Transfers 2013?

U10Father · Post by **U10Father** » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:08 pm

Just heard a juicy rumor about a key transfer off a top team which, while it might not kill the team this year, might doom it in 2014. Anyone heard any good transfer stories into or out of some of the private institutions?

Nimrod · Post by **Nimrod** » Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:56 pm

I heard two of Tonka's top D were tranferring to BSM!

Hockeydaddy · Post by **Hockeydaddy** » Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:37 pm

Wow! If true that would be huge. BSM only returns a couple defense IIRC.

pucktech · Post by **pucktech** » Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:26 pm

The rumor mill for Hill Murray's been spinning..supposedly getting some decent additions for 2013 - 2014...we'll have to see if there's any thruth to the talk...!!

Nimrod · Post by **Nimrod** » Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:00 pm

Sorry, i was teasing U10 guy on the Tonka kids transferring. I know of no such transfers but I suspect he was alluding to BSM losing one. Rosters will evolve over the summer for many teams. Most of the opportunities for significant upgrades though will obviously come from 8th and 9th graders making their respective varsity teams.

Sparlimb · Post by **Sparlimb** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:25 pm

pucktech wrote:The rumor mill for Hill Murray's been spinning..supposedly getting some decent additions for 2013 - 2014...we'll have to see if there's any thruth to the talk...!!

I'd say returning the entire team minus one goalie off the state runner-ups could encourage some discussion. That said, that doesn't leave many roster spots open, either. So will be interesting to see how things turn out...

luckyEPDad · Post by **luckyEPDad** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:45 pm

Sparlimb wrote:
pucktech wrote:The rumor mill for Hill Murray's been spinning..supposedly getting some decent additions for 2013 - 2014...we'll have to see if there's any thruth to the talk...!!
I'd say returning the entire team minus one goalie off the state runner-ups could encourage some discussion. That said, that doesn't leave many roster spots open, either. So will be interesting to see how things turn out...

Not a lot of offense, but really hard to score on. Hopefully the EP girls learned something from their games against HM and Lakeville North.

U10Father · Post by **U10Father** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:31 pm

If there's any truth to the rumor, there's a very offensive minded defender on the way, top shelf A+ level.

Nimrod · Post by **Nimrod** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:39 pm

The way things stand today, i would say Hill Murray is the team to beat. However, Tonka is still #1 until they lose. And there are at least 5 other teams that believe they have a good shot. A lot depends on what happens over the summer. I expect there will be more surprises.

luckyEPDad · Post by **luckyEPDad** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:40 am

U10Father wrote:If there's any truth to the rumor, there's a very offensive minded defender on the way, top shelf A+ level.

Not sure how well that will work with their system. When I saw them they played a very conservative defense with solid backchecking.

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:35 am

luckyEPDad wrote:
U10Father wrote:If there's any truth to the rumor, there's a very offensive minded defender on the way, top shelf A+ level.
Not sure how well that will work with their system. When I saw them they played a very conservative defense with solid backchecking.

The coach was an attacking D in HS and college. He loved Casey Knajdek who was a hybrid type attacking D who just finished her senior year playing at UCONN. She had the green light to go coast to coast or play deep in zone. I think he can use the talent he has. When you don't have high scoring or elite goaltending you play pack it in D tight play D, that is what I saw last year post Hannah Brandt.

Lace'emUp · Post by **Lace'emUp** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:56 am

U10Father wrote:If there's any truth to the rumor, there's a very offensive minded defender on the way, top shelf A+ level.

That rumor is true. I heard the same. Hill will be getting a top notch A+ defensive transfer from another private school.

MN_Bowhunter · Post by **MN_Bowhunter** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:37 pm

So now the privates are sniping kids from each other instead of just the publics? There's no honor amongst thieves.

allhoc11 · Post by **allhoc11** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:48 pm

MN_Bowhunter wrote:So now the privates are sniping kids from each other instead of just the publics? There's no honor amongst thieves.

I think it is interesting that people think HS coaches have all this spare time to be out on the recruiting trail. I think it is actually very rare that a HS kid chooses a team because of the coach, and that they are looking at playing time, friends, and competitiveness of a team rather than the coach. I do think kids will leave a program because of the coach, but rarely choose a program because of one. Well except one that treats HS kids like he is recruiting college kids to come play for his teams but that is an anomaly.

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:59 pm

allhoc11 wrote:
MN_Bowhunter wrote:So now the privates are sniping kids from each other instead of just the publics? There's no honor amongst thieves.
I think it is interesting that people think HS coaches have all this spare time to be out on the recruiting trail. I think it is actually very rare that a HS kid chooses a team because of the coach, and that they are looking at playing time, friends, and competitiveness of a team rather than the coach. I do think kids will leave a program because of the coach, but rarely choose a program because of one. Well except one that treats HS kids like he is recruiting college kids to come play for his teams but that is an anomaly.

Kids or parents do move to where there are other good players and the chance to be developed. There are a few schools and coaches who are great at developing teams, individual talents and have a successful track record of getting kids to D1. South St Paul (over Palmquist time there), Eden Prairie, Hill (Schafhauser period), BSM and Minnetonka (under Johnson) are examples that come to mind to me.

allhoc11 · Post by **allhoc11** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:15 pm

joehockey wrote: Kids or parents do move to where there are other good players and the chance to be developed. There are a few schools and coaches who are great at developing teams, individual talents and have a successful track record of getting kids to D1. South St Paul (over Palmquist time there), Eden Prairie, Hill (Schafhauser period), BSM and Minnetonka (under Johnson) are examples that come to mind to me.

Joe, I agree with you and you have a good list, however I would also say there are some programs/schools/coaches that are good at getting their kids into quality colleges, and some very good hockey players turn down chances to play college hockey to peruse a better academic path, and there are a lot of coaches instrumental in helping kids/families make those tough decisions that you may not notice looking at a list of which players go on to play hockey where.

Tigers33 · Post by **Tigers33** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:07 am

I would also not all south Saint Paul players are from south saint paul

allhoc11 · Post by **allhoc11** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:27 pm

Tigers33 wrote:I would also not all south Saint Paul players are from south saint paul

I think that brings us back on topic, kids choose schools for a multitude of reasons, and many of these programs have kids from the outside.

The past couple years it seems like the transfers have kept their intentions real quiet, so while there are lots of rumors swirling around, you never know for sure until the first day of school.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:30 pm

allhoc11 wrote:The past couple years it seems like the transfers have kept their intentions real quiet, so while there are lots of rumors swirling around, you never know for sure until the first day of school.

So true. That and the transfer rules concerning a change of residence. Until very recently, the real estate market has not exactly been great and conducive to parents wanting to sell (and possibly take a loss on their housing investment) and then move, just for their kid's athletics.

Nimrod · Post by **Nimrod** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:29 pm

Bringing this thread back full circle to U10fathers introductory comments, this example is an interesting commentary on where girls hockey stands. I agree the player in question is an offensive minded defenseman. She would be a top 4 D on every team in the state and a top 2 on many. While she was near the bottom of her team in goals scored last year, she had quite a few assists. On another team with less skilled forwards I expect she would have had quite a few less assists and a few more goals. She is/was a very good player and will be missed for a team that could use defense. However, now that the masses know defense is a need, i expect there will be many interested younger players showing interest in the subject program. Said differently, she will help someone more going to them if they need her skills than it will hurt that she left (probably consistent with U!0 fathers comments that the impact will be felt more the following year). The following year it will be all about forwards with so may seniors graduating. The point being, don't over value one player's impact on a single program, particularly when its a private school that attracts (note i did not say recruits) the top players in the state.

And, often times a player looks better when surrounded by equal or better players. I hope it works out for this player. And for those that want to blame the coach or the program for a player choosing to leave, I have heard various reasons. Only the parents can provide the real answer but one explanation has been that they were tired of commuting almost an hour to school and then back again each day. I for one get that as we put up with that for two years and it got really old. Now that our daughter drives we couldn't be happier with our choice but when you are going through this and looking at another year of it its not hard to think about change.

U10Father · Post by **U10Father** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:57 pm

I suppose that for next year, the school in question will probably move a couple kids back to defense. And having seen their JV squad, they have 3-4 varsity level kids stashed down there. Not as good as the kid they're losing, but lets not shed tears when you have 8-9 returning players from a top 5 ranked squad. Plus they'll probably get some good 14's...

Homer · Post by **Homer** » Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:57 pm

joehockey wrote:
luckyEPDad wrote:
U10Father wrote:If there's any truth to the rumor, there's a very offensive minded defender on the way, top shelf A+ level.
Not sure how well that will work with their system. When I saw them they played a very conservative defense with solid backchecking.
The coach was an attacking D in HS and college. He loved Casey Knajdek who was a hybrid type attacking D who just finished her senior year playing at UCONN. She had the green light to go coast to coast or play deep in zone. I think he can use the talent he has. When you don't have high scoring or elite goaltending you play pack it in D tight play D, that is what I saw last year post Hannah Brandt.

I would have to argue HM is losing an elite goalie. Replacing her will be tough.
I would bet HM gave up more shots than the year before and scored less (obviously). Yet they went the furthest ever in program history. I would say the goaltending was largely responsible.

Sparlimb · Post by **Sparlimb** » Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:37 pm

Homer wrote:
joehockey wrote:
luckyEPDad wrote: Not sure how well that will work with their system. When I saw them they played a very conservative defense with solid backchecking.
The coach was an attacking D in HS and college. He loved Casey Knajdek who was a hybrid type attacking D who just finished her senior year playing at UCONN. She had the green light to go coast to coast or play deep in zone. I think he can use the talent he has. When you don't have high scoring or elite goaltending you play pack it in D tight play D, that is what I saw last year post Hannah Brandt.
I would have to argue HM is losing an elite goalie. Replacing her will be tough.
I would bet HM gave up more shots than the year before and scored less (obviously). Yet they went the furthest ever in program history. I would say the goaltending was largely responsible.

Other's schools get pissy when HM keeps kids past senior year.

There is no doubt goaltending was a strength last year and that was the one loss to graduation. As the boy's team has shown, it's now someone else's turn. Have to agree with the above sentiment that Tonka is deserving of #1 until someone beats them in sections. They have been the mark to judge your team by. BSM only knows that too well.

MN_Bowhunter · Post by **MN_Bowhunter** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:22 am

I heard that SSP is losing a goalie. Another kid recruited, fed a bunch of BS, then benched because the other recruited kid was better. Presumably she will have to sit out a year for simply wanting to play hockey. Another shining example of how the league punishes kids, not coaches. I wonder if she had known about the other goalie transferring in if she would have made the same choices? I wonder what promises were made or implied?

The league turns a blind eye to the recruiting, but is quick to punish a child if she wants to better her situation. Enforce all the rules or don't enforce any.

ERhockeydad · Post by **ERhockeydad** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:44 pm

Which school dd the goalie move to?