ghdi

Ryane Clowe signs with the Devils. 5 years. 4.85 per.

138 posts in this topic

I think someone here might have mentioned it earlier, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was the exact deal that was offered to Clarkson. Going to be interesting to see a player in this role who's only pass isn't to the point after circling around the net. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought about this deal - why do GMs overpay players?

 

A:  To get them to come to their city.  Tough to get a guy to come if he's not getting the best offer.  So there's that element.  And some GMs, knowing their city isn't much of a draw, have to offer significantly more.

 

B:  The GM has inappropriately valued the player.  He's seeing things that aren't there about his game and believes he is a better player than he actually is.

 

C:  The GM feels that while the deal itself is not great, the scarcity of the player type means either overpaying or going without.  

 

Obviously I think that C is why Lou signed this deal - there were 3 guys like this:  Clarkson, Clowe, and Horton.  The latter 2 got 7 year deals.  You look at the class of 2014, and there isn't this sort of player available there either.  The Devils don't have the trade assets to get a guy like this and while Matteau might be looked at as this sort of player in a few years, that's in a few years.  So thus is life.  I don't love it - I don't like overvaluing types of players, I feel like teams are more malleable than that, but hopefully he has the speed to play with a guy like Kovalchuk.

Good perspective. I was thinking along those lines as to why Lou overpaid. I do hope Clowe isn't paired with Kovy, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought about this deal - why do GMs overpay players?

 

A:  To get them to come to their city.  Tough to get a guy to come if he's not getting the best offer.  So there's that element.  And some GMs, knowing their city isn't much of a draw, have to offer significantly more.

 

B:  The GM has inappropriately valued the player.  He's seeing things that aren't there about his game and believes he is a better player than he actually is.

 

C:  The GM feels that while the deal itself is not great, the scarcity of the player type means either overpaying or going without.  

 

Obviously I think that C is why Lou signed this deal - there were 3 guys like this:  Clarkson, Clowe, and Horton.  The latter 2 got 7 year deals.  You look at the class of 2014, and there isn't this sort of player available there either.  The Devils don't have the trade assets to get a guy like this and while Matteau might be looked at as this sort of player in a few years, that's in a few years.  So thus is life.  I don't love it - I don't like overvaluing types of players, I feel like teams are more malleable than that, but hopefully he has the speed to play with a guy like Kovalchuk.  

 

Agree, C was probably why Lou did this.  Devils are a bit of a win-now team, but the Devils clearly became that the second Lou re-signed a 37-year-old Patrik Elias.     

To your list, I would also add:

 

D:  Regardless of how talented the top free agents of any given FA class are, GMs tend to give those guys overly high coin and/or term, seemingly just because...and it doesn't matter how quickly those deals become bad deals, or how many times we see the same mistakes made, GMs in all sports don't seem able to help themselves.  It's the old "Pay the top free agent superstar dollars (or close to it) because there isn't a true superstar available, but paying this player this money will somehow make this player a superstar, or at the very last, better than what we've see to date."  Top free agents seem to be overvalued coming out of the gate, by default. 

 

In Clarkson's case, the guy friggin' WANTED to come the Maple Leafs...it's not like the Leafs had to bribe him to come play for them...and because he was considered one of the top guys of this class, he still got silly money.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see how a lot of these UFA's want to go play for their "home team" when they get the chance, I personally would probably do the same thing. If I were playing for the Canucks or Ducks and I became a free agent, I would love to come back east and play for the Devils. 

I think Lou should take this into consideration before that player leaves, and work out a trade to that team. Clarky is a perfect example, we were having a bad season last year and could have shipped him to the Leafs for their playoff run. We all seemed to know that he wanted to play for Toronto, I'm sure Lou knew too, and they couldve sat down and had a man to man talk about it.

We draft/sign these young players and build them up....only to see them bolt for nothing, and then we have to over pay for "replacements".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see how a lot of these UFA's want to go play for their "home team" when they get the chance, I personally would probably do the same thing. If I were playing for the Canucks or Ducks and I became a free agent, I would love to come back east and play for the Devils. 

I think Lou should take this into consideration before that player leaves, and work out a trade to that team. Clarky is a perfect example, we were having a bad season last year and could have shipped him to the Leafs for their playoff run. We all seemed to know that he wanted to play for Toronto, I'm sure Lou knew too, and they couldve sat down and had a man to man talk about it.

We draft/sign these young players and build them up....only to see them bolt for nothing, and then we have to over pay for "replacements".

 

The Devils were in the playoff hunt at the trade deadline.  There's no way they should've been dealing Clarkson for anything at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good perspective. I was thinking along those lines as to why Lou overpaid. I do hope Clowe isn't paired with Kovy, however.

 

Well, the Devils have one wing who shoots right-handed other than Kovalchuk - Ryder.  So I think Kovalchuk is over on the RW again.  The Devils seldom use Elias with Kovalchuk - I think they did when he first got here, but not often since.  That leaves Clowe, Henrique, or Zubrus - I could see Henrique winning that spot, but I think Clowe is a better fit than Zubrus, certainly.

 

Agree, C was probably why Lou did this.  Devils are a bit of a win-now team, but the Devils clearly became that the second Lou re-signed a 37-year-old Patrik Elias.     

To your list, I would also add:

 

D:  Regardless of how talented the top free agents of any given FA class are, GMs tend to give those guys overly high coin and/or term, seemingly just because...and it doesn't matter how quickly those deals become bad deals, or how many times we see the same mistakes made, GMs in all sports don't seem able to help themselves.  It's the old "Pay the top free agent superstar dollars (or close to it) because there isn't a true superstar available, but paying this player this money will somehow make this player a superstar, or at the very last, better than what we've see to date."  Top free agents seem to be overvalued coming out of the gate, by default. 

 

In Clarkson's case, the guy friggin' WANTED to come the Maple Leafs...it's not like the Leafs had to bribe him to come play for them...and because he was considered one of the top guys of this class, he still got silly money.    

 

I think I covered all the reasons - D is covered by either B or C.  You're competing against 30 teams to get a player.  It's been reported that Edmonton was willing to pay him more money.  You don't get that money back in the next year, nor do you get to spend it on something shrewder next year, because it's not like the free agent class improves the next year.  In Clarkson's case (and Clowe's case), it's mistaking a rare talent for a valuable one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Devils have one wing who shoots right-handed other than Kovalchuk - Ryder.  So I think Kovalchuk is over on the RW again.  The Devils seldom use Elias with Kovalchuk - I think they did when he first got here, but not often since.  That leaves Clowe, Henrique, or Zubrus - I could see Henrique winning that spot, but I think Clowe is a better fit than Zubrus, certainly.

 

 

I think I covered all the reasons - D is covered by either B or C.  You're competing against 30 teams to get a player.  It's been reported that Edmonton was willing to pay him more money.  You don't get that money back in the next year, nor do you get to spend it on something shrewder next year, because it's not like the free agent class improves the next year.  In Clarkson's case (and Clowe's case), it's mistaking a rare talent for a valuable one.

Don't forget Bernier, he still counts. We got 3 RH shots now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought about this deal - why do GMs overpay players?

 

A:  To get them to come to their city.  Tough to get a guy to come if he's not getting the best offer.  So there's that element.  And some GMs, knowing their city isn't much of a draw, have to offer significantly more.

 

B:  The GM has inappropriately valued the player.  He's seeing things that aren't there about his game and believes he is a better player than he actually is.

 

C:  The GM feels that while the deal itself is not great, the scarcity of the player type means either overpaying or going without.  

 

Obviously I think that C is why Lou signed this deal - there were 3 guys like this:  Clarkson, Clowe, and Horton.  The latter 2 got 7 year deals.  You look at the class of 2014, and there isn't this sort of player available there either.  The Devils don't have the trade assets to get a guy like this and while Matteau might be looked at as this sort of player in a few years, that's in a few years.  So thus is life.  I don't love it - I don't like overvaluing types of players, I feel like teams are more malleable than that, but hopefully he has the speed to play with a guy like Kovalchuk.  

 

It was C, %100. Lou needed to make up for lost presence and goals and he got the best that he could. If he didn't offer what he did, we'd  be going into next year without having improved at all. Overall, Lou didn't massively overpay in free agency and we are a much better team than one week ago - that is an impressive victory; Lou convinced two top free agents to come to a non-playoff team in New Jersey and only really overpaid on one.

 

Throw in that we added a potential elite goaltender between the pipes and some depth with Olesz and I'd say Lou did his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Devils have one wing who shoots right-handed other than Kovalchuk - Ryder.  So I think Kovalchuk is over on the RW again.  The Devils seldom use Elias with Kovalchuk - I think they did when he first got here, but not often since.  That leaves Clowe, Henrique, or Zubrus - I could see Henrique winning that spot, but I think Clowe is a better fit than Zubrus, certainly.

JJ with his pass first mentality could fit in with Kovy on that left wing, too. That would leave a physical, down-low, third line of Clowe-Henrique-Zubrus. Zubrus shoots left but has played RW much of his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see how a lot of these UFA's want to go play for their "home team" when they get the chance, I personally would probably do the same thing. If I were playing for the Canucks or Ducks and I became a free agent, I would love to come back east and play for the Devils. 

I think Lou should take this into consideration before that player leaves, and work out a trade to that team. Clarky is a perfect example, we were having a bad season last year and could have shipped him to the Leafs for their playoff run. We all seemed to know that he wanted to play for Toronto, I'm sure Lou knew too, and they couldve sat down and had a man to man talk about it.

We draft/sign these young players and build them up....only to see them bolt for nothing, and then we have to over pay for "replacements".

 

i'm 100% with you on this. Most will disagree though.

 

Just take the Sharks last season, very very similar situation than us and perfect example (we we're actually having a worst season than them). They were in the race for the playoffs and still traded Clowe cause they knew he wouldn't re-sign there. They still made the playoffs and wouldnt have done much better with Clowe either. They got 2 second round picks and a 3rd. I'm sure we could have got even more for Clarky. 

 

And well that some admit it or not... turns out it would have been the best move to do for the franchise. We recovered pretty well with Clowe and Ryder and all i think we have a good team for the next few seasons but again... a few extra picks in that draft or prospects would have been pretty sweet.

Edited by SterioDesign
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm 100% with you on this. Most will disagree though.

 

Just take the Sharks last season, very very similar situation than us and perfect example (we we're actually having a worst season than them). They were in the race for the playoffs and still traded Clowe cause they knew he wouldn't re-sign there. They still made the playoffs and wouldnt have done much better with Clowe either. They got 2 second round picks and a 3rd. I'm sure we could have got even more for Clarky. 

 

And well that some admit it or not... turns out it would have been the best move to do for the franchise. We recovered pretty well with Clowe and Ryder and all i think we have a good team for the next few seasons but again... a few extra picks in that draft or prospects would have been pretty sweet.

 

Totally agree with this as well. Need to start getting some return on the players leaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm 100% with you on this. Most will disagree though.

 

Just take the Sharks last season, very very similar situation than us and perfect example (we we're actually having a worst season than them). They were in the race for the playoffs and still traded Clowe cause they knew he wouldn't re-sign there. They still made the playoffs and wouldnt have done much better with Clowe either. They got 2 second round picks and a 3rd. I'm sure we could have got even more for Clarky. 

 

And well that some admit it or not... turns out it would have been the best move to do for the franchise. We recovered pretty well with Clowe and Ryder and all i think we have a good team for the next few seasons but again... a few extra picks in that draft or prospects would have been pretty sweet.

 

It's not the same situation at all.  The Sharks likely dealt Clowe because they didn't want him back, not because they thought he wouldn't sign there.  They also had a decent enough stopgap with T.J Galiardi.  In addition, Clowe had 0 goals at the time of the trade, Clarkson was our leading goal scorer.  Handzus and Murray were net negative players so dealing them was really shrewd, and the Sharks got a nice return for Clowe, but his not being there hurt them in the playoffs - just hard to argue that it didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the same situation at all.  The Sharks likely dealt Clowe because they didn't want him back, not because they thought he wouldn't sign there.  They also had a decent enough stopgap with T.J Galiardi.  In addition, Clowe had 0 goals at the time of the trade, Clarkson was our leading goal scorer.  Handzus and Murray were net negative players so dealing them was really shrewd, and the Sharks got a nice return for Clowe, but his not being there hurt them in the playoffs - just hard to argue that it didn't.

 

Yeah I thought they were trying to do the addition by subtraction thing even if it didn't work out perfectly, same thing with Douglas Murray, who they had no intention of bringing back. They wouldn't have been trading Logan Couture in his UFA year since they'd want him back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm 100% with you on this. Most will disagree though.

Just take the Sharks last season, very very similar situation than us and perfect example (we we're actually having a worst season than them). They were in the race for the playoffs and still traded Clowe cause they knew he wouldn't re-sign there. They still made the playoffs and wouldnt have done much better with Clowe either. They got 2 second round picks and a 3rd. I'm sure we could have got even more for Clarky.

And well that some admit it or not... turns out it would have been the best move to do for the franchise. We recovered pretty well with Clowe and Ryder and all i think we have a good team for the next few seasons but again... a few extra picks in that draft or prospects would have been pretty sweet.

What you have described is a team that would perpetually trade away players that may or may not leave. Trading them away means you wouldn't have them for the playoffs, meaning you lessen your chance if winning in the playoffs. Then you draft new players that you will trade away again out of fear of them leaving, continuing the cycle.

Your plan would have seen us trade Elias, Clarkson, zubrus and zidlicky if none of them could absolutely commit to re-signing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have described is a team that would perpetually trade away players that may or may not leave. Trading them away means you wouldn't have them for the playoffs, meaning you lessen your chance if winning in the playoffs. Then you draft new players that you will trade away again out of fear of them leaving, continuing the cycle.

Your plan would have seen us trade Elias, Clarkson, zubrus and zidlicky if none of them could absolutely commit to re-signing.

 

dude how could you still don't understand after all the time i re-explained myself ? like seriously? how ?

 

like i can't even believe i'd have to re-explained myself to you for you to get that idea that i'd trade away any player not coomiting to re-signing. you pin that on me every time yet i explain you thats NOT what im saying yet you come back with that lol 

 

In this case, from the start it was simply not gonna happen. Clarkson wanted 7 years and wanted too much money and Lou was not willing to give him that. He was a goner or he would have been overpaid and on a bad contract. There was no possible good possible scenario on the horizon. In this case for example it could have been avoided. 

Edited by SterioDesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the Sharks dealt Clowe for a 2nd, a conditional 2nd (or 5th), and picked up Raffi Torres (presumably to replace Clowe) for a 3rd.  So it's not like they come out way ahead on the deal, they got basically a low 2nd/high 3rd and a 5th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude how could you still don't understand after all the time i re-explained myself ? like seriously? how ?

I understand. It's just a terrible strategy that will keep a team perpetually trading away players that say they may not be interested in returning. Maybe you get back a couple of picks which could take 4-5 years to pan out if they ever do, but you sacrifice a playoff run. Re explaining it doesn't make it a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the Sharks dealt Clowe for a 2nd, a conditional 2nd (or 5th), and picked up Raffi Torres (presumably to replace Clowe) for a 3rd.  So it's not like they come out way ahead on the deal, they got basically a low 2nd/high 3rd and a 5th.

 

well thats a low 2nd/3rd and a 5th more than what we got for Clarkson. 

 

Like i said in the previous post, there was no good possible scenarios with Clarkson staying in NJ. 

 

Not as if i'm saying that you have to trade any player that you're scared of losing cause you don't know if you'll be able to keep them. but in some cases simply an early discussion could really help. In this case Clarkson was a goner and Lou could have known that months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude how could you still don't understand after all the time i re-explained myself ? like seriously? how ?

like i can't even believe i'd have to re-explained myself to you for you to get that idea that i'd trade away any player not coomiting to re-signing. you pin that on me every time yet i explain you thats NOT what im saying yet you come back with that lol

In this case, from the start it was simply not gonna happen. Clarkson wanted 7 years and wanted too much money and Lou was not willing to give him that. He was a goner or he would have been overpaid and on a bad contract. There was no possible good possible scenario on the horizon. In this case for example it could have been avoided.

Right. And he was the leading scorer on a team that was in playoff contention at the deadline. It's easy to say now that they should have traded him, but at the time it would have been stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well thats a low 2nd/3rd and a 5th more than what we got for Clarkson. 

 

Like i said in the previous post, there was no good possible scenarios with Clarkson staying in NJ. 

 

Not as if i'm saying that you have to trade any player that you're scared of losing cause you don't know if you'll be able to keep them. but in some cases simply an early discussion could really help. In this case Clarkson was a goner and Lou could have known that months ago.

 

That's ridiculous.  Clarkson says he thought returning to NJ was still an option on Friday.  Why would he say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand. It's just a terrible strategy that will keep a team perpetually trading away players that say they may not be interested in returning. Maybe you get back a couple of picks which could take 4-5 years to pan out if they ever do, but you sacrifice a playoff run. Re explaining it doesn't make it a good idea.

 

So where did i say that you have to trade away players that may not be returning? where dude? tell me where. seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well thats a low 2nd/3rd and a 5th more than what we got for Clarkson. 

 

Like i said in the previous post, there was no good possible scenarios with Clarkson staying in NJ. 

 

Not as if i'm saying that you have to trade any player that you're scared of losing cause you don't know if you'll be able to keep them. but in some cases simply an early discussion could really help. In this case Clarkson was a goner and Lou could have known that months ago.

 

FWIW, in the same assumption, Lamorello couldn't have traded Parise in 2012, either. Aside from the Devils being in a playoff sport or competing for one, you also have to think about the message that sends to the fanbase and locker room then consider how future potential FA's and FA's coming here will think if that's how Lamoriello does business.

 

Look, it sucks the last two years the Devils have had the bad luck of losing two homesick players that we would have been upset with had they been given the exact contracts here. It was really a no win and Lamoriello has gone on record before stating that he does not trade away upcoming FA's or "assets" to the team and it's goals. I'm sure he knew privately the odds of both players returning were slim to none and he did the right thing by holding onto them. It's a dog eat dog business and it's not always fair and for the Devils to do business the way you want to would be counter productive to the team's goals.

 

What bothers me the most is dopes like Burnside are running with the old "the Devils can't attract top level FA's" (to paraphrase) and even LeBrun snuck in the old "losses are piling up" comment. From the outside, it is a very real perception and source of ridicule that this team can't keep FA's, but like most media types they really don't bother to do their homework or look at things in persepctive. The Devils had zero chance of keeping Clarkson or Parise and it had zero to do with money or not liking NJ. I'm pleased that Lamoriello learned from the past to just let go instead of courting the uncourtable. This was evident at the Draft when he offered Clarkson terms, Clarkson refused and Lamoriello moved on immediately as not to get screwed on Clowe, i'd guess.

Edited by TheRedStorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous.  Clarkson says he thought returning to NJ was still an option on Friday.  Why would he say that?

 

You can say what you want and turn it the way you want saying it would have been stupid back then. At the end of the day.

 

1- Lou made his first and only offer the day before Clarkson can talk with other teams

2- He wanted more than was Lou was willing to spend.

3- He walked for nothing

4- Said the leafs would throw the bank at him.

5- Signed with the leafs

 

at the second Clarkson refused that offer it was over and Lou moved on. 

 

i'm 5/5 on my predictions, called it months ago. it's not a coincidence. I was right and thats it. You can try to tweak it the way you want, i was right and it would have been the best move "in this particular situation" considering all the factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say what you want and turn it the way you want saying it would have been stupid back then. At the end of the day.

 

1- Lou made his first and only offer the day before Clarkson can talk with other teams

2- He wanted more than was Lou was willing to spend.

3- He walked for nothing

4- Said the leafs would throw the bank at him.

5- Signed with the leafs

 

at the second Clarkson refused that offer it was over and Lou moved on. 

 

i'm 5/5 on my predictions, called it months ago. it's not a coincidence. I was right and thats it. You can try to tweak it the way you want, i was right and it would have been the best move "in this particular situation" considering all the factors.

 

You are not Lou, nor are you Dave Nonis.  The fact that you 'called it' has zero bearing on what actually took place, because none of those things were close to a certainty, especially since you don't have any idea whether Clarkson would want to play for the Leafs and would possibly give up money to do so.  In fact, you don't even have any idea whether the Devils offered more money than the Leafs.

 

And again, the Devils could've made the playoffs, too, and won several rounds.  They didn't, but again, I exist in the world of possibility, not in the world of hindsight.

Edited by Triumph
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said in the previous post, there was no good possible scenarios with Clarkson staying in NJ. 

 

Not as if i'm saying that you have to trade any player that you're scared of losing cause you don't know if you'll be able to keep them. but in some cases simply an early discussion could really help. In this case Clarkson was a goner and Lou could have known that months ago.

 

 

at the second Clarkson refused that offer it was over and Lou moved on. 

 

With all due respect, doesn't this contradict the idea that Lou knew Clarkson would walk months ago and that there was, "no good possible scenarios with Clarkson staying in NJ?"

Edited by Neb00rs

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