Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Devilsfan118

If the team continues to struggle, does Lou start to feel the heat?

188 posts in this topic

let's pump the breaks there - sure, fayne hitting the empty net and/or kovalchuk not hitting the crossbar makes it a more interesting series - but the kings steam rolled the devils. marty was going to have to have a GAA of 1 or under for the devils to win that series.

 

 

This is hilariously untrue.

 

We can agree to disagree and I admit I exaggerate for effect, but that is an entirely different series if we go to LA tied 1-1. And I'm not sure how LA "steamrolled" us by winning twice in overtime and losing 2 games in the series. I think the way the series ended makes it look much worse than it was, but I digress.

 

 

By my quick count, there are only 8 other gms in the NHL that have even been to a cup final (with their current team). It is hilarious to me that some want to drop a gm who has shown consistently he knows how to build a winner for a compete unknown.

 

That's only one aspect but you are also correct.  The terrible deals given out to the defensemen are another and a result of disregard for scouting/developing defensemen.  Now we've gone the opposite direction in terms of forwards and have collected a lot of defensive prospects.

 

 

I believe your problem is that you are evaluating a very small window (end of 2012 season - today), when its quite obvious there were extenuating circumstances occuring during that time (ownership issues, lockout, kovy, etc), and you are simultaneously ignoring all of the success he's had prior to that. And regading the bolded, which is it... I though our drafting was terrible, but we now have a lot of defensive prospects? I'm confused...

 

I still pose this question to you - if Lou is not good enough for the future, I would like to know an example of a GM currently in the NHL who you look at and say "man I wish he could replace Lou". And this is absolutely a viable question, because the true measure of success as a GM is how is he compared to his peers (other teams). To me, there are very few who I would want to replace him if I had the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can agree to disagree and I admit I exaggerate for effect, but that is an entirely different series if we go to LA tied 1-1. And I'm not sure how LA "steamrolled" us by winning twice in overtime and losing 2 games in the series. I think the way the series ended makes it look much worse than it was, but I digress.

 

 

By my quick count, there are only 8 other gms in the NHL that have even been to a cup final (with their current team). It is hilarious to me that some want to drop a gm who has shown consistently he knows how to build a winner for a compete unknown.

 

 

 

I believe your problem is that you are evaluating a very small window (end of 2012 season - today), when its quite obvious there were extenuating circumstances occuring during that time (ownership issues, lockout, kovy, etc), and you are simultaneously ignoring all of the success he's had prior to that. And regading the bolded, which is it... I though our drafting was terrible, but we now have a lot of defensive prospects? I'm confused...

 

I still pose this question to you - if Lou is not good enough for the future, I would like to know an example of a GM currently in the NHL who you look at and say "man I wish he could replace Lou". And this is absolutely a viable question, because the true measure of success as a GM is how is he compared to his peers (other teams). To me, there are very few who I would want to replace him if I had the opportunity.

 

you keep saying we all are looking from the end of the 2012 season until today, did you completely forget how absolutely atrocious 2010-2011 was?

 

Lou, admittedly, sat on his hands entirely too long with MacLean, we had young guys and patch work players playing significantly above their potential/capabilities under Lemaire and it nearly saved the season.

 

we have too many players under atrocious contracts, and since the lockout he has a proven track record of making such signings. Clowe isn't the first head scratcher that is probably going to be too much money for too long.

 

You wanna keep supporting Lou, by all means, its your right as a fan, but the fact you're bewildered that fans are kind of getting fed up of "status quo" and b & c list players being plugged in to replace and fill a-player roles is just as dumbfounding.

 

Not to mention our pipeline for prospects went from being amazing to average at best outside of a small handful of players.

 

you wanna know who I'd take to replace Lou if it were a perfect world and we could get whomever we wanted? I'd start with Ray Shero, Stan Bowman, and Ken Holland without looking around the league and putting effort in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we've beaten this horse. not giving up the 29th pick was inexcusable to the point of disgusting arrogance. this was a case of lou having absolute autonomy and using the old doctrine "if you've got time, use it." i wish that JVB actually took the reigns there and just said - this makes zero sense, you have to give it up.

 

lou is far from perfect. he has made poor decisions as far as asset allocation the last several years (poor cap management, too many defensemen, not providing a good track for young players to thrive, re-signing vets to contracts when better alternatives for the future exist). but the real issue is he does not have any true high end talent to cover up these mistakes. and that comes back to not being in a position to draft it and missing (badly it appears) with tedenby and josefson.

 

I mean you could make the argument giving up 16-20 this year really wouldn't have been that big a deal compared to giving up 29 two years ago...but it was an unneccesary risk that looks like it's going to completely blow up.  I've said this before but it's like taking another card in a game of 21 when you're sitting on 20.  Far more of a chance you bust than not.

We can agree to disagree and I admit I exaggerate for effect, but that is an entirely different series if we go to LA tied 1-1. And I'm not sure how LA "steamrolled" us by winning twice in overtime and losing 2 games in the series. I think the way the series ended makes it look much worse than it was, but I digress.

 

 

By my quick count, there are only 8 other gms in the NHL that have even been to a cup final (with their current team). It is hilarious to me that some want to drop a gm who has shown consistently he knows how to build a winner for a compete unknown.

 

 

 

I believe your problem is that you are evaluating a very small window (end of 2012 season - today), when its quite obvious there were extenuating circumstances occuring during that time (ownership issues, lockout, kovy, etc), and you are simultaneously ignoring all of the success he's had prior to that. And regading the bolded, which is it... I though our drafting was terrible, but we now have a lot of defensive prospects? I'm confused...

 

I still pose this question to you - if Lou is not good enough for the future, I would like to know an example of a GM currently in the NHL who you look at and say "man I wish he could replace Lou". And this is absolutely a viable question, because the true measure of success as a GM is how is he compared to his peers (other teams). To me, there are very few who I would want to replace him if I had the opportunity.

 

We outplayed them two games in that series - Games 2 and 5.  Game 4 was even, the other games the Kings dominated.  The series was about where it should have been, that's why I don't look back at Games 1/2.  We would have been fortunate to be in a Game 7 assuming we win one of the first two, and could have easily lost that game anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SCF was there for the taking.  In games 1 and 2, the Devils outplayed the Kings both times.  That's not saying much since neither team played well in those games.  The Kings being the fresher team took it to us in game 3.  We won game 4 out of desperation and game 5 we won only because Quick screwed up leading to Parise's goal.  The Devils could have won that series, but let's not kid ourselves.  The Kings outclassed the Devils in that series.  Had the Devils won that series, it would akin to the Pirates beating the Yankees in 1960.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we've beaten this horse. not giving up the 29th pick was inexcusable to the point of disgusting arrogance. this was a case of lou having absolute autonomy and using the old doctrine "if you've got time, use it." i wish that JVB actually took the reigns there and just said - this makes zero sense, you have to give it up.

 

lou is far from perfect. he has made poor decisions as far as asset allocation the last several years (poor cap management, too many defensemen, not providing a good track for young players to thrive, re-signing vets to contracts when better alternatives for the future exist). but the real issue is he does not have any true high end talent to cover up these mistakes. and that comes back to not being in a position to draft it and missing (badly it appears) with tedenby and josefson.

 

Why would JVB want him to give it up?  What were the odds in 2012 that Vanderbeek was going to own the team for even six more months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you keep saying we all are looking from the end of the 2012 season until today, did you completely forget how absolutely atrocious 2010-2011 was?

 

Lou, admittedly, sat on his hands entirely too long with MacLean, we had young guys and patch work players playing significantly above their potential/capabilities under Lemaire and it nearly saved the season.

 

we have too many players under atrocious contracts, and since the lockout he has a proven track record of making such signings. Clowe isn't the first head scratcher that is probably going to be too much money for too long.

 

You wanna keep supporting Lou, by all means, its your right as a fan, but the fact you're bewildered that fans are kind of getting fed up of "status quo" and b & c list players being plugged in to replace and fill a-player roles is just as dumbfounding.

 

Not to mention our pipeline for prospects went from being amazing to average at best outside of a small handful of players.

 

you wanna know who I'd take to replace Lou if it were a perfect world and we could get whomever we wanted? I'd start with Ray Shero, Stan Bowman, and Ken Holland without looking around the league and putting effort in.

 

Ray Shero?  Where is he without his dad, Crosby, and Malkin?  Shero made two very solid trades, fleecing people with his overrated defensemen, but again, he's handed 2 of the top 5 players of this generation - it's not easy to screw that up.

 

Stan Bowman?  Where is he without Bill Wirtz and therefore Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane?  Did he draft Keith and Seabrook?  He's made some fine moves, but most of Chicago's best players were not there when he became GM.

 

The Wings have a better prospect base but they have the same exact roster thing going on as NJ does - they have guys like Mikael Samuelsson, Todd Bertuzzi, and Dan Cleary blocking spots for people like Tomas Tatar.  The Wings are set up to be a nice team for the rest of the decade, but they don't have many potential superstars (if any) and their best players are getting old.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you keep saying we all are looking from the end of the 2012 season until today, did you completely forget how absolutely atrocious 2010-2011 was?

That was in response to coldplay who claimed that "this team has been bad 3 out of 4 years" and then went on to point out bad FA signings, particularly defensemen. In fact, in post #69 in response t oyou above I specifically included the 2011 season in my totals, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

 

 

 

we have too many players under atrocious contracts, and since the lockout he has a proven track record of making such signings. Clowe isn't the first head scratcher that is probably going to be too much money for too long.

 

Other than Clowe, which looks bad so far but has plenty of time to turn around (it has only been 12 games), what other "atrocious" contracts are there? Volchenkov's contract is not great, but it hasn't really hurt the team cap-wise, and he has been effective at times. Salvador has played well especially in the cup run and is a leader. So I don't know what other atrocious contracts we have.

 

 

 

You wanna keep supporting Lou, by all means, its your right as a fan, but the fact you're bewildered that fans are kind of getting fed up of "status quo" and b & c list players being plugged in to replace and fill a-player roles is just as dumbfounding.

 

 

 

I am not bewildered why fans are fed up of "status quo", I am dissapointed that there are so many fans who want to jump ship as soon as this franchise has anything but success for the first time in twenty years. And you act like Lou has been using "plug and fill-a-player" roles regularly, when in fact it was in response to extenuating circumstances and a response to key departures the past 2 offseasons. Would you rather he trade parise before the cup run? Trade Kovy or Clarkson last year? Not sign Ryder, Brunner and Jagr and instead start this year playing tedenby, JJ and Boucher in top 6 roles?

 

 

Not to mention our pipeline for prospects went from being amazing to average at best outside of a small handful of players.

 

I've already given my thoughts on the ridicoulous overvaluing of "prospects" in another thread, so suffice it to say I don't get too hung up on it and we can just disagree on this.

 

 

you wanna know who I'd take to replace Lou if it were a perfect world and we could get whomever we wanted? I'd start with Ray Shero, Stan Bowman, and Ken Holland without looking around the league and putting effort in.

 

Holland is one of the greats, and I wouldn't mind him over Lou, but somehow I doubt anybody you bring in would be that caliber. Bowman and Shero are solid and both did a great job of inheriting a team with Crosby/Malkin and Toews/Kane/Hossa/Keith. Not taking anything away from them, but evaluating their trades and FA signings I don't put them clearly above Lou over the past 4 years. Shero if anything has put consistetly dissapointing teams on the ice the past 2 years, and Pitt fans were calling for his coach of choice to be fired.

 

I've pretty much said all I can, so I'll back off and let others discuss, but I'll leave it at the fact that we are still less than 15% throgh the season, if this team can get through this tough month in decent shape they have a real opportunity to turn it around in a weak division. If they make a run again this thread could be quite funny in a few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray Shero?  Where is he without his dad, Crosby, and Malkin?  Shero made two very solid trades, fleecing people with his overrated defensemen, but again, he's handed 2 of the top 5 players of this generation - it's not easy to screw that up.

 

Stan Bowman?  Where is he without Bill Wirtz and therefore Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane?  Did he draft Keith and Seabrook?  He's made some fine moves, but most of Chicago's best players were not there when he became GM.

 

The Wings have a better prospect base but they have the same exact roster thing going on as NJ does - they have guys like Mikael Samuelsson, Todd Bertuzzi, and Dan Cleary blocking spots for people like Tomas Tatar.  The Wings are set up to be a nice team for the rest of the decade, but they don't have many potential superstars (if any) and their best players are getting old.

Where would Lou be without Brodeur and niedermayer?

Shero deserves a lot more credits than that its unfair to take away credits cause he got the 2 best players int he world, the team has been playing A LOT without those 2 guys and they were still winning, getting kunitz, getting neal, guerin, hossa etc etc those were all good moves. But the BEST thing that i like about Shero is that is not taking dumb risk who could cost him assets unless its necessary.

For example he found out that he couldnt resign staal so eventhough it was though he traded Him before it was too late and got something pretty decent for him instead of losing him for nothing. Then same with letang, forced a talk early to see if he could resign him long term, if he couldnt reach a deal he was gonna trade him, its hard but you CANT risk losing top players you have to do everything in your power, its a business at the end of the day. You cant risk losing your assets and trust "loyalty" anymore.

Put Lou in pittsburgh and im 100% convinced they would have lost both letang and staal for nothing on the market when they would have hit free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where would Lou be without Brodeur and niedermayer?

 

 

Lou drafted both of them. Tri was pointing out that Shero inherited 2 generational talents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a dumb question but was the 29th pick a Lou move or did JVB have a say in that too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where would Lou be without Brodeur and niedermayer?

Shero deserves a lot more credits than that its unfair to take away credits cause he got the 2 best players int he world, the team has been playing A LOT without those 2 guys and they were still winning, getting kunitz, getting neal, guerin, hossa etc etc those were all good moves. But the BEST thing that i like about Shero is that is not taking dumb risk who could cost him assets unless its necessary.

For example he found out that he couldnt resign staal so eventhough it was though he traded Him before it was too late and got something pretty decent for him instead of losing him for nothing. Then same with letang, forced a talk early to see if he could resign him long term, if he couldnt reach a deal he was gonna trade him, its hard but you CANT risk losing top players you have to do everything in your power, its a business at the end of the day. You cant risk losing your assets and trust "loyalty" anymore.

Put Lou in pittsburgh and im 100% convinced they would have lost both letang and staal for nothing on the market when they would have hit free agency.

 

DD56 already addressed Brodeur and Niedermayer.  Lou made a terrific trade just to be in the position to draft Niedermayer in the first place (trading a pretty good but clearly limited Tom Kurvers for Toronto's 1991 1st-rounder).  And Lou actually traded DOWN in Brodeur's draft to take Brodeur...a lot of other teams had Trevor Kidd #1 on their depth charts, as far as goalies went, and Calgary traded up to get the Devils' #11 pick (the Devils got Calgary's #20 pick, with three other draft picks involved).  Calgary took Kidd, and the Devils took the man they had been targeting all along:  one Martin Brodeur.  But sure, let's not give Lou credit for any of that, even though it's not like either player fell into his lap...Lou MADE those picks happen.

 

In bold:  once a broken record, always a broken record.  Just become a Penguin fan already.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny becuase LL gets all the credit, but is he really the reason for all the cups?  I wonder who found Marty? Elias, Neids, Sykora, White, Madden, Rafi??  Yes LL made a gutsy move in getting Stevens, and the trade for Claude was great, but there were plenty of moves that blew up as well. And since the 1st lock out LL golden touch has been rare...

 

the Clowe contract was perplexing, I would have rather kept clarkson.  Nor sure what LL could do about ZP or IK, but I hated the Kovy move from day 1.  And LL does have a thing about keeping aging stars around, and I love Elias and Marty, but they BETTER NOT get another contract...

 

And I have no idea of JJ or Ted will become anything, but we might as well find out now, and we might as well let the kids on D play and start to mature, I love Gelinas, and I know Merril has ot played very much AHL, but let him learn at the NHL level, tired of hearing about the kids who never make it....

Edited by redruM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DD56 already addressed Brodeur and Niedermayer.  Lou made a terrific trade just to be in the position to draft Niedermayer in the first place (trading a pretty good but clearly limited Tom Kurvers for Toronto's 1991 1st-rounder).  And Lou actually traded DOWN in Brodeur's draft to take Brodeur...a lot of other teams had Trevor Kidd #1 on their depth charts, as far as goalies went, and Calgary traded up to get the Devils' #11 pick (the Devils got Calgary's #20 pick, with three other draft picks involved).  Calgary took Kidd, and the Devils took the man they had been targeting all along:  one Martin Brodeur.  But sure, let's not give Lou credit for any of that, even though it's not like either player fell into his lap...Lou MADE those picks happen.

 

In bold:  once a broken record, always a broken record.  Just become a Penguin fan already.   

 

so whats the point of that whole post? We all knew all of that and we all know Lou did some great things. My point was sarcastically pointing out that it's easy to just say "well he had that guy and that guy" and ignore everything else.

 

Become a Penguin fan why? Cause I'm not closing my eyes on some mistakes Lou did and strictly focusing on the good moves he did in the past like some of you guys and cause i can give credits to other GMs outside of NJ ? yeah let's talk about having a close mind.

 

Jesus christ you guys, you're seriously like super religious people in a cult who can't stand someone saying something bad about your beloved God. Like... its identically the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DD56 already addressed Brodeur and Niedermayer.  Lou made a terrific trade just to be in the position to draft Niedermayer in the first place (trading a pretty good but clearly limited Tom Kurvers for Toronto's 1991 1st-rounder).  And Lou actually traded DOWN in Brodeur's draft to take Brodeur...a lot of other teams had Trevor Kidd #1 on their depth charts, as far as goalies went, and Calgary traded up to get the Devils' #11 pick (the Devils got Calgary's #20 pick, with three other draft picks involved).  Calgary took Kidd, and the Devils took the man they had been targeting all along:  one Martin Brodeur.  But sure, let's not give Lou credit for any of that, even though it's not like either player fell into his lap...Lou MADE those picks happen.

 

In bold:  once a broken record, always a broken record.  Just become a Penguin fan already.   

 

The more that comes out about Parise's departure, it seems like Vanderbeek's financial problems really were a major factor - Lou has now hinted at that seriously twice without coming out and saying it, and Wade Arnott hinted at it in June 2011.  So in 2011, Lou was faced with the choice of either definitely losing Parise via trade, or, if Vanderbeek sold the team or came up with the cash, being able to re-sign him.  Part of me still thinks that Lou considered dealing Parise at the 2011 draft but did not do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more that comes out about Parise's departure, it seems like Vanderbeek's financial problems really were a major factor - Lou has now hinted at that seriously twice without coming out and saying it, and Wade Arnott hinted at it in June 2011.  So in 2011, Lou was faced with the choice of either definitely losing Parise via trade, or, if Vanderbeek sold the team or came up with the cash, being able to re-sign him.  Part of me still thinks that Lou considered dealing Parise at the 2011 draft but did not do so.

I had the same thinking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so whats the point of that whole post? We all knew all of that and we all know Lou did some great things. My point was sarcastically pointing out that it's easy to just say "well he had that guy and that guy" and ignore everything else.

 

Become a Penguin fan why? Cause I'm not closing my eyes on some mistakes Lou did and strictly focusing on the good moves he did in the past like some of you guys and cause i can give credits to other GMs outside of NJ ? yeah let's talk about having a close mind.

 

Jesus christ you guys, you're seriously like super religious people in a cult who can't stand someone saying something bad about your beloved God. Like... its identically the same thing.

 

The point of the post was that two of the GMs you think are so awesome inherited terrific talent.  I'll be fair...so did Lou, to an extent.  The sucking in the 80s built up some nice talent in the Devils' system, and it showed what it could do in 1988.  Clearly it wasn't complete yet, and Lou really didn't seem to have an identity in mind, in regards to what kind of team the Devils should be (notice how Lou's early teams were .500ish and roughly middle-of-the-pack in goals-for and goals-against).  I've always said that early on in Lou's tenure, he did a pretty good job bringing ingredients into the kitchen, but didn't have the right chef until Lemaire came aboard.  Lemaire gave the team a blueprint and an identity.

 

Has Lou been perfect?  Of course not.  No GM is, but the problem I have with the Devils instant-grat crowd is that they can't grasp the fact that even the best GMs make mistakes and that it's really friggin' hard to keep teams competitive for decades at a time.  And they constantly harp on the negative ad nauseum, and have very short memories.  I've already said the 29th pick fiasco was a major mistake...with a lot of Lou's moves, I can defend a lot of them, in that I can understand what he was trying to do, even when they don't work out, but the 29th pick one is impossible for me to defend.  And though you cannot accept this, I can also understand why he hangs onto potential UFAs...it's usually because the Devils in are in the playoff mix, though as we've seen, the Devils haven't had much playoff success since 2004, outside of 2012.  You can say you would've sacrificed some of those years for a rebuild, but rebuilds only look good when a team becomes a legitimate contender.  There are teams that get caught in rebuilds that never pay off.

 

And if what Tri brings up is true, it also shows that Lou was dealing with issues he never had to before, from the financial side.  I'm guessing Lou decided to gamble that he was going to be able to keep Parise...he lost on that one.  If you want to kill him for that, go ahead...I won't.          

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the post was that two of the GMs you think are so awesome inherited terrific talent.  I'll be fair...so did Lou, to an extent.  The sucking in the 80s built up some nice talent in the Devils' system, and it showed what it could do in 1988.  Clearly it wasn't complete yet, and Lou really didn't seem to have an identity in mind, in regards to what kind of team the Devils should be (notice how Lou's early teams were .500ish and roughly middle-of-the-pack in goals-for and goals-against).  I've always said that early on in Lou's tenure, he did a pretty good job bringing ingredients into the kitchen, but didn't have the right chef until Lemaire came aboard.  Lemaire gave the team a blueprint and an identity.

 

Has Lou been perfect?  Of course not.  No GM is, but the problem I have with the Devils instant-grat crowd is that they can't grasp the fact that even the best GMs make mistakes and that it's really friggin' hard to keep teams competitive for decades at a time.  And they constantly harp on the negative ad nauseum, and have very short memories.  I've already said the 29th pick fiasco was a major mistake...with a lot of Lou's moves, I can defend a lot of them, in that I can understand what he was trying to do, even when they don't work out, but the 29th pick one is impossible for me to defend.  And though you cannot accept this, I can also understand why he hangs onto potential UFAs...it's usually because the Devils in are in the playoff mix, though as we've seen, the Devils haven't had much playoff success since 2004, outside of 2012.  You can say you would've sacrificed some of those years for a rebuild, but rebuilds only look good when a team becomes a legitimate contender.  There are teams that get caught in rebuilds that never pay off.

 

And if what Tri brings up is true, it also shows that Lou was dealing with issues he never had to before, from the financial side.  I'm guessing Lou decided to gamble that he was going to be able to keep Parise...he lost on that one.  If you want to kill him for that, go ahead...I won't.          

 

I don't ever think you'll ever ever understand that i don't want to kill you because he lost or didnt trade Zach. I never even said he should have traded him. You keep bringing that point even though i keep on telling you thats not it. Not sure what else i can say at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you wanna know who I'd take to replace Lou if it were a perfect world and we could get whomever we wanted? I'd start with Ray Shero, Stan Bowman, and Ken Holland without looking around the league and putting effort in.

 

this has already been answered but shero not only inherited his stars, the pens got them 1st and 2nd overall. while the devils had neidermayer and brodeur, these were still picks lou could've screwed up. bowman has done a good job, sure but he needed a huge tank job to get there. holland is often referred to as the gold standard but he had the best defensemen of his generation given to him (he didn't draft him) and two absolute steals in later rounds in zetterberg and datsyuk. he gets credit for them, sure, but he runs his ship similarly to the devils. he also got himself a coach that didn't a) quit because he wanted to go home b) quit because he couldn't take it c) get sick of cancer.

 

Why would JVB want him to give it up?  What were the odds in 2012 that Vanderbeek was going to own the team for even six more months?

 

i said JVB simply because he was the only one to overrule him. my point was that lou has absolute autonomy and you wonder if anyone with reason dared to tell him to give it up.

 

The more that comes out about Parise's departure, it seems like Vanderbeek's financial problems really were a major factor - Lou has now hinted at that seriously twice without coming out and saying it, and Wade Arnott hinted at it in June 2011.  So in 2011, Lou was faced with the choice of either definitely losing Parise via trade, or, if Vanderbeek sold the team or came up with the cash, being able to re-sign him.  Part of me still thinks that Lou considered dealing Parise at the 2011 draft but did not do so.

 

i am sure JVB's finances played a role, but i think that's only because Parise couldn't get the huge signing bonus. the contracts are guaranteed. it's not like parise couldn't get his money like it was the KHL or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one to think about from a different POV...

 

What GM has had to deal with the crap that Lou has had too?

 

Maybe Darcy Regier, other than that, who?

 

The amount of owners, financial problems, the red ink, the 'small market', the stars wanting to go home, stars wanting to go play with brothers,  cancer, and the list goes on.

 

Love the job Ken Holland has done, but what if Illitch wasn't the owner, what if Datsyuk decided to go home, what if Babcock got sick, and so on and so forth.

 

I wish he surrenderred the 29th pick, but eh......coming off the finals, did he think we'd get close to the finals again or stay in the upper echelon whereas surrending the 20th pick this year wouldn't have made a difference. He should've played it safe and gave it up, that's the biggest crime he's commited..

 

Everything else, I don't see what could've been done differently if you're thinking in terms of being in the shoes at the time.

Edited by HellOnICE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sund,

 

Yes contracts are guaranteed but 25M ZP was paid (IIRC) in the first year of the deal. That's the key in terms of financials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my biggest issue with Lou going forward is that..well, this team is in need of a rebuild.  A serious influx of talent is needed that will likely take a few years..and Lou has made he clear he doesn't believe in rebuilds.  Which is fine, when you can patch this and replace a player here and there.  But this team is beyond patching - there's no elite talent left to build around.  So long as Lou is as the reigns I don't see this team doing what's neccessary to be successful in the long run. 

 

But then again, he did sell off some veterans during that atrocious season a few years ago.  So..I could be off base.

 

 

The amount of owners, financial problems, the red ink, the 'small market', the stars wanting to go home, stars wanting to go play with brothers,  cancer, and the list goes on.

 

 

Cancer?  What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Burns. He had his coach, he could've been our Babcock, Ruff, etc. We know that didn't work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh right, of course.  Thought you were implying Lou had battled with it himself, was confused for a second there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sund,

 

Yes contracts are guaranteed but 25M ZP was paid (IIRC) in the first year of the deal. That's the key in terms of financials.

 

Not only was it the guarantee of being paid, but the $25 mill up front is always worth way more than $25 mill spread out over an extended period.

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