MadDog2020 Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 This isn't very exciting at all. Defensive defensemen aren't exciting... But they are necessary. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 2 hours ago, MadDog2020 said: Defensive defensemen aren't exciting... But they are necessary. It has less to do with the type of player and more to do with signing a 32 year old to a 3 year deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Marshall said: It has less to do with the type of player and more to do with signing a 32 year old to a 3 year deal. I think it's fine at that dollar amount. The hope would be that Santini and someone else can overtake him in that time. I don't consider it a 3 year deal - I consider it a 4 year deal that has a cap hit of 2.66, 2.66, .89, .89. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgeControl Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 hopefully Merrill is healthy enough to hit the weight room hard this off season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Marshall said: It has less to do with the type of player and more to do with signing a 32 year old to a 3 year deal. 32 isn't that old lol he will be 35 when his contract is up. Not exactly talking about an old man lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Satans Hockey said: 32 isn't that old lol he will be 35 when his contract is up. Not exactly talking about an old man lol It is very old in hockey years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoffeecake Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 I hope he likes Vegas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 Lmao at 32 being old for a 3 yr contract. We should buy out Andy Greene then, guy must suck... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 (edited) Can't we just be happy that we're gonna be super fast and ONLY have 5 guys on our team over 30? Cammalleri, Fiddler, Zajac, Greene and Lovejoy...Everyone else is under 30. I'm sure i don't need to remind anyone of how old and slow we were in Lou's final years? C'mon boys, it's a celebration lol Edited July 3, 2016 by SterioDesign 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 14 hours ago, Martyisth3b3st said: No, it isn't. Andy Greene was/is a first pairing defenseman. When he declines (which has already happened a fair bit), as is common after 30, he can still be a second of third pairing defenseman. Overpaid for that role, sure, but still being a player. Lovejoy is a third pairing dman. When he declines, he's replacement level at 2.66m. That is bad. And if you don't think 32 is old in hockey, well, have a look at an aging curve. Or look at how players do after 30 vs in their 20s. As Tri said, it'll probably be a four year deal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 12 hours ago, SterioDesign said: Can't we just be happy that we're gonna be super fast and ONLY have 5 guys on our team over 30? Cammalleri, Fiddler, Zajac, Greene and Lovejoy...Everyone else is under 30. I'm sure i don't need to remind anyone of how old and slow we were in Lou's final years? C'mon boys, it's a celebration lol Sd telling people to be happy. Bizzaro world in full effect. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 5 hours ago, Marshall said: Lovejoy is a third pairing dman. When he declines, he's replacement level at 2.66m. That is bad. Except that we're nowhere near the cap and the 2.66m doesn't matter... I'd have been more comfortable with a 2 year deal based on his age, but 3 is ok. At least it wasn't 6!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Devils Pride 26 said: Sd telling people to be happy. Bizzaro world in full effect. my happiness is underrated here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 3 hours ago, mfitz804 said: Except that we're nowhere near the cap and the 2.66m doesn't matter... I'd have been more comfortable with a 2 year deal based on his age, but 3 is ok. At least it wasn't 6!!! 3 hours ago, Martyisth3b3st said: This wasn't supposed to be our keynote transaction of the offseason. That happened when we got a top-5 LW via trade. Lovejoy is a piece that will play a full season, and play it well if unspectacular. And, as someone else mentioned, 2.6m is meaningless when the team is still UNDER the salary floor. We will not be a cap team this year (or next, or probably the year after that) so what's the issue with having him make a little bit more than you think he should? Devils are 4m under the floor w/o this signing because they are three dmen and four forwards short of a full roster. Kyle Palmieri alone will bring the team above the floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLLYWOOD Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 On 7/1/2016 at 9:43 AM, Devilsfan118 said: Eh, why not. I'm still keeping my Shattenkirk dream alive though. Next year, after the Vegas expansion draft/protected rosters stuff, that's when it's time to spring the big offer for Shattenkirk. Now imagine if he ever becomes Devs Captain. have a parody star trek night with the Red Shirts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerzey Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 We really only have to protect Greene and Severson on defense for the expansion draft. Santini won't be eligible yet. We have one open spot on defense we can afford to protect. I say we go and get Shattenkirk now before the Rags or Bruins get him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 51 minutes ago, Jerzey said: We really only have to protect Greene and Severson on defense for the expansion draft. Santini won't be eligible yet. We have one open spot on defense we can afford to protect. I say we go and get Shattenkirk now before the Rags or Bruins get him. i think a bunch of us would love to but as tri pointed out first, the best carrot the devils really have to offer (that they can afford to offer) is next year's 1st and that's not what st. louis wants. they want a good roster forward. i think it would take henrique and that's one step forward one step back for a guy like shattenkirk. now if, for some reason, they wanted cammalleri and a 2nd, that i'd do (of course). but unless they think offense is their issue, that's not a deal they're interested in. besides, after losing backes, they're in need of a center. it makes too much sense for a shattenkirk for krecij trade and that's what i bet happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, sundstrom said: i think a bunch of us would love to but as tri pointed out first, the best carrot the devils really have to offer (that they can afford to offer) is next year's 1st and that's not what st. louis wants. they want a good roster forward. i think it would take henrique and that's one step forward one step back for a guy like shattenkirk. now if, for some reason, they wanted cammalleri and a 2nd, that i'd do (of course). but unless they think offense is their issue, that's not a deal they're interested in. besides, after losing backes, they're in need of a center. it makes too much sense for a shattenkirk for krecij trade and that's what i bet happens. The thing to remember is that there's a relatively small list of teams that Shattenkirik will supposedly negotiate an extension with, and I imagine the Devils are one of them. The other teams on that list may not even be interested in him for all we know. If he's not going to one of those small group of teams that he's said he'd sign an extension with, he's basically a rental. And the best rentals generally get you a first round pick and a decent prospect. You're right that Kreiji for Shattenkirk is better than anything we can offer. But if Boston is not one of those teams on Shattenkirks list, there aren't many teams that can do better than a first rounder from a team that's less than 50-50 to make the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonDreads Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 If Shattenkirk agrees to an extension before a trade, I'd give up a 2017 1st and Blandisi for him. Trading 1st's is difficult but Shattenkirk would change our defense. Plus, adding Hall and Shattenkirk I think would make us a playoff team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 40 minutes ago, CommonDreads said: If Shattenkirk agrees to an extension before a trade, I'd give up a 2017 1st and Blandisi for him. Trading 1st's is difficult but Shattenkirk would change our defense. Plus, adding Hall and Shattenkirk I think would make us a playoff team. I'd do that trade all day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerzey Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 2 hours ago, sundstrom said: i think a bunch of us would love to but as tri pointed out first, the best carrot the devils really have to offer (that they can afford to offer) is next year's 1st and that's not what st. louis wants. they want a good roster forward. i think it would take henrique and that's one step forward one step back for a guy like shattenkirk. now if, for some reason, they wanted cammalleri and a 2nd, that i'd do (of course). but unless they think offense is their issue, that's not a deal they're interested in. besides, after losing backes, they're in need of a center. it makes too much sense for a shattenkirk for krecij trade and that's what i bet happens. That's true. I wasn't really thinking about St. Louis' needs as much. I think the list of teams he's willing to sign long term to is really short. Maybe we'll get lucky and he won't get traded to the Rags or Isles or Bruins by next summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 4 hours ago, Daniel said: The thing to remember is that there's a relatively small list of teams that Shattenkirik will supposedly negotiate an extension with, and I imagine the Devils are one of them. The other teams on that list may not even be interested in him for all we know. If he's not going to one of those small group of teams that he's said he'd sign an extension with, he's basically a rental. And the best rentals generally get you a first round pick and a decent prospect. You're right that Kreiji for Shattenkirk is better than anything we can offer. But if Boston is not one of those teams on Shattenkirks list, there aren't many teams that can do better than a first rounder from a team that's less than 50-50 to make the playoffs. Boston is 100% in that list. At the draft, if Boston would've given their 1st, it was a done deal with extension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsu1852 Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 3 hours ago, Martyisth3b3st said: I agree that trading next year's first is safe if it's for a player of Shattenkirk's caliber. You can't add hall and Shattenkirk to a team that was staying afloat for half of the season in playoff contention and be worried it'll be a top-5 Am I the only one that disagrees with this trade. Unless he agrees to a contract, I will not trade for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 2 hours ago, fsu1852 said: Am I the only one that disagrees with this trade. Unless he agrees to a contract, I will not trade for him. Everyone has said an extension must be part of the deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsu1852 Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) My fault, didn't see it discussed. If he were to agree to terms, make the deal Edited July 5, 2016 by fsu1852 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.