Ottawa 67s 2024-25 Season Thread, Part I
- Thread starter SoupNazi
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
I think it is fair to wonder about that and speculate. We are getting some mixed signals (Perrier #17, Stonehouse being in Ottawa hanging with the team and working out) so hard to tell what the real story is.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 11,680
- 7,541
Very tough to say but it really is odd that Perrier is wearing #17. It is not like the 67’s are short on sweaters. They have new ones every 3rd game LOL.
It is not like PErrier wouldn’t switch his number. I mean, who cares, right? So, not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, especially when he was supposed to play in tier II this year.
Still a super tough OA market this year. Brantford adding Hamara means Bujold is likely to hit the market. He could be a good target for Kingston to be honest. So many extra guys out there this year. Crazy. No matter which way Ottawa goes, I could see them settle on Mayich plus two guys and then they simply have to waive the other two with nothing in return. It is that type of season. It wouldn’t shock me in the slightest if we ended up with zero return for OA’s. I hope not but it wouldn’t be a shocker.
That bryant to Peterborough trade is probably a fairly good indication of what Stonehouse would bring in a trade. (3rd and a 9th)
Larionov
Registered User
Seeing the Brad Gardiner talk made me wonder - why is it that players always seem to request trades away from Ottawa, and never TO Ottawa? In theory this should be a great destination for junior players - strong ownership, good facilities, great city with an NHL team right here, meaning easy access for scouts to see you in person, two major universities that you can bike to from the arena - it goes on and on. Boyd is a good GM, Cameron is an excellent coach - I am legitimately flummoxed as to why the 67's aren't more of a destination for players. If anyone has theories to offer I would love to hear them...
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 11,680
- 7,541
The Gardiner situation was also to do with a family situation involving his Father. He requested a trade home or at least close to home. They were able to work out a deal to his hometown.
Beck was pretty much in need of a change of scenery.
Rohrer, apparently, was more of a personal issue being away from home.
WRT players not wanting to be here, there is no chance that Logan Morrison did not pick his destination, or at least narrow it down to 2 or 3 landing spots. Same with Sam Mayer and Kressler. I am not sure about Maillet and Mintyukov but I am sure they both had a say in where they went as well. Additionally, the Imports want to be here. That can be a difficult road to navigate. So, I don’t think it is all doom and gloom with Ottawa.
I would like to see more players they draft that have NCAA aspirations actually forego that and play in Ottawa. We haven’t had a hard sign player in a long time. We haven’t gotten there yet but I think once we have the new rink/facilities and likely a new coach when DC calls it a career (at 66 years old, that could be soon), I think we could start seeing that more. AND with the new NCAA/CHL agreement on the horizon, we may be able to more easily attract some of those players.
Bryant was a centre and there are far less of those out there. That trade may actually exceed the Stonehouse deal. We shall see what happens with Bujold. He may be a solid target for the Fronts.
The only thread I am sort of holding on to is the intangibles with Stonehouse. I am not entirely sure those intangibles elevate him or not. I know they don’t’ hurt hum but as a scoring winger, he is going to be in a log jam with a bunch of other players.
If it were a 3rd and 9th for Stonehouse, I think we’d have to look at moving Gerrior or roll the dice with Nelson and let MacK go. Or, they could just do Stonehouse a solid and trade him wherever he wants to go for peanuts.
Rather than wait for Oshawa or Kingston to decide when, iNiagara may have taken what they could get right now to avoid possible distraction as the return of Bryant draws nearer.
Stonehouse could go for a bit more than Bryant.
Stonehouse could go for a bit more than Bryant.
Last edited:
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 11,680
- 7,541
The OA market is simply skewed this year.
The Centres and D-Men may garner more interest because of the premium position they play. Bryant is a pretty good centre. The problem is he (and Bujold) aren’t game changers in any way for a contender. they are more 2C’s on middling teams and 3C’s on contenders. True contenders aren’t likely to deploy 3C OA’s, especially via trade.
As much as I would like to use Bryant as a measuring stick, he MAY be a decent measuring stick for 20 goal - 50 point Wingers. Guys like Gerrior for example. I think we could use that trade as a sample for Gerrior if they try to move him. Sort of weak when you consider the historical marker price but not horrible for this year.
I do feel Bujold is a good fit for Kingston if they are trying to do well but want to keep their heavier assets in hand for the impact D-Man. I think he will come at a much cheaper price than Allard and is probably as impactful on their roster.
I have to admit that I am very curious to see where all the OA’s land and which ones end up out of the league by the time the deadline rolls around.
- Dec 6, 2013
- 633
- 185
This year's OA's are the 2004 players drafted in 2020. With COVID, they were part of a double cohort that arrived in 2021-22 after 2020-21 was cancelled. Downstream that means more players clogging up the development pipeline. The teams that will do the best are those that work the hardest with their rookie crop, this year and next.
You made a comment about Ottawa being in tough trying to manage 9 rookies (both real and red-shirt) into their lineup. It is a situation of their own making. Rookies make mistakes and that's just part of their learning process. It's hard to make those mistakes collecting splinters on the bench.
The OA market is saturated, and it is likely only the top OAs return real value.
But Bryant is a #2 centre for most teams I think, a #1 for at least a few; and 55 point 19 yr olds become 75+ point players as OAs, often.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 11,680
- 7,541
Opportunity cost. If you piece together a deep lineup and try to make a run at a Championship two seasons in a row, there is no room to develop the non-elite rookies. Players that jump out right away, usually the players picked in the first two rounds, tend to contribute organically without the need to invest a lot of time and effort into. The deeper picks don’t.
The 67’s also didn’t benefit from the scheduled retool year cancelled because of Covid. The inability to shuffle assets that season did hurt the 67’s. That led to, as you mentioned, the double cohort. With a double cohort, the 67’s introduced Stonehouse, Sirman, Mayich, MacK, Gerrior, and Smyth from the 2020 draft. Then they added Barlas, Pinelli, Foster, and Gardiner from the 2021 draft. That’s 10 players. On top of that, there were the 18 year old “sort of” rookies that lost their 17 year old deeper draft pick rookie season to Covid. Add Laforme, Donoso, Sirizzotti and Gill-Shane to that mix. That is effectively 14 rookies or close to rookies coming out of Covid.
So, going into the 2022-23 season (Covid +1), they also had the new rookie class plus the deeper picked players from the 2021 class (Quick, Dever, Ewles, and Horner) on top of the 2022 class with Mews, Marrelli, and Kelly. So, over two seasons, the 67’s effectively introduced 21 rookies.
How hard is that?
Then they enter into what turned out to be a 2-year run. But, year one of that two year run we had a lot of young players that outperformed the typical growth curve. That means we had very little turnover going into the 2023-24 season. 17 returning players. How do you then insert the new rookies and 2 Imports into that roster and expect development while trying to make a deep run? Alas, you can’t. So much time and effort spent developing those other 21 players over that two year span, you have to let those players loose. You cannot expend all that energy into all those guys and then hold them back while trying to develop the newest rookies from last seasons draft, especially when your 1st rounder was a defected player.
I’m not going to point fingers because I think what I have detailed here was a pretty huge task that I think, overall, they did an outstanding job with. I could argue that Boyd was a victim of his own making hoarding players at the deadline in the 2022-23 season which created that backlog in 2023-24. In fact, I have made that argument a few times. Mistake for sure. But, at the end of the day, I think the positives have far outweighed the negatives.
If our main complaint is we suffer now from not playing Whitehead enough last seaosn then so be it. I’ll take that negative.
I don’t think you see Bryant as the 2C on a Championship roster, hence why he went to Peterborough.
[QUOTE="OMG67, post: 197173574, member: 205815"
I don’t think you see Bryant as the 2C on a Championship roster, hence why he went to Peterborough.
[/QUOTE]
I can see Bryant as a #2C for Oshawa once Ritchie is returned, #2. for Saginaw, #1C for Flint, #1, 2, or 3 for Kingston. Waiting on a team to decide probably was not in Niagara’s best interest though.
I don’t think you see Bryant as the 2C on a Championship roster, hence why he went to Peterborough.
[/QUOTE]
I can see Bryant as a #2C for Oshawa once Ritchie is returned, #2. for Saginaw, #1C for Flint, #1, 2, or 3 for Kingston. Waiting on a team to decide probably was not in Niagara’s best interest though.
Last edited:
