I don’t think Incze will cost much, 1.) he’s a backup for his current team 2.) he’s a 99 3.) he requested a trade
If the coaching staff believes they can win 60-65% of the remaining games by upgrading goalie position, then go do it. But don’t do so at the expense of targeting 2020-21 as the next big push.Since Hatch and company have taken over they have been able to create "winning" atmosphere.
126-74-17-6 over 3 1/4 seasons so far.
I think it's important for this team to not dip down too far in the "rebuild" years. It just helps with attracting the right players to come play here. London has done this for years, they have that winning mentality no matter what season or team they have. If we can still be 5th/6th place team in our rebuild years then we are doing things right.
Keeping Hughes around and riding out the rest of the season is a loser mentality IMO.
I agree completely, if we can finish in 6th that would be great, I and I think it’s attainable is you make a small trade to upgrade our goaltending which would benefit us this year and next, and hold on to the OA’s and 99’s right up until the deadline and to get decent 2001’s in return that can help us to finish this year and the following two seasonsSince Hatch and company have taken over they have been able to create "winning" atmosphere.
126-74-17-6 over 3 1/4 seasons so far.
I think it's important for this team to not dip down too far in the "rebuild" years. It just helps with attracting the right players to come play here. London has done this for years, they have that winning mentality no matter what season or team they have. If we can still be 5th/6th place team in our rebuild years then we are doing things right.
Keeping Hughes around and riding out the rest of the season is a loser mentality IMO.
The deadline is first week in January. HAVE TO give away 2 or 3 of McGregor, Josling, Hugo, Sali, Eliot or Ruzicka for picks or young guys at the deadline. Anything else is Cicarrelli era strategyI agree completely, if we can finish in 6th that would be great, I and I think it’s attainable is you make a small trade to upgrade our goaltending which would benefit us this year and next, and hold on to the OA’s and 99’s right up until the deadline and to get decent 2001’s in return that can help us to finish this year and the following two seasons
I agree with Ferda ... you can't just let the team be shit for 2 years. Kids wanna go to London because they wanna be coached well and win. During Londons "rebuild" they were still an ok team. Sarnia doesn't have to trade those guys mentioned above. I mean obviously trade them if the return is good. Sure London has money and attract players but, they didn't use to have that... Hunters built London from scratch, I am hoping Hatcher can do something similar but has fallen short IMO. Correct me if I am wrong but, London never sacrifices the future for 1 year of success.The deadline is first week in January. HAVE TO give away 2 or 3 of McGregor, Josling, Hugo, Sali, Eliot or Ruzicka for picks or young guys at the deadline. Anything else is Cicarrelli era strategy
Well I totally agree, but if they give up to much the team will be a mess for many years. At least the there is bit of light down the road. I have been a STH since 1999 and am as discouraged as everyone else.Since the 3-0 start, the team has given up 80 goals in 17 games, for a 4.7 goals against average.
‘Nuff said...
You’re absolutely right about numbers being basically the same.I love how everyone on this forum loves Langevin and hates Hughes. But by the numbers there isn't much difference.
Ontario Hockey League – Official Site of the Ontario Hockey League
I do hope Hughes is traded for his own sake before the trade deadline. If he is, hopefully he can get his confidence back. Could be a top 5 goalie in this league when he has his confidence. As for Langevin, I don't see him as a future tender on this team. Maybe a good backup, but not a #1. Wouldn't be surprised if the Sting pick up a goalie in the 2019 Euro draft.
I agree with Ferda ... you can't just let the team be **** for 2 years. Kids wanna go to London because they wanna be coached well and win. During Londons "rebuild" they were still an ok team. Sarnia doesn't have to trade those guys mentioned above. I mean obviously trade them if the return is good. Sure London has money and attract players but, they didn't use to have that... Hunters built London from scratch, I am hoping Hatcher can do something similar but has fallen short IMO. Correct me if I am wrong but, London never sacrifices the future for 1 year of success.
Thanks for the info on London, I forgot about Tavares. Have they done it recently? I hope the Sting can get the attendance numbers back to when the SSEC first opened... I remember having practice on the other side on a weekday then sneaking into the game at it was sold out. Now they get 1500-1900 on a weekday. It's a shame. The SSEC sold out is a pretty good atmosphere.London has definitely mortgaged the future to go for it in the past like when they traded 6 draft picks including four second rounders and two thirds and a few young prospects to get John Tavares for a few months in 09. They also did it in 05 and later. The difference between them and the Sting in the past is the Knights seemed to have a way better read on when they had a legit chance to win and when to go for it. They weren't always successful but when they did they were a real contender ( It worked for them in 05 , but not in 09 ). The Sting on the other hand have emptied out the cupboard numerous times when they had no business doing it.
London has also been really good at developing later round picks to ease the pain of mortgaging the future and also recouping high picks at a later date. IMO the Sting under Hatcher are way better at developing players but have been stung (excuse the pun) in trying to recoup high picks which hurts the team quite a bit.
Sarnia under the old regime was also terrible at developing players so the years after they "went for it" they were terrible and fell to the very bottom of the league. That's how they ended up with first overall picks like Stammer, Galchenyuk, and Chychrun. Finishing dead last in three times in an 8 year period in a 20 team league is no easy feat . You really have to suck !
Also, just checked the standings after London went for it in 09 with Tavares ... in 2010-2011 they finished 8th. Then in 2011-2012 they are right back to being first place for a long time. How did they get Max Domi from Kingston if they didn't have any picks from 09? London is playing chess while the rest of the league is playing checkers.London has definitely mortgaged the future to go for it in the past like when they traded 6 draft picks including four second rounders and two thirds and a few young prospects to get John Tavares for a few months in 09. They also did it in 05 and later. The difference between them and the Sting in the past is the Knights seemed to have a way better read on when they had a legit chance to win and when to go for it. They weren't always successful but when they did they were a real contender ( It worked for them in 05 , but not in 09 ). The Sting on the other hand have emptied out the cupboard numerous times when they had no business doing it.
London has also been really good at developing later round picks to ease the pain of mortgaging the future and also recouping high picks at a later date. IMO the Sting under Hatcher are way better at developing players but have been stung (excuse the pun) in trying to recoup high picks which hurts the team quite a bit.
Sarnia under the old regime was also terrible at developing players so the years after they "went for it" they were terrible and fell to the very bottom of the league. That's how they ended up with first overall picks like Stammer, Galchenyuk, and Chychrun. Finishing dead last in three times in an 8 year period in a 20 team league is no easy feat . You really have to suck !
No Sports psychologists in the world will help Hughes because he simply isn't a good goalie, theres absolutely nothing wrong with that either. Not everyone is going to be good. Carey Price's situation, yah a sports psychologist will help because Carey has proven he is the bests for multiple years and is still relatively young, Hughes has never shown he's the best or even good for that matter. It's now his 4th year in the league and he's statistically one of the worst goalies in the league. It is what it is and nothing at this point will change it.Regarding the goalie situation, Hughes, I think, needs to spend some time with a sports psychologist - he seems to have lost confidence. To be a goalie at every level, you need ATTITUDE - you need to believe that you’re absolutely the best player on the ice, and nobody’s gonna beat you. That’s part of what you sign up for when you get that first set of pads; you’re gonna be the hero or the goat most nights. He needs to believe he can be the hero.
Langevin, on the other hand, had (has??) won the starter job, but has shown he’s perhaps not quite ready. Understandable, since he’s basically a rookie. He will only get better, unless he loses his confidence as well. Normally one might slot in the rookie against weaker teams but as unofficial number one, he’s not getting that luxury. Also, as I said way back in September, at 5’-10”, you’ve gotta be way quicker than average to be successful. The jury is optimistic but still out...
Trading for a goalie will spell the end for Hughes at this point, and considering that the team won’t be that much better, don’t give up more than a 5th round pick for any new tender.
Just my opinion...
If Sarnia doesn't plan on addressing this problem they should just name Langevin the #1. Give him some much needed game reps in the net. At this point no one really knows what he is.... let him prove what he is this season if they don't bring in a guy.Between the two goalie the numbers are the same , langevin is Two years younger and has about 40 games less of ohl experience than Hughes. So yes I would definitely favour langevin because if he’s just as good as Hughes now give him more experience and he’s going to get better.
Sting chose Hughes in the 2nd round a few picks behind DiPietro....Obvioulsy Sarnia thought he was a great goalie prospect. I do agree 100% that the CHL is bad at developing goalies but no one in their right mind would have started Hughes over Fazio at any point. It's not Sarnia's job to forget about their team and just say eh we gotta play this guy to develop him. Hughes never earned the right to start over Fazio. Hughes was destined to be a failure from day 1. Big but somehow gets beat on shots from the outside and Slow. No one was developing Hughes into anything, especially a NHL goalie.Hughes was never considered to be a great goalie prospect, he is an average goalie who hasn't adjusted to the changes in the game. Texcanuck is correct that a psychologist could help for the in-game mental collapses but it won't fundamentally change his style.
No one knows what Hughes could have been because he was stuck behind Fazio and was truly never developed. Much like Incze in Niagara and Bonello in Saginaw.
People say CHL is not developing goalies, they are correct because for the most part they don't know how.
Thanks Sarnia, you developed Fazio for Usport, Niagara, you are going to make Dhillon an excellent university goalie while the younger guys stagnate for 2 - 3 years and then get ripped on because they haven't developed.
Keep both goalies, play Hughes in tough games and put Langevin in situations he has an opportunity to succeed. Next year Langevin should be ready to assume starters' role.