Oshawa Generals 2024-25 Season Thread, Part 1

[Generalsupdates]

I think you would need to quantify that statement. The issue is that what is pricey for one person is cheap for another.

Seriously. Seen some PBO fans saying Gens overpaid for Barlow despite not giving up a rookie 1st rounder or more than 2x2nd or 2x3rd and then say they didn’t overpay when they gave up Lardis for OAs.

As we know, “overpay” a lot of time isn’t determined until a year later when people use hindsight and act like the trade was good or bad because of reasons they didn’t know at the time it happened lol. Lardis trade was good because the Pete’s won the OHL despite finishing 4th in the East that year. Had they lost, it was a bad trade.. I personally don’t subscribe to that thinking, but clearly a lot of people do

 

[OMG67]

Seriously. Seen some PBO fans saying Gens overpaid for Barlow despite not giving up a rookie 1st rounder or more than 2x2nd or 2x3rd and then say they didn’t overpay when they gave up Lardis for OAs.

As we know, “overpay” a lot of time isn’t determined until a year later when people use hindsight and act like the trade was good or bad because of reasons they didn’t know at the time it happened lol. Lardis trade was good because the Pete’s won the OHL despite finishing 4th in the East that year. Had they lost, it was a bad trade.. I personally don’t subscribe to that thinking, but clearly a lot of people do

There are a few different levels to this deal that may help to suggest it is an overpay. IMO, Bedkowski as a poor inclusion for this deal. He is a really good 18 year old d-Man. I think he plays that 4/5 D-Man role perfectly. That is the player you are trying to replace. So, you will need that extra deal to make it happen. If you run into a 2nd Sandhu deal this deadline then great. IF you don’t, that may end up being an issue.

That is the reason why I don’t like that deal. Now, if you end up getting Wang, then it likely all works out in the wash. The issue is I am not close enough to really suggest whether any of this inside stuff makes a difference or not. Clearly if there was a better than good chance you will replace Bedkowski for free then the deal makes sense.

And, this isn’t’ about the cost. It is about the awkwardness of the deal. If you could have saved a few draft picks in that deal, kept the two players but used Griffin, maybe it would have been a better combo? Again, I don’t know what is happening behind the scenes so really tough to say.

But, was the cost too high? It comes down to what you think Bedkowski and Delisle are worth. Personally, I have Bedkowski worth more than you but it is not like we are off by much. The trade value is in the ballpark. It would be nitpicking to argue about it.

 

[Generalsupdates]

There are a few different levels to this deal that may help to suggest it is an overpay. IMO, Bedkowski as a poor inclusion for this deal. He is a really good 18 year old d-Man. I think he plays that 4/5 D-Man role perfectly. That is the player you are trying to replace. So, you will need that extra deal to make it happen. If you run into a 2nd Sandhu deal this deadline then great. IF you don’t, that may end up being an issue.

That is the reason why I don’t like that deal. Now, if you end up getting Wang, then it likely all works out in the wash. The issue is I am not close enough to really suggest whether any of this inside stuff makes a difference or not. Clearly if there was a better than good chance you will replace Bedkowski for free then the deal makes sense.

And, this isn’t’ about the cost. It is about the awkwardness of the deal. If you could have saved a few draft picks in that deal, kept the two players but used Griffin, maybe it would have been a better combo? Again, I don’t know what is happening behind the scenes so really tough to say.

But, was the cost too high? It comes down to what you think Bedkowski and Delisle are worth. Personally, I have Bedkowski worth more than you but it is not like we are off by much. The trade value is in the ballpark. It would be nitpicking to argue about it.

It’s a lotttttt easier to add a defensive defenceman who can’t score than a 40+ goal every year guy. As you said, gens found that out last year with Sandhu who they got for very cheap (3+5+9 for 2.5 years of Sandhu). You won’t find a 1st round NHL pick non-import who’s a potential national team guy who comes cheap.

But regardless, that comment wasn’t actually about the Barlow trade. It’s saying too many people look back at a trade after the fact and use facts that weren’t available at the time to analyze it. Gens won it all in 2015 so do I care that they badly overpaid for Brent Pederson? No I don’t. But they did

 

[dirty12]

I think you would need to quantify that statement. The issue is that what is pricey for one person is cheap for another.

I’ve stated that if you want a solid OA at the deadline, the market is set at around a 2nd, 3rd, and 5th. If you want a super elite OA, the market is set at two 2nds, two 3rds, and two 4ths. If you want an elite 19 year old, look at the Rehkopf and Barlow deals and you get a sense of where that market is. These ones are relatively easy. No matter if the market is a buyer or seller market, these prices remain around the same.

Where is gets more sketchy is that 2nd and 3rd tier player. I pointed to Foster. GU pointed to Pharand. These are guys that hand around .75 to 1.00 points per game. They are solid players but fall into the complementary category. They don’t drive their lines but when you put them with good players, they perform very well. This is the tier of player that is heavily affected by supply and demand come the deadline.

It is my opinion that if you have 4 teams in each conference buying and two teams in each conference remaining status quo, that leaves 8 teams buying and eight teams selling. Of the eight teams selling, only four of them have players other teams want. That creates a situation where that team with second tier players start nudging the prices up more than normal.

I am not exactly sure where this market is right now but I see London, Erie, Saginaw, Windsor, Brampton, Barrie, OShawa, and Kingston as buyers. I see Kitchener and Brantford as status quo teams. Potentially SSM and Flint join those two teams in the status quo category. This is where it gets interesting. I see Sudbury and Niagara as potential buyers. If that happens, all of a sudden, the teams that are potential sellers shrinks dramatically. The Petes have nothing to buy. They aren’t in the conversation. That leaves Ottawa and North Bay in the East as the sellers. They join Guelph, OS, and Sarnia as potential sellers.

This sets up as a very tight market this year. Of course, some of those teams like Kitchener, Sudbury, and Saginaw could end up selling. Who knows? This is why the deadline may be very interesting.

I’m not sure what there is to quantify. If you want 1.5 seasons of a player that could be very useful to their next season like Pharrand or Ride, you’re paying VanVliet or Fimis and Haight prices. That is pricy (imo).

 

[OMG67]

I’m not sure what there is to quantify. If you want 1.5 seasons of a player that could be very useful to their next season like Pharrand or Ride, you’re paying VanVliet or Fimis and Haight prices. That is pricy (imo).

It is the qualitative statement vs the quantitative statement.

I am not saying you are wrong. What I am saying is when you (or anyone else) uses a qualitative statement, it leaves it open for interpretation. For example, I could say BMW’s are expensive and overpriced but that doesn’t mean the next guy agrees. People value $$$ differently as well as what constitutes quality. Same with these trades. When we say, “X Player will be more expensive than you think,” if we don’t qualify the actual price, how will anyone be able to compare apples to apples?

My point was that kids like Foster and Pharand in this market, may end up being more costly than usual. That’s fine. But, I didn’t say what the usual cost is for a tier II player because that cost is almost always wide ranging specifically because it fluctuates in the market. What I should have said is:

A player like Foster or Pharand would likely cost similar to Tyler Savard in 2022-23 (2-3-3-4). But, in a season like this where depth forwards are tougher to get, maybe his cost raises in line to what Windsor paid for Harrison (2-2-3-3-3-5).

Additionally, maybe a player like Pinelli that would normally fall in line with a player like Harrison ends up being more like DelMaestro (early 1st + 2nd round pick or mid-1st and two 2nds).

This is a year where if things remain as they are, there may not be a lot of players available on the market. We may see some weird deals. Conversely, if Sudbury, NB, Kitchener, Ottawa, Guelph etc all sell, the market could get flooded and the Barlow deal may not look as good as it does now.

So, if Oshawa wants a couple depth players that aren’t in high supply, the cost may not be as attractive or even attainable for OShawa as it was last year. It makes a big difference if the plan is to go and trade Smith (and a 2nd) in a big deal for a D-Man but then have to trade (2-3-5) for the OA and then another (2-2-3-3-4) for the depth .9 ppg forward. That exceeds Oshawa’s picks by a wide margin. This is why I say doing what they plan to do may not be as easy as we think. We will need to wait to see what the market holds.

 

[dirty12]

It is the qualitative statement vs the quantitative statement.

I am not saying you are wrong. What I am saying is when you (or anyone else) uses a qualitative statement, it leaves it open for interpretation. For example, I could say BMW’s are expensive and overpriced but that doesn’t mean the next guy agrees. People value $$$ differently as well as what constitutes quality. Same with these trades. When we say, “X Player will be more expensive than you think,” if we don’t qualify the actual price, how will anyone be able to compare apples to apples?

My point was that kids like Foster and Pharand in this market, may end up being more costly than usual. That’s fine. But, I didn’t say what the usual cost is for a tier II player because that cost is almost always wide ranging specifically because it fluctuates in the market. What I should have said is:

A player like Foster or Pharand would likely cost similar to Tyler Savard in 2022-23 (2-3-3-4). But, in a season like this where depth forwards are tougher to get, maybe his cost raises in line to what Windsor paid for Harrison (2-2-3-3-3-5).

Additionally, maybe a player like Pinelli that would normally fall in line with a player like Harrison ends up being more like DelMaestro (early 1st + 2nd round pick or mid-1st and two 2nds).

This is a year where if things remain as they are, there may not be a lot of players available on the market. We may see some weird deals. Conversely, if Sudbury, NB, Kitchener, Ottawa, Guelph etc all sell, the market could get flooded and the Barlow deal may not look as good as it does now.

So, if Oshawa wants a couple depth players that aren’t in high supply, the cost may not be as attractive or even attainable for OShawa as it was last year. It makes a big difference if the plan is to go and trade Smith (and a 2nd) in a big deal for a D-Man but then have to trade (2-3-5) for the OA and then another (2-2-3-3-4) for the depth .9 ppg forward. That exceeds Oshawa’s picks by a wide margin. This is why I say doing what they plan to do may not be as easy as we think. We will need to wait to see what the market holds.

My point was/is the wolves most certainly are not looking to trade Pharrand and NB has two good, maybe ideal OA options in Kennedy & Ride. Teams will need to pry those players away with a Protz, 2, 2, 3 like offer for VanVliet, who while good a good big shut down type, was just really not worth that cost.