Buyers and Sellers

[JoeSchmo]

Doesn't make sense to trade him from londons perspective. Who would be their backup?

What if it’s not Charlie Schenkel?

This is just a spitball idea…. What if it’s Landon Miller?

I am like 99.9 percent sure Soo wouldn’t move Miller though haha Miller/Gibson package? haha

My rationale behind it: Soo could then bring in Noah Tegelaar next season and have Medvedev and Noah battle for a starting position. Charlie stays in SSM and helps Soo keep a playoff spot. London gets an elite goalie to “back up” or even a starter, that can be used next year or even flipped at next years deadline (the London way ). Again, just kind of throwing pasta at the wall here with this idea.

 

[tjziel]

I don’t think London is interested in moving goalies. They are looking for defense.

I think people are trying to force trades. I think this year it’s a buyers market. Prices may be a little less steep.

 

[JoeSchmo]

I don’t think London is interested in moving goalies. They are looking for defense.

I think people are trying to force trades. I think this year it’s a buyers market. Prices may be a little less steep.

No one is interested in moving pieces until the right piece comes around. @OMG67 is right .. London can definitely benefit from a G upgrade and I’m not trying to say it has to be a Soo goalie.

 

[OMG67]

No one is interested in moving pieces until the right piece comes around. @OMG67 is right .. London can definitely benefit from a G upgrade and I’m not trying to say it has to be a Soo goalie.

London doesn’t necessarily need a goaltending upgrade. If they can get out from underneath the OA Goalie and utilize the OA slot on an impact skater, it would be ideal.

 

[tjziel]

No one is interested in moving pieces until the right piece comes around. @OMG67 is right .. London can definitely benefit from a G upgrade and I’m not trying to say it has to be a Soo goalie.

We could, but that’s the difference between London and the rest of the OHL. Most OHL teams will go after the right piece but by doing that, they blow their assets by going all in.

Mark Hunter gets players, then he develops them like he has Medvedev and Elliott. Considering he only got Elliott for a 5th round pick is great asset management. But where Mark differs, is when it’s the “right piece and the right price”. If those things don’t matchup, he and Dale will try to fill it internally by developing the player or another avenue like USA.

Then people wonder why London is competitive each year.

Right now, there are goalie’s better than Elliott, but only maybe 3 that are clearly better. Most others are on the same level or below, so might as well keep developing Elliott. Not worth using assets to upgrade for a grade “A” goalie, from a “B+” goalie.

 

[ArielNederland]

London doesn’t necessarily need a goaltending upgrade. If they can get out from underneath the OA Goalie and utilize the OA slot on an impact skater, it would be ideal.

If they trade the oa goalie, they would almost have to trade for a goalie. Probably the reason why london might not upgrade goalie

 

[GoKnightsGo44]

London has two starters, we sure ss hell don't need to mess with it.

We dont need one but could use a D, otherwise we are done trading.

- I still want the scratch and dent Musty though

 

[HockeyPops]

One of the reasons London is always competitive is because they don't give up assets for no reason. They went out and got Elliott. He has done everything asked of him so far. The chances that they now go and replace him are as close to 0% as you can get.

 

[tjziel]

One of the reasons London is always competitive is because they don't give up assets for no reason. They went out and got Elliott. He has done everything asked of him so far. The chances that they now go and replace him are as close to 0% as you can get.

Exactly this!

And it’s a two edged sword sometimes. As much as Knights fans always want to acquire talent Mark and Dale will only do it if the assets are worth it and it improves the team significantly.

So I could totally see us not acquiring anybody and as much as I hate that, it probably is what’s gonna happen.

 

[RangerNation]

Wild discussion here lol. London does not need a new goalie. If they were ever to find themselves in a goalie dilemma during the playoffs, they are the only team that could score their way out of a problem. They're fine.

 

[billoink]

What would London part with for Musty

 

[GoKnightsGo44]

What would London part with for Musty

What was proposed before was something like:

Fagan Bidgood 2x2nds, 2x3rds

I think that is way too much in the current buyers market and with Musty missing WJC and recovering from injury. The NCAA rule changes made a huge impact and there has been very limited movement.

I would now peg the value of Musty at:

Fagan 2nd, 2x3rds

I know that sounds like robbery but there are so many options and a handful of buyers. London is in admirable position to stand pat, they don’t need Musty but obviously will kick tires if it makes the team better.

 

[OHL4Life]

What would London part with for Musty

sudbury asked for orielly, brzustewicz and 6 picks in november

 

[billoink]

sudbury asked for orielly, brzustewicz and 6 picks in november

That is why Papineau is the laughing stock of the league

 

[OMG67]

What was proposed before was something like:

Fagan Bidgood 2x2nds, 2x3rds

I think that is way too much in the current buyers market and with Musty missing WJC and recovering from injury. The NCAA rule changes made a huge impact and there has been very limited movement.

I would now peg the value of Musty at:

Fagan 2nd, 2x3rds

I know that sounds like robbery but there are so many options and a handful of buyers. London is in admirable position to stand pat, they don’t need Musty but obviously will kick tires if it makes the team better.

This highlights the difference between valuation between teams. Hypothetically speaking, this could be a fair valuation for London but that doesn’t mean that valuation is realistic for all teams.

When there are multiple teams interested, teams will progressively drop out of the mix as the price rises. In this case, London would drop out before even discussions truly commence.

Barlow and Rehkopf trades provide a basis for negotiations. Alternative options or lack of them will provide a basis for the variance from those other deals made for elite forwards so far this year.

For this proposal, you are suggesting the difference in value between Alriksson and Misty is the value of Fagan. Personally, I think that’s ridiculous IF that stance was based on his market value but as you stated, it was based on what he is worth to London. London doesn’t necessarily require Musty so they aren’t willing to pay the true market cost we will see if Musty ends up traded.

 

[GoKnightsGo44]

@OMG67 I agree with you completely, a team that needs musty should pay more. There are so many factors though, one being Mustys NTC and his injury status. The other is the need for Sudbury to get bodies back, they are flush with picks.

Many contenders have already blown their load.

The Rehkopf and Barlow trades were early in the season (more value to the team) and before the NCAA rule change which brought 2nhl draft picks into London for free, that’s a huge shift!

 

[IceDogs452]

Is Flint buying or selling? That team I just don’t understand.

 

[OMG67]

@OMG67 I agree with you completely, a team that needs musty should pay more. There are so many factors though, one being Mustys NTC and his injury status. The other is the need for Sudbury to get bodies back, they are flush with picks.

Many contenders have already blown their load.

The Rehkopf and Barlow trades were early in the season (more value to the team) and before the NCAA rule change which brought 2nhl draft picks into London for free, that’s a huge shift!

Agreed. The landscape always changes. We are seeing more teams in the prospective BUY mode including Sudbury if Musty has rescinded his trade request. We are looking at as many as seven teams in the Eastern Conference willing to be in buyer mode, albeit to differing degrees. It doesn’t matter how far they are willing to go to buy additional assets, it only matter that they are wanting to buy. It means potential assets are taken off the table, thus decreasing supply.

NCAA players may potentially present a positive impact but most of the ones in question are younger and less impactful than the 19 year old impact players most teams look for at this time of year. For every Montgomery, there will likely be 5-10 16 and 17 year olds that don’t crack the top half of a contender roster. I think we will start to see a greater impact to start next season. Players will be better able to align their studies accordingly.

I do disagree about the value of players early season vs the deadline. Admittedly, this season is a bit of an anomaly but players in the past would typically be cheaper early. This is the first year I can remember where impact players traded early were similarly priced to previous deadline prices. Guindon was pretty much bang on cost wise as other similar OA’s at last years deadline including Kressler, Maillet, Mayer, Dubois, Mancini, Peer etc. Previous seasons the cost for a player like Guindon in the summer was much less. George Diaco would be a good example. A 2nd and 3rd is far cheaper than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th for Guindon.

Personally, I don’t’ think we will see a lessor price for a player like Musty vs Barlow or Rehkopf because of timing. I think we will see a higher cost because there is a higher level of demand and since most teams have certainty of competing now vs earlier in the season. Teams making these earlier trades need ceterainty of competing. There is risk associated to not only acquiring a player and not being a contender later but also whether they are acquiring the right type of player to fill a need. Most teams want to see a fuller picture of their teams strengths and weaknesses prior to making a serious trade commitment; therefore, prices at the deadline trend much higher. Although, this year may be an anomaly in that regard. We shall see where the prices get to this year but I have a feeling they will skew heavy considering they are still much lighter than what we see in the WHL and QMJHL.

 

[IceDogs452]

Agreed. The landscape always changes. We are seeing more teams in the prospective BUY mode including Sudbury if Musty has rescinded his trade request. We are looking at as many as seven teams in the Eastern Conference willing to be in buyer mode, albeit to differing degrees. It doesn’t matter how far they are willing to go to buy additional assets, it only matter that they are wanting to buy. It means potential assets are taken off the table, thus decreasing supply.

NCAA players may potentially present a positive impact but most of the ones in question are younger and less impactful than the 19 year old impact players most teams look for at this time of year. For every Montgomery, there will likely be 5-10 16 and 17 year olds that don’t crack the top half of a contender roster. I think we will start to see a greater impact to start next season. Players will be better able to align their studies accordingly.

I do disagree about the value of players early season vs the deadline. Admittedly, this season is a bit of an anomaly but players in the past would typically be cheaper early. This is the first year I can remember where impact players traded early were similarly priced to previous deadline prices. Guindon was pretty much bang on cost wise as other similar OA’s at last years deadline including Kressler, Maillet, Mayer, Dubois, Mancini, Peer etc. Previous seasons the cost for a player like Guindon in the summer was much less. George Diaco would be a good example. A 2nd and 3rd is far cheaper than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th for Guindon.

Personally, I don’t’ think we will see a lessor price for a player like Musty vs Barlow or Rehkopf because of timing. I think we will see a higher cost because there is a higher level of demand and since most teams have certainty of competing now vs earlier in the season. Teams making these earlier trades need ceterainty of competing. There is risk associated to not only acquiring a player and not being a contender later but also whether they are acquiring the right type of player to fill a need. Most teams want to see a fuller picture of their teams strengths and weaknesses prior to making a serious trade commitment; therefore, prices at the deadline trend much higher. Although, this year may be an anomaly in that regard. We shall see where the prices get to this year but I have a feeling they will skew heavy considering they are still much lighter than what we see in the WHL and QMJHL.

With Musty the player specific elements I imagine reduce his value (trade request, personality concerns, injury) what that value gets lowered to is up for debate but I don’t think any team is just going to ignore any of those 3 factors. Trade deadline is January 10th. Whoever buys him would be doing so based on last year and his (very good) 11 games this year.

 

[dirty12]

@OMG67 I agree with you completely, a team that needs musty should pay more. There are so many factors though, one being Mustys NTC and his injury status. The other is the need for Sudbury to get bodies back, they are flush with picks.

Many contenders have already blown their load.

The Rehkopf and Barlow trades were early in the season (more value to the team) and before the NCAA rule change which brought 2nhl draft picks into London for free, that’s a huge shift!

I think Musty’s first choice was Erie. Challenger, 4-5 picks is probably what it takes. Erie removes only 0.042 pts/g from the line up. Paps gets to say; look at me, I extracted an ‘08-1st.

 

[Noddy]

I think the General's have to go all in this deadline as the next few years are going to be a rebuild, but the draft picks are bare so GM Hunt has to do some magic.

 

[OHL4Life]

I think the General's have to go all in this deadline as the next few years are going to be a rebuild, but the draft picks are bare so GM Hunt has to do some magic.

they are trying