MadDog2020 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 two years for St. Louis would be inexcusableOne year I could live with, even though I really want nothing to do with St. Louis. But two?! You can't even move him at the deadline then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Ah yes, Quebec Єklund (2.3% accurate) starts up again - or maybe we should call him Quebeklund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 god. i understand the "o it doesn't matter because we have the cap room and wont be competitive for a couple years anyway" argument but i just don't see it as a good signing. a veteran presence maybe but this is adding another player who's having trouble scoring. you put him on this team and it'll be even tougher to find the net. btw, what rumors are you referring to It was on Hockey30, its a french media from Quebec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BostonNala370 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 No to St Louis under any conditions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themightyall Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 No to St Louis under any conditions Why not? We buy a year with this weak free agent class with having a top 6 RW that we need and can trade him at the deadline if we're out of it. He was a Lady Byng winner and can hopefully act like a professional. This is Jagr 2.0; just don't make the same mistake and re-up him for another year. I don't understand how everyone is in love with Frolik. He'll want more years, never produced that much and would become an albatross of a contract in the future just because everyone chased after the 27 year-old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Why not? We buy a year with this weak free agent class with having a top 6 RW that we need and can trade him at the deadline if we're out of it. He was a Lady Byng winner and can hopefully act like a professional. This is Jagr 2.0; just don't make the same mistake and re-up him for another year. I don't understand how everyone is in love with Frolik. He'll want more years, never produced that much and would become an albatross of a contract in the future just because everyone chased after the 27 year-old. He wants 2 years though and not 1 year. Can't trade him at the deadline this year if he stinks up the joint unless we give up something else or cover salary. I am not looking for any significant signings from this UFA pool. They all suck on at least some degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadvlfan Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 No to St Louis under any conditions You're 110% right. I want no part of M.St. Louis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Sign St. Louis to a one yr contact so you can get a return on him at the deadline. Its a no brainer. Say we hit a home run in thos years draft and we poach some good talent overseas. Do we go big in 2016 and offer a big contract to Radulov? He'll be 29 by then amd a free agent. Theres your number 1 RW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Sign St. Louis to a one yr contact so you can get a return on him at the deadline. Its a no brainer. Say we hit a home run in thos years draft and we poach some good talent overseas. Do we go big in 2016 and offer a big contract to Radulov? He'll be 29 by then amd a free agent. Theres your number 1 RW. While he probably would be our first line RW just compared to the "talent" we currently have, not sure I want to take a chance on a flakey Russian who has pretty much underachieved when he played in the NHL. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BostonNala370 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Why not? We buy a year with this weak free agent class with having a top 6 RW that we need and can trade him at the deadline if we're out of it. He was a Lady Byng winner and can hopefully act like a professional. This is Jagr 2.0; just don't make the same mistake and re-up him for another year. I don't understand how everyone is in love with Frolik. He'll want more years, never produced that much and would become an albatross of a contract in the future just because everyone chased after the 27 year-old. I would rather sign Bernier than St. Loius. I don't feel St Louis is t six anymore. As for Frolik he is young and steady at RW. He'll get us 35 points a season. I am not even thinking about the Devils making the playoffs next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 doesnt even mean St-Louis would want to come here to start with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) doesnt even mean St-Louis would want to come here to start with. He's put up 60 points (22 G, 38 A) in 93 games as a Ranger, and didn't do much in the playoffs. He may have to "try out" as a Devil for a while to show other teams he still has something left, then can be traded during the season. A nice way of saying his options will likely be very limited this offseason. I wouldn't mess with this myself. Edited June 1, 2015 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themightyall Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I would rather sign Bernier than St. Loius. I don't feel St Louis is t six anymore. As for Frolik he is young and steady at RW. He'll get us 35 points a season. I am not even thinking about the Devils making the playoffs next season. Exactly, so if you don't expect them to make the playoffs, who would get a bigger trade, a hypothetical 1 year deal on Bernier or St. Louis? That's the condition I'd sign St. Louis. How much do you think you're going to be paying Frolik to get here? He's going to be a hot commodity considering the other free agents. Do you want to sign a guy that never got more than 45 points for the big contract he's looking for especially considering you don't think we're making the playoffs? These free agents cannot be signed for more than a couple years (one year for older players) because by year 3, we should be at least making the playoffs. What if we get the Blackhawks Frolik? One year of St Louis doesn't hinder the team, 5-6 years of Frolik could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 doesnt even mean St-Louis would want to come here to start with.I hope he doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BostonNala370 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Exactly, so if you don't expect them to make the playoffs, who would get a bigger trade, a hypothetical 1 year deal on Bernier or St. Louis? That's the condition I'd sign St. Louis. How much do you think you're going to be paying Frolik to get here? He's going to be a hot commodity considering the other free agents. Do you want to sign a guy that never got more than 45 points for the big contract he's looking for especially considering you don't think we're making the playoffs? These free agents cannot be signed for more than a couple years (one year for older players) because by year 3, we should be at least making the playoffs. What if we get the Blackhawks Frolik? One year of St Louis doesn't hinder the team, 5-6 years of Frolik could. Your assuming St Louis will play well enough with the Devils during the regular season to gets us something of value with a late season trade. He showed you a lot in this years playoffs? I hope he doesn't. I hope we don't want him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I don't care if he's potentially awesome for us next year, I don't want Martin St Louis is any capacity, even on a favorable deal. I want to turn the corner on those types of signings. Ray Shero would make a big statement by NOT making any of those kinds of signings, even if it means we have a worse team for 2015-2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themightyall Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Your assuming St Louis will play well enough with the Devils during the regular season to gets us something of value with a late season trade. He showed you a lot in this years playoffs? I hope we don't want him. I'm saying it's a year, for him or anyone else. If they play well, ok, trade them. If they don't, what did it hurt? Low risk, high reward. I don't care if he's potentially awesome for us next year, I don't want Martin St Louis is any capacity, even on a favorable deal. I want to turn the corner on those types of signings. Ray Shero would make a big statement by NOT making any of those kinds of signings, even if it means we have a worse team for 2015-2016. If you are going to fill our open positions, with NHL players, I feel like that's going to happen. Everyone is against trading any picks, everyone wants to sign young players, but we won't be fielding an NHL team like that. Would you prefer Frolik and signing a bunch of guys that have never played an NHL game and in the KHL couldn't break .5 points/game? I can't wait for the allusions from Mike Milbury how we turned back into a Mickey Mouse organization. It'd be the one thing he's right about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I don't care if he's potentially awesome for us next year, I don't want Martin St Louis is any capacity, even on a favorable deal. I want to turn the corner on those types of signings. Ray Shero would make a big statement by NOT making any of those kinds of signings, even if it means we have a worse team for 2015-2016. The Devils need assets, and this is about the only way to go about getting them. It'd be an absolute no-brainer to sign St. Louis for one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onddeck Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The Devils need assets, and this is about the only way to go about getting them. It'd be an absolute no-brainer to sign St. Louis for one year. one year i can live with. its the rumored two year deal that i described as inexusable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The Devils need assets, and this is about the only way to go about getting them. It'd be an absolute no-brainer to sign St. Louis for one year.One year is fine. Two years and I'll have a coronary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onddeck Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 One year is fine. Two years and I'll have a coronary. exactly. because the only benefit i can see in signing MSL is to get a return at the deadline. by signing him for 2 years, you drastically diminish his value at the deadline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 One year is fine. Two years and I'll have a coronary. Even two years isn't a huge deal. Not going to be a cap team by then, and he'd probably be far from being the worst player on the team even at age 41-42 to the point that he's taking up a roster spot for a better player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The Devils need assets, and this is about the only way to go about getting them. It'd be an absolute no-brainer to sign St. Louis for one year. Not sure how much of an asset a 40-year-old St. Louis is to the Devils. Maybe he can play well enough to allow Shero to trade him at the deadline for a pick, which would justify him being here, but I could see this being a disaster too. Sure, disaster is a relative term...if he's only signed for a year, it's not the end of the world, whether he's dealt or not...just not interested I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 You guys are listening to a bullsh!t site, it's why that things shouldn't be posted here unless they are from reliable sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onddeck Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Not sure how much of an asset a 40-year-old St. Louis is to the Devils. Maybe he can play well enough to allow Shero to trade him at the deadline for a pick, which would justify him being here, but I could see this being a disaster too. Sure, disaster is a relative term...if he's only signed for a year, it's not the end of the world, whether he's dealt or not...just not interested I guess. well yea that would be what he's talking about. signing him is almost a guarantee you can get a somewhat decent pick or two at the deadline for him. thats why it'd be a no-brainer for a one year deal 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.