Windsor Spitfires 2018 Offseason Thread

[member 71782]

Cfaub

You missed my point, clearly more then one person had a problem with Windsor not winning a round this past season when they said now it's 7 straight seasons without winning a playoff round,and I said if Windsor didn't sell off Dipietro not withstanding won a round or 2,they would have been castigated for not looking at the future,so there is no winning here, that is my point re negativity,they dumped off when they moved Ebert and Rychel and it payed off in 2017,heck they moved Neuvirth in 08,and wound up winning in 9 and 10,with the contributions of Shugg and Mitchell,et all,yet all that gets is yeah they won fine we won't give too much credit we will give more venomous towards the non successful seasons.
This is why I said no one at the rink this season mentioned the lack of playoff success, probably because they had just won a cup,and now were
starting the process of a rebuild.
Except on here, that's the negativity I rail against.
In my view regardless of playoff success the last rebuild was a success,they won a National Championship,and for me that's what I wanted.
I know you won't agree,u will think it's ok this past season to count as the 7th season in a row of no playoff success, knowing full well the reason it occurred,like I said no winning with the negative posters,my view can't have it both ways.

HL

People understood that this past season would be tough. Many probably expected Windsor would miss the playoffs if DiPietro had been traded pre deadline.

The point or emphasis of Windsor not winning a playoff round this year for the 7th time, the point is the entire 7 years of playoff futility.

They won a Memorial Cup in those 7 years, that was great. I was thrilled to see them do that.

They won 7(?) playoff games total outside of the tournament and that was over the last 3 seasons combined.

Outside of 2009/10/11/17 they have won 8(?) playoff games in the other 7 or 8 years since the organization changed hands.

Those are the points myself and others try to make, the championships are great but the big picture is less than impressive.

I too hope with this rebuild the team becomes more consistent and measured in their approach. Build a continually competitive franchise instead of following the boom/bust cycle approach. A consistently competitive franchise with a team focused on drafting and developing, selling a piece or two to improve every year you are clearly not in the conversation with the top contenders puts you in a better spot to contend more frequently without having to completely sell off to do so.

While Windsor had some solid young talent of their own to start 2016/17 they wouldn't have been considered a serious contender. At least half that core had to be acquired that season to have any shot at being a contender. Sure you can give Rychel credit for doing what he had to but he also set the precedent for having to move picks 9 or 10 years to be successful.

That's looks more desparate than wise.

Rychel has proven he can succeed, that's obvious but he has also proven he is not the shrewdest GM as well.

Any other franchise with 8 of 12 seasons with no post season success at all would be considered very poorly run. Rychel has 3 Memorial Cups and a conference final appearance to offset that but still he owns those 8 years as much as the other 4.

Again, losing in the 1st round this past season, when most expected them to capping of 7 years of playoff futility is not issue on its own, its the entire 7 years combined, consecutively that people have an issue with.

If Saginaw, Sudbury, London or whatever franchise you want to use as an example had the same lack of playoff success in the same time frame would you consider them a successful franchise, even if they had a Memorial Cup in there somewhere?

Probably not. I know I wouldn't.

 

[member 71782]

Just because you deal a veteran or two in multiple seasons doesn't make them two different rebuilds. Campbell and Kuhnhackl came right after the OS playoffs, which signaled the start of that rebuild. Ho-Sang wasn't a rebuild. Rychel/Ebert were more of a "we're not going to beat the powerhouse Guelph, so let's help the boys out" than a true rebuild. That season saw three absolute dynamic teams and, despite the Spitfires' moderate success, they knew there wasn't much they could do. This past season, dealing Luchuk, Day, Vilardi, McEneny, and Brown - that's a clear-cut rebuild. Dealing DiPietro in the near future won't signal the start of yet another rebuild, but a continuation of the one that started last season. I think most fans realize that the deal is coming and a new era is underway. You could still see a veteran or two dealt, depending on how the youth develop, but that doesn't mean "here we go again."

Agree that selling off pieces every year does not signal the start of another rebuild, DiPietro being moved continues the rebuild but being Windsor's most valuable trade piece many see it as finally fully committing to the rebuild this time around.

Regularly moving pieces when your not a contender maximizes your assets when those pieces carry more value in a deal than they do to the fortunes of the team.

Any player that will not be here when Windsor is ready to contend, will bring more value in a deal to continue this rebuild and moving them is not going to have any real affect on where they finish, how they should do in the playoffs should be moved if the return is fair.

Once Rychel has the cupboards restocked and extra picks/players for deals then the ability to keep players that now he needs to move can be become one where its no longer a necessity to move them.

Continually improving your stockpile of assets allows you to be consistently competitive, be able to take a step back and reload instead of having a fire sale to rebuild and allows for the ability to add when the team over achieves.

Right now Windsor, once they move DiPietro no longer becomes a team desperate to restock the cupboard. From that point forward the ability to become consistent becomes a reality.

Will it work out that way? We will find out.

 

[youngblood10]

My take for whatever it's worth on the modern history of the Spits or more so Rychel, let's be honest he's the reason some can't let go & move forward, I view in three segments.

The initial rebuild after the back to back teams was a complete failure at every measure. I place the blame for that on decisions made to focus on what was best for Kerby. Not the team or fan base & compounded with poor drafting.

The second segment was stagnant due to the repercussions of flip flopping on a "3 peat" or not. Compounded with the sanctions & being under the microscope which limited the arrival of flyers... sure that can be blamed on the organization for getting caught but the only thing they were guilty of was playing the game better than the others & the league's internal politics.

Third part would be hosting a year before the team was prepared to on the ice. They had to fast track & that costs assets. I think they did a great job in pulling that off. The first round loss looks bad but had they played any team other than London & all the built in advantages they have (not to trigger the Knight sympathisers & loyal supporters) Windsor probably has a deep run & the esthetics look better. Not including all the injuries that season. In the end they did raise the Memorial Cup.

I think that they handled the build up & tear down for hosting as good as anyone could. Because of that things look very good going forward. They have a collection of good young players, have picks on the draft board, assets & stability behind the bench.
Truth be told, they'll probably have consistent good teams, if the stars align & championships happen who knows. The arguments very well will take a 180 down the road.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

Just because you deal a veteran or two in multiple seasons doesn't make them two different rebuilds. Campbell and Kuhnhackl came right after the OS playoffs, which signaled the start of that rebuild. Ho-Sang wasn't a rebuild. Rychel/Ebert were more of a "we're not going to beat the powerhouse Guelph, so let's help the boys out" than a true rebuild. That season saw three absolute dynamic teams and, despite the Spitfires' moderate success, they knew there wasn't much they could do. This past season, dealing Luchuk, Day, Vilardi, McEneny, and Brown - that's a clear-cut rebuild. Dealing DiPietro in the near future won't signal the start of yet another rebuild, but a continuation of the one that started last season. I think most fans realize that the deal is coming and a new era is underway. You could still see a veteran or two dealt, depending on how the youth develop, but that doesn't mean "here we go again."

Well it seems like you rationalize a couple of those turns as the west had some real good teams and the Spits couldn't contend. Well going by that during these past 7 years they didn't have a roster that could contend for a title. You will mention 2017 no doubt and use factors and injuries but the fact is that year in the standings they still weren't at the level of OHL title contender. When does Windsor have a team that is clearly a contender as in 1 through 68, 20+ playoff games and capable of winning an OHL title? We haven't seen that in a very long time. Dealing DiPietro doesn't show a new rebuild but it's another year if them trading one of their best players because.... The franchise realizes they're not good enough and don't have the roster to contend or assets moving forward to create flexibility.

 

[member 71782]

My take for whatever it's worth on the modern history of the Spits or more so Rychel, let's be honest he's the reason some can't let go & move forward, I view in three segments.

The initial rebuild after the back to back teams was a complete failure at every measure. I place the blame for that on decisions made to focus on what was best for Kerby. Not the team or fan base & compounded with poor drafting.

The second segment was stagnant due to the repercussions of flip flopping on a "3 peat" or not. Compounded with the sanctions & being under the microscope which limited the arrival of flyers... sure that can be blamed on the organization for getting caught but the only thing they were guilty of was playing the game better than the others & the league's internal politics.

Third part would be hosting a year before the team was prepared to on the ice. They had to fast track & that costs assets. I think they did a great job in pulling that off. The first round loss looks bad but had they played any team other than London & all the built in advantages they have (not to trigger the Knight sympathisers & loyal supporters) Windsor probably has a deep run & the esthetics look better. Not including all the injuries that season. In the end they did raise the Memorial Cup.

I think that they handled the build up & tear down for hosting as good as anyone could. Because of that things look very good going forward. They have a collection of good young players, have picks on the draft board, assets & stability behind the bench.
Truth be told, they'll probably have consistent good teams, if the stars align & championships happen who knows. The arguments very well will take a 180 down the road.

Agree, disagree and different perspective on various comments in your post.

I don't think it is Rychel as to why people can't let go of things. He has shown a clear ability to be able to put together a winner but his victories can't be measured in a vacuum. His poor choices have to be given equal value in the conversation. How the organization chose to proceed on certain decisions, be it Kerby, flip flopping in 2011 or hosting when it did his actions in part were a response to those situations, as well as being part of the decision making process. Some choices, individual and organizational were good, some not so much. He can't be given full credit for the good ones but have no responsibility for the bad ones. He has put together some great teams but he has also put together some bad ones as well. Whether people's opinions are good or bad about certain things if they don't take into account the full picture they are not reflective of everything that's happened.

The hosting a year early I agree with and yes, full credit he did what he had to do to build a competitive team and eventually win the Memorial Cup. As I said above, the organisation makes a decision, he is part of that and then he must build the team around that mandate. Winning the cup was the ultimate goal so that was a success but the optics surrounding it are what they are, back door, continued losing in the post season etc. The rules give the host the second chance if they can't win their way in, no problem they made the most of it and did so. Great to see in the end but the journey sucked. As for not getting past London in the first round I clearly stated my opinion that it wasn't a talent issue, IMO coaching did not make the best use of the talent they had. Some agree, some don't. No problem. I always felt playing a different style they could have beat anyone but tats not how things unfolded.

The building of the team I disagree with but the rebuild has been definitely going in the right direction to this point. Sure I would have liked to see them move DiPietro last season, probably would have been a bigger return but overall did a good job recouping a lot of assets. Were those assets the best he could get? Obviously it takes at least two to make a deal but as much as he brought in they are still short in the near term. They do need near term and long term assets so any assets help but now, provided he can recover those near term ones along with some spread out over the mid and long term this team should be in great shape going forward. How he handles those assets compared to the past will determine if he continues to follow the boom/bust cycle or if he actually sets the team up to be a more consistent product year in and year out. No one expects every season will go as planned, that's unrealistic but a good GM who manages assets well over the long term will bring more consistent success and promise then one who goes all in then spends three years recouping everything they gave up. Even the boom/bust cycle is unrealistic. No team following a four year cycle will win a Memorial Cup every four years so does that mean every cycle that doesn't result in a Memorial Cup title every four years is a failure? No. 59 other teams have the same goal.

Where we have a different perspective is in terms of the sanctions.

Do I think Windsor is the only team to have ever broken the rules? Of course not. Being the best at it though would be the opposite of how I see it. The best isn't getting caught or put in a position where it has to be dealt with. As we saw in the same time frame a team in the WHL received sanctions and we saw the Sherry Bassinstories a couple of years ago that seemed to indicate some questionable practices. I doubt Windsor has been the only team to ever cross a line in the OHL but as I said they were the only team to be in the position to have to have their actions dealt with.

Consistent teams will hopefully return this board to a more hockey centred conversation instead of simply rehashing everything or people looking to get under the skin of others. I have been guilty of participating in it as much as any one else at times which is why I have been trying not to post too much lately. Some posts/parts of posts just get me going and I give in.

 

[hockeylegend11]

Well it seems like you rationalize a couple of those turns as the west had some real good teams and the Spits couldn't contend. Well going by that during these past 7 years they didn't have a roster that could contend for a title. You will mention 2017 no doubt and use factors and injuries but the fact is that year in the standings they still weren't at the level of OHL title contender. When does Windsor have a team that is clearly a contender as in 1 through 68, 20+ playoff games and capable of winning an OHL title? We haven't seen that in a very long time. Dealing DiPietro doesn't show a new rebuild but it's another year if them trading one of their best players because.... The franchise realizes they're not good enough and don't have the roster to contend or assets moving forward to create flexibility.[/QUOTE

Disagree about your assertions about 2017 and not being a league contender finishing 5th in the league standings overall despite the most injuries and players absences, playing the 4th most point team in the league London in round 1,1st time ever a 4th and 5th place teams had 90 or more points and played each other in the playoffs
In fact the 2 teams played each other 13 times,and London who had 99 points in regular season won 7-6 with 1 more home game,that's as close as 2 teams can be,they couldn't beat Erie and Windsor did, when it counted,
Erie's coach said they never played a full roster from Windsor all year,and that's huge,he knew Windsor was full value and it's easy to see Windsor didn't reach full potential because of factors beyond their control,but certainly did when it counted when they were healthy.

 

[OHLTG]

Well it seems like you rationalize a couple of those turns as the west had some real good teams and the Spits couldn't contend. Well going by that during these past 7 years they didn't have a roster that could contend for a title. You will mention 2017 no doubt and use factors and injuries but the fact is that year in the standings they still weren't at the level of OHL title contender. When does Windsor have a team that is clearly a contender as in 1 through 68, 20+ playoff games and capable of winning an OHL title? We haven't seen that in a very long time. Dealing DiPietro doesn't show a new rebuild but it's another year if them trading one of their best players because.... The franchise realizes they're not good enough and don't have the roster to contend or assets moving forward to create flexibility.

Here's something we've never actually figured out. This isn't a pot shot or anything, but an actual question. Not taking into account any outside factors (ie. what other teams are doing), what points total do YOU believe would have to be reached in order to consider themselves a "title contender"?

Being a contender after the deadline should be the target. While being a contender on opening night would be nice, a team with that talent is likely dealing with players at NHL camps. We could say "they're a contender on paper", but we both know how well that flies on here. Most of the time players do return, but, as the Spitfires have seen, it's not always guaranteed. Which is why I say deadline and beyond - players are back from camps, they've settled in, done the WJC, and we're good to go.

Again, you can't look at dealing DiPietro as "another year they moved a great player" because it's all part of the same situation. It has to be looked at as one entity, especially when you're looking at a big picture.

 

[youngblood10]

Agree, disagree and different perspective on various comments in your post.

I don't think it is Rychel as to why people can't let go of things. He has shown a clear ability to be able to put together a winner but his victories can't be measured in a vacuum. His poor choices have to be given equal value in the conversation. How the organization chose to proceed on certain decisions, be it Kerby, flip flopping in 2011 or hosting when it did his actions in part were a response to those situations, as well as being part of the decision making process. Some choices, individual and organizational were good, some not so much. He can't be given full credit for the good ones but have no responsibility for the bad ones. He has put together some great teams but he has also put together some bad ones as well. Whether people's opinions are good or bad about certain things if they don't take into account the full picture they are not reflective of everything that's happened.

The hosting a year early I agree with and yes, full credit he did what he had to do to build a competitive team and eventually win the Memorial Cup. As I said above, the organisation makes a decision, he is part of that and then he must build the team around that mandate. Winning the cup was the ultimate goal so that was a success but the optics surrounding it are what they are, back door, continued losing in the post season etc. The rules give the host the second chance if they can't win their way in, no problem they made the most of it and did so. Great to see in the end but the journey sucked. As for not getting past London in the first round I clearly stated my opinion that it wasn't a talent issue, IMO coaching did not make the best use of the talent they had. Some agree, some don't. No problem. I always felt playing a different style they could have beat anyone but tats not how things unfolded.

The building of the team I disagree with but the rebuild has been definitely going in the right direction to this point. Sure I would have liked to see them move DiPietro last season, probably would have been a bigger return but overall did a good job recouping a lot of assets. Were those assets the best he could get? Obviously it takes at least two to make a deal but as much as he brought in they are still short in the near term. They do need near term and long term assets so any assets help but now, provided he can recover those near term ones along with some spread out over the mid and long term this team should be in great shape going forward. How he handles those assets compared to the past will determine if he continues to follow the boom/bust cycle or if he actually sets the team up to be a more consistent product year in and year out. No one expects every season will go as planned, that's unrealistic but a good GM who manages assets well over the long term will bring more consistent success and promise then one who goes all in then spends three years recouping everything they gave up. Even the boom/bust cycle is unrealistic. No team following a four year cycle will win a Memorial Cup every four years so does that mean every cycle that doesn't result in a Memorial Cup title every four years is a failure? No. 59 other teams have the same goal.

Where we have a different perspective is in terms of the sanctions.

Do I think Windsor is the only team to have ever broken the rules? Of course not. Being the best at it though would be the opposite of how I see it. The best isn't getting caught or put in a position where it has to be dealt with. As we saw in the same time frame a team in the WHL received sanctions and we saw the Sherry Bassinstories a couple of years ago that seemed to indicate some questionable practices. I doubt Windsor has been the only team to ever cross a line in the OHL but as I said they were the only team to be in the position to have to have their actions dealt with.

Consistent teams will hopefully return this board to a more hockey centred conversation instead of simply rehashing everything or people looking to get under the skin of others. I have been guilty of participating in it as much as any one else at times which is why I have been trying not to post too much lately. Some posts/parts of posts just get me going and I give in.

I agree.
I tend not to see things black or white or good or bad. Every positive decision will have negative consequences & vice versa. Any decision is just one in a web of decisions all connected to various degrees. Given the circumstances, many of which we have no knowledge of & the timing.
Perhaps I'd have expressed it better as very good, very bad, poor to more good decisions & maneuvers recently over the course of WR at the helm.
I'm guilty as well participating in poisoning this thread. I find I get sucked in when things are misrepresented more so than things stated as opinion. I have much more tolerance for the pro Spitfires slant because it's a Spitfire thread.

 

[youngblood10]

Just an add on, I do admittedly have a biased perspective towards the Spitfire. I've spent alot of money & time over the years in an activity I enjoy. I think that's normal. More normal than not to have that biased. Regardless of the team anyone follows even the Knights. Although i couldn't fault someone who follows that team to want to distance themselves from claiming to be a supporter.
Saying that, it doesn't mean I don't question the Spits at times or doesn't mean my day is wrecked or I lose sleep over a loss etc..

 

[member 71782]

Just an add on, I do admittedly have a biased perspective towards the Spitfire. I've spent alot of money & time over the years in an activity I enjoy. I think that's normal. More normal than not to have that biased. Regardless of the team anyone follows even the Knights. Although i couldn't fault someone who follows that team to want to distance themselves from claiming to be a supporter.
Saying that, it doesn't mean I don't question the Spits at times or doesn't mean my day is wrecked or I lose sleep over a loss etc..

Nothing wrong with cheering on ones team, having a bit of a bias towards them etc I think the differences are magnified when objectivity disappears over very obvious issues. At that point any counter point comes of as purely negative or hopelessly positive depending on who makes the original point/counter point.

When an initial topic is focused on a single point it can appear either one way or the other. When other related factors are brought into the discussion it should bring a more objective view from all involved but instead on this board posters tend to focus on a single point and the argument evolves from there.

I am biased towards Windsor but maybe because as a kid I was able to grow up seeing how things worked, many years ago from within I tend to look more at the bigger picture which can create a more critical opinion. At the same time seeing/comparing how different organizations have progressed and looking to see Windsor also progress in similar ways doesn't make me a fan of the other team. I can admire how a team operates and builds a more sustainable program without hoping to see them win.

In a time when entertainment dollars are becoming harder to attract it is imperative that the organization looks at what works elsewhere, find what fits with what they are trying to accomplish and incorporate it here.

Not being a London fan, took my share of remarks from visiting London fans in the Barn back in the day but to look at how they have developed a consistent product on and off the ice there are lessons to be learned, especially if fans want the team to have bragging rights. Its also the organization that this ownership group publicly held up as the model they wanted to emulate.

So yes, I would like to see Windsor take a few cues from them in terms of planning and execution, use those ideas to update the model here and be the team that can always walk out with the win. Beat them at their own game. Doesn't make me any less of a Windsor fan or in any way a London supporter but from a practical standpoint you have to keep up with/pass them in terms of their organizational success if you want to compete year in year out.

 

[Purple Phart]

Perhaps there's one thing that London has consistantly done over the past dozen years, is to build their team with a vision as to where the league is going. As an example; there was a "movement" within the league to crack down on interferance and stick infraction penaltys. The Knights then opted for speed & manoverability in the players they recruited and used to build upon. Some teams didn't see the writing on the wall, and went for size, particularly on "D", and paid in taking more than their share of penaltys, until the necessary adjustments were made. They've been extremely cognizant regarding things like the league's stance vs fighting, and were among the few teams to go with far fewer players whose sole function was being an enforcer. I realize that there will always be an element within every fan base who frown on this direction, but it's the direction the league has gone, so the Knights adjusted accordingly. That visionary approach has to be something that management has to have or add to their repitoir if they wish to have a consistant level of success.

 

[OHLTG]

Not to get into the Knights again, but since it was brought up, even last year they had guys who were known for that style (Tymkin and Carbonara come to mind), and they've also become more the agitation team than anything. That's worked to their advantage; teams get riled up, they go on the PP, and voila. But, let's not go believing that they went "sorry, league, we'll stop with the shenanigans." Nope. (and yes, plenty of other teams have guys who play similar styles)

 

[ohloutsider]

Perhaps there's one thing that London has consistantly done over the past dozen years, is to build their team with a vision as to where the league is going. As an example; there was a "movement" within the league to crack down on interferance and stick infraction penaltys. The Knights then opted for speed & manoverability in the players they recruited and used to build upon. Some teams didn't see the writing on the wall, and went for size, particularly on "D", and paid in taking more than their share of penaltys, until the necessary adjustments were made. They've been extremely cognizant regarding things like the league's stance vs fighting, and were among the few teams to go with far fewer players whose sole function was being an enforcer. I realize that there will always be an element within every fan base who frown on this direction, but it's the direction the league has gone, so the Knights adjusted accordingly. That visionary approach has to be something that management has to have or add to their repitoir if they wish to have a consistant level of success.

I'm assuming you forgot to put the smiley face at the end of this post to indicate that this was humor?

 

[hockeylegend11]

Cfaub
Honest question requiring honest definitive answer not but senarios
In the last 11 years under Spits current ownership Windsor has won 3 Mem Cups,2 OHL Championships and in 1 other season went to the Final 4 in the O
London in the same time period,has won 1 Mem Cup,3 OHL Championships,and also in 1 went to the Final 4 in the 0
I didn't count the 1st year of ownership would have done the were it reversed, didn't inherit much from previous ownership and finished last.
Which would you take?

Aside from that question,you mentioned in your last post that Windsor should copy London.
Based on recent information going back 5 years you might want to reconsider the team Windsor should emulate.
In the last 5 years both have 1 Mem Cup however in the other 4 years did you know London has won only 3 series total,and that's including the 7 game series vs Windsor in 2017.
People in London some not all say London reloads not rebuilds,those 4 years,
the 2 years before and 2 years after their Mem Cup win say otherwise
Agree.
One could also point out the 2017 OHl draft where Windsor had picks in the 1st(Staios), Henault (5th), D'amico (6th),Frasca(7th) had more points then London's Rowe(1st), Perrott (2nd), Duhart (3rd), Whittaker (4th), infact D'amico had more goals and points then all of them combined.
So far Windsor advantage despite lower round selections,in fact by the 4th round London selected 2 forwards and Windsor 1D and he too had more points then the 2 forwards combined.
This is not to say that London is a bad Jr organization, they aren't,just not
sure they deserve the lofty status some think
I would select another team to emulate and I can't think of one.
That being is and has Windsor been perfect,hell no but I will take the overall especially Championships in the last 10 years over anybody.
Player development for the NHL and pros,as well as players becoming coaches at the pro ranks, including Boughner,DJ Smith, Rocky Thompson,Bob Jones during this era has been pretty good too.

 

[DetSpitsFan]

As an example; there was a "movement" within the league to crack down on interferance and stick infraction penaltys. The Knights then opted for.

... Max Jones.

I admire the Knights always being a top team, I wish Windsor could do that, but consistently holding home ice advantage and 3 cups in 10 years don’t really go together well.

I’m personally really excited for this upcoming season. Regarding the goalie situation, I say go into camp with an open mind. With Mikey starting the season in Windsor, I don’t think baier is the given backup. Sure, he gets along with the team and has been around, but I hope they bring up a younger goalie to learn from him.

I wouldn’t rule Patton out either. Other than the playoff game in Sarnia, I was unimpressed by Baier. I think Baier/Patton will battle for the backup spot to start the season, taking over when Mikey moves. Then bring up one of our 16/17 tenders to play backup to them. I wouldn’t hate us going with young goaltending for the second half of the season, just for the experience, but I doubt we carry 2 rookie goalies.
I don’t get the Baier argument. He’s unproven. Sure, he didn’t play, but if you want to play more games, play better. Sure it’s going to be nearly impossible to outshine Mikey, but Baier never gave the Spitfires organization the confidence to throw him out there against teams in the middle of the pack. I say, the top 2 goalies at camp go on this year, with at least one of them being a “future” goalie.

I was still a whaler fan for the first 2 cups, but 3 in a decade is incredible. When people look back outside of these boards, no one will realize they haven’t won a playoff series in 7 years.

And if you thought last year, they’d were gonna pull it off, I think you missed the whole rebuild talk. Spits are in a great spot for the next 3 seasons. I project Spits finish top 4 in the West if Mikey stays, Top 6 if he leaves. Not getting my hopes up for a playoff win this year either, even as a top seed in a pairing. I’m more excited to see Douglas, Morgan, Playfair, DAmico, Ladd, Staios and Henault with a little more experience.

I honestly think Douglas, Morgan and Ladd will be huge role players this season and next.

Say what you want about Rychel, but the fact the spits competed in the cup in 17, is incredible looking at their roster at the end of 15/16.

Not trying to pick fights, but just wanted to throw in my two cents. Either way, really looking forward to seeing which players make the cut.

 

[youngblood10]

Nothing wrong with cheering on ones team, having a bit of a bias towards them etc I think the differences are magnified when objectivity disappears over very obvious issues. At that point any counter point comes of as purely negative or hopelessly positive depending on who makes the original point/counter point.

When an initial topic is focused on a single point it can appear either one way or the other. When other related factors are brought into the discussion it should bring a more objective view from all involved but instead on this board posters tend to focus on a single point and the argument evolves from there.

I am biased towards Windsor but maybe because as a kid I was able to grow up seeing how things worked, many years ago from within I tend to look more at the bigger picture which can create a more critical opinion. At the same time seeing/comparing how different organizations have progressed and looking to see Windsor also progress in similar ways doesn't make me a fan of the other team. I can admire how a team operates and builds a more sustainable program without hoping to see them win.

In a time when entertainment dollars are becoming harder to attract it is imperative that the organization looks at what works elsewhere, find what fits with what they are trying to accomplish and incorporate it here.

Not being a London fan, took my share of remarks from visiting London fans in the Barn back in the day but to look at how they have developed a consistent product on and off the ice there are lessons to be learned, especially if fans want the team to have bragging rights. Its also the organization that this ownership group publicly held up as the model they wanted to emulate.

So yes, I would like to see Windsor take a few cues from them in terms of planning and execution, use those ideas to update the model here and be the team that can always walk out with the win. Beat them at their own game. Doesn't make me any less of a Windsor fan or in any way a London supporter but from a practical standpoint you have to keep up with/pass them in terms of their organizational success if you want to compete year in year out.

Actually, when BB's group bought the Spits the Hunters gave them their blue print on how to recruit & build a junior franchise. They have said so publicly at the time. Using the Hunters play book they went on to win their back to back titles. Then just as quick had sanctions dropped on them. London was handed the hosting gig again. Followed by the punishment being reduced. And opened the door for the Hunters to keep on keeping on. I don't think I need to connect the dots for anyone to put the pieces together on the shannagins behind the scenes.
For clarity I have nothing personal against any fan of any team. It's sports.

 

[hockeylegend11]

Detspitsfan

You say you weren't impressed with Baier except for the Sarnia game when he took over for Dipietro when Mikey got hurt,what about the last game of the season at home when the Spits played Saginaw for 8th place and Baier got the start and his team won 3-2,so the Spits didn't to face SSM in round 1.
As well he never got the chance to play middle of the road, only played 1 game against a team under 500 all season and that was Flint,in game 27 of the season and he lost 4-3 in OT at home.
He also lost 1-0 at Hamilton in an earlier game in the season,the only goal was a PP goal,in fact it was his next game after his 1st game in Owen Sound.
His average was 5.45 at the 34 game mark in 5 games,the next 5 games he averaged 4.70 to finish the regular season
Outside the 2 games vs Owen Sound,his 1st appearance as a starter when Windsor got beat 9-2,and in game 8 vs Owen Sound, Windsor again got beat 9-2, he replaced Dipietro middle of the 2nd with Windsor trailing 4-0, he wasn't as bad as the numbers indicated.
In games vs Hamilton he lost 1-0, Flint 4-3 OT,and beat Saginaw 3-2,with the exception of Hamilton which occurred before they loaded up,his games vs against middle road teams were very good,he never got the chance,his other 7 games were against Owen Sound(2),SSM(3),Sarnia(1) and Oshawa (1), outside the Owen Sound games and the Sarnia game the last 1/2 he played pretty well.
Still think Patton is the odd man out
the fact that Chatham would not play all in their playoffs is telling.

 

[member 71782]

HL

it is hard to give a definitive on the last 11 years based on your highlights.

Based on what you gave, I'm assuming and correct me if I'm wrong you are comparing their Mem Cup/championships history. Based on that, this the answer I assume you are looking for, I would take Windsor's record.

Now if you are looking at the overall record, and my assumption is wrong and you were pointing out the highlights only but still want a definitive answer on the overall body of work in those 11 years, I would take London's record.

I will give you reasons for both because the first answer is based on an assumption and if its wrong then so be it, the second is based on that assumption being wrong.

If your concern is based on championships then in the end, 3 Memorial Cups in 3 opportunities is difficult to argue with. 3 chances to get it done and they did it every time, quite an accomplishment.

Now for my second answer.

I would take London's overall body of work. For the last 11 years if not the favourite they have always been in the conversation. In the big picture anything can happen in the playoffs and while London has won 1 Mem Cup in that time frame, they have had more playoff runs, more extended playoff runs and more opportunities to generate excitement and interest for the fans come post season when Windsor has missed them or been knocked in the first round by London.

If post season gives you a chance to keep reaching for the ultimate prize then London, legitimate contenders or not have given their fans more opportunities to be hopeful and excited then Windsor has.

That level of consistency which always has them in the conversation every year because they always have the assets to support unexpected success keeps them exciting for their fanbase.

A question for you, and its not meant to be a shot.

Would you rather reflect on past glories while going through a 3/4 year rebuild or would you rather be discussing what needs to be done to turn an annual playoff run into another opportunity at a possible championship? Granted not every year is a run year but when you can be almost certain that your development model means you are likely to make the playoffs, you know other teams measure themselves against your success and your decisions/fan discussions revolve around moving a piece or two this year to make a run the following year knowing your likely to still finish in the same spot, almost always get to the second round and at least have more opportunities for chances to go all the way than the rest of the league.

Other teams like SSM, Erie, OS, Kitchener, Oshawa are starting to do similar things as London and while they haven't had the same level of consistency as London or the same amount of isolated success as Windsor they are becoming more consistent, having a certain level of sustained success and improving overall.

On the business side, where I get really frustrated when Rychel an co. All out fans for lack of support, need playoff gates to make money etc.

The league has a 68 game schedule with no guarantee of making the playoffs. If they need playoff gates to make money there is a problem with their business model.

I know this team is willing to invest to improve things so if that is why they need the playoff revenue then they need to be more consistent with the product they put on the ice. No one will support a losing or average product in a market where they're the only game in town. They certainly won't do it when they have a multitude of other options. Rychel and co. need to understand this, the fans don't owe them anything, they need the fan support. Calling out customers shows they don't understand this.

Relying on past glories for future financial success in a sector where ongoing success is needed to drive revenue is a poor business model. They may have some great hockey minds but are lacking in running a customer driven business.

As for London having only three series wins, Windsor has zero. At least being there provides the opportunities that Windsor isn't.

Is London perfect? Of course not but they have built a sustainable model that provides more opportunities for possible success. Again, it was the model Boughner, Rychel and co. held up as the standard they wanted to reach.

Now with the hosting done it is imperative Windsor redevelop their model. Is everything going on in London reasonable for Windsor? I doubt it. But the consistent on ice product, always being in the conversation is the foundation to attract customers who pay the bills that allow you to continually improve that product.

Boom/bust does not give a consistent product which also does not give a constant base of fan support.

Rychel knows talent. He knows how to make a deal. It doesn't seem like he knows restraint when it comes to putting together a long term plan that is focused on constant improvements while stockpiling assets. 2011/12 showed that instead of rebuilding through the draft as he moved pieces out he couldn't/wouldn't take the time to evaluate what he had. He moved out almost as many assets as he brought in. He was rebuilding but was trying to reload on the fly and kept making the wrong moves. He wasn't in a position to reload and while I get he wanted to do things with his son in the line up his lack of restraint/self control or even objective view hurt this team for years.

This past season he seems to be on the right track, he has to rebuild but in a way that looks beyond the short term. If he builds towards three years from now and this team is once again in rebuilding mode then with or without another title he will lose even more fans. One year of excitement every four years will not keep the fans interested and if he doesn't win a Mem Cup at the end of every four years, which is an unrealistic expectation their s franchise will suffer.

Hope this answers your question and provides understanding of why.

Championships are nice, the ultimate goal but three poor years for every one good year, not good. Consistently being in the running, while it may not provide that one great year every four or five IF things go as planned will always that excitement and possibility that nearly every could, not always be a possible championship year.

Hardcore fans like many on these boards understand and enjoy seeing a young group develop.

Average fans understand the need but want to see the finished product and will skip the pain.

Casual fans have only one concern, are they any good? If not they move on.

The problem is the average/casual fans make up most of a teams revenue. To keep them coming you need a consistently good product, one that can always have a chance to win.

It's a customer driven sector, repeat business is essential and the on ice product drives the business.

 

[member 71782]

Actually, when BB's group bought the Spits the Hunters gave them their blue print on how to recruit & build a junior franchise. They have said so publicly at the time. Using the Hunters play book they went on to win their back to back titles. Then just as quick had sanctions dropped on them. London was handed the hosting gig again. Followed by the punishment being reduced. And opened the door for the Hunters to keep on keeping on. I don't think I need to connect the dots for anyone to put the pieces together on the shannagins behind the scenes.
For clarity I have nothing personal against any fan of any team. It's sports.

I have no doubts others have crossed the line at different points, there's been rumours.

My only concerns surrounding the sanctions has been Windsor was the team where enough things came together to levy sanctions. I won't say the sanctions were wrong but with so many other "probable" violations rumoured concerning multiple other teams its strange there hasn't been more official public questions/answers brought forward. The OHL may be a private entity but when your business is fully reliant on the public greater transparency or at least the illusion of it would go a long ways towards better customer service.

My other concern with the sanctions is using them as a crutch. Yes they had some negative impact, they're supposed to but Rychel did so much wheeling and dealing that their impact should have been negligible. The bigger problem back then was poor deals that cost a lot more assets then the sanctions.

While we lost first round picks we had plenty of drafted first rounders in the line up most of that time.

 

[windsor7]

HL

it is hard to give a definitive on the last 11 years based on your highlights.

Based on what you gave, I'm assuming and correct me if I'm wrong you are comparing their Mem Cup/championships history. Based on that, this the answer I assume you are looking for, I would take Windsor's record.

Now if you are looking at the overall record, and my assumption is wrong and you were pointing out the highlights only but still want a definitive answer on the overall body of work in those 11 years, I would take London's record.

I will give you reasons for both because the first answer is based on an assumption and if its wrong then so be it, the second is based on that assumption being wrong.

If your concern is based on championships then in the end, 3 Memorial Cups in 3 opportunities is difficult to argue with. 3 chances to get it done and they did it every time, quite an accomplishment.

Now for my second answer.

I would take London's overall body of work. For the last 11 years if not the favourite they have always been in the conversation. In the big picture anything can happen in the playoffs and while London has won 1 Mem Cup in that time frame, they have had more playoff runs, more extended playoff runs and more opportunities to generate excitement and interest for the fans come post season when Windsor has missed them or been knocked in the first round by London.

If post season gives you a chance to keep reaching for the ultimate prize then London, legitimate contenders or not have given their fans more opportunities to be hopeful and excited then Windsor has.

That level of consistency which always has them in the conversation every year because they always have the assets to support unexpected success keeps them exciting for their fanbase.

A question for you, and its not meant to be a shot.

Would you rather reflect on past glories while going through a 3/4 year rebuild or would you rather be discussing what needs to be done to turn an annual playoff run into another opportunity at a possible championship? Granted not every year is a run year but when you can be almost certain that your development model means you are likely to make the playoffs, you know other teams measure themselves against your success and your decisions/fan discussions revolve around moving a piece or two this year to make a run the following year knowing your likely to still finish in the same spot, almost always get to the second round and at least have more opportunities for chances to go all the way than the rest of the league.

Other teams like SSM, Erie, OS, Kitchener, Oshawa are starting to do similar things as London and while they haven't had the same level of consistency as London or the same amount of isolated success as Windsor they are becoming more consistent, having a certain level of sustained success and improving overall.

On the business side, where I get really frustrated when Rychel an co. All out fans for lack of support, need playoff gates to make money etc.

The league has a 68 game schedule with no guarantee of making the playoffs. If they need playoff gates to make money there is a problem with their business model.

I know this team is willing to invest to improve things so if that is why they need the playoff revenue then they need to be more consistent with the product they put on the ice. No one will support a losing or average product in a market where they're the only game in town. They certainly won't do it when they have a multitude of other options. Rychel and co. need to understand this, the fans don't owe them anything, they need the fan support. Calling out customers shows they don't understand this.

Relying on past glories for future financial success in a sector where ongoing success is needed to drive revenue is a poor business model. They may have some great hockey minds but are lacking in running a customer driven business.

As for London having only three series wins, Windsor has zero. At least being there provides the opportunities that Windsor isn't.

Is London perfect? Of course not but they have built a sustainable model that provides more opportunities for possible success. Again, it was the model Boughner, Rychel and co. held up as the standard they wanted to reach.

Now with the hosting done it is imperative Windsor redevelop their model. Is everything going on in London reasonable for Windsor? I doubt it. But the consistent on ice product, always being in the conversation is the foundation to attract customers who pay the bills that allow you to continually improve that product.

Boom/bust does not give a consistent product which also does not give a constant base of fan support.

Rychel knows talent. He knows how to make a deal. It doesn't seem like he knows restraint when it comes to putting together a long term plan that is focused on constant improvements while stockpiling assets. 2011/12 showed that instead of rebuilding through the draft as he moved pieces out he couldn't/wouldn't take the time to evaluate what he had. He moved out almost as many assets as he brought in. He was rebuilding but was trying to reload on the fly and kept making the wrong moves. He wasn't in a position to reload and while I get he wanted to do things with his son in the line up his lack of restraint/self control or even objective view hurt this team for years.

This past season he seems to be on the right track, he has to rebuild but in a way that looks beyond the short term. If he builds towards three years from now and this team is once again in rebuilding mode then with or without another title he will lose even more fans. One year of excitement every four years will not keep the fans interested and if he doesn't win a Mem Cup at the end of every four years, which is an unrealistic expectation their s franchise will suffer.

Hope this answers your question and provides understanding of why.

Championships are nice, the ultimate goal but three poor years for every one good year, not good. Consistently being in the running, while it may not provide that one great year every four or five IF things go as planned will always that excitement and possibility that nearly every could, not always be a possible championship year.

Hardcore fans like many on these boards understand and enjoy seeing a young group develop.

Average fans understand the need but want to see the finished product and will skip the pain.

Casual fans have only one concern, are they any good? If not they move on.

The problem is the average/casual fans make up most of a teams revenue. To keep them coming you need a consistently good product, one that can always have a chance to win.

It's a customer driven sector, repeat business is essential and the on ice product drives the business.

Very well said

 

[youngblood10]

I have no doubts others have crossed the line at different points, there's been rumours.

My only concerns surrounding the sanctions has been Windsor was the team where enough things came together to levy sanctions. I won't say the sanctions were wrong but with so many other "probable" violations rumoured concerning multiple other teams its strange there hasn't been more official public questions/answers brought forward. The OHL may be a private entity but when your business is fully reliant on the public greater transparency or at least the illusion of it would go a long ways towards better customer service.

My other concern with the sanctions is using them as a crutch. Yes they had some negative impact, they're supposed to but Rychel did so much wheeling and dealing that their impact should have been negligible. The bigger problem back then was poor deals that cost a lot more assets then the sanctions.

While we lost first round picks we had plenty of drafted first rounders in the line up most of that time.

This is what the sanctions really did, they impacted the distribution of talent through the league at that time.

In stead of having the high end flyers spread out amoung two or three teams, now they were concentrated in one centre. And that one centre capitalized with league championships in that time frame. Windsor had to deal with sanctions, I think every paper shredder in K/W was commandeered to the Aud & the Rangers became a shell of their former self.

 

[member 71782]

This is what the sanctions really did, they impacted the distribution of talent through the league at that time.

In stead of having the high end flyers spread out amoung two or three teams, now they were concentrated in one centre. And that one centre capitalized with league championships in that time frame. Windsor had to deal with sanctions, I think every paper shredder in K/W was commandeered to the Aud & the Rangers became a shell of their former self.

The K/W part is priceless, DeBoer's legacy lives on.

 

[hockeylegend11]

Cfaub

Firstly thanks for answering my question and 1st response was what I was looking for.
As for your question to me,now that we are out of sanction,I prefer to look ahead not behind,and yes the sanctions did hurt,and that's not a crutch answer,losing 2-1sts and 2-2nds is significant, despite that Windsor still won a Mem Cup while under sanctions,and Rychel had to work around it,toss in losing a player early Christian Fischer, more deals had to be made to make up losing a 90 point guy,in particular Jeremy Bracco which cost more assets.
You may not like Rychel's win at any cost theme,but all 3 times he has done it he has won,he makes big deals,loses players all 3 times early,no other team in the O has experienced that 3 times or won under sanctions, no matter the cost I support that would rather win then not, he also when recognizing the chances of winning is not there,he deals of as in cases with Neuvirth,Shugg,Cantin, Gruebauer,or Ebert and his son Kerby,and this past season when he moved out everybody but Dipietro.
I think like others that they are the right track, finally had a full draft board,trades last year were good ones,there is more depth in the organization at all spots.
Coaching staff is solid, scouting is solid too.
When it comes time to go all in Warren will have my support.
Only part I am surprised that is you would still think London is still the team to emulate after the evidence I gave for the last 5 years,their Mem Cup success not withstanding,I don't agree they reload instead of rebuild mantra that some espouse.
Toss in last year's drafts as well despite Windsor not having a full board compared to London surprised you didn't comment on that.
Overwise all good

 

[ohloutsider]

Spits have won the Memorial Cup 3 times.
Sanctions are finished.
Hosting and winning the Memorial Cup is over and done with.
I personally just want to look at the present Spits and cheer for them and dream on what might happen in the future. We can rehash the past forever but it really just starts to sound like a bunch of Leaf fans.

Speaking of the future I am not sold that they have anywhere near a core of players that will be anymore than above average to good in the next 2 years. I'm looking for some big leaps from some players before I will be convinced we will be contending in 2 years. We will have a very good team but not a contender. Here lies the fear - does Warren start the "buy at any cost" again to be a contender in 2 years. This is the cycle of hockey I don't want to see. I would rather we cycle up to an almost good team, play the year out and then with lots of assets retool again. I think if we can hold out for the long haul we will be better off for it. I realize that this is not the way most want to see it done but the buy and sell, peaks and valley's are too inconsistent for me.

 

[windsor7]

consistency would just be nice to see.
unless being consistency not doing much in the playoffs is the goal....
hopefully it changes in the future.