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

If the team continues on this path and has a high draft pick this year, I can't imagine another GM surviving the decision to keep the first round draft pick in 2012.  I wonder if it the fact that the Devils have to forfeit the pick this year caused Lou to make some moves (Clowe contract, trade for Schneider) that he wouldn't have made otherwise.  

 

Well there aren't many GMs with the track record of a Lou Lamoriello.

 

I think having new ownership doesn't hurt Lou at all. These owners know Lamoriello is regarded as a top 5 General Manager in NHL history and that he last took the Devils to a Stanley Cup in 2012. And they also probably know that they don't know much about hockey. They aren't going to step in after one bad year regardless how sh!tty the situation without having a 1st overall pick. Maybe they blame it on injuries or Kovalchuk suddenly leaving. 

 

It would be a messy situation to fire a legend right away. Now if they are awful again in 2014-2015, and the fans just don't show up at all...maybe they ask Lou to step down or retire rather than firing him. I just can't imagine Lou ever getting canned. 

 

Can anyone really think of a situation where a legendary general manager that has been this successful has been fired in any sport? 

Edited by devilsrule33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well..men's warehouse fired their founder...that's why we don't see that older man in the commercials saying"you know your gonna like how you look or whatever' much different situation lol..

Well there aren't many GMs with the track record of a Lou Lamoriello.

I think having new ownership doesn't hurt Lou at all. These owners know Lamoriello is regarded as a top 5 General Manager in NHL history and that he last took the Devils to a Stanley Cup in 2012. And they also probably know that they don't know much about hockey. They aren't going to step in after one bad year regardless how sh!tty the situation without having a 1st overall pick. Maybe they blame it on injuries or Kovalchuk suddenly leaving.

It would be a messy situation to fire a legend right away. Now if they are awful again in 2014-2015, and the fans just don't show up at all...maybe they ask Lou to step down or retire rather than firing him. I just can't imagine Lou ever getting canned.

Can anyone really think of a situation where a legendary general manager that has been this successful has been fired in any sport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Torrey was essentially forced out of Long Island.  I'm pretty sure Jerry Jones canned Tex Schramm in addition to Tom Landry when he took over the Cowboys.  But yeah it is pretty rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there aren't many GMs with the track record of a Lou Lamoriello.

 

I think having new ownership doesn't hurt Lou at all. These owners know Lamoriello is regarded as a top 5 General Manager in NHL history and that he last took the Devils to a Stanley Cup in 2012. And they also probably know that they don't know much about hockey. They aren't going to step in after one bad year regardless how sh!tty the situation without having a 1st overall pick. Maybe they blame it on injuries or Kovalchuk suddenly leaving. 

 

It would be a messy situation to fire a legend right away. Now if they are awful again in 2014-2015, and the fans just don't show up at all...maybe they ask Lou to step down or retire rather than firing him. I just can't imagine Lou ever getting canned. 

 

Can anyone really think of a situation where a legendary general manager that has been this successful has been fired in any sport? 

Its rare, the Yankees fired Gene Michael just before the 90's success, but was a big part of it:

 During Michael's tenure as general manager, the Yankees drafted or signed such notable players as Mariano RiveraAndy PettitteDerek JeterJorge Posada, and others. Further, he traded popular prospect Roberto Kelly for Paul O'Neill, whose fiery persona and play would become a cornerstone for the team. This foundation paid off with Yankee championships in 1996, and from 1998–2000. However, Michael was fired before the Yankees dynasty began,

Edited by The 29th Pick

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?

 

Nobody really knows.  There's a lot of theories going around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its rare, the Yankees fired Gene Michael just before the 90's success, but was a big part of it:

 During Michael's tenure as general manager, the Yankees drafted or signed such notable players as Mariano RiveraAndy PettitteDerek JeterJorge Posada, and others. Further, he traded popular prospect Roberto Kelly for Paul O'Neill, whose fiery persona and play would become a cornerstone for the team. This foundation paid off with Yankee championships in 1996, and from 1998–2000. However, Michael was fired before the Yankees dynasty began,

 

michael never really won anything while he was GM though, it's not like they were winning the WS and then fired him. Bob Watson was the GM for the first WS fwiw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

michael never really won anything while he was GM though, it's not like they were winning the WS and then fired him. Bob Watson was the GM for the first WS fwiw

 

Yea but Gene built the foundation for those WS teams.  He built up the farm system, and that is what got us those WS titles.  That farm system provided us the assets in order to build a WS dynasty.

 

Some trades we were able to make using our own prospect pool......

Roberto Kelly for Paul O'Neill

Eric Milton, Christian Guzman for Chuck Knoblauch

Russ Davis and Sterling Hitchcock for Tino Martinez, Jeff Nelson, and Jim Mecir.

 

We also developed Jorge, Mo, Jeter. Pettitte, and Bernie.

Some lesser known guys like Homer Bush, Ricky Ledee, Shane Spencer, etc.

 

Baseball and hockey are the only two sports where you have a farm system.  And if you wanna have long term success, a deep farm system is a great way to do it.  The Devils haven't had a deep farm system in a long time.  We haven't been good at drafting since the Parises and Zajacs.  Larsson was more of a gimme pick.  There's more than one way to build a perennial contending team.  But a deep farm system is the best way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats fair about Shero's situation but keep in mind that what im trying to point out that you have to adapt to situations. In his specific situation he can still trade those players in the future if he's strapped and get a really good return for them, it's certainly not a loss on his side. Plus it was not about being able to resign all the other guys since he made him a pretty good offer, and only acted after he refused, it was not about the money. It comes down to "he did what he had to and figured he would not be able to keep Staal before it was too late to minimize the loss."

 

And i disagree about the "crafty" thing, it's not crafty it's black on white repetitive procedure. Like i mentioned earlier his one and only approach worked in the past cause we had a good team that guys wanted to play for. It's kind of like a super hot bitch, she can do wtv she want and let guys hang on for months she knows she can get them when she has to. Well Lou is not too hot anymore lol

 

So my whole point is that you have to adjust to certain situations in order to get the best results. If you "automate" an approach you will fail in the cases where a different approach would have been needed 100% of the time.

 

Be specific then - should Lou have traded Clarkson and Parise? What the hell is it that you want? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be specific then - should Lou have traded Clarkson and Parise? What the hell is it that you want? 

 

SD and others of his ilk want to be able to second-guess everything Lou does when things doesn't work out.  "Well then he should have done THIS, he should have done THAT."  They're no different from the fans who think every game on the schedule is a winnable entity.  No matter what Lou does, no matter what approach he takes, at some point, there's going to be a valley.  To his credit, I think he's done what he could to try to stave it off.  After Kovy left, Lou could've said "Maybe it's time to step back a little," even though he knew he was going to lose his 1st-rounder, but he didn't do that.  He tried to get some bodies in here that could help, and a lot of us did like the moves he was making as he was making them.  

 

Since SD just loves to bitch, whine and moan about Lou's approach as of late, let's analyze the last three seasons, which I guess could be called a "dark period", in that the team missed the playoffs two out of the last three seasons:

 

2010-11:  NO ONE saw that first half from hell coming.  Classic case of everything that could go wrong went wrong in that first half...injuries, some players woefully underperforming.  Easy to knock the choice of John MacLean as head coach, but he had been with the organization for a while and had done a solid job in the AHL.  All things considered, that team did a nice job recovering...they could have bailed, quit, but they didn't, even though they were never really a factor in the playoff race. 

 

2011-12:  Got all the way to the SC Finals.  Some would now like to call this a fluke, but I don't think it was...yes, moreso than ever, the NHL playoffs have a crapshoot feel to them, and they could have lost to Florida in the first round...but they DIDN'T.  I'm not going to take anything away from the Devils.

 

2013:  Unfortunately, a lot of this year was a case of both goalies, both of whom had played well the year before, seemingly getting old overnight.  The terrible aggregate save% was a killer.  We know how bad both of them were, though both were good at times...of course, the team also stopped scoring.  One can make an argument that Kinkaid could've been given some starts when Hedberg was playing some God-awful hockey.  Hedberg was comically bad from 2/16 to 3/9 (9 consecutive starts)...he put up an .856 save% in those games.  I think based on the year both goalies had in 2011-12, DeBoer just kept hoping they would get it going, but I think he probably gave Hedberg a longer leash than he deserved, and let's face it, the plan was never for Hedberg to play in 19 games that season...Marty getting hurt necessitated it.  That was also the first year the Devils weren't successful in shootouts and OT...they went 2-7 in the the shootout and 1-3 in OT (3-10 combined).   

 

Re:  Clarkson, yeah, like Tri said, Devils really weren't in a position to trade him, and even if they did, I don't think the return would've been that great...by the time the deadline had rolled around, the goals had stopped going in for him.  Probably a couple of middle-round draft picks, a mid-rounder and a middling prospect, maybe.  Teams would've tried to get him on the cheap.   

 

I think Marshall states it perfectly SD...what exactly is it that you want from Lou?  You bitch about his approach, but it has mostly worked for him, and you seem to think if he had changed his approach or "adapted" to what you think he should now be, that everything would be fine.  There's teams that HAVE taken the tact you want Lou to now take (Tampa Bay, Ottawa...both teams locked up their stars before they got away), and it didn't work out for them either.  I think you're also forgetting that Lou DID lose key players to UFA even when you claim his approach "worked", and made it sound like everyone was willing to stick around for market value or less just because the Devils were successful.  Alexander Mogilny, Bobby Holik, Doug Gilmour...and Mogilny and Holik left when the Devils were at their peak...Mogilny took off after playing in consecutive Cup finals, and Holik left the following season.  We all know part of the problem is:  when guys have been leaving as of late, the Devils don't have the youth that can step in and either replace what was lost (like Madden did for Holik), or fortify already strong areas (like Rafalski did), but it all goes back to the same premise...no matter what approach a GM takes, there's bound to be a period where things don't go your way, where even the on-paper "makes sense" move doesn't work out.  You seem to think that almost the second a certain approach doesn't pay dividends, then it's time to switch, and that somehow making the switch will almost automatically pay off. 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody really knows.  There's a lot of theories going around.

this is the only move that is mindboggling, it was the perfect situation to correct the kovy mess. WHY???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Torrey was essentially forced out of Long Island.  I'm pretty sure Jerry Jones canned Tex Schramm in addition to Tom Landry when he took over the Cowboys.  But yeah it is pretty rare.

 

Probably closest and best example to Lou's situation. Bill Torrey built one of the greatest dynasties in post-expansion history. They've got a banner hanging in the Mausoleum for him complete with a bowtie and it is absolutely 100% deserved. At the end though, he tried to start a rebuild and the ownership just wasn't along for the ride and they pretty much forced him out. Stupid move that they've been paying for on the Island ever since. Torrey then went on to build an expansion team in Florida that went to the Cup Finals (lost, but still went) within 3 years of opening shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be specific then - should Lou have traded Clarkson and Parise? What the hell is it that you want? 

 

I'll say it again, ALL i'd want from Lou is to give up his dumb rule of not talking during the season. At least make exceptions in SOME cases. There's absolutely NO good reasons not to do it in some cases. It's out of pure stubbornness.

 

There's cases and examples all around the league of good deals that we're made during the season and i'm convinced that if some of those guys would have been put in a situation that 2 weeks before free agency they still didnt have a legit offer or a contract, they'd consider waiting a few weeks looking at offers and whats out there. Zach himself said it in an interview with TG. 

 

And players ALWAYS say they are glad it's been dealt with so it's not in the back of their heads not knowing what would be up post-playoffs. They can say they don't think about it and focus on playing hockey all they want to the media, it's there. Again, Elias himself said it was bothering him too. Again it's not all players and most players are signed a week before free agency we all know that but there's definitely some players/cases that you really have to deal with differently, you can't take chances.

 

Get this, i know Lou's track record is good. But again i'll bring this up, he never had to have the best approach cause his team was always contending or had great players so guys would want to stay there. But thats like me when i was a kid, we had a game of "chicken" of few of my buddies, there was a street going down and the main road was crossing. We told each other than when we'd go down on our bikes that we'd NEVER put the brakes on. If there was cars or wtv, try to go faster to get by them before they pass or make a crazy slide or tight turn before the road, but we couldnt put the brakes on. Thats pretty fvcking dumb right. I did it for over 5 years. NEVER got hit by a car and i've been down that street daily for years. Does that mean it's all good then? Absolutely not. Get the metaphor here, track record is not everything. Lou is not in the same settings that he was before, it's all new to him he can't expect and rely on the same loyalty than he had earlier in his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say it again, ALL i'd want from Lou is to give up his dumb rule of not talking during the season. At least make exceptions in SOME cases. There's absolutely NO good reasons not to do it in some cases. It's out of pure stubbornness.

 

There's cases and examples all around the league of good deals that we're made during the season and i'm convinced that if some of those guys would have been put in a situation that 2 weeks before free agency they still didnt have a legit offer or a contract, they'd consider waiting a few weeks looking at offers and whats out there. Zach himself said it in an interview with TG. 

 

 

OK. How many players on the Devils, post-lockout, does this apply to? Two? Three, tops? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say it again, ALL i'd want from Lou is to give up his dumb rule of not talking during the season. At least make exceptions in SOME cases. There's absolutely NO good reasons not to do it in some cases. It's out of pure stubbornness.

 

There's cases and examples all around the league of good deals that we're made during the season and i'm convinced that if some of those guys would have been put in a situation that 2 weeks before free agency they still didnt have a legit offer or a contract, they'd consider waiting a few weeks looking at offers and whats out there. Zach himself said it in an interview with TG. 

 

And players ALWAYS say they are glad it's been dealt with so it's not in the back of their heads not knowing what would be up post-playoffs. They can say they don't think about it and focus on playing hockey all they want to the media, it's there. Again, Elias himself said it was bothering him too. Again it's not all players and most players are signed a week before free agency we all know that but there's definitely some players/cases that you really have to deal with differently, you can't take chances.

 

Get this, i know Lou's track record is good. But again i'll bring this up, he never had to have the best approach cause his team was always contending or had great players so guys would want to stay there. But thats like me when i was a kid, we had a game of "chicken" of few of my buddies, there was a street going down and the main road was crossing. We told each other than when we'd go down on our bikes that we'd NEVER put the brakes on. If there was cars or wtv, try to go faster to get by them before they pass or make a crazy slide or tight turn before the road, but we couldnt put the brakes on. Thats pretty fvcking dumb right. I did it for over 5 years. NEVER got hit by a car and i've been down that street daily for years. Does that mean it's all good then? Absolutely not. Get the metaphor here, track record is not everything. Lou is not in the same settings that he was before, it's all new to him he can't expect and rely on the same loyalty than he had earlier in his career.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2308828

 

In addition, the more that comes out, the more that Lou couldn't seriously talk contract with Parise in season because his owner was broke.  Lou has talked about the things he couldn't do because of ownership and he's talked about the 'extenuating circumstances' with Parise.  Doesn't take a genius to connect the dots here.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2308828

 

In addition, the more that comes out, the more that Lou couldn't seriously talk contract with Parise in season because his owner was broke.  Lou has talked about the things he couldn't do because of ownership and he's talked about the 'extenuating circumstances' with Parise.  Doesn't take a genius to connect the dots here.

 

Wasn't there a report out there about how Zach was offered 7/49, was thinking about accepting, but his agent urged him to hold out because he could get the bigger ticket if he went UFA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. How many players on the Devils, post-lockout, does this apply to? Two? Three, tops? 

 

It's irrelevant to my point. This goes in circles. It's not about what happened, it's simply about his mentality with which he's taking absolute unnecessary risks. Lou has the best GM IMO, don't get me wrong with what im saying, but the sad things is that he could have been even better simply by not restraining himself for no reasons. God knows the players we could have had for cheaper maybe or re-signed if it would have been dealt with earlier. Maybe just 1 or 2 in 20 years for all we know. But there's no way around it, it's not the best way to go to risk assets and put yourself in a situation where it's too late to act if things don't go your way.

 

!- In every cases taking place in the last 20 years there's many variables other than Lou's approach (team success, family, money, etc etc) that made the results what they we're so we can't look at the "whole procedure" and say it works. 

 

2- If you had a business, would you run things that way if you want to minimize your long term losses? It's literally a leap of faith every time. By not taking early Lou is sure to lose for nothing every single players that he can't reach an agreement with. There's many cases like that all around the league, it sucks but thats what it is.

 

I also think Clarkson would may have fetch more than what you guys think, even just a forward prospect would have been huge looking at what we have now, that's if Lou (with the knowledge that Clarkson wanted way too much for what he was willing to give) would have decided it was the right move to take. What happened is that he went into the playoffs simply thinking he could re-sign him, clearly he was wrong and figured after some talks that it was not happening and gave up on him after the trade deadline. A simple talk "could" have changed that. Would it have been worth it? God knows. But its always better to have the option than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Re:  Clarkson, yeah, like Tri said, Devils really weren't in a position to trade him, and even if they did, I don't think the return would've been that great...by the time the deadline had rolled around, the goals had stopped going in for him.  Probably a couple of middle-round draft picks, a mid-rounder and a middling prospect, maybe.  Teams would've tried to get him on the cheap.   

 

 

I'll disagree on Clarkson. He's the type of player teams would love to have at the deadline for a playoff run. Had a Cup run experience, goal scorer, gritty, physical, etc. And by seeing the free agent interest he got, I bet teams might have been very interested. 

 

Ryane Clowe was traded for two 2nds and a 3rd, and he hadn't even scored a goal in 28 games. I bet Lou could have gotten at least that for Clarkson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2308828

 

In addition, the more that comes out, the more that Lou couldn't seriously talk contract with Parise in season because his owner was broke.  Lou has talked about the things he couldn't do because of ownership and he's talked about the 'extenuating circumstances' with Parise.  Doesn't take a genius to connect the dots here.

 

Don't bring up Zach i know thats a different situation with lots of stuff in the background. And i said i was not talking about Zach at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get this, i know Lou's track record is good. But again i'll bring this up, he never had to have the best approach cause his team was always contending or had great players so guys would want to stay there.

 

I pointed out two pretty prime examples of guys who didn't want to stay with the Devils when they were contending, in Holik and Mogilny.  Bill Guerin demanded a trade when the Devils were contending as well.  You make it sound like all of the Devils' good players wanted to stay back in the day.  They didn't.  Look at the roster turnover from 2000 to 2003...the Devils made the Finals in three out of four seasons, won two Cups, and still had significant guys who left...hell, the team even employed four different head coaches in that time.  There's exactly 10 skaters who played in the playoffs on both the 2000 and 2003 Cup champs.  Some of those 10 stayed out of loyalty, and some simply had little negotiating power (like Niedermayer, who missed a big chunk of the 2000-01 as Lou played hardball).  Rafalski and Madden were special cases, in that I think Lou missed some deadline in regards to re-signing them, but he signed them both to very fair deals.            

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a report out there about how Zach was offered 7/49, was thinking about accepting, but his agent urged him to hold out because he could get the bigger ticket if he went UFA?

 

That would be a case for any players though, Getzlaf, Perry, etc etc they knew they'd get more if they'd hit free agency, either on their own team or with another team. That's the part where the GM has to find a way to convince the guys to sign there before testing the market.

 

Ultimately i think that without the financial troubles Zach would have stayed in NJ and signed the year before instead of signing that 1 year deal, or i'd like to think that, he was "emotionally" ready to just sign there without digging too much.

 

To me it was just a perfect storm and the timing made up really dig (he said he really had to dig to get some answers about some stuff) and it came down to the financial troubles and the uncertainity of the future in NJ, so many things we're up in the air, who's gonna be in net after Marty? Then after Lou? Very sh!tty prospect pool on the attack (Zach said he looked at everything and put everything in consideration and that the Wild's prospect pool was something he was really excited about and that he saw a good future in Minny based on that, so obviously he tried to projects the future in NJ too)

 

Of course putting of all that on top of being his state hero and playing in front of family, the lockout + signing bonus and all made it an easier choice, he must have felt like jumping off a sinking boat. Saddly some of his worries got better, we got Cory and new owners but him leaving brought up more and more problems at the same time.

 

Saddly there's really not much Lou can do now with what he has to work with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's irrelevant to my point. This goes in circles. It's not about what happened, it's simply about his mentality with which he's taking absolute unnecessary risks. Lou has the best GM IMO, don't get me wrong with what im saying, but the sad things is that he could have been even better simply by not restraining himself for no reasons. God knows the players we could have had for cheaper maybe or re-signed if it would have been dealt with earlier. Maybe just 1 or 2 in 20 years for all we know. But there's no way around it, it's not the best way to go to risk assets and put yourself in a situation where it's too late to act if things don't go your way.

 

!- In every cases taking place in the last 20 years there's many variables other than Lou's approach (team success, family, money, etc etc) that made the results what they we're so we can't look at the "whole procedure" and say it works. 

 

2- If you had a business, would you run things that way if you want to minimize your long term losses? It's literally a leap of faith every time. By not taking early Lou is sure to lose for nothing every single players that he can't reach an agreement with. There's many cases like that all around the league, it sucks but thats what it is.

 

I also think Clarkson would may have fetch more than what you guys think, even just a forward prospect would have been huge looking at what we have now, that's if Lou (with the knowledge that Clarkson wanted way too much for what he was willing to give) would have decided it was the right move to take. What happened is that he went into the playoffs simply thinking he could re-sign him, clearly he was wrong and figured after some talks that it was not happening and gave up on him after the trade deadline. A simple talk "could" have changed that. Would it have been worth it? God knows. But its always better to have the option than nothing.

 

So this entire tirade is about nothing. It doesn't apply to Parise, doesn't apply to Martin, not Gionta. You're just making noise because your only way of coping with the position the team is in is to complain about Lou and things he hasn't done. 

 

The Devils were in still in the race when the deadline rolled around and their chances of making the playoffs were much greater with Clarkson than without him, or with whatever prospect they could've gotten back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pointed out two pretty prime examples of guys who didn't want to stay with the Devils when they were contending, in Holik and Mogilny.  Bill Guerin demanded a trade when the Devils were contending as well.  You make it sound like all of the Devils' good players wanted to stay back in the day.  They didn't.  Look at the roster turnover from 2000 to 2003...the Devils made the Finals in three out of four seasons, won two Cups, and still had significant guys who left...hell, the team even employed four different head coaches in that time.  There's exactly 10 skaters who played in the playoffs on both the 2000 and 2003 Cup champs.  Some of those 10 stayed out of loyalty, and some simply had little negotiating power (like Niedermayer, who missed a big chunk of the 2000-01 as Lou played hardball).  Rafalski and Madden were special cases, in that I think Lou missed some deadline in regards to re-signing them, but he signed them both to very fair deals.            

 

Well thats fair and perfectly true but you're nitpicking and focusing on a moving target there. Not as if thats my main argument (simply one of the pilled up reasons), i still think the Devils we're more attractive back then than now. I guess thats how i should have said it, how many players with lots of options would sign in Buffalo or with the Flames right now? (at similar offers, of course if they throw ridiculous money at them they might) compared to sign with the Bruins or wtv for fair market price.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this entire tirade is about nothing. It doesn't apply to Parise, doesn't apply to Martin, not Gionta. You're just making noise because your only way of coping with the position the team is in is to complain about Lou and things he hasn't done. 

 

The Devils were in still in the race when the deadline rolled around and their chances of making the playoffs were much greater with Clarkson than without him, or with whatever prospect they could've gotten back. 

 

yeah if you look at it strictly in a "win now" mode. I know thats the ultimate goal but again you kind of have to find the good in between for the decisions.

 

You don't want to give away too much for a rental not to compromise you're future without some picks/prospects, but at the same time you're perfectly fine with using a guy that you may lose for nothing and have nothing in the future. Quite a weird mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this entire tirade is about nothing. It doesn't apply to Parise, doesn't apply to Martin, not Gionta. You're just making noise because your only way of coping with the position the team is in is to complain about Lou and things he hasn't done. 

 

The Devils were in still in the race when the deadline rolled around and their chances of making the playoffs were much greater with Clarkson than without him, or with whatever prospect they could've gotten back. 

 

Trading Clarkson would've been a give-up.  Period.  It's giving up.  There are spots where this sort of trade makes sense and that wasn't one - the Devils didn't have someone as good as Clarkson behind him.  Clarkson also wasn't so valuable that the team had to get assets for him (a la Ilya Kovalchuk, who Atlanta traded while still in the playoff race).  They stuck with him, he left for more money.  The Devils got 6 full seasons out of him and paid him $10.4 million dollars.  I'll take it, especially when early returns are that he was a product of Elias last year - we'll see how his shot rate does this year, but if it stays below 3, that's trouble for Toronto.

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