Devilsfan118 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I'd put my money on the team performing much better without Jagr. How? How do you figure losing the scoring leader will lead to a better overall record? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucifersDog Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Three ways, retaining Lou retaining DeBoer Not being able to score goals consistently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 That's two teams. After that, you can probably pencil in Florida as being worse than the Devils no matter what happens next year. That makes winning the lottery plausible. Right now, the Devils would have the number 7 pick. If you take away Jagr, who will either be older or gone next year, that could easily get a lot worse. The even worse decline in the offense would more than make up for the lost points that Marty has caused this year, and Marty actually had a stretch where he was pretty good. Okay, let's knock off this 'Marty actually had a stretch where he was pretty good' talk. Yes, that happened. That is bound to happen with any bad goalie who gets enough starts. Randomness happens. If you roll a 10 sided die to simulate goal scoring where 1 is a goal and every other number is not, there'll be long stretches without 1s. I agree that yeah that's how it looks, though I would throw Toronto, Colorado, Phoenix, Long Island, Philadelphia, Washington, and Carolina in as teams who are on par with even a Jagr-less NJ, but it's silly to look at it that way because the Devils aren't going to sit on their hands this off-season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 That's two teams. After that, you can probably pencil in Florida as being worse than the Devils no matter what happens next year. That makes winning the lottery plausible. Right now, the Devils would have the number 7 pick. If you take away Jagr, who will either be older or gone next year, that could easily get a lot worse. The even worse decline in the offense would more than make up for the lost points that Marty has caused this year, and Marty actually had a stretch where he was pretty good. You're not factoring in that if Jagr leaves, he'd be replaced. Anything that replaces Marty will also be better. The defense should be better too, and the young defensemen coming in have more offense to their games which should lead to more shots on net. The Devils currently have the second least shots on net in the league. For example, if they were middle of the pack in shots on net with their current shooting percentage, they'd have nearly 20 more goals. With Schneider in net, that's huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Yeah I'm not getting into this again with you, but Jagr should get a late 1st, no question. He's having a better season on an arguably worse team than last year with Dallas, when he was traded for a conditional 2nd (that had a good chance of being a 1st) and two prospects. He'll get the same if not more this year, if Lou shops well. Zidlicky.. it depends on the interest. There are stupid GMs in this league, if Lou can pit enough of them against each other it could happen. The Penguins traded a 2nd and a conditional 2nd for Murray - I'd be shocked if Lou got less than that for Zidlicky. And I'd take either a 1st or that deal for Zidlicky. You're looking at this way too simply. Simply comparing to past seasons is not a good method to project a player's trade value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muevelos Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 And you're not looking at it fully either. He's talking about how GM's will spend for what they need. It happens every season, and with Jagr its likely and Zid, it can happen if a GM thinks he NEEDS it. You're looking at this way too simply. Simply comparing to past seasons is not a good method to project a player's trade value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 You're looking at this way too simply. Simply comparing to past seasons is not a good method to project a player's trade value. When the exact same player just got traded last deadline, it's definitely a good place to start. He's a veteran who was in the finals last year and leads a very bad offensive team in scoring. If a team thinks adding him would greatly improve their ability to win them a cup, why wouldn't they give up a supposed 30th overall pick or a conditional 2nd that can turn into a 1st like last year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 When the exact same player just got traded last deadline, it's definitely a good place to start. He's a veteran who was in the finals last year and leads a very bad offensive team in scoring. If a team thinks adding him would greatly improve their ability to win them a cup, why wouldn't they give up a supposed 30th overall pick or a conditional 2nd that can turn into a 1st like last year? The problem is he's a year older, and he wasn't good after he got traded. He was bad with the Bruins. Besides, we're only 3 points out, and trading him would be a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Okay, let's knock off this 'Marty actually had a stretch where he was pretty good' talk. Yes, that happened. That is bound to happen with any bad goalie who gets enough starts. Randomness happens. If you roll a 10 sided die to simulate goal scoring where 1 is a goal and every other number is not, there'll be long stretches without 1s. I agree that yeah that's how it looks, though I would throw Toronto, Colorado, Phoenix, Long Island, Philadelphia, Washington, and Carolina in as teams who are on par with even a Jagr-less NJ, but it's silly to look at it that way because the Devils aren't going to sit on their hands this off-season. Oy vey. I am suggesting a scenario for next season, which assumes that Schneider is getting 70 starts. In order to nip this constant harping that if not for Marty we would have won the last seven Stanley Cups in the bud, I just said that we got lucky this year that he had a pretty good stretch, and probably didn't cost as many points as a goalie that otherwise has sub .900 save percnetage would. In other words, I am assuming that the goaltending is going to be better. In any event, while Lou might give it his best shot, I just don't see the moves he could make that will help the team score significantly more goals. There's Statsny, but the odds say he's playing somewhere else. After perhaps Vanek, everyone else is of the Michael Ryder mode, they'll help plug in holes, but that's about it. I'd rather take my chances and see if we can get a good pick instead of signing the Devin Settigucci's and Mason Raymond's of the world. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The problem is he's a year older, and he wasn't good after he got traded. He was bad with the Bruins. Besides, we're only 3 points out, and trading him would be a mistake. Jagr was bad with the Bruins? He had 9 points in 11 games in the regular season. Even though he didn't score in the playoffs, he put up 58 shots on 22 games. That's about 2.5 shots per game. He was monumentally unlucky, but not bad. And the "I don't think we'll make the playoffs but we might" thing makes no sense. If you can get a return for Jagr and don't plan on re-signing him, of course you do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 And you're not looking at it fully either. He's talking about how GM's will spend for what they need. It happens every season, and with Jagr its likely and Zid, it can happen if a GM thinks he NEEDS it. Fair enough, but I wouldn't trade him unless he requests a trade. What if there is no GM willing to give up a first or second for him? We might as well keep him. He's too important to this team in order to make the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muevelos Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 He may have not put up the points in the post season, but he was FAR from bad, he did everything else he was brought their for. Mike is just staring at the stat sheet. Jagr was bad with the Bruins? He had 9 points in 11 games in the regular season. Even though he didn't score in the playoffs, he put up 58 shots on 22 games. That's about 2.5 shots per game. He was monumentally unlucky, but not bad. And the "I don't think we'll make the playoffs but we might" thing makes no sense. If you can get a return for Jagr and don't plan on re-signing him, of course you do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Jagr was bad with the Bruins? He had 9 points in 11 games in the regular season. Even though he didn't score in the playoffs, he put up 58 shots on 22 games. That's about 2.5 shots per game. He was monumentally unlucky, but not bad. And the "I don't think we'll make the playoffs but we might" thing makes no sense. If you can get a return for Jagr and don't plan on re-signing him, of course you do it. If you think there's a shot at the playoffs by the deadline, you keep him, even if you know you're not re-signing him. Once in the playoffs, anything is possible. Even moreso when you have someone as good as Schneider. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Jagr was bad with the Bruins? He had 9 points in 11 games in the regular season. Even though he didn't score in the playoffs, he put up 58 shots on 22 games. That's about 2.5 shots per game. He was monumentally unlucky, but not bad. And the "I don't think we'll make the playoffs but we might" thing makes no sense. If you can get a return for Jagr and don't plan on re-signing him, of course you do it. You can into that theory if you want, but most Bruins fans will tell you he sucked. Regardless, you should never trade your best players if you're in a playoff race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 He may have not put up the points in the post season, but he was FAR from bad, he did everything else he was brought their for. Mike is just staring at the stat sheet. I actually watched him play for the B's. He wasn't good. He doesn't do well as a depth forward which is basically what he was in Boston. He's at his best when he's in a top 6 role. If you think there's a shot at the playoffs by the deadline, you keep him, even if you know you're not re-signing him. Once in the playoffs, anything is possible. Even moreso when you have someone as good as Schneider. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Agreed. I've seen the unexpected happen almost as often as the expected. It's crazy how unpredictable the NHL playoffs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 You can into that theory if you want, but most Bruins fans will tell you he sucked. Regardless, you should never trade your best players if you're in a playoff race.Yeah this is about 100% wrong. Jagr was a beast on the corners, and excellent on the back check. He kept the puck in the other end for long periods of time. I don't understand what people are thinking when they say he was bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I actually watched him play for the B's. He wasn't good. He doesn't do well as a depth forward which is basically what he was in Boston. He's at his best when he's in a top 6 role. Agreed. I've seen the unexpected happen almost as often as the expected. It's crazy how unpredictable the NHL playoffs are. If you think there's a shot at the playoffs by the deadline, you keep him, even if you know you're not re-signing him. Once in the playoffs, anything is possible. Even moreso when you have someone as good as Schneider. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk They are 3 points out, but 4 teams back. They may very well be out of the race by the deadline unless they figure out their offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muevelos Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Yeah? Watch it again cause your wrong. Watch Malkin look like a bitch every time Jagr completely undresses him on the boards. Looking at the standard comments on TSN or ESPN for fan comments doesn't mean anything. I actually watched him play for the B's. He wasn't good. He doesn't do well as a depth forward which is basically what he was in Boston. He's at his best when he's in a top 6 role. Agreed. I've seen the unexpected happen almost as often as the expected. It's crazy how unpredictable the NHL playoffs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) I actually watched him play for the B's. He wasn't good. He doesn't do well as a depth forward which is basically what he was in Boston. He's at his best when he's in a top 6 role. Agreed. I've seen the unexpected happen almost as often as the expected. It's crazy how unpredictable the NHL playoffs are. He was not a depth forward. He played 19 minutes a game and played at even strength with Marchand and Bergeron in the playoffs. And he was awesome, but pucks didn't go in for him. Edited February 19, 2014 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 They are 3 points out, but 4 teams back. They may very well be out of the race by the deadline unless they figure out their offense. Then let's wait until to deadline before we decide if we want to sell or not. It's too early to be worrying about the number teams we have to jump over. It's very possible to jump over two teams in one day. The 3 points back is far more important right now than the 4 teams we have to jump over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Yeah this is about 100% wrong. Jagr was a beast on the corners, and excellent on the back check. He kept the puck in the other end for long periods of time. I don't understand what people are thinking when they say he was bad Bruins fans would definitely disagree. I do agree he's not doing much different than what he's doing now with us in terms of style. But he didn't produce a lot of points with Boston especially in the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muevelos Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 So what. He did everything else for gods sake. Stop using social media outlets like ESPN,TSN, or bleacher report to go and justify fans disagree. Its a lousy and useless excuse. He wasn't useless and if that is your argument towards it that fans you see disagree, you lose a lot of credibility., then Bruins fans would definitely disagree. I do agree he's not doing much different than what he's doing now with us in terms of style. But he didn't produce a lot of points with Boston especially in the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Yeah? Watch it again cause your wrong. Watch Malkin look like a bitch every time Jagr completely undresses him on the boards. Looking at the standard comments on TSN or ESPN for fan comments doesn't mean anything. I watched the entire playoffs last year. And I'm not using TSN comments as my reference. He was not a depth forward. He played 19 minutes a game and played at even strength with Marchand and Bergeron in the playoffs. And he was awesome, but pucks didn't go in for him. Yea but he was on the 3rd line for the most part. But if that's your opinion, I won't argue. Edited February 19, 2014 by Mike Brown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 So what. He did everything else for gods sake. Stop using social media outlets like ESPN,TSN, or bleacher report to go and justify fans disagree. Its a lousy and useless excuse. He wasn't useless and if that is your argument towards it that fans you see disagree, you lose a lot of credibility., then What makes you think I'm using those resources that you listed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muevelos Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Few people saying he sucked means he sucked? A few can be labeled as one the biggest fan bases in the NHL right? That'd called grouping. Their were PLENTY of bruin fans who looked past the points and saw Jagr's help. He wasn't brought in for points either, the experience alone automatically helps. What makes you think I'm using those resources that you listed? 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.