Dogs trade

[Dawg Tired]

For those of us who have been around a while, we have all seen this model before.

New team/owner comes into town and does everything to put a winner on ice for the first year.

After pissing away all the resources they have to put a one year winner on the ice, the team slides into becoming a perennial loser.

The fans drift away because they feel they are being exploited with a poor quality on-ice product.

Owner sells/moves the team blaming the fans for not supporting the team. New owner has little in terms of players and picks in order to bring the team around anytime soon or new venue is so starved for the game that they tolerate the poor quality of the team.

In time, I would like to be proven wrong. But, this looks a lot like what has happened in the past (on multiple occasions) in this area.

[NiceDawg]

Originally Posted by NiagaraFan12

I am not saying that this is a Memorial Cup team by any means, but I do think that this is a very important season for the franchise.
In the eyes of many it has gone from a model franchise to a laughing stock.From 2 conference championships and hosting OHL-Russia games to making the headlines for the wrong reasons.
Its reputation around the league surely is not the same as it once was. No one knows how many fans have decided not to come back because of the off ice incidents.
Attendance around the league has been down due to Covid.In the last few years the team also lost their excellant group sales person.
Building trust and fan support will be hard to do but can be done. But the best way of putting bums in the seats is winning.
People will argue that the team may have overpayed for some, but the players brought in appear to be solid OHL players.
The new owner must have known for awhile that he may have been purchasing the team because they seem to have scouted the league quite a bit.
Obviously making 17 trades is not in the Youtube video of how to be a GM, but I believe drastic times called for it.

I agree with you on this and previously wrote a short story on what a new GM would have to do. I think he overpaid on some of the trades but winning hockey games is the first step.

[NiceDawg]

Originally Posted by 5 for fighting

If winning is so important to the new owners, then why not hire an experienced GM and coaching staff. And why reduce your scouting team to only 5 scouts, which I believe is the fewest number of scouts employed by any OHL team. IMO, we are not set up to be successful in terms of winning. We are set up to be the lowest budget team in the OHL from a hockey operations perspective.

...I am cautious here, but getting a newly assembled group to play together well in a short period of time does not happen by magic. This requires getting the right players and working them into the new system. Very early days, but if what we saw last week continues or is enhanced over the next few weeks, we may have to concede the GM and Coach have experience.

As for scouts, unless you are talking about finding that diamond in the rough that nobody knows about, how many do you need? Just because other's have more does that make them better?

[Dogs Enthusiast 104]

Originally Posted by 5 for fighting

If winning is so important to the new owners, then why not hire an experienced GM and coaching staff. And why reduce your scouting team to only 5 scouts, which I believe is the fewest number of scouts employed by any OHL team. IMO, we are not set up to be successful in terms of winning. We are set up to be the lowest budget team in the OHL from a hockey operations perspective.

Maybe they have great faith in their own abilities.

[strohs]

Originally Posted by Dogs Enthusiast 104

Maybe they have great faith in their own abilities.

Their Jr B track record suggests that they should not have such faith . . .

We may have some success this year it is too early to tell. But we will pay for his spending ways in a couple years, when we essentially have no top five round picks other than the firsts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[5 for fighting]

Originally Posted by NiceDawg

As for scouts, unless you are talking about finding that diamond in the rough that nobody knows about, how many do you need? Just because other's have more does that make them better?

No, I am not talking about finding a diamond in the rough. I just want our scouts to see the players enough so they can make good draft decisions. Did Enright live up to being a 1st round selection? Has Fimis played at a level that equals his number 2 overall pick status. You need enough good scouts to make sure you select the right players.

As for the size of the scouting team, Kitchen has 12 and London has 13. We have 5. We don’t even have half the scouts of what those teams have.

[5 for fighting]

Originally Posted by strohs

Their Jr B track record suggests that they should not have such faith . . .

We may have some success this year it is too early to tell. But we will pay for his spending ways in a couple years, when we essentially have no top five round picks other than the firsts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In 2018-19, the Burke brothers led the Icedogs to their third best regular season finish with 95 points. That season they traded away many of our draft picks and young players which hurt the team for years to come. Now the new owner is doing the same thing but will likely have no where near the success that the 2018-19 team had. And the team will likely suffer in the coming years if he continues to trade away young players and draft picks.

[NiceDawg]

Originally Posted by 5 for fighting

No, I am not talking about finding a diamond in the rough. I just want our scouts to see the players enough so they can make good draft decisions. Did Enright live up to being a 1st round selection? Has Fimis played at a level that equals his number 2 overall pick status. You need enough good scouts to make sure you select the right players.

As for the size of the scouting team, Kitchen has 12 and London has 13. We have 5. We don’t even have half the scouts of what those teams have.

That is my point exactly. A large group of scouts doesn't guarantee top results as evidenced by our recent trend where whe had >5. Let's face it scouting is one part observation and one part communication. So if the scout makes the wrong assessment, doesn't build a working relationship with the player/agent/parents, or the GM doesn't listen to you anyhow, then you end up drafting the wrong kids or they don't report.

[fishfan51]

Originally Posted by NiceDawg

That is my point exactly. A large group of scouts doesn't guarantee top results as evidenced by our recent trend where whe had >5. Let's face it scouting is one part observation and one part communication. So if the scout makes the wrong assessment, doesn't build a working relationship with the player/agent/parents, or the GM doesn't listen to you anyhow, then you end up drafting the wrong kids or they don't report.

Add the fact that until this year the Dogs head scout was a complete asshat who couldn't scout a ball hockey game.

[5 for fighting]

Originally Posted by NiceDawg

That is my point exactly. A large group of scouts doesn't guarantee top results as evidenced by our recent trend where whe had >5. Let's face it scouting is one part observation and one part communication. So if the scout makes the wrong assessment, doesn't build a working relationship with the player/agent/parents, or the GM doesn't listen to you anyhow, then you end up drafting the wrong kids or they don't report.

I agree you need to have quality scouts and having a large team of low quality scouts will not give you success. That being said, 5 scouts is not enough for an OHL team. They will not be able to see prospects enough times to get a fair evaluation of them. I am hoping they will add to the scouting team as the season progresses but I have my doubts. It appears to me the Icedogs will be a budget OHL team despite being one of the top revenue generating teams.