Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SterioDesign

Elias about Lou's free agents approach

340 posts in this topic

I would think its Sal

 

That's what I thought, but I couldn't tell because there were about a half dozen players being talked about in the page or so before. In any event, didn't Salvador miss the whole MacLean/Lemaire no-playoff season due to his mysteriously perfectly timed concussion? How could he have assisted in us not making the playoffs in a season he didn't play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clarkson example is perfect. If you started talking contract with him in February, you'd have massively overpaid. He crashed down to earth, and that 30 goal season is looking more and more like a fluke. Lou likes to assess the situation when the season is done, so he can look at the whole picture. He'll most likely be gone because Clarkson's agent is still going to try to get a ton of money for him whether he kept scoring or not.

Most of these players have families here. They would most likely prefer to stay where they are. They would also like to make a lot of money. You keep bringing up all of this risk, but who left to go "home" (as in, reasons other than cash)? Parise and Nieds? Maybe Rafalski, but the Devils didn't have the money to match what he could get in the market. Everyone else left for cash that the Devils wouldn't have given them whether it was October, December, or July 1st.

Martin was overpaid, Gio made more than the Devils were willing to give, Gomez saw dollar signs so bad that Lou didn't even bother trying to match. Clarkson will either stay for decent money, or join the list. Elias will most likely stay, because it won't just be about money for him. He'll probably get one too many years, though.

Also, Perry and Getzlaf are a different situation. Elias is much older, and do you really want to risk 5 million a year for 8 years on Clarkson, which is what his agent will probably go for? If that CBA was around last year, Parise might have stayed just for the extra year of guaranteed money.

That's what I've been trying to say to people. No one wants to recall that half the players we "lost", we lost without putting up a fight, Gio, Martin, Gomez, Nieds, Parise, all left for contracts or situations we could not/would not replicate here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ducks are not particularly good - good goaltending, good special teams, mediocre 5 on 5, undisciplined - and they have Kyle Palmieri who can probably do a lot of Perry's job soon for a fraction of the cost.  The Ducks don't care about the cap as they are a floor team, and floor teams can't jam up a huge portion of their budget in a guy like Corey Perry with a contract that extends into his mid 30s.

 

I'm aware it goes both ways.  That's my point.  Sometimes it's better to be late, sometimes it's better to be early.  Predicting which is which is darn near impossible.  I'm not saying Lou's way is better, I just don't think it's worse.  It's worse for fans because fans think locking up all your good players early is good.

 

well thats my big problem with Lou and his method, im really not saying that he should try to sign every player early, it always depends and it's a gamble. But that's the thing, you have to adjust depending on the situation cause the way you deal with it will likely help the outcome. But Lou is simply doing it and sticking to his ONE WAY of doing it and for no other reason that he's stubborn and think it's a distraction during the season. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that way ( i couldnt do Lou's job, but i know enough about management to know that you can't ALWAYS call head on every single decision and expect to get the best results all the time.

 

and for the last time with my example im not referring specifically to ANY players or situation simply about the way he's doing it all the time.

Edited by SterioDesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I've been trying to say to people. No one wants to recall that half the players we "lost", we lost without putting up a fight, Gio, Martin, Gomez, Nieds, Parise, all left for contracts or situations we could not/would not replicate here.

 

not to come back to parise hindsight, but that's one where lou not only "put up a fight" in that he offered him a serious contract, but had the opportunity before the going home with his buddy scenario presented itself. if ownership was a bit more in line, it's conceivable he could've signed Parise to 7/50 going into last season. I'm pretty sure parise would've taken it. hell, he was almost ready to take it during the season but his agents advised him against it. when you're 4 months away, it makes sense to wait - especially when minnesotta let it be known they would not be outbid. but the summer 2011, that wasn't out there. of course, he was coming off his knee injury but that's one where lou had a kick at the can very early and didn't/couldn't take it. when he tried mid-season, it was too late.

 

 

edit: and for the "lou doesn't negotiate in-season and he's stuck in his ways" people - just look a zajac. he took care of him because they felt that was a known quantity they wanted locked up.

 

i'm sure that he knows he can keep elias if he wants. elias isn't going to leave for spite. if someone offers him 3/18 or something and we all want to kill lou because he could've had him at 2/10 but once he hit ufa, the bidding took him away, we'll revisit.

 

as for clarkson, he says all the right things (clarkson that is). lou knows what he is and has made up his mind that is worth X dollars. he wants clarkson on that deal. but if he starts negotiating in season, and clarkson says no, you're raising what you thought was your best offer.

 

in my mind, parise and neidermayer were the only guys lou lost that he really wanted to keep. perhaps holik was the same but i'd let HOI answer that. in the end, there was nothing he could've done to keep any of them once they hit UFA. that is NOT the case with elias and clarkson. if he wants them, he'll keep them, UFA or not.

Edited by sundstrom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to come back to parise hindsight, but that's one where lou not only "put up a fight" in that he offered him a serious contract, but had the opportunity before the going home with his buddy scenario presented itself. if ownership was a bit more in line, it's conceivable he could've signed Parise to 7/50 going into last season. I'm pretty sure parise would've taken it. hell, he was almost ready to take it during the season but his agents advised him against it. when you're 4 months away, it makes sense to wait - especially when minnesotta let it be known they would not be outbid. but the summer 2011, that wasn't out there. of course, he was coming off his knee injury but that's one where lou had a kick at the can very early and didn't/couldn't take it. when he tried mid-season, it was too late.

 

Not to drag this but when people say that agents have adviced the player to wait and bla bla as an excuse. Yes it's totally true and i understand the reasoning and everything. But don't you think Richards, Carter, Getzlaf, Perry etc etc had an agent telling them they could get more if they'd wait to hit the market? If the player really want to stay and feel good about the organization he has the final say and will sign if its a fair deal. I'm CONVINCED that if Lou would have made a good offer and some pressure around january when Zach kept saying he'd like to begin talks to re-sign. He would be a Devils now and to a better deal than the one he signed. There's no way to know for sure and the management issues was there i know. But im not really talking specifically about Zach's situation either. More about how i think he should have done it. I also don't necessarely buy that Lou offered something during the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elias should be getting a 100 million dollar contract with a butt load of bonuses since he has the same numbers as Parise this season.....only makes sense. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about resigning Clark's and elias.. What about henrique and zubie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about resigning Clark's and elias.. What about henrique and zubie?

I think I am the only one not worried about these guys leaving. Clarkson loves the Devils and is devoted to the community, Zubrus freaking loves it here, and Elias is a life long Devil. Josefson, Henrique, Loktionov, and D'agostini are RFA so that doesn't worry me if they want all of them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh.  The rules now mean that it would've been almost impossible for someone to offer Getzlaf or Perry a better deal than the one they signed.  That's why they signed those deals.

 

For Richards and Carter, yeah, they liked the city and the organization and they felt comfortable signing those deals.  They were restricted free agents so there is no way they were getting better deals dollars-wise than those, though they could've signed shorter deals and attempted to win a big UFA contract.  Since they liked where they were, they got impossibly long deals, then got dealt because apparently someone in management thought they'd become complacent.  I wonder how they could've gotten that idea into their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to drag this but when people say that agents have adviced the player to wait and bla bla as an excuse. Yes it's totally true and i understand the reasoning and everything. But don't you think Richards, Carter, Getzlaf, Perry etc etc had an agent telling them they could get more if they'd wait to hit the market? If the player really want to stay and feel good about the organization he has the final say and will sign if its a fair deal. I'm CONVINCED that if Lou would have made a good offer and some pressure around january when Zach kept saying he'd like to begin talks to re-sign. He would be a Devils now and to a better deal than the one he signed. There's no way to know for sure and the management issues was there i know. But im not really talking specifically about Zach's situation either. More about how i think he should have done it. I also don't necessarely buy that Lou offered something during the season.

 

 

Ugh.  The rules now mean that it would've been almost impossible for someone to offer Getzlaf or Perry a better deal than the one they signed.  That's why they signed those deals.

 

For Richards and Carter, yeah, they liked the city and the organization and they felt comfortable signing those deals.  They were restricted free agents so there is no way they were getting better deals dollars-wise than those, though they could've signed shorter deals and attempted to win a big UFA contract.  Since they liked where they were, they got impossibly long deals, then got dealt because apparently someone in management thought they'd become complacent.  I wonder how they could've gotten that idea into their heads.

 

i'm just quoting this because it is 100% the answer i would have given. none of those two are comparable to parise's situation. if the rules were in place last year, there is a 95% chance parise is still a devil with an 8 year/$56MM contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm just quoting this because it is 100% the answer i would have given. none of those two are comparable to parise's situation. if the rules were in place last year, there is a 95% chance parise is still a devil with an 8 year/$56MM contract.

 

You might be right, but that REALLY makes me red every time I get reminded of that  :P

 

Of course if his aim was to play with Suter anyway, there's nothing we could have done about that before or after FA, new or old rules.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh.  The rules now mean that it would've been almost impossible for someone to offer Getzlaf or Perry a better deal than the one they signed.  That's why they signed those deals.

 

For Richards and Carter, yeah, they liked the city and the organization and they felt comfortable signing those deals.  They were restricted free agents so there is no way they were getting better deals dollars-wise than those, though they could've signed shorter deals and attempted to win a big UFA contract.  Since they liked where they were, they got impossibly long deals, then got dealt because apparently someone in management thought they'd become complacent.  I wonder how they could've gotten that idea into their heads.

Sigh...... Why do you keep trying to bring down my points by putting my examples (that im stating are simply example in parts of what i mean) under scrutiny bringing out facts that has nothing to do with what i really meant.

I used richards and carter as one example cause they were approached while they were on a high and while they were feeling good about the organization. We dont have to get technical with the exact situation.

If you want to approach an employee about extending his contract do you approach him after he worked like 6 extra hours not getting paid in a rush cause you were unorganized or do you get on your knee to sk your gf to get married after you forgot her bday or wtv ?

Its like anything if you want good results you strike when things are good. Of course the agents will always be there telling them what to do but like i said t the end of the day the player as the final say.

Not as if zach leaving was not at least somewhat linked to NJ's uncertainity for the future, he said it himself one of the main selling point in Minny was their young team and one of the best prospects pool in the NHL and the future is bright in minny... In NJ with brodeur leaving, elias, Lou, the management problem at the time... Who knows whats ahead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, oh please, citing what Parise said about the Minnesota prospects.  Zach said in 2011 that he liked our prospects.  You can approach a guy during the season, but you really don't get a huge bargain doing so.  That's the point I'm trying to make.  Sometimes it happens, often it does not.  And there have been tons of in-season contracts that have not paid off at all.

 

Now maybe for once you will put this topic to bed since you obsessed over it for 2 years and now haven't stopped obsessing.  He's gone.  It hurt this year, it'll hurt a bit next year, but he's really not a bargain and probably wouldn't've been much of one for NJ either.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh...... Why do you keep trying to bring down my points by putting my examples (that im stating are simply example in parts of what i mean) under scrutiny bringing out facts that has nothing to do with what i really meant.

I used richards and carter as one example cause they were approached while they were on a high and while they were feeling good about the organization. We dont have to get technical with the exact situation.

If you want to approach an employee about extending his contract do you approach him after he worked like 6 extra hours not getting paid in a rush cause you were unorganized or do you get on your knee to sk your gf to get married after you forgot her bday or wtv ?

Its like anything if you want good results you strike when things are good. Of course the agents will always be there telling them what to do but like i said t the end of the day the player as the final say.

Not as if zach leaving was not at least somewhat linked to NJ's uncertainity for the future, he said it himself one of the main selling point in Minny was their young team and one of the best prospects pool in the NHL and the future is bright in minny... In NJ with brodeur leaving, elias, Lou, the management problem at the time... Who knows whats ahead

 

Why can't the points be scrutinized? You are bringing up points that are different scenarios than the one you are trying to compare them to. Richards and Carter were on a high, and they were also in RFA years, meaning they had more limited options. Additionally, their contracts turned into albatrosses that the team couldn't wait to get rid of, or at least no longer felt like paying.

 

You talk of striking when things are good... how much better was it going to get than being 2 wins away from a cup? That still wasn't enough for Zach. He earned his free agency and he wasn't going to stay here for less when he knew he was ready to be one of the best UFA's ever available. 

 

In the current situation, neither Elias nor Clarkson would have been smart signings earlier in the year. 

Edited by Devil Dan 56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We dont have to get technical with the exact situation.

 

 

And therein lies the problem with a lot of your arguments.  You oversimplify again and again and AGAIN in trying to make your arguments, which seem to all come down to:

 

GMs signing star player(s) to seemingly whatever that player wants before he goes UFA:  good

Not doing this:  bad

 

BTW, remember when Tampa and Ottawa signed their core players to long-term deals?  How did that work out for those teams? 

 

As others have pointed out, your example cases don't really matchup with Parise.  Carter and Richards were RFAs...big difference from UFAs.  Getzlaf and Perry signed their deals under a completely different CBA, one that gives their current team an advantage in signing them.

 

Everyone knows that Zach thing still bothers you (if he had stayed, I doubt you'd keep complaining about Lou's MO), and to an extent that's understandable...Lou admitted it would be hard to replace him when he left, and the Devils are hurting for it at the moment, but Tri is right, in that his contract is not really cost-effective for what he brings...it's a classic "pay a good player superstar money deal"...great for initial feel-good rushes and back-page splashes, but like many have pointed out, it's not a bargain and if anything, that contract will probably be an albatross before too long.  The Devils likely got Zach's best, and at a great value to boot. 

 

Unfortunately, you had a perfect storm for Zach to leave:

 

1) Devils' uncertain financial and ownership situation

2) Zach coming off an injury going into his final season

 

This is speculation on my part, but if Zach had been healthy throughout all of 2010-11 and had a typical Zach season, I think he probably would've gotten signed, even with the financial issues, though I don't know if the Devils would've offered 13 years and $98 million.  But I can't blame Lou if he was being cautious during negotiations before last season began...as far as this fan can guess, that knee injury was really the key monkey-wrench of all of this.  If it had happened in any one of Zach's other seasons except the one before he was due to go UFA...well, who knows?   

 

I also think if the current CBA were in place, he probably would've gotten signed, simply because the double-digit lifetime contracts are a thing of the past, and the Devils would've been able to offer him that golden extra year, and the contract would've have been something approaching Kovy 2.0. 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And therein lies the problem with a lot of your arguments.  You oversimplify again and again and AGAIN in trying to make your arguments, which seem to all come down to:

 

GMs signing star player(s) to seemingly whatever that player wants before he goes UFA:  good

Not doing this:  bad

 

Dude let it go with the oversimplifying thing as if i simply don't understand its not that black and white.

 

dont you get that i'm putting things simple cause there's no identical situations and while bringing up points im simply using similar examples just to have something to grab on for everyone and im never comparing exactly one situation to the other and i'm ALWAYS talking in GENERAL about Lou's way. Even if he would have signed Zach i still hate the way Lou deal with free agents, I always hated it way before Zach. It's simply not a smart way of doing things.

 

But fine... if you really think approaching your players last minute and only have one week to talk contract with your UFAs who at that point can possibly have one foot out the door by that time is the way to go well go nuts. Means that all the players traded cause teams knew they couldnt re-signed them for wtv reasons and got something for those players at least would not happen in NJ. Lou's way its either "the player wanted to be here so he re-sign or he didnt want to be here and we lost him for nothing" putting all the power in the players hand with often no time to recover if things don't go your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude let it go with the oversimplifying thing as if i simply don't understand its not that black and white.

 

dont you get that i'm putting things simple cause there's no identical situations and while bringing up points im simply using similar examples just to have something to grab on for everyone and im never comparing exactly one situation to the other and i'm ALWAYS talking in GENERAL about Lou's way. Even if he would have signed Zach i still hate the way Lou deal with free agents, I always hated it way before Zach. It's simply not a smart way of doing things.

 

But fine... if you really think approaching your players last minute and only have one week to talk contract with your UFAs who at that point can possibly have one foot out the door by that time is the way to go well go nuts. Means that all the players traded cause teams knew they couldnt re-signed them for wtv reasons and got something for those players at least would not happen in NJ. Lou's way its either "the player wanted to be here so he re-sign or he didnt want to be here and we lost him for nothing" putting all the power in the players hand with often no time to recover if things don't go your way.

 

One thing you're forgetting as well as that the Devils have just about ALWAYS been in contention, and are very rarely sellers.  It would be a hard sell for both the fanbase and the team if Lou started selling off his key potential UFA guys for possible future assets when the team is clearly a playoff team, just because he wants to get "something, anything" back.  It's a lot easier to do that when your team is hopelessly out of it...they last time the Devils were was really the '88-'89 season.  They were in the hunt until the very end in '96, pretty much out in '11, though that 2nd-half run clouded things just a bit (though I don't think Lou was ever fooled by it...Lou did move Langs and Arnott to try to get something back), and weren't dead at the deadline this season (15-12-9 on April 3). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing you're forgetting as well as that the Devils have just about ALWAYS been in contention, and are very rarely sellers.  It would be a hard sell for both the fanbase and the team if Lou started selling off his key potential UFA guys for possible future assets when the team is clearly a playoff team, just because he wants to get "something, anything" back.  It's a lot easier to do that when your team is hopelessly out of it...they last time the Devils were was really the '88-'89 season.  They were in the hunt until the very end in '96, pretty much out in '11, though that 2nd-half run clouded things just a bit (though I don't think Lou was ever fooled by it...Lou did move Langs and Arnott to try to get something back), and weren't dead at the deadline this season (15-12-9 on April 3). 

 

of course i don't forget that, i just didnt bring it up cause it was not relevant to my point.

 

 

I'll add to this. Why it's useless to pin point and use excuses for each different situations. Lou would have done it the same way no matter what, he does everything his one single way. So it's one approach fits all. So why even bring up different excuses from case to case? Lou's been clear on that, he does not want to deal contract during the season. And eventhough you always have to take what he's saying with a grain of salt, reports from players and agents are confirming it for a long time now.

 

And to shut that belief, im not THAT mad about Zach leaving, i'm mad about the way it happened. And yes im taking everything in consideration, injury, ownership and everything. Because of the way it was handled (OR that any similar cases would have been handled im not SPECIFIC about just that one)

 

fair to say we got fvcked cause we couldnt replace some parts of Zach's productivity, cause he pretty much ran out of time and was waiting for Zach to make up his mind and missed on some other opportunities (Lou said it himself he was waiting on a certain player to make other move but ran out of time). SO AGAIN im not specific and there wasnt that much options out there, but could have been and the situation would have been the SAME.

 

But what if we couldnt have re-sign Bernier and all those other depth guy, again not getting specific about how certain it was or not. It was a possibility that they could have wait and sign somewhere else. we had sh!tty depth this season and it could have been alot worst.

 

You don't wait last minute to try to re-sign like 5-6 players that you need to have on your roster, it worked out this year except zach and Poni. Poni signed somewhere else why? cause Lou waited last minute, it was completely useless to wait. (now AGAIN don't go into specific about it, bottom line is we had like 4-5 players from our current roster and for all i know its very risky to wait last minute with a risk of losing some of them cause you have to bounce and replace them if you cant. And doing it his way is not giving him lots of room to correct that.

 

bottom line, if you have to resign a bunch of players before july 1st... and that you might lose them youre facing 2 things... can you re-sign them to a fair price? if not you let them walk. But if they leave you have to replace them and the pool of players that you can try to pick is quickly signing everywhere else while you we're not 100% for that situation cause you we're last minute waiting. So you're shooting yourself in the foot waiting very last minute. I cant believe anyone can even defend him on that, its never good to wait last minute for ANYTHING. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can defend him because it's not like his approach is constantly costing him top players (he has kept his fair share), and I'm hard-pressed to find too many other GMs who've had their teams competitive on such a consistent basis for so long. 

 

I can also defend him because many of the players he "lost" with his approach didn't really turn out to be losses.  Yes, losing Parise clearly hurt, and others did to a varying to degree, but signing guys to mega-deals can hurt too.   

 

I'm at a loss as to how you can keep bitching about his approach...it's not warm and fuzzy and I'll admit that sometimes it's hard to see certain players get away, but Lou gets results and has managed to do it (for the most part) working within a budget.  It's not easy to keep a team relevant for as long as Lou has done it.  One team that people compare to the Devils, in terms of their success, is the Red Wings (I'd say since around '93-'94, most fans would list the Wings #1 and the Devils #2, in terms of overall success), but before the cap era, the Red Wings were not shy about spending big dollars on marquee names, and as far as hockey destinations go, that team has had a lot more sex appeal that the Devils have had.    

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said and will never say Lou is a bad GM and no one can deny all the good things he did but it doesnt mean im gonna close my eyes on the bad things he does like North Korean can't even imagine King Jong II would do something bad or any sect preaching some God and would do anything he says. Devils fans are totally coming out that way sometimes. I trust Lou too but he still does fvcking stupid things like signing multiple goons and giving ridiculous contracts to terrible players that shouldnt even be on the roster. Not saying he's making TONS of mistakes either but most of his mistake are like "why would ANYONE do that" its not simply something that turned out bad.

 

And of course Lou has a good track record mostly cause we were always competitive and players might as well stay here cause there was only a few better teams in the league. Not the case anymore we're not as attractive as we we're and it's gonna start to show i think. Also just to think that he managed to get all of this done while always waiting last minute only technically suggest that we could have get even better results with better preparation through time, with a better approach. We'll never know but here's a fact. This summer Lou had interest in Parenteau but missed out cause he was waiting for Zach. Thats coming from Parenteau himself i talked with him this summer a few times but we didnt talk about that but i asked his brother few weeks ago and a few teams showed interest but Colorado we're really aggressive and apparently NJ we're on standby so they missed on him. at 4m he would have been AWESOME for us. Now let's time i see him ill ask him more about it but thats just ONE example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No GM is ever going to bat 1.000.  Even the good ones make "WTF?" moves and have others blow up on them.  But when one considers how many truly hideous GMs there have been (Mike Milbury), even though Lou has had his share of follies, I think his overall MO has shown itself to have success, even if it's not the most eye-pleasing...that being said, I think his MO is predicated on having young players (or somewhat unknown players) ready to step in when other players are ready to test the market. 

 

I'm not going to kill him for not giving up on Zach prematurely...like I said, no GM is going to be perfect.  And I think Lou prepares himself just fine, even if you don't approve of his methods. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said and will never say Lou is a bad GM and no one can deny all the good things he did but it doesnt mean im gonna close my eyes on the bad things he does like North Korean can't even imagine King Jong II would do something bad or any sect preaching some God and would do anything he says. Devils fans are totally coming out that way sometimes. I trust Lou too but he still does fvcking stupid things like signing multiple goons and giving ridiculous contracts to terrible players that shouldnt even be on the roster. Not saying he's making TONS of mistakes either but most of his mistake are like "why would ANYONE do that" its not simply something that turned out bad.

 

And of course Lou has a good track record mostly cause we were always competitive and players might as well stay here cause there was only a few better teams in the league. Not the case anymore we're not as attractive as we we're and it's gonna start to show i think. Also just to think that he managed to get all of this done while always waiting last minute only technically suggest that we could have get even better results with better preparation through time, with a better approach. We'll never know but here's a fact. This summer Lou had interest in Parenteau but missed out cause he was waiting for Zach. Thats coming from Parenteau himself i talked with him this summer a few times but we didnt talk about that but i asked his brother few weeks ago and a few teams showed interest but Colorado we're really aggressive and apparently NJ we're on standby so they missed on him. at 4m he would have been AWESOME for us. Now let's time i see him ill ask him more about it but thats just ONE example.

 

that's interesting on parenteau that he was on NJ's radar. it doesn't change much because parise was a special case and he had to let that play out but i still like the idea that lou was looking at something there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich Chere:

 

David Clarkson on his future: "I don't know where I'll be. There haven't been any negotiations between my agent and Mr. Lamoriello."

 

Clarkson: "I love playing here. My daughter is from here. I have a coach (DeBoer) I've had since I was young..."

 

 

 

I think Clarkie's a lock, he'll be back next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich Chere:

 

David Clarkson on his future: "I don't know where I'll be. There haven't been any negotiations between my agent and Mr. Lamoriello."

 

Clarkson: "I love playing here. My daughter is from here. I have a coach (DeBoer) I've had since I was young..."

 

 

 

I think Clarkie's a lock, he'll be back next year.

 

i expect him back and i expect it to be at 5/25 which will all make our heads spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0