangelista + two 2nds for Suzuki

See where I am going here?"

I like what Hancock could bring to a club, playing on any line effectively. But that is a bit pricey for me. But I wouldnt be too upset.

Timms getting flipped for picks wouldnt hurt the club at all. ( i dont know if any1 would be upset lol)
Enough players on the back end to move the puck without the TOs.

Seems a fair price for a Suzuki type player for sure. Maybe even underpriced.
I would like the combo deal at first glance if they cone together. Grit n talent up front. And a fair deal.

Its really in Suzukis hands. He will get the choice from OS if he wants to move and he will pick his destination.

Why do you think you would get two thirds for Timms in a buyer’s market when you gave up a third and fourth earlier this year ? Half the overage year is over and I don’t see a big marker for him amongst the buying group.

 

[TheCoach]

And thats what Cotter is here for grit and to create space for his line mates whoever they are

 

[ReLyT]

Burn the tape and move on from this pretty brutal game.

 

[aresknights]

Why do you think you would get two thirds for Timms in a buyer’s market when you gave up a third and fourth earlier this year ? Half the overage year is over and I don’t see a big marker for him amongst the buying group.

Never said anyone would. Someone else brought it up as a hypothetical.
I used quotes from their post from a discontinued thread that reached its limit.

But stranger things have happened (see the Rowe returns from this years 2 deals )

 

[aresknights]

Would you classify Hancock as a downgrade enough to say it is a bargain hunt?

Personally, I think Hancock is a solid player, maybe even as good as Suzuki if you look only at OHL production and don't consider future NHL considerations etc.

Downgrade? Over Timms? Nope, huge upgrade in OA and esp on LK roster.
I said i like what he could bring to any team. He can play on any line effectively.

Im not comparing he to Suzuki. If only 1 card remains in London Mark has to prioritize what he wants more for this club is all I was getting at. Not my choice. I think both those "type" players could help London but Id prefer the player with more jam for this team.

And i dont disagree Hancock may be a better fit here for this team. I was just thinking the peice you suggested for an OA was high and for Suzuki was low. I could ve wrong. No worries.

 

[Fastpace]

An ugly 8-6 win over Windsor, Two nice things out of this game - 1) Cotter finally at home with 2goals and 2 assists and - 2) got two points for the win. Now turn the page and start fresh from the basic cause powerful Sarnia offense is next for the next 2 games

 

[nelli27]

Post-game thoughts:

What was that? Holiday hangover? Not to mention some bizarre coaching decisions. Hunter rotated the defensive pairings throughout most of the game, and he did the same thing for the O lines for the first half of the game. For what purpose?
We're lucky that Sudbury (and not Windsor) got the "good" Finn goalie in the Import draft. Overall, a sloppy, undisciplined game.
PP:
Windsor 2/5
London 2/4
Take the two points and move on...

Hedon rating: 5/10

 

[zman77]

London 8-6 Win over Windsor

Stars Of The Game

First Josh Nelson.............2 Goals 1 Assist......+3..........5 Shots
#26 London Knights

Second Paul Cotter............2 Goals 2 Assists.......+3.......4 Shots.........NHL Contract
#43 London Knights

 

[zman77]

Not all the boys were sharp tonight.
Connor McMichael:
1 Goal 1 Assist... +1... 8 Shots ...10/19 FO's

 

[GobigorGohome]

Was quite an entertaining game.
Lots of giveaways in own zone but give Windsor credit as they put on a heavy forecheck.
#7 is good.
Cotter Was best Knight tonight.
We all had a great time.

 

[Knights2729]

I think that the only way the Knights would possibly let Timms go is if they could pick up Brazeau from North Bay. That would be a sweet move in my opinion.

 

[zman77]

Evan Bouchard: Team Canada WJC 2019
December 28th, 2018 Post Media
VANCOUVER — It was a few days ago when the phone rang and Evan Bouchard was told Connor McDavid was on the line.
Considering the state of disrepair of Edmonton’s defence corps at the time — Oscar Klefbom and Kris Russell had just joined Andrej Sekera on the injured list — Bouchard might have been forgiven for letting his mind wander. After all, it was only two months earlier when he had been playing for the Oilers, before being returned to junior.
Could McDavid be calling to say Bouchard was coming back to The Show?
Not quite. Turns out, the Oilers captain just wanted to wish Team Canada good luck heading into the world junior hockey championship.
In other words, Bouchard isn’t going anywhere just yet. And he’s fine with that. Though the 19-year-old turned heads earlier this season when he made the Oilers out of training camp and then became the youngest defenceman in franchise history to score a goal, the best place for him right now is in junior.
At the same time, he knows he’s just a phone call away from realizing his dreams.
“I don’t think it’s too far away,” said Bouchard. “Getting in games this year was important for me and good for me to see how it is. I don’t think that jump’s too far, but there’s definitely work to be done. They made it clear to me that there’s still stuff to work on. I agree with them.
“There’s a lot to work on. I’m just trying to focus on that right now. The main focus is competing at the world juniors and focusing on what the coaching staff is talking about here. I think next season will come. It’s just not a focus of mine right now.”
“He’s a leader back there,” said Canada head coach Tim Hunter. “He sees the play and has that patience threshold with the puck to make the play and find the pass that not a lot of defencemen can. We’d just like him to skate a little bit more and be a little bit more aggressive with his speed and closing the gap and checking and things like that. It comes with learning and how we want to play.”
Traikos: Bouchard firmly focused on junior this season

 

[OMG67]

Downgrade? Over Timms? Nope, huge upgrade in OA and esp on LK roster.
I said i like what he could bring to any team. He can play on any line effectively.

Im not comparing he to Suzuki. If only 1 card remains in London Mark has to prioritize what he wants more for this club is all I was getting at. Not my choice. I think both those "type" players could help London but Id prefer the player with more jam for this team.

And i dont disagree Hancock may be a better fit here for this team. I was just thinking the peice you suggested for an OA was high and for Suzuki was low. I could ve wrong. No worries.

At the end of the day, my point is irregardless of cost so to speak. The question basically is would you rather have Hancock and Evangelists or Suzuki and Timms? Essentially that is what it comes down to. Personally, I'd rather the former vs the latter.

 

[Purple Phart]

Whenever the team adds a new player close to the deadline, I look forward to seeing them in action, and looking for the positives that they possibly will add. Gotta admit I was disappointed, but then am prepared to give some slack. #7 showed some ability, but did make some unforced turnovers in the defensive end. I'll chalk that up to this being his initial game without benefit of a practice, or the knowledge of the team's system, or players. I expect that his play will improve significantly.

Raaymakers did not look sharp initially, and that look was consistant for the entire game. Holiday hangover perhaps, or maybe he got the updated version of Grand Theft Auto for Christmas. Nelson appeared to be eager to start, and was rewarded for his work ethic.

Question : With 10 d-men, and 7 spots available, there is bound to be 3 departures. The other GM's see the situation for what it is, and I can't see how these 3 d-men will return in picks, what they ordinarily might fetch. One could possibly even get waived, with no return. I guess that all will be revealed soon enough, but it's very curious that addition of another d-man made that logjam all the more concentrated, and subtracted another card from the team's allottment.
Is there the possibility of a "package deal " being made to a team whose d-corps is in need of improvement ? Which team might that be ???

 

[Fastpace]

Whenever the team adds a new player close to the deadline, I look forward to seeing them in action, and looking for the positives that they possibly will add. Gotta admit I was disappointed, but then am prepared to give some slack. #7 showed some ability, but did make some unforced turnovers in the defensive end. I'll chalk that up to this being his initial game without benefit of a practice, or the knowledge of the team's system, or players. I expect that his play will improve significantly.

Raaymakers did not look sharp initially, and that look was consistant for the entire game. Holiday hangover perhaps, or maybe he got the updated version of Grand Theft Auto for Christmas. Nelson appeared to be eager to start, and was rewarded for his work ethic.

Question : With 10 d-men, and 7 spots available, there is bound to be 3 departures. The other GM's see the situation for what it is, and I can't see how these 3 d-men will return in picks, what they ordinarily might fetch. One could possibly even get waived, with no return. I guess that all will be revealed soon enough, but it's very curious that addition of another d-man made that logjam all the more concentrated, and subtracted another card from the team's allottment.
Is there the possibility of a "package deal " being made to a team whose d-corps is in need of improvement ? Which team might that be ???

The whole team had a long layoff for the holidays and so did Keane as well. Nothing on Raaymakers or #7 in this last game as the whole team defensive system were a little off in that game, but can they bring it back up in time for their their next game. I think they all will, one game after a few days off is not enough to pass judgment just yet on Raaymakers poor showing or some little mixed up plays from their new member without even a practice in.

 

[CarriageRider]

Never said anyone would. Someone else brought it up as a hypothetical.
I used quotes from their post from a discontinued thread that reached its limit.

But stranger things have hapoened (see the Rowe returns from this years 2 deals )

If you are going to throw out hypotheticals it might make sense to have some rationale behind it. Including who might care to trade for the player in question and why they would pay more than London did for a full year. Flint really doesn’t need An overage D for half a year when they are going to finish last so you can’t rip them off again. Quoting someone else doesn’t really excuse you for not having a valid case,

 

[Nabru]

I just can’t see any team looking for any depth D London has right now. Maybe Perrott because of his age and somewhat decent rookie year at 16. I have a hard time seeing any of Timms, Golden or Coome fetching much of anything - package deal or not. They’d be throw-ins for a bigger trade or sent to non-contending teams for low pick(s) to clear space. G. Keane isn’t going anywhere (obviously).

Timms was acquired before Bouchard or Boqvist were known to be returning. And before Lochead and J. Keane were acquired. His style of play is redundant on this roster and has been for some time. Not to mention there are at least five better D on the roster once the WJC is over and the deadline is in the past. There is no need for a 6D OA riverboat gambler. It was pretty painful to watch a 16 year old make him look like it was his first game in the league tonight. I know many others made glaring mistakes against Windsor, but it seems Timms does it more frequently.

If it were my way, I’d trade and or waive Timms and Golden. G. Keane and Perrott would rotate as 6 and 7D. Coome as 8D. Play the hell out of your top 5 D in important games. Get a good OA forward as suggested earlier and another forward if there are two cards left. But not all of that is going to happen.

 

[Nabru]

If you are going to throw out hypotheticals it might make sense to have some rationale behind it. Including who might care to trade for the player in question and why they would pay more than London did for a full year. Flint really doesn’t need An overage D for half a year when they are going to finish last so you can’t rip them off again. Quoting someone else doesn’t really excuse you for not having a valid case,

It wasn’t ares’ quote. It was OMG67’s hypothetical arbitrary price from the previous thread. The Flint part clearly looked to be in jest judging by the at the end of the post.