Mike Brown is a great fighter, though. Edmonton must have felt they needed some toughness. So he had some value to them. Pretty solid hitter too.
I can see some team coughing something up for Cleary based on past playoff performances, but they wouldn't be doing their homework if they did. Abby is young, which is the only thing I can envision a team seeing in him.
I know I'm no GM, but I wouldn't trade any picks for those players if I'm running another team. I'd call up my own guys from the minors instead.
Brown over his last 66 games (2 seasons): 6 pts, 153 hits
Cleary last years 75 games: 33 pts, 90 hits
Abby last years 81 games: 22 pts, 148 hits
Miller: last years 80 games: 25 pts, 79 hits
Abby looks identical minus the fighting. Cleary is a great secondary scorer with half the hits. Miller had only 79 hits but he more than quadrupedal Brown's scoring.
Cleary can PK, PP, skate, add work ethic, and a little scoring (thought he's been slow to start this year)
Abby can PK, hit, and skate
Miller, can PK and skate
just to say all 3 can PK effectively is worth a 7th rounder to someone out there IMO
I'll say I would never have asked a 4th rounder for brown though. great fighter, but that's overpriced
We have too many 'filler' players anyway, we would be better by subtraction
Disagreed. This is a business. Losing assets, big or small, for nothing is not smart. I agree we need to dump our filler guys, but doing that through the waiver wire is bad business. Tots will get some heavy ice time in the minors (which is good) and play there until room is made for him through trade. It's the classic dumb hockey move, but smart business move. At the end of the day business trumps hockey. Playing Tatar now and losing other guys through waivers helps us in the short term but hurts us for the next 10 years when we get nothing in return for them.
I think it's very foolish to take Brunner out of the top 6. He's very much a top 6 guy and very much on an expiring contract. Hate to be a player pleaser, but the young goal scoring star who needs to be re-signed is not the guy you demote on a contract year. Let him flourish and fall in love with this system in the top 6 with the stars he signed on to play with.
The only guys who should not be up for demotion right now are Z, D, and B. Everyone else is on the chopping block.
Hossa will sign where the team is competitive and the money is right. He doesn't give a flying f*** about Detroit unless he can get the contract he wants out of Ken. And I'm doubting Ken will be willing to cash out for a guy he let walk a few years ago.
Becasue after all, agents NEVER Lie....... I mean, what would the bargining position be? Hi, I am here to negotiate datsyuk's next contract. We want 5 years and 35 million dollars. But pavel wants to return home in 1 year. Or 2 or 3....... How do you think that will play?
BTW Scott Boras is on line 2, he has the best closer in baseball over the last 3 years ready to sign a new deal for the Tigers.
.......uhhhh why would Datsyuk's agent want good bargaining position for a contract if Datsyuk doesn't want a contract?
Didn't Fedorov used to do that all the time? I remember Stevie Y injuring a certain Chrissy Pronger that way too. To me that's the risk you run when you go to run someone. Can't tell someone not to dodge a hit if they can.
Sporting News article on the NCAA vs. the CHL from a couple of years ago. It does focus more on the business of colleges losing recruits to the Canadian junior leagues mostly, but does have a few quips that are relevent to this conversation:
Can't seem to track it down, but I also remember an article from around the same time describing a survey done about parents being more willing now to send their kids the college route instead of the CHL as the NCAA was closing the gap in developing NHL ready prospects with the CHL.
As a parent I would always send my kid the NCAA route. Even if my kid was Crosby. You just never know how someone will pan out, e.g. Daigle. Much better to have an education to fall back on... plus it's good to have a college education, even if you never need to formally use it.
I think the CHL produces better elite talent, but if you were to play the top teams in both leagues against each other, the NCAA would win in a walk.
Mostly due to the fact that players are recruited rather than drafted so the talent isn't as spread out. Combined with the fact that the NCAA tends to have a lot more older and more physically developed players.
If you meant that NCAA players are older and thus farther along in physical growth, then yes you are correct, thats a given. But if you meant that they are more physical players, or better because of that growth, that's dead wrong. Many 16 yr old OHLers would out muscle/grind 21 yr old NCAA players. The physicality of OHL games is far above anything in the NCAA