VALUE of players for trade???

[OMG67]

Don't need to worry about what the top teams do. More worried about what Guelph or London do. Smart additons would be a good idea so that Kitchener, Soo, or Sarnia aren't the round one opponent. And really more worried about what Guelph does. Already have London penciled in at 4.

That’s what I said. If teams like Kitchener and London buy and Saginaw stands pat, then they will lag behind enough to make it tough to push forward through round one.

 

[OMG67]

I tend to agree. It would be a different story if Saginaw's draft cupboard was bare. But they have a ton of picks in all rounds that count the next few years. If anything, maybe they trade a couple of their 2018 second round picks for second round picks in 2019 or 2020. In doing that, they could probably pick up an extra couple picks in later rounds (3rd or 4th) for allowing a team to move up to the 2018 draft. You see, if they decide that next year could be a year they make a run, the players they'd draft with those three 2018 second round picks they have, cannot be included in any trades next year. But if they are able to swap out those picks for later picks, those later picks can be used in deals next year.

I have a feeling you may see them not trade anybody away unless they get an offer they can't refuse on one of their vets.

If I'm Saginaw, I'm thinking I hang onto my vets and try to play some meaningful games in the playoffs. There's a big difference between getting blown out in four games in the 1st round against a top team and taking a team to six or seven games in the 1st round.

Also, with the Leafs' farm system being so deep, it would not be out of the realm of possibility that Middleton gets sent back for an overage season next year. That would be huge for them should they choose to contend next year.

The problem is two-fold:

1> The team is strong enough to be competitive this year if they add a couple players. Problem is the conference is already top heavy. So utilizing those assets to acquire players for a probable round 2 exit isn’t probably very wise.
2> The team has a roster age set that is awkward. They are somewhat strong this year or at least could be but if they hold back this year, next year isn’t really their year. The team this year is better than what they will ice next year. It is the following year where they seem to be set up nicely.

So, if they were to trade two or three of their assets this year they could use those assets in a couple years and really bulk up. Plus, the 2018 draft picks int he 2nd round, if you believe the hype, will all be solid late first round calibre players. Adding four solid rookies to the roster next year may be great, especially if they all have a promising future. Those are more assets that can be used. A solid 17 year old that has a proven 1.5 years in the league is more valuable than a random 2nd round pick.

If this is about CHAMPIONSHIP then I think a focus on 2019-2020 is probably a better overall objective. Playoff experience this season will be wasted on next year’s team.

 

[Fischhaber]

The problem is two-fold:

1> The team is strong enough to be competitive this year if they add a couple players. Problem is the conference is already top heavy. So utilizing those assets to acquire players for a probable round 2 exit isn’t probably very wise.
2> The team has a roster age set that is awkward. They are somewhat strong this year or at least could be but if they hold back this year, next year isn’t really their year. The team this year is better than what they will ice next year. It is the following year where they seem to be set up nicely.

So, if they were to trade two or three of their assets this year they could use those assets in a couple years and really bulk up. Plus, the 2018 draft picks int he 2nd round, if you believe the hype, will all be solid late first round calibre players. Adding four solid rookies to the roster next year may be great, especially if they all have a promising future. Those are more assets that can be used. A solid 17 year old that has a proven 1.5 years in the league is more valuable than a random 2nd round pick.

If this is about CHAMPIONSHIP then I think a focus on 2019-2020 is probably a better overall objective. Playoff experience this season will be wasted on next year’s team.

I think there is something to be said for instilling a culture of winning, starting right now. Many of the youngsters on this team will still be around in 2019-20. Players perform better when they know that the team is committed to putting the best supporting cast around them.

That doesn't mean dealing away a bunch of picks or anything, but it does mean making strategic additions like Kohn and trying to win both this year and next.

I look at the 2015-16 Greyhounds as a good example of why you don't give up on a season. They stood pat in a low playoff seed and knocked of Sarnia, giving some extremely valuable experience to most of this year's core.

 

[OMG67]

I think there is something to be said for instilling a culture of winning, starting right now. Many of the youngsters on this team will still be around in 2019-20. Players perform better when they know that the team is committed to putting the best supporting cast around them.

That doesn't mean dealing away a bunch of picks or anything, but it does mean making strategic additions like Kohn and trying to win both this year and next.

I look at the 2015-16 Greyhounds as a good example of why you don't give up on a season. They stood pat in a low playoff seed and knocked of Sarnia, giving some extremely valuable experience to most of this year's core.

Anyone can easily point to one or two single examples of something positive that has happened in the past. However, on the flip side, the percentages are way against Saginaw should teams like Kitchener and London decide to make additions.

For every SSM example, there are a good 10 others that are negative.

I’m not slighting Saginaw either. I’m just stating a strategic point of view that has a higher tendency of working should Saginaw be committed to making that happen.

The problem is if a team sells because it cannot buy and they are not committed to a specific window. Taking a year by year approach typically doesn’t net positive results. The more assets a team has at its disposal to commit to a Championship run, the better.

Saginaw has the potential of having a plethora of assets at their disposal should they decide to make a run in any year they decide to do so. The question is which year is best.

Typically I would agree with you in general. The area I disagree is that I don’t believe Saginaw is best suited to rolling into next year better than they are this year.

To me a better approach would be to sell this year and buy young in the offseason when things are typically cheaper and players are looking for new opportunities. Improve their chances of building towards something next year and carry that over to the following year when I believe they are better suited to making a run.

 

[Kingpin794]

Anyone can easily point to one or two single examples of something positive that has happened in the past. However, on the flip side, the percentages are way against Saginaw should teams like Kitchener and London decide to make additions.

For every SSM example, there are a good 10 others that are negative.

I’m not slighting Saginaw either. I’m just stating a strategic point of view that has a higher tendency of working should Saginaw be committed to making that happen.

The problem is if a team sells because it cannot buy and they are not committed to a specific window. Taking a year by year approach typically doesn’t net positive results. The more assets a team has at its disposal to commit to a Championship run, the better.

Saginaw has the potential of having a plethora of assets at their disposal should they decide to make a run in any year they decide to do so. The question is which year is best.

Typically I would agree with you in general. The area I disagree is that I don’t believe Saginaw is best suited to rolling into next year better than they are this year.

To me a better approach would be to sell this year and buy young in the offseason when things are typically cheaper and players are looking for new opportunities. Improve their chances of building towards something next year and carry that over to the following year when I believe they are better suited to making a run.

Just because you aren't going for a title doesn't mean you should sell off.

Also the main philosophical difference is you don't see 18/19 as part of the window of opportunity where I and others see a two year window. If I didn't see 18/19 as a possibly big year, I'd agree with your strategy. We can go back and forth on this forever. It's just a matter of when you think this team will peak.

 

[Fischhaber]

Anyone can easily point to one or two single examples of something positive that has happened in the past. However, on the flip side, the percentages are way against Saginaw should teams like Kitchener and London decide to make additions.

For every SSM example, there are a good 10 others that are negative.

I’m not slighting Saginaw either. I’m just stating a strategic point of view that has a higher tendency of working should Saginaw be committed to making that happen.

The problem is if a team sells because it cannot buy and they are not committed to a specific window. Taking a year by year approach typically doesn’t net positive results. The more assets a team has at its disposal to commit to a Championship run, the better.

Saginaw has the potential of having a plethora of assets at their disposal should they decide to make a run in any year they decide to do so. The question is which year is best.

Typically I would agree with you in general. The area I disagree is that I don’t believe Saginaw is best suited to rolling into next year better than they are this year.

To me a better approach would be to sell this year and buy young in the offseason when things are typically cheaper and players are looking for new opportunities. Improve their chances of building towards something next year and carry that over to the following year when I believe they are better suited to making a run.

I think that my main point isn't getting through as well as I would like it to.

With a team like Saginaw, which already has more picks and assets than they can use, a different strategy is in order.

I don't disagree at 2019/20 is a good year for a run. However, think that throwing in the towel for the two previous seasons isn't the best way to have success in that season. If the team stands pat or makes some modest additions, the current youngsters on the roster will be better for it and the team will have a better chance of recruiting. Players want to come to a consistent winner, not a team that loads up and tears down.

If the team loses in the first round then so be it. Porco, Jenkins, Giroux, etc. are the core of a 19/20 winner, not the picks.

 

[Finster8]

We have sold some good players at the deadline in previous years to acquire those picks. This year is something different the club is solid so if an amazing deal comes around than DD might bite. l see us as a better team next year as we lose Mids and the OAs. I would trade Crawford and pickup another D at the deadline but smart trades. DD must have a direction he wants to take. 6-99s 8-OOs 5-01 with no OAs or 02s from the draft wich is 3-2nds and a 1st for the 18-19 season. Not a bad spot to be in now and the future.

 

[OMG67]

I think that my main point isn't getting through as well as I would like it to.

With a team like Saginaw, which already has more picks and assets than they can use, a different strategy is in order.

I don't disagree at 2019/20 is a good year for a run. However, think that throwing in the towel for the two previous seasons isn't the best way to have success in that season. If the team stands pat or makes some modest additions, the current youngsters on the roster will be better for it and the team will have a better chance of recruiting. Players want to come to a consistent winner, not a team that loads up and tears down.

If the team loses in the first round then so be it. Porco, Jenkins, Giroux, etc. are the core of a 19/20 winner, not the picks.

When that ONE SINGLE RENTAL will cost Four 2nds, Three 3rds ++, then those picks all of a sudden go up in smoke. Wait to see what Raddysh goes for and delete all of that off your current roster as a comparable and see what is left. Most of those teams buy more than one player throughout that championship season.

 

[Fischhaber]

When that ONE SINGLE RENTAL will cost Four 2nds, Three 3rds ++, then those picks all of a sudden go up in smoke. Wait to see what Raddysh goes for and delete all of that off your current roster as a comparable and see what is left. Most of those teams buy more than one player throughout that championship season.

Making the assumption that you will have a Championship calibre team is a dangerous game to play.

In my opinion, Saginaw should focus on developing this supposed Championship core to the best of their ability and then worry about adding big pieces when the time comes. That means not holding a fire sale in a solid season and obviously hindering their development.

 

[ohloutsider]

Making the assumption that you will have a Championship calibre team is a dangerous game to play.

In my opinion, Saginaw should focus on developing this supposed Championship core to the best of their ability and then worry about adding big pieces when the time comes. That means not holding a fire sale in a solid season and obviously hindering their development.

This sounds like a Soo fan hoping Middelton doesn't go to Sarnia