HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > Canadian Junior Hockey > OHL
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

*OFFICIAL* Windsor Spitfires 2013 Off-Season Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-14-2013, 04:36 AM
  #226
aresknights
Registered User
 
aresknights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: london
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Nobody has won anything yet. Plus, who are any of us to say 100% that Windsor has "no chance" of winning it next year?
True enough

aresknights is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 04:57 AM
  #227
aresknights
Registered User
 
aresknights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: london
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy kanuck View Post
Thanks for the insight Tigers. This is about what I expected, and it's great to hear from someone who is generally in the know.
Well said.

aresknights is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 06:41 AM
  #228
Libbs
Registered User
 
Libbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
Ill give Warren credit. All year he took responsibility for the penalties. Never said 'what about the others', just 'we messed up'. Hes a stand up guy.
I don't have any inside knowledge and have stopped caring who said what... but I'm going to 100% disagree with you on this statement.

Rychel has NEVER taken accountability for this thing. He continues to pass the buck on this whole situation, chalking it up to "bad luck". He's never once owned up to screwing up, has yet to appologize to the fans, and has yet to give any kind of indication as to how the plans to move on from these sanctions.

All we are told was "it was bad luck".

Sorry, but what Rychel does/says in the media and how he handles himself in public, he is far from a stand up guy.

Libbs is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 08:57 AM
  #229
Rubbers29
Registered User
 
Rubbers29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHLTG View Post
Trading Koko would have started a domino effect. The only way you deal Koko is if you weren't going to make noise this year and knew you were going full-out rebuild. Once Koko stayed, they built up in hopes for a long playoff-run. Injuries kind of halted that.
would that have been such a bad thing? one of Windsor's biggest issue this year was inconsistant play, they managed to show up some games and beat the top teams in the league, then the next time they played them they got blown out of the water, to me that screams a chemistry issue, and disinterested players, I can't see how 1 player coming back would change that? it's hard to make that long playoff run when you can't figure out what players are going to show up everynight.

there has been a trend in this league lately of good teams being built by subtraction, Sudbury traded their top 3 players and experienced netminder away and played one less game than the team they went to, Saginaw traded away this years top point getter and playoff point leader and arguably played as a better unit after, post deadline Peterborough even did a complete 180 coming within 1 point of a playoff birth after being completely terrible the first half of the year!

and its not just this year, I know Windsor fans hate Knights examples, but Look at the 2010-2011 team, traded away their C and A in D'orazio and DeSousa, and fan favourite (sometimes) Erlich, ended up giving eventual league champs Owen Sound on of their toughtest post season series (most people say that series is what help Owen Sound wake up and play to their potential) and then turned that into a Mem. cup final the next year.

tell me that isn't a good arguement when the question is asked about strength of team? Windsor was obviously fighting an uphill battle to try and host after the sanctions came down, I am not arguing that, all I am saying is that the moves the GM made at the trade deadline makes it look like they decided they don't even care about the bid and just wanted to increase a certain players stats by getting a couple players to help him pad his pre-draft #'s, to me it seems like the only reason they actually went through the motions of putting their bid in, is that it is a low cost way to say to the STH's and other fans "hey look, we're trying but the league is clearly against us"

apparently it's working, because anytime its mentioned by an outside fan there are a ton of quick replies defending them, but if my money was going into these owners pockets, I would be pissed at the way this whole thing was handled. had they put forth a real effort to make their team the best it could be next year and still got turned down, at least then I could support the arguement agains't the league especially when it was said from the get go that the sanctions would not affect a bid.

Rubbers29 is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 09:20 AM
  #230
Snippit
Registered User
 
Snippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,819
vCash: 500
The Koekkoek deal was a good one for Windsor, assuming he returns. It would have been even better if he hadn't been injured.

I don't think Windsor had the assets to set themselves up well for next year. They were short on draft picks, and they didn't have too many older players that would have value for other teams. I don't see why Khohklachev wasn't traded. They could have gotten a nice package for him.

They don't have a 1st-round pick to acquire more pieces. They need to strike gold at the import draft, and even still I don't think it'll be enough.

The defense core is decent, but the forward lines look pretty thin to me. From pure speculation, this team (to me) looks to be in the 10-13 range. I also don't think they have much to improve the roster, besides the import draft.

I think most Windsor fans can agree that they're probably going to be outside of the Top 5. Which isn't Memorial Cup calibre.

Making the playoffs last year would have improved their bid. Injuries definitely played a role, but don't forget about how well Saginaw was playing in the 2nd half.

I personally think it is between Barrie and London right now.

Snippit is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 10:14 AM
  #231
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
Branch wanted nothing to do with this. He's about optics (as we see with the suspensions) and hates when his league gets a black eye. He was presented with facts and was forced to act. No player went to Branch.

Branch kept the players names quiet for the reasons that we see on this site. Players will become targets if they admit guilt, even if it was the parents and agents who orchestrated the deal. We already see some fans calling players 'rats' on here when they did nothing wrong, imaging if it became known, what would fans say then?

The other reason why names will never see the light of day is because Branch wants anyone with info to understand that they will not be named publically. No diffident then what we see in the legal system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
How exactly would you like David Branch to sanction parents and agents? He has as much authority over them as I do over you.



David Branch was given evidence by a third party. If you have evidence that other teams have cheated, then please give it to him as well. Without evidence, you can't do anything. He can't sanction hunches.



For the...8th time? It wasn't a player. But your comments show why names shouldn't be given.

Ill give Warren credit. All year he took responsibility for the penalties. Never said 'what about the others', just 'we messed up'. Hes a stand up guy.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you say "Branch kept the players names quiet for the reasons that we see on this site. Players will become targets if they admit guilt, even if it was the parents and agents who orchestrated the deal" and in the next post you claim "For the...8th time? It wasn't a player. But your comments show why names shouldn't be given.". So first it was "Branch kept the players names quiet" and then it's "It wasn't a player".

Also you say "Branch wanted nothing to do with this. He's about optics (as we see with the suspensions) and hates when his league gets a black eye" but then you say "The other reason why names will never see the light of day is because Branch wants anyone with info to understand that they will not be named publically". If Branch wanted nothing to do with this and is about optics then why do you contend he goes out of his way to protect the informant source? He could easily make the case for ultimate transparency being necessary to protect innocent players from being under suspicion and that would dissuade rats and protect the optics if that was really his concern.

I like how you say "No player went to Branch" and Branch was given evidence by a third party" and how "Parents and agents are untouchable". Is the third party the enforcement officer by any chance? The person hired by the league to be the liaison between rats and the league? The one to carry on further investigations and then present his findings to Branch? If so, the insistence of it being a "third party" is rather hollow. As the violations officer is not a third party in this case but an arm of the league and Branch.

You seem to want to infer that somebody wholly unconnected to any player was the source of the incriminating info. Well IF it was such an unconnected source like a NCAA school saying "Our player said he was promised x, y, z - well I don't think that info would have been so protected. Because the player never played here, and who cares if the NCAA school is outed.

And your "It wasn't a player" and the "even if it was the parents and agents who orchestrated the deal" remarks than reading between your lines it was a players parent who reached out to the recruitment enforcement officer. And to that I say so what - the player(s) is still ultimately connected, and the parent is party to the recruitment violation and they shouldn't be now protected after they and their son benefited from their insistence at some extras from the Spitfires that they happily and readily accepted when their son signed on here.

It had to be a parent because - Why would an agent burn themselves? You ask "How exactly would you like David Branch to sanction parents and agents? He has as much authority over them as I do over you." This is patently false. The parent in the very least should be named, but in the case of the agent - Branch absolutely has powers if the agent is still representing/advising current players in the league and plans to represent future ones. Because this agent didn't only ask for special treatment one time and only the Spits gave it to him - so he can be blackballed from the league for the sake of protecting players.

Branch couldn't move on hearsay. He needed signed statements directly from those involved. Now this recruitment violations officer isn't a cop and doesn't have subpoena powers, you can't be compelled to talk. He needed players to cooperate with him - to give up evidence, whether it be receipt stubs or bank statements etc.

You want to protect the players and if it's not a player, than by not naming names (not you, but the league/Spits) you're hurting the players - because Kenny Ryan, Jack Campbell, Austin Watson, Khokhlachev, Fowler, Peca are all under suspicion because some unconnected third party source - not a player as you contend - decided to rat. That doesn't pass the smell test.

As for all the London fans here - you want to accept what you want to hear. Tigers1992 has his sources, but also always wants to protect/defend the player at all times. I've heard contradictory statements of fact from another connected arena source (proven over time) that it was two players. Then when the London fan here was indicating that Dark was involved it was just another name into this mess. And when it first happened I heard from a person not connected to the Spits or a Spit fan but somebody who would be in the know on the findings through their job that Branch had the Spits dead to nuts and players had to sign official statements as the final step before Branch would move on the penalties and that another team was going to be hammered as well but at the last minute the player refused to sign his name to his statement so that case was dropped. And that fit with others (posting at NOOF) claiming another shoe was going to drop and another team was about to get hammered.

So folks can believe what they want to hear - I don't know what exactly to believe - I know I don't believe it's as clean as Tigers is claiming. All the names I've mentioned here are named mentioned to me matter of factly by others as the players involved. Now obviously they're not all involved and obviously most or all are wrong - but to these folks they know as fact these players they mentioned are the guilty parties. So innocent parties are being tied up in this mess so in protecting this supposed third party parent/agent/unaffiliated interested party the innocent players are being hurt.

Ottomatic is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 10:29 AM
  #232
Tigers1992
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libbs View Post
I don't have any inside knowledge and have stopped caring who said what... but I'm going to 100% disagree with you on this statement.

Rychel has NEVER taken accountability for this thing. He continues to pass the buck on this whole situation, chalking it up to "bad luck". He's never once owned up to screwing up, has yet to appologize to the fans, and has yet to give any kind of indication as to how the plans to move on from these sanctions.

All we are told was "it was bad luck".

Sorry, but what Rychel does/says in the media and how he handles himself in public, he is far from a stand up guy.
I'm not talking about what he says in the media, I'm talking about what he has said in the rinks privately.

Tigers1992 is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 10:48 AM
  #233
RayzorIsDull
Registered User
 
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: bp on hfboards
Posts: 10,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raisy View Post
So on the one hand you wanted Rychel to take flyer picks in this draft (which he obviously did) and now on the other hand, your not sure you like the logic of it... Call me confused.

Sometimes I can't believe the whining and conspiracy theories that go around on here, like Rychel only using the franchise to forward the career of his kid. Honestly, I think anyone that really believes that should see me at a game because I've got a great deal on some prime swamp land to sell them. Also, I'm still trying to all these terrible deals that Rychel has made that has set the franchise back years; I wasn't particularily exited for the Devlin deal (the trade for him) but knew that it was a gamble that could pay-off, unfortunately it didn't. Not every deal or draft pick is going to pan out.
Moore is a pick I like no commitment to USDP, he's open to what weighing the options. Guys like Warren and Fischer are the opposite they aren't going to be here for 2 years. Look at Blaisdell to Kitchener. The guys like Moore and Blaisdell are the guys I was referring to not the ones in USDP.

RayzorIsDull is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 10:51 AM
  #234
Tigers1992
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you say "Branch kept the players names quiet for the reasons that we see on this site. Players will become targets if they admit guilt, even if it was the parents and agents who orchestrated the deal" and in the next post you claim "For the...8th time? It wasn't a player. But your comments show why names shouldn't be given.". So first it was "Branch kept the players names quiet" and then it's "It wasn't a player".
Correct. It wasn't a player who went to Branch, which I have been saying that all the time. Players where questioned after the evidence was presented, but the initial evidence was presented by a third party who was not subject to the agreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
Also you say "Branch wanted nothing to do with this. He's about optics (as we see with the suspensions) and hates when his league gets a black eye" but then you say "The other reason why names will never see the light of day is because Branch wants anyone with info to understand that they will not be named publically". If Branch wanted nothing to do with this and is about optics then why do you contend he goes out of his way to protect the informant source? He could easily make the case for ultimate transparency being necessary to protect innocent players from being under suspicion and that would dissuade rats and protect the optics if that was really his concern.
That's your opinion. For some reason you want the name of the players involved. I'm not sure why? If there are issues in London or any other team that you have said (again, give Branch proof, hes proven he will act on it), when keeping the names quiet is key in seeing justice. I can guaranteeing you that passionate, emotional fans reacting negatively in rinks and in person will kill any chance that any player helps in an investigation.

Whats the benefit? So people can go after 'the rat'. Boy, hate to see what would happen in that situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
I like how you say "No player went to Branch" and Branch was given evidence by a third party" and how "Parents and agents are untouchable". Is the third party the enforcement officer by any chance? The person hired by the league to be the liaison between rats and the league? The one to carry on further investigations and then present his findings to Branch? If so, the insistence of it being a "third party" is rather hollow. As the violations officer is not a third party in this case but an arm of the league and Branch.

You seem to want to infer that somebody wholly unconnected to any player was the source of the incriminating info. Well IF it was such an unconnected source like a NCAA school saying "Our player said he was promised x, y, z - well I don't think that info would have been so protected. Because the player never played here, and who cares if the NCAA school is outed.
No, the third party was not the enforcement officer. And the penalties are for breaking actual rules, not for offers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
You want to protect the players and if it's not a player, than by not naming names (not you, but the league/Spits) you're hurting the players - because Kenny Ryan, Jack Campbell, Austin Watson, Khokhlachev, Fowler, Peca are all under suspicion because some unconnected third party source - not a player as you contend - decided to rat. That doesn't pass the smell test.
Why? Im not out there trying to figure out who did what? The only ones who are doing that appear to be a collection of fans and perhaps some media people. In the rink very few people are out there saying 'I think this player did it'. At OHL games, no NHL personal are saying 'I think it was this'. Its pretty much a dead issue. The only time I ever see names being connected are on message boards.

If you don't think its fair and its hurting the players to speculate, then why are you speculating?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
As for all the London fans here - you want to accept what you want to hear. Tigers1992 has his sources, but also always wants to protect/defend the player at all times.

So folks can believe what they want to hear - I don't know what exactly to believe - I know I don't believe it's as clean as Tigers is claiming.
Living in the rinks for the past 10-15 years you create bonds with OHL guys. You eat, drink and drive with them. I know pretty much every GM on a first name basis at this point. Most are aware of what happened and communicated that, Ill leave it at that.

In five years posting on here, people have seen that im never one to speculate. I didnt start in the last 24 hours.

Tigers1992 is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 11:18 AM
  #235
krazy kanuck
Registered User
 
krazy kanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,768
vCash: 500
Ottomatic:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
You seem to be contradicting yourself here.
Tigers didn't contradict himself. Just because a player didn't come forward, doesn't mean that branch thinks it's there fault. Especially if they cooperated once Branch contacted them.

As time passes it's not hard to imagine that people would know bits and pieces, so it's reasonable that eventually it gets out. If Branch and his folks had enough to start an investigation, then at that point he would have access to all the financials etc. filed with the league, would he not? Start putting together the puzzle...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
In five years posting on here, people have seen that im never one to speculate. I didnt start in the last 24 hours.
That's what I've found, good enough for me. I would ask you this, given what you know, do you feel the penalty was fair?

krazy kanuck is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 11:18 AM
  #236
RayzorIsDull
Registered User
 
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: bp on hfboards
Posts: 10,002
vCash: 500
Tigers the biggest problem imo is that you're the one giving out this information not anybody involved in the investigation nobody from the OHL or the Windsor Spitfires. As I said in regards to these violations and Memorial Cup selection there isn't any transparency and until there is the league will take a big hit in the credibility department. Why is some 3rd party given credibility in this whole mess? Yes I consider that person to be a rat in some sort of way.

RayzorIsDull is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 11:20 AM
  #237
Tigers1992
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayzorIsDull View Post
Why is some 3rd party given credibility in this whole mess? Yes I consider that person to be a rat in some sort of way.
Because he brought evidence. If you bring hard evidence to David Branch regarding a team cheating, hes going to look at it.

Tigers1992 is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 11:37 AM
  #238
RayzorIsDull
Registered User
 
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: bp on hfboards
Posts: 10,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
Because he brought evidence. If you bring hard evidence to David Branch regarding a team cheating, hes going to look at it.
I just find it interesting that's all. I have a hard time believing somebody unless he's the most morally correct person in the world would report something like this when the CHL is known as one of the most corrupt amateur/professional leagues (depending on your point of view) in regards to recruitment and cooked deals. At the end of the day the league is still saying cheating is acceptable as long as you don't get caught and that's a problem imo.

RayzorIsDull is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 11:44 AM
  #239
krazy kanuck
Registered User
 
krazy kanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayzorIsDull View Post
I just find it interesting that's all. I have a hard time believing somebody unless he's the most morally correct person in the world would report something like this when the CHL is known as one of the most corrupt amateur/professional leagues (depending on your point of view) in regards to recruitment and cooked deals. At the end of the day the league is still saying cheating is acceptable as long as you don't get caught and that's a problem imo.
Isn't that exactly why Branch should act when he's presented with evidence of cheating?

ADD: Same for the person who discovered the evidence?

krazy kanuck is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 11:46 AM
  #240
Tigers1992
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayzorIsDull View Post
I just find it interesting that's all. I have a hard time believing somebody unless he's the most morally correct person in the world would report something like this when the CHL is known as one of the most corrupt amateur/professional leagues (depending on your point of view) in regards to recruitment and cooked deals. At the end of the day the league is still saying cheating is acceptable as long as you don't get caught and that's a problem imo.
When anyone brings evidence to David Branch, he acts. Its better to act then to have it go public with no action.

Tigers1992 is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 11:56 AM
  #241
RayzorIsDull
Registered User
 
RayzorIsDull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: bp on hfboards
Posts: 10,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy kanuck View Post
Isn't that exactly why Branch should act when he's presented with evidence of cheating?

ADD: Same for the person who discovered the evidence?
Unless the person reporting this has a vested interest in the goings on I don't see why he would want to report it. This is like somebody in the passenger seat of a car showing video of a car going through a red light and going to the police to report. That car isn't the only one that went through a red light but why even report it? The difference being the police actually still spot traffic violators on occasion. The OHL and their enforcement officer have done thing of the sort through 3 years except for what happened with Windsor. Of course some people probably think the enforcement guy has done his job up to this point. Of course if you read the NOOF back in September somebody said Windsor isn't the only OHL team to be sanctioned give it a few weeks, well 6-7 months later and nothing. Let me guess they investigated and found nothing.

RayzorIsDull is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 12:36 PM
  #242
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
Correct. It wasn't a player who went to Branch, which I have been saying that all the time. Players where questioned after the evidence was presented, but the initial evidence was presented by a third party who was not subject to the agreement.
So some unconnected third party contacts Branch with info and he launches an investigation. But "Players were questioned" under what authority? We've been lead to believe, if not outright told by Branch that these are former players no longer in the league - so what power did Branch have over the players to compel them to cooperate? If he had proof, a paper trail - they're still just as guilty as the Spitfires. So they are even more rats now - they snitched on the Spits to save their own ass then? Branch promise not to go after them? Branch promise to keep their names secret?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
That's your opinion. For some reason you want the name of the players involved. I'm not sure why? If there are issues in London or any other team that you have said (again, give Branch proof, hes proven he will act on it), when keeping the names quiet is key in seeing justice. I can guaranteeing you that passionate, emotional fans reacting negatively in rinks and in person will kill any chance that any player helps in an investigation.
The player is part of the dirty dealings. And they get off scot-free is why. They made the shady dealing with the Spitfires, they benefited from it and then they sing like a canary about it and go on with their lives while the Spits and their fan base are penalized in part for their actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
Whats the benefit? So people can go after 'the rat'. Boy, hate to see what would happen in that situation.
Yeah, they might get booed at a future alumni game, or even better might feel uncomfortable enough not to come. And they shouldn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
Why? Im not out there trying to figure out who did what? The only ones who are doing that appear to be a collection of fans and perhaps some media people. In the rink very few people are out there saying 'I think this player did it'. At OHL games, no NHL personal are saying 'I think it was this'. Its pretty much a dead issue. The only time I ever see names being connected are on message boards.
NHL personal know who did it. If you know then then know. And I bet they know it happens all the time and it's how business is done in the CHL. Fans are wondering who the players were, and it cropped up as an issue again because the Spits lost Sean Day because of it and it will not go away if Day is a phenom in the league for the next four years either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
If you don't think its fair and its hurting the players to speculate, then why are you speculating?
Because if everybody stops talking about it it will go away and I don't believe it should go away. I believe in transparency and if innocent names are being thrown out maybe somebody will step up and defend these kids and we'll get to the bottom of who was involved and what happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers1992 View Post
Living in the rinks for the past 10-15 years you create bonds with OHL guys. You eat, drink and drive with them. I know pretty much every GM on a first name basis at this point. Most are aware of what happened and communicated that, Ill leave it at that.

In five years posting on here, people have seen that im never one to speculate. I didnt start in the last 24 hours.
And are they hypocritical enough to not know that they've crossed the line in the past but didn't have some snitch looking to screw them? Or that they were smart enough to cover their trails and thus dumb arrogant Warren deserved it?

This whole league is smoke and mirrors. Players pick and choose where they want to play for various reasons - and it comes down to money. Organizations with money hire better coaches, have better billets, have better buses, have better facilities, have better trainers, have better locations.

How is Max Domi forcing his way to London better for the league? How is a cooked deal between Tie Domi, Dale Hunter and Doug Gilmour completely above board? How is it better for the league that Austin Watson says "London or nowhere" so London gets Watson from the Petes for pennies on the dollar? Why did Watson want to go to London so badly that he bullied his way there? Is that good for the league? But the league does nothing.

Ottomatic is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 12:37 PM
  #243
Aela*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,530
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Aela*
On the topic of Windsor being awarded the cup, while any team has a chance to win, Windsor's team doesn't look like much of a contender to go far and might not make the playoffs again. As someone else already said, their games didn't look to good either. Consistency has been an issue, and I firmly believe it's the consistently good teams that make the best bid for the cup.

Aela* is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 12:45 PM
  #244
hockeylegend11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snippit View Post
The Koekkoek deal was a good one for Windsor, assuming he returns. It would have been even better if he hadn't been injured.

I don't think Windsor had the assets to set themselves up well for next year. They were short on draft picks, and they didn't have too many older players that would have value for other teams. I don't see why Khohklachev wasn't traded. They could have gotten a nice package for him.

They don't have a 1st-round pick to acquire more pieces. They need to strike gold at the import draft, and even still I don't think it'll be enough.

The defense core is decent, but the forward lines look pretty thin to me. From pure speculation, this team (to me) looks to be in the 10-13 range. I also don't think they have much to improve the roster, besides the import draft.

I think most Windsor fans can agree that they're probably going to be outside of the Top 5. Which isn't Memorial Cup calibre.

Making the playoffs last year would have improved their bid. Injuries definitely played a role, but don't forget about how well Saginaw was playing in the 2nd half.

I personally think it is between Barrie and London right now.
I don't Barrie would be in top 5 either based on roster projection so by that process London should be automatic,Windsor already has more goals returning,plus 8 -10 Dmen with OHL experience,Barrie has 7,as well both teams only have 18 year olds as starting tenders

hockeylegend11 is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 12:47 PM
  #245
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaelanstorm View Post
On the topic of Windsor being awarded the cup, while any team has a chance to win, Windsor's team doesn't look like much of a contender to go far and might not make the playoffs again. As someone else already said, their games didn't look to good either. Consistency has been an issue, and I firmly believe it's the consistently good teams that make the best bid for the cup.
Who are these consistently good teams?

Why did only three teams bid? Two who's teams will be lacking, and one who hosted it 9 years ago? Maybe the process is messed up and it's became too big business for the league - but as long as money is going to the league that's a-ok. Is it true that teams have to put up $150K in non-refundable fee in order to have time in front of the host selection committee? Barrie has bid each year for the last 15 years (or something like that), Windsor bid in 2011 and didn't get it because Branch made promises to Melynuk when he owned two teams when other buyers couldn't b found. And how great a decision was that - Melnyk sells the team after he cashes in on hosting the gig - so rather than reward owners who overpaid to pry the team from one of the worst owners in the league and a city who's tax payers built a new state of the art $70M arena, you give a billionaire a going away present - he takes the money and runs.

But you see that was sold as "We want to use the Mem Cup to try and get a fan base in the GTA". Well now it's going to be all about "London has the best team and experience hosting things". And in 2017, 2020, and 2023 London will bid and host one of those years as well because the ownership and the city keep making money from the hosting that they then re-invest to make their bids better next time and the time after.

Ottomatic is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 12:49 PM
  #246
Snippit
Registered User
 
Snippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeylegend11 View Post
I don't Barrie would be in top 5 either based on roster projection so by that process London should be automatic,Windsor already has more goals returning,plus 8 -10 Dmen with OHL experience,Barrie has 7,as well both teams only have 18 year olds as starting tenders
True, I doubt Barrie will be any better than Windsor. So I guess that leaves...


Snippit is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 01:09 PM
  #247
OHLTG
Registered User
 
OHLTG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: behind lens, Ontario
Posts: 6,070
vCash: 500
Wow you guys were busy today

OHLTG is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 01:38 PM
  #248
krazy kanuck
Registered User
 
krazy kanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottomatic View Post
How is Max Domi forcing his way to London better for the league? How is a cooked deal between Tie Domi, Dale Hunter and Doug Gilmour completely above board? How is it better for the league that Austin Watson says "London or nowhere" so London gets Watson from the Petes for pennies on the dollar? Why did Watson want to go to London so badly that he bullied his way there? Is that good for the league? But the league does nothing.
It's terrible for the league, but it's awesome to hear this from a Spits fan, because it's NEVER happened in Windsor. I could see why someone from Peterborough, SSM, or Sudbury would complain but someone from Windsor? That's priceless.

krazy kanuck is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 01:53 PM
  #249
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy kanuck View Post
It's terrible for the league, but it's awesome to hear this from a Spits fan, because it's NEVER happened in Windsor. I could see why someone from Peterborough, SSM, or Sudbury would complain but someone from Windsor? That's priceless.
Well it happened in Windsor and we're getting screwed over for it while the Branch and Co know damn well it goes on elsewhere. London has the best team next year largely because of the Domi/Horvat back room deal and Hunter getting players in the import draft via trading up because other teams cannot afford to bring them over so trade their pick.

I don't believe any player forced his way here via trade though (off the top of my head). Rychel always seems to overpay in trades actually.

Blacker and Brassard asked to be traded away.

Ottomatic is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 02:35 PM
  #250
KyGuy9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 567
vCash: 500
Maybe it was a player who didn't come to Windsor that told. For some reason, I think Jordan Schmaltz. (I have no proof though) It could be he knew he wa heading to the NCAA, and Windsor made a last ditch effort to get him here by offering him money. Thoughts?

KyGuy9 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.