EvenSteven
Registered User
- Sep 3, 2009
- 7,816
- 7,102
Not ripping on Farwell and Pope, just looking at their opinions on buying/selling regarding Kitchener and Guelph.
Every reason they give that Guelph should sell (they both make some great points) are the same reasons that the Rangers should sell yet they stand by the opinion that the Rangers should be buyers.
Their opinion is that:
The Rangers are healthy now and now we see who they are. They are a contender so we have to take advantage and be buyers at the deadline. We are 8-0. How can we sell? We shouldn’t sell Ingham or Damiani because there is a chance they return as OA’s next year.
They also say:
Hillis, Gogolev and Gordeev look to graduate after this year (but Gogolev isn’t drafted and Hillis was a 5th rounder to the Habs so they aren’t guaranteed gone after this year), so they have to take advantage of their trade value and move them to build the bank of draft picks. Keep Daws as he should be back next year then cash in on him in trade.
When a caller debated these points to Farwell last night his answer was that the Storm won a championship after trading away 21 draft picks and need to get them back. Thats all he had. Whether a won a championship or not last year, or were even buyers last year isn’t the issue. The issue is our scarcity of high draft picks.
It could be argued that the only difference between the two team’s situations is the fact that Guelph’s current draft cupboard is much healthier than the Rangers.
Otherwise, their situations are the same or worse off for the Rangers:
Regarding high end graduating players:
The Rangers will lose Meireles, Hawel and Yantsis after this year. They likely lose Ingham and Damiani.
Guelph will lose Gordeev and may lose Hillis and Gogolev.
I contend that Guelph has a better chance of Hillis and Gogolev returning than we do Ingham and Damiani.
Guelph is in much better shape going into next year with OA’s. They have Uba, Roach, Stevenson and Farwell and Pope both say Daws will be back. That’s four decent OA’s - three of them guaranteed, going into a year they don’t look to be top contenders. The Rangers have MacPherson and we hope Ingham and Damiani return. Bergkvist will graduate and I doubt Pfiel will in our plans.
The strength of both teams after this year seems to be the 2002 and 2003 groups. The 2001 groups are thin on both ends of highway 7 though our guys may hold more value. That means next year likely isn’t an all in year for either team. Selling is the answer for Guelph to continue to build the cupboard to go all in the following year, yet the Rangers, in the same boat, should buy this year?
I agree with their logic regarding Guelph but don’t understand why their logic changes when it comes to the Rangers.
Every reason they give that Guelph should sell (they both make some great points) are the same reasons that the Rangers should sell yet they stand by the opinion that the Rangers should be buyers.
Their opinion is that:
The Rangers are healthy now and now we see who they are. They are a contender so we have to take advantage and be buyers at the deadline. We are 8-0. How can we sell? We shouldn’t sell Ingham or Damiani because there is a chance they return as OA’s next year.
They also say:
Hillis, Gogolev and Gordeev look to graduate after this year (but Gogolev isn’t drafted and Hillis was a 5th rounder to the Habs so they aren’t guaranteed gone after this year), so they have to take advantage of their trade value and move them to build the bank of draft picks. Keep Daws as he should be back next year then cash in on him in trade.
When a caller debated these points to Farwell last night his answer was that the Storm won a championship after trading away 21 draft picks and need to get them back. Thats all he had. Whether a won a championship or not last year, or were even buyers last year isn’t the issue. The issue is our scarcity of high draft picks.
It could be argued that the only difference between the two team’s situations is the fact that Guelph’s current draft cupboard is much healthier than the Rangers.
Otherwise, their situations are the same or worse off for the Rangers:
Regarding high end graduating players:
The Rangers will lose Meireles, Hawel and Yantsis after this year. They likely lose Ingham and Damiani.
Guelph will lose Gordeev and may lose Hillis and Gogolev.
I contend that Guelph has a better chance of Hillis and Gogolev returning than we do Ingham and Damiani.
Guelph is in much better shape going into next year with OA’s. They have Uba, Roach, Stevenson and Farwell and Pope both say Daws will be back. That’s four decent OA’s - three of them guaranteed, going into a year they don’t look to be top contenders. The Rangers have MacPherson and we hope Ingham and Damiani return. Bergkvist will graduate and I doubt Pfiel will in our plans.
The strength of both teams after this year seems to be the 2002 and 2003 groups. The 2001 groups are thin on both ends of highway 7 though our guys may hold more value. That means next year likely isn’t an all in year for either team. Selling is the answer for Guelph to continue to build the cupboard to go all in the following year, yet the Rangers, in the same boat, should buy this year?
I agree with their logic regarding Guelph but don’t understand why their logic changes when it comes to the Rangers.