Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Marshall

We now have the 30th pick

172 posts in this topic

No sh!t.  Wish we still had what is likely to be a better pick, but hey, it's definitely better than nothing.

 

How about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DarrenDreger 27m
NHL will award Devils with the 30th pick in the Draft instead of the 1st round pick as usually determined. Also forgiving $1.5 mil of fine.

 

Woohoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I remembered this, but I didn't know what he could have.

 

 

I don't really think it did.  Who moved for a first round pick?  Whatever, it's a 1st round pick.  Nice to have.

 

I think with that pick, we could have made a decent run at Vanek.   I'm not sure of the value of the kid they got, as opposed to one of our defensemen, but we really had no chips yesterday.   That we did anything without giving up much of value was a miracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of which, I didn't realize just how poorly they have drafted until I looked at their draft history:

 

251 total picks since 1988

143 picks have never played in an NHL game (57%)

193 picks have played 0-100 total NHL games (77%)

222 picks have played 0-400 total NHL games (88%)

 

Since 1996, these are the only players with 400+ NHL games played (essentially 5 seasons):

 

Zajac (2004)

Parise (2003)

P. Martin (2000)

Rupp (2000)

Commodore (1999)

Gomez (1998)

B. Gionta (1998)

C. White (1996)

W. Mitchell (1996)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with Kovalchuk going to the KHL.  Nothing at all.  Remember, the penalty is for the first contract.

 

If this league actually made rulings and enforced punishment based upon some semblance of objective thought, I'd be able to see your point. However, I would really like to hear what you think this is based on since you seem to feel that there is enough evidence regarding an actual body of reasoning for this change to negate our tin-foil hat theories. I honestly think this has everything to do with the league feeling bad for punishing us for a player who isn't still here. I don't see any other real reason for the league to do this because according to the strictures of the ruling, they don't have to do anything but enforce the punishment as meted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this league actually made rulings and enforced punishment based upon some semblance of objective thought, I'd be able to see your point. However, I would really like to hear what you think this is based on since you seem to feel that there is enough evidence regarding an actual body of reasoning for this change to negate our tin-foil hat theories. I honestly think this has everything to do with the league feeling bad for punishing us for a player who isn't still here. I don't see any other real reason for the league to do this because according to the strictures of the ruling, they don't have to do anything but enforce the punishment as meted out.

IMO, the league feels it's now punishing Harris, an owner they want to have a good relationship with, for the actions of the old owner. So forgiving part of the penalty is being done to foster a good relationship with a billionaire who wasn't part of the wrong doing.

If Vanderbeek still owned the team then the penalty would not have been changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this league actually made rulings and enforced punishment based upon some semblance of objective thought, I'd be able to see your point. However, I would really like to hear what you think this is based on since you seem to feel that there is enough evidence regarding an actual body of reasoning for this change to negate our tin-foil hat theories. I honestly think this has everything to do with the league feeling bad for punishing us for a player who isn't still here. I don't see any other real reason for the league to do this because according to the strictures of the ruling, they don't have to do anything but enforce the punishment as meted out.

 

The penalty was for the first contract.  The Devils would have been punished regardless of whether Kovalchuk signed a 2nd contract or not.  The Devils are already subject to cap recapture on Kovalchuk's 2nd contract.

 

max:  The Devils could've gotten Vanek anyway.  They didn't have the cap room after the Ruutu deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The penalty was for the first contract.  The Devils would have been punished regardless of whether Kovalchuk signed a 2nd contract or not.  The Devils are already subject to cap recapture on Kovalchuk's 2nd contract.

 

max:  The Devils could've gotten Vanek anyway.  They didn't have the cap room after the Ruutu deal.

 

That still doesn't explain why the league is lessening the punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the deal is that the Devils cannot trade the pick. So i guess thats why they waited till after the deadline.  Per TG:


Devils cannot trade 30th pick as part of the league's ruling to "modify" the penalty..

Edited by njd3b1ink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That still doesn't explain why the league is lessening the punishment.

 

What 731 said - Harris is now the owner.  It was under Vanderbeek that the old contract was signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the deal is that the Devils cannot trade the pick. So i guess thats why they waited till after the deadline.  Per TG:

Devils cannot trade 30th pick as part of the league's ruling to "modify" the penalty..

 

Lou's not trading the pick anyway, especially with the current state of our forward prospects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! Snow couldn't get a 1st for Vanek and we got a 1st for nothing. 

 

Seriously though, great news for the Devils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I called it. Anyway, I am sure this was part of the sale conditions to Harris and company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The penalty was for the first contract.  The Devils would have been punished regardless of whether Kovalchuk signed a 2nd contract or not.  The Devils are already subject to cap recapture on Kovalchuk's 2nd contract.

 

max:  The Devils could've gotten Vanek anyway.  They didn't have the cap room after the Ruutu deal.

 

I agree with you in principle on the top part, but the second contract wasn't registered until the labor negotiation was completed.  It was a bit sketchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a glass half empty type of guy, so in essence, it's just short of us getting the 1st pick of the 2nd round.  No big deal.  More of a "formality" than anything...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bwahahaha Lou trolling everyone. All those people who freaked out over not giving up the 29th pick can shove it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news. It's already been debated but I would not at all be surprised if lou knew about this. At the very least he had a hunch because nothing else would justify us taking Matteau.

So just to be clear: we have the 30th pick this year, not pending anything. So no matter how bad we do, we still get the 30th right

Edited by Onddeck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What 731 said - Harris is now the owner. It was under Vanderbeek that the old contract was signed.

That may mean something with the fine but means nothing vis-a-vis the pick. College programs get punished all the time for what previous administrations did.

I do think Kovy leaving and the cap recapture penalty brought to light the silliness of punishing us twice without getting the player for anywhere close to full term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way Lou knew anything in June of 2012. Perhaps he felt that he could keep working on the league for 2 years, and present a very good case.

 

The rest of the league has every right to be going nuts. This is the third time Lou has really gotten away with some sketchy sh!t.

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