redruM Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Having Larsson rotting in the AHL is absolutely disgusting. Exactly!! And LLs job is to negotiate contracts that are not bad the last 2 or 3 years, to say thats what you get w/ UFAs is bull Brunner contract is not like that ( although alot of LLs contracts are - Rolston, Vol, salvador, ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Exactly!! And LLs job is to negotiate contracts that are not bad the last 2 or 3 years, to say thats what you get w/ UFAs is bull Brunner contract is not like that ( although alot of LLs contracts are - Rolston, Vol, salvador, ) You're operating in 20/20 hindsight. The Rolston signing was great when it happened. Half the league was talking to him and he was coming of 3 straight 30 goal seasons. He fell off a cliff when he came here. Volch was a highly sought after defenseman that was rumored to be going to Washington. And the Salvador contract was a year too long, but he was coming off a great 82 game season. You act like the Devils are the only team with contracts that don't work out. And of course Brunner's contract isn't like that. He was signed in September because no one wanted to touch him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) Exactly!! And LLs job is to negotiate contracts that are not bad the last 2 or 3 years, to say thats what you get w/ UFAs is bull Brunner contract is not like that ( although alot of LLs contracts are - Rolston, Vol, salvador, ) Brunner had almost no negotiating power - the Devils were the only team that wanted him offering that second year IIRC. Volch, at the time, was a valuable commodity. You won't see big-ticket UFAs sign reasonable contracts - it just doesn't happen. Edit: Devil Dan beat me to it. Damn you you're fast. Edited February 27, 2014 by Devilsfan118 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The Salvador contract was a bad signing from the start because of the logjam on defense it created the last two years. I never thought he would be back after the Finals, it's almost as if we panicked and brought him back for leadership once Zach was going out the door. Even at the time, we had Greene-Fayne (a top '12 pairing), Zidlicky-Volch-Larsson-Tallinder and Harrold was also re-signed ostensibly to be the #7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Brunner had almost no negotiating power - the Devils were the only team that wanted him offering that second year IIRC. Volch, at the time, was a valuable commodity. You won't see big-ticket UFAs sign reasonable contracts - it just doesn't happen. Edit: Devil Dan beat me to it. Damn you you're fast. Well, there's something my coaches never said to me in my sports playing days hahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The Salvador contract was a bad signing from the start because of the logjam on defense it created the last two years. I never thought he would be back after the Finals, it's almost as if we panicked and brought him back for leadership once Zach was going out the door. Even at the time, we had Greene-Fayne (a top '12 pairing), Zidlicky-Volch-Larsson-Tallinder and Harrold was also re-signed ostensibly to be the #7. I think that's exactly why he was signed. I think Lou realized his chances of getting Zach were dwindling and he made a move he probably didn't want to. I remember reading that Sal was in talks with the Islanders and a little while later we see that the Devils re-signed him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The Salvador contract was a bad signing from the start because of the logjam on defense it created the last two years. I never thought he would be back after the Finals, it's almost as if we panicked and brought him back for leadership once Zach was going out the door. Even at the time, we had Greene-Fayne (a top '12 pairing), Zidlicky-Volch-Larsson-Tallinder and Harrold was also re-signed ostensibly to be the #7. I don't disagree but IMO Lou never expected that he would have to find room for gelinas and Merrill this year, he especially wasn't expecting that in 2012 when gelinas was only a year into the ahl and Merrill was getting into trouble at michigan. Nobody knew in the summer of 2012 that there would be this big of a defensive logjam today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) dmann422, on 27 Feb 2014 - 4:33 PM, said:dmann422, on 27 Feb 2014 - 4:33 PM, said:dmann422, on 27 Feb 2014 - 4:33 PM, said:I don't disagree but IMO Lou never expected that he would have to find room for gelinas and Merrill this year, he especially wasn't expecting that in 2012 when gelinas was only a year into the ahl and Merrill was getting into trouble at michigan. Nobody knew in the summer of 2012 that there would be this big of a defensive logjam today. But he had Tallinder then, who still had two years left on his deal and wasn't at that point in the doghouse. Greene with (then) three years left on his deal, Fayne on a team-friendly two-year deal, Larsson on his ELC, Volch was still signed for forever. Only Zidlicky (who we needed) and Harrold, the #7 were on one-year deals. Bringing back Sal gave us a logjam even WITHOUT accounting for Gelinas/Merrill down the road. It was a problem last year when Tallinder/Fayne/Larsson were being scratched on a regular basis and that was before Gelinas/Merrill were around. We already had six defensemen on NHL contracts plus Larsson before bringing back Sal. Yes we got rid of Tallinder in the offseason, but nobody else and now that Gelinas/Merrill are ready we're having to scratch Volch/Harrold for the tonight, or send Gelinas back to the minors and keep Larsson in the minors after he'd pretty much earned a spot earlier in the season with his play beside Gelinas. All of our issues with the logjam the last 'two' years stemmed from bringing Sal back and not doing anything else to clear a spot. Edited February 27, 2014 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hystyk28 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I don't disagree but IMO Lou never expected that he would have to find room for gelinas and Merrill this year, he especially wasn't expecting that in 2012 when gelinas was only a year into the ahl and Merrill was getting into trouble at michigan. Nobody knew in the summer of 2012 that there would be this big of a defensive logjam today. Good points. I would also like to point out that a lot if people are assuming we have a very good NHL D core with the young guys coming up. I feel that the team is even more mediocre on D than they are at forward. While there may be a logjam at D, I see a bunch of 4-5-6 defensemen. The resulrs of the next 4 gmaes before the deadline may very well begin to shape the Devils next few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) But he had Tallinder then, who still had two years left on his deal and wasn't at that point in the doghouse. Greene with (then) three years left on his deal, Fayne on a team-friendly two-year deal, Larsson on his ELC, Volch was still signed for forever. Only Zidlicky (who we needed) and Harrold, the #7 were on one-year deals. Bringing back Sal gave us a logjam even WITHOUT accounting for Gelinas/Merrill down the road. It was a problem last year when Tallinder/Fayne/Larsson were being scratched on a regular basis and that was before Gelinas/Merrill were around. We already had six defensemen on NHL contracts plus Larsson before bringing back Sal. Yes we got rid of Tallinder in the offseason, but nobody else and now that Gelinas/Merrill are ready we're having to scratch Volch/Harrold for the tonight, or send Gelinas back to the minors and keep Larsson in the minors after he'd pretty much earned a spot earlier in the season with his play beside Gelinas. All of our issues with the logjam the last 'two' years stemmed from bringing Sal back and not doing anything else to clear a spot. NJ was fine going with 8 last year because they didn't have anyone under that who they were in love with in the minors and it was going to be a shortened season. I think that was the idea from the outset - rotate Fayne/Harrold/Larsson as healthy scratches and wait until guys get injured. They didn't, which is a stroke of good and bad fortune. NJ certainly had plenty of injuries early this year and were almost down to their 10th defenseman. DeBoer said today they weren't sure that the young guys would be prepared for this year, but clearly they are. Good points. I would also like to point out that a lot if people are assuming we have a very good NHL D core with the young guys coming up. I feel that the team is even more mediocre on D than they are at forward. While there may be a logjam at D, I see a bunch of 4-5-6 defensemen. The resulrs of the next 4 gmaes before the deadline may very well begin to shape the Devils next few years. You're nuts. If you see Jon Merrill as a 4-5-6 D in the future, I'm not sure what you're watching. He's already good and is only going to get better - he's a keeper. I don't see anyone who's going to control games necessarily (Gelinas could develop into a Byfuglien-type), but the D are going to be pretty solid. Edited February 27, 2014 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 But he had Tallinder then, who still had two years left on his deal and wasn't at that point in the doghouse. Greene with (then) three years left on his deal, Fayne on a team-friendly two-year deal, Larsson on his ELC, Volch was still signed for forever. Only Zidlicky (who we needed) and Harrold, the #7 were on one-year deals. Bringing back Sal gave us a logjam even WITHOUT accounting for Gelinas/Merrill down the road. It was a problem last year when Tallinder/Fayne/Larsson were being scratched on a regular basis and that was before Gelinas/Merrill were around. We already had six defensemen on NHL contracts plus Larsson before bringing back Sal. Yes we got rid of Tallinder in the offseason, but nobody else and now that Gelinas/Merrill are ready we're having to scratch Volch/Harrold for the tonight, or send Gelinas back to the minors and keep Larsson in the minors after he'd pretty much earned a spot earlier in the season with his play beside Gelinas. All of our issues with the logjam the last 'two' years stemmed from bringing Sal back and not doing anything else to clear a spot. I think we have to separate lhd and rhd. After 2012 Lou had Greene, Volch and tallinder as lhd. Tallinder just came off a year on the ir- granted it was fluky but between him and Volch there were definetly some questions. Basically Greene was the only reliable lhd, I guess you could say that perhaps urbom could have been ready but he would still be a question at best. And this was a team coming off a good year, so we were contenders for the forseeable future.Ideally sal would have only gotten 2 years but I guess the third year was what it took to re-sign him, so I can't fault Lou for the contract. I can fault him for not finding a way to move anyone since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brown Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 2-2 on the PP already. And Gelinas played a role on both PP goals. 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.