Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
'7'

Of all the times Lou has curiously fired coaches out of the blue

132 posts in this topic

Best example i can give to you guys is Letang and Staal, a year before their contracts we're up Shero made them an offer and if they we're not gonna take it they would have been traded (Staal did) he couldnt afford to lose guys like that on the market, gave the players an ultimatum got a return, or the player.

 

Of course it would have sucked to get rid of Letang at that time but both of those cases we're during the summer.

 

Zach was coming off a major injury. We didn't know how good he was going to be, and neither did anyone else. That's part of why he only got a 1 year deal when he was RFA. Nobody would have given anything great to get Zach that offseason. So unless you trade him in the middle of the season, on a team that would go on to the finals, when all indications were we were 1 of 2 teams with a good chance of signing him, there was no way to make a good trade. If you have real solution, for Zach Parise, rather than an example of what a different team, with 2 much different players did, then stop bringing it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who's to say trading Staal didn't cost them a deeper playoff run last year? Funny thing is while you tout the futures they got back for him they gave up a bit of that future renting Iginla and the other players they got at the deadline anyway.

 

Their bottom 6 is still a giant mess.  And looks to be for the foreseeable future, because their minor league forwards are garbage (seems like Shero's been trading a lot of draft picks lately, the cardinal sin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not winning a Cup doesn't automatically equal failure.  I wouldn't trade that 2012 run for not even trying.  I doubt at the time that you were saying "I really hate watching the Devils make the playoffs and beat two of our most hated rivals on the way to the Finals.  I'd rather Lou have planned for 2013."  Lots of great memories from that run (HENRIQUE!  IT'S OVER!) and I wouldn't trade them for anything.  Sometimes you come up a little short, but that doesn't mean you then break out the hindsight and say "Well, it didn't result in the ultimate prize, so we shouldn't have even tried."  Seriously, what kind of mentality is that?       

 

problem is that you're looking at this comparing results. AFTER our cup run that's not where the mistake was made, it was way before that. Go back to that summer when Lou made the decision, he didnt know he'd make it to the cup finals. I dont think nobody really thought we could make it either.

 

And dont get me wrong with what you said that i said. Of course i enjoyed the cup run but ultimately the results of that is years and years of failures so far and it's not about to get that much better.

 

 

Lou admitted running out of time in negotiations that summer after waiting last minute to even start talking with Zach. he ADMITTED IT, then he DID NOT made the decision knowing that they'd make it to the finals with him. Come on now. 

 

I fvcking loved Zach but put me in Lou's shoes and if i would have known that i couldnt sign my top player long-term, i wouldnt just milk his last season risking losing him for nothing. There's absolutely no way. Now people will bring up the financial issues, well thing is they we're not settle that summer, and they we're still not settled when Lou made his offer before free agency few days before july 1st. So that theory is quite out of the window. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who's to say trading Staal didn't cost them a deeper playoff run last year? Funny thing is while you tout the futures they got back for him they gave up a bit of that future renting Iginla and the other players they got at the deadline anyway.

 

That's kind of flimsy to be honest.  They made it to the conference finals, and got swept by an incredibly hot Boston team.  I suppose you can invoke the butterfly effect, but it's hard to imagine that Staal would have made much of a difference there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zach was coming off a major injury. We didn't know how good he was going to be, and neither did anyone else. That's part of why he only got a 1 year deal when he was RFA. Nobody would have given anything great to get Zach that offseason. So unless you trade him in the middle of the season, on a team that would go on to the finals, when all indications were we were 1 of 2 teams with a good chance of signing him, there was no way to make a good trade. If you have real solution, for Zach Parise, rather than an example of what a different team, with 2 much different players did, then stop bringing it up.

 

Lou said Zach's injury was never even brought up in negotiations that they trust their medical staff and bla bla. Again, people will simplybelieve what they want to believe even if its Lou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyway im done talking about this. Absolutely nobody will ever change their opinion on that subject ever. There's no point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lou said Zach's injury was never even brought up in negotiations that they trust their medical staff and bla bla. Again, people will simplybelieve what they want to believe even if its Lou.

Lou may not have brought it up, but you're never getting max value for a player coming off an injury. Ever. That makes trading Zach a piss poor idea that offseason. So unless you think he should have gutted a team that looked pretty good at the deadline, and eventually went to the finals, I don't get what you want to do. If I was wrong about the effect of the injury on negotiations when he was RFA, sorry, but it doesn't affect my overall point.

anyway im done talking about this. Absolutely nobody will ever change their opinion on that subject ever. There's no point

I'm willing to be swayed by a convincing argument, I've just seen nothing but anecdotes that are at best tangentially connected. Hell, I've changed my opinion of certain aspects of Lou's management this season to some degree, as my previous posts on this thread should show.

Edited by mouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is most concerning is that some people believe this season is caused by lazy, unmotivated players and not lack of talent. 

 

Who on this team is lazy exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is most concerning is that some people believe this season is caused by lazy, unmotivated players and not lack of talent. 

 

Who on this team is lazy exactly?

 

It's not exactly the right time to ask that after they completely no-showed in Tampa Bay and against the Wings in vital games.

Hell they were on their way to a total no-show in Florida too till Pete's timeout late in the first period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not exactly the right time to ask that after they completely no-showed in Tampa Bay and against the Wings in vital games.

Hell they were on their way to a total no-show in Florida too till Pete's timeout late in the first period.

They suck. There's a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

problem is that you're looking at this comparing results. AFTER our cup run that's not where the mistake was made, it was way before that. Go back to that summer when Lou made the decision, he didnt know he'd make it to the cup finals. I dont think nobody really thought we could make it either.

And dont get me wrong with what you said that i said. Of course i enjoyed the cup run but ultimately the results of that is years and years of failures so far and it's not about to get that much better.

no offense, but imo this is one of the most ridiculous arguments you have ever made. When we discuss things now, we have the benefit of hindsight, so to ask us to go back to the summer of 2011, pretend we have no idea how the coming season will play out, and argue Lou should have gotten rid of our captain and best player who was coming off a serious injury is so outrageously twisting and contorting events to try and service your point of view.

Seriously, it's like Lou can never win in your eyes. Even when he puts a team together that gets to within two wins of a Stanley cup, he should have had the foresight to realize he didn't have a good team and should have sold low on zach before the season. Do you realize how outrageously ridiculous that is?

More and more it just seems like you have an agenda against Lou. I realize lately there have been some questionable moves but if you were here in 2011 and arguing that zach should be traded, he proved you wrong by putting together a team that made a deep run.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet when someone criticizes him for the crap he's created for a decade they are bashed for it. Agree 100% on your last part. I said if they miss the playoffs again he needs to go. Question is will the new head honchos have the balls to do it.

Hey, not by me. Prior to 2012 I was very down on Lou. I figured, what with the SC run, that perhaps I was wrong after all, but the more I see the more I think the SC run was a lucky break or a fluke in an otherwise very mediocre stretch of GMing. LL just doesn't have it any longer but, like MB, is holding onto a job because of their history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, not by me. Prior to 2012 I was very down on Lou. I figured, what with the SC run, that perhaps I was wrong after all, but the more I see the more I think the SC run was a lucky break or a fluke in an otherwise very mediocre stretch of GMing. LL just doesn't have it any longer but, like MB, is holding onto a job because of their history.

it is so incredibly unfair to call the final run a fluke without pointing out that if we don't make the playoffs this year, it will only be the third time in twenty years, the other two times were a lockout shortened season where we dealt with injuries and a year where Lou admittedly made a mistake in hiring the coach. So what's more of a fluke? The 3rd playoff miss, or the fifth conference championship? Edited by dmann422

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no offense, but imo this is one of the most ridiculous arguments you have ever made. When we discuss things now, we have the benefit of hindsight, so to ask us to go back to the summer of 2011, pretend we have no idea how the coming season will play out, and argue Lou should have gotten rid of our captain and best player who was coming off a serious injury is so outrageously twisting and contorting events to try and service your point of view.

Seriously, it's like Lou can never win in your eyes. Even when he puts a team together that gets to within two wins of a Stanley cup, he should have had the foresight to realize he didn't have a good team and should have sold low on zach before the season. Do you realize how outrageously ridiculous that is?

More and more it just seems like you have an agenda against Lou. I realize lately there have been some questionable moves but if you were here in 2011 and arguing that zach should be traded, he proved you wrong by putting together a team that made a deep run.

 

wow you absolutely missed my point and what i meant and by like a thousand miles lol great job

 

i assume you we're not even following the discussion there but my point was that whoever i was arguing with was trying to make a point as if Lou took his decision KNOWING we we're gonna make it to the cup final so that it was like a clear and literal decision for him, either A) trade Zach B) Make it to the cup final.

 

So then by your logic... if that they made a deep run proved me wrong... NOT trading Clarkson since we didnt make the playoffs is proving me right then? (not saying that's what im saying but just following your logic there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stevens would be a terrible coach. I cannot stress this enough.

Can you back it up with some reasoning that goes beyond intuition?  By saying you cannot stress it enough you imply some empirical data you have access to.  I dont have anything - just suspicion.  You probably won't respond -- so I'll end up assuming you've got nothing beyond "have you SEEN our defence?" I'd like to know why someone with such a huge competitive streak and knowledge of the game is floundering as an assistant coach.  "Because he doesn't know how to coach, some have it some don't is absolute nonsense.  It really sucks but everything can be learned EVERYTHING, and Stevens doesn't shy away from hard work.  he does shy away from effective communication - sure he doesn't want to step on anyone's toes, sure he hates the spotlight in a certain sense.  Mostly I think at the heart of the matter is he doesn't like to not be listened to.  It's too close to outright failure and it is completely out of his control - people will listen or they won't -- so is he being erratic being all calm and supportive and quiet and then flipping out in an ineffective alienating way?  So if you have some examples even if you've just noticed it yourself - I'd like to hear them.  It's the first step on the road of correcting and improving.

 

 

AND ON ANOTHER NOTE:

 

I think one has to logically deduce that questioning the players and the coaches is in fact, questioning the GM. There is a chain of accountability that ends at Lou.  The team coaches and players and scouting and training  ALL SUCKS -- then it's all on Lou.  So you then ask, why?  What were the extenuating circumstances? 

 

DR33 concludes Lou just sucks now.  as do many many others.  OK -- so who's better?  Who do you all want as the new GM of the Devils?  You always have an idea on who should coach and play -- so who should GM then?  It's the same conversation - so offer up your alternatives not simply throw out the garbage  -- and then what?  What young gun do you want to bring in?  It's a good time to do it - the whole organization has been lost by Lou, right?  So who's the new guy?  Who will right the ship?

 

It's one thing to point the finger....  it's another to say It's one thing to ppint the finger but THAT GUY is REALLY to blame.  OK -- so how do you fix it then?  I'm just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow you absolutely missed my point and what i meant and by like a thousand miles lol great job

i assume you we're not even following the discussion there but my point was that whoever i was arguing with was trying to make a point as if Lou took his decision KNOWING we we're gonna make it to the cup final so that it was like a clear and literal decision for him, either A) trade Zach B) Make it to the cup final.

So then by your logic... if that they made a deep run proved me wrong... NOT trading Clarkson since we didnt make the playoffs is proving me right then? (not saying that's what im saying but just following your logic there)

I've read the entire thread and I'm pretty sure I understand your argument perfectly, but correct me if I'm wrong- you are saying that prior to the 2011-2012 season, Lou had no idea how well the team would do, so he should have traded parise and gotten at least something for him.

I think this is wrong and a ridiculous argument, because now in hindsight we have facts that show Lou was right in not trading parise- we came within two overtime games of a Stanley cup. You are asking us to ignore these facts by magically transporting us back to he summer of 2011, pretend like we don't know what will happen and try and service your argument.

Look, I'll freely admit Lou has made mistakes and misses here, but keeping parise for that run was not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you back it up with some reasoning that goes beyond intuition? 

 

If you want specifics that anyone can see, you can use the following:

 

gelinas altering his game to be more physical because that's what stevens told him to do. gelinas isn't a physical defenseman and going out of his way to make hits makes his already subject defensive game that much worse.

larsson getting yo-yo'd and then demoted - essentially taking a step back. this is stevens' responsibility.

 

he's also not the best communicator with the defensemen. you hear from the beat guys when a guy is scratched that they generally aren't given a reason. that's not lip service. and it's the assistant coaches and specifically stevens with the defense that is supposed to communicate the most.

 

sure stevens is a novice coach in any right so that gives him a little leeway. and comparing him to larry isn't particularly fair because larry is one of the best coaches this team has had. for the last several defensive coaches this team has had, stevens is at the bottom.

 

as for why he should not be the head coach of this team, maclean proved that bringing back a team legend can turn out very badly. and mac actually had pretty good experience. at the time, that made perfect sense and just ended in disaster. stevens from a coaching perspective, would be just as bad. these men are complete extensions of lou. for everything that people want to get on pete, he is NOT that. lou has plenty of influence on roster decisions (obviously) but pete does not have the feel of "lou's boy". mac most certainly did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the entire thread and I'm pretty sure I understand your argument perfectly, but correct me if I'm wrong- you are saying that prior to the 2011-2012 season, Lou had no idea how well the team would do, so he should have traded parise and gotten at least something for him.

I think this is wrong and a ridiculous argument, because now in hindsight we have facts that show Lou was right in not trading parise- we came within two overtime games of a Stanley cup. You are asking us to ignore these facts by magically transporting us back to he summer of 2011, pretend like we don't know what will happen and try and service your argument.

Look, I'll freely admit Lou has made mistakes and misses here, but keeping parise for that run was not one of them.

 

Yes and i dont see this as ridiculous at all cause it was a total fluke really and you guys keep on saying Zach is useless in the playoffs and not clutch at all, only scoring empty netter, a ghost and bla bla bla but to make a point that we absolutely needed him suddenly.

 

and how about the hindsight that we didnt win the cup and has struggle ever since Zach left ? and will continue to suck for at least a few years. Losing Zach was the first domino in that whole mess. He was the heart and soul of the team. If you want to use the fluky cup run as a measurement stick well go ahead. The real devils team is the one out of the playoffs, 4 years, missing the playoffs 3 times... the cup was the fluke not the 3 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and i dont see this as ridiculous at all cause it was a total fluke really and you guys keep on saying Zach is useless in the playoffs and not clutch at all, only scoring empty netter, a ghost and bla bla bla but to make a point that we absolutely needed him suddenly.

and how about the hindsight that we didnt win the cup and has struggle ever since Zach left ? and will continue to suck for at least a few years. Losing Zach was the first domino in that whole mess. He was the heart and soul of the team. If you want to use the fluky cup run as a measurement stick well go ahead. The real devils team is the one out of the playoffs, 4 years, missing the playoffs 3 times... the cup was the fluke not the 3 years

fair enough, you can prognosticate all you want that we will "continue to suck for at least a few more years" and that zach was "the first domino" that started all of this predicted sucking. If that's the case I would recommend becoming an oiler, panther or sabres fan, because those are the types of teams constantly looking down the road at "the next few years" and worrying about how to be competitive 3 years from today instead of now.

And what constitutes a "fluke"? Was the kings run a fluke? Because they were dominant that postseason but haven't been nearly at that level ever since. I'll gladly take one "fluke" cup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and i dont see this as ridiculous at all cause it was a total fluke really and you guys keep on saying Zach is useless in the playoffs and not clutch at all, only scoring empty netter, a ghost and bla bla bla but to make a point that we absolutely needed him suddenly.

 

and how about the hindsight that we didnt win the cup and has struggle ever since Zach left ? and will continue to suck for at least a few years. Losing Zach was the first domino in that whole mess. He was the heart and soul of the team. If you want to use the fluky cup run as a measurement stick well go ahead. The real devils team is the one out of the playoffs, 4 years, missing the playoffs 3 times... the cup was the fluke not the 3 years

So we would have gotten fair value for Zach that would ensure we don't suck? At best, we get draft picks and a couple Ryder type guys. Our team would therefore look exactly the same, with maybe one more prospect in the system. The only was we get another superstar for Zach is if 1) the team knew he was going to re-sign (not happening, since the only teams he wanted to join were us and the Wild), and 2) the team was stacked in goal or on d and needed forwards (not useful to us, since we have a ton of good d in the system, will hopefully lock Schneider up long term). I get that you want something rather than nothing, but a run to the finals is more valuable to the Devils than any pieces they would have gotten for Parise. And Clarkson wasn't bringing much back either. It's not easy to be a GM. Not saying Lou's done perfectly, but no matter how many times you've criticized him, you've yet to come up with a coherent thing he could have done better.

 

And btw, much as I've defended Lou this season, if he retires at the end of the year, I think it's entirely possible we'll be better off. I just don't think his refusal to trade guys like Zach and Clarkson is the reason.

Edited by mouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fair enough, you can prognosticate all you want that we will "continue to suck for at least a few more years" and that zach was "the first domino" that started all of this predicted sucking. If that's the case I would recommend becoming an oiler, panther or sabres fan, because those are the types of teams constantly looking down the road at "the next few years" and worrying about how to be competitive 3 years from today instead of now.

And what constitutes a "fluke"? Was the kings run a fluke? Because they were dominant that postseason but haven't been nearly at that level ever since. I'll gladly take one "fluke" cup!

 

Lol are you somewhat denying that we didnt suck in the last few seasons and will not suck for another while? wow. Thats denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want specifics that anyone can see, you can use the following:

 

gelinas altering his game to be more physical because that's what stevens told him to do. gelinas isn't a physical defenseman and going out of his way to make hits makes his already subject defensive game that much worse.

larsson getting yo-yo'd and then demoted - essentially taking a step back. this is stevens' responsibility.

 

he's also not the best communicator with the defensemen. you hear from the beat guys when a guy is scratched that they generally aren't given a reason. that's not lip service. and it's the assistant coaches and specifically stevens with the defense that is supposed to communicate the most.

 

sure stevens is a novice coach in any right so that gives him a little leeway. and comparing him to larry isn't particularly fair because larry is one of the best coaches this team has had. for the last several defensive coaches this team has had, stevens is at the bottom.

 

as for why he should not be the head coach of this team, maclean proved that bringing back a team legend can turn out very badly. and mac actually had pretty good experience. at the time, that made perfect sense and just ended in disaster. stevens from a coaching perspective, would be just as bad. these men are complete extensions of lou. for everything that people want to get on pete, he is NOT that. lou has plenty of influence on roster decisions (obviously) but pete does not have the feel of "lou's boy". mac most certainly did.

 

MacLean did have success as an assistant coach with the Devils in that he was more or less running the team from a nuts and bolts standpoint when Lou took over for Julien.  And while he was a popular player during his time he proved pretty easy to cut bait on when it became clear he was out of his element.

 

Stevens is a different matter.  His number is hanging from the rafters.  After Marty, he's probably the most popular player among the fans, not to mention that he's very respected around the league.  While if he proved to be a disaster as a head coach, I think Lou would get rid of him, it could get pretty ugly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol are you somewhat denying that we didnt suck in the last few seasons and will not suck for another while? wow. Thats denial.

I'm not quite sure how you interpreted this from my post. I never evaluated our performance over the past 3 years, and the only one trying to predict what will happen in the next 3 years is you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol are you somewhat denying that we didnt suck in the last few seasons and will not suck for another while? wow. Thats denial.

Considering we're in good shape at 2 of 3 positions if we re-sign Schneids, and not in terrible shape with the cap, you don't know and neither does he. If we can't bring in a couple of high end forwards, we will suck. If we can, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, we won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no Brodeur in his prime. No HOF defensemen in Stevens and Niedermayer. No Rafalski. No A-line to wonder WTF is happening with this team.

 

If Lou fired Deboer, he should just fire himself. His coaching change worked once with Robinson.

 

It always amazes me that people will sh!t on the players and sh!t on the coach, but no one even questions the GM much.

There's a reason for that -- he's the farthest one from the ice and farthest from having an impact on the outcomes of games.  There's a hierarchy of blame, and it is as follows:

 

1- Players.  Players play, and coaches coach.  A goalie lets in a weak goal?  He shoulders the blame.  A player takes a stupid penalty and that costs his team a goal and/or the game?  It's on him

 

2-  Coaches.   So the players are playing well, but the decisions, strategy, formations, call-ups, etc do not make sense.  That's on the coach.  Not motivating his team?  Also on him.  Team choking when it matters or unable to hold leads?  On him.

 

3-  GM.  The GM is third on the list because the only thing he can really be blamed for is bringing in the wrong coach or players, or spending money in the wrong places.  The former is hard to prove right away because it takes players AND coaches a while to form chemistry, run their own system/style, and so forth.  The latter doesn't happen that often unless you're Glen Sather -- most GMs, especially Lou, are pretty good at spending money on the right players. 

 

4- Owner.  Most owners are hands-off and just serve as bank accounts for the GMs to build and construct teams.   We've had our share of screw ups in that department recently, as have other teams (i.e. the Lightning with those 2 clowns from the movie industry before Vinik took over who btw has just been a phenomenal owner), but other than that it's pretty easy to be an owner.

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