Devils731 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 You only do this if you are sure another team will take him Why? I'm not sure I understand why this is so horrible and disastrous that a guy not playing well was put on re-entry waivers and nobody claimed him. Is Rolston going to play worse? Cause the team to tank? Why is any player put on re-entry waivers and then not claimed? The Devils put Rolston out there on re-entry, nobody claimed him, both Rolston and the Devils are at the same basic spot they were a month ago, except Rolston's agent can now be more flexible in working out a deal since he knows the Devils can eat at least a 2.5 million dollar contract in a deal. I don't see this vast amount of harm that apparently have been wrought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldply123 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 With Palmieri and Rolston coming up, there has to be a correlating move. Any news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Zach's LTIR space + Sal's. they have plenty of room to call up extra players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 he has himself and himself alone to blame for that. Undoubtedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 I don't see this vast amount of harm that apparently have been wrought. Really? You don't see it? The team has told Rolston that they would like to move on without him. They have told him he is no longer wanted. And now -- he's back. That is not a productive situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Really? You don't see it? The team has told Rolston that they would like to move on without him. They have told him he is no longer wanted. And now -- he's back. That is not a productive situation. he's a professional. if he wants to go somewhere else, he has to play well. if he wants to continue sucking around here, he can keep avoiding contact and making bad plays. plenty of people have been subject to re-entry and have passed through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Really? You don't see it? The team has told Rolston that they would like to move on without him. They have told him he is no longer wanted. And now -- he's back. That is not a productive situation. Rolston said he wanted a "fresh start" and that he hoped someone would claim him as well. So I don't really think he wants to be here anymore either. Its mutual, so this certainly is not a great situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 (edited) Really? You don't see it? The team has told Rolston that they would like to move on without him. They have told him he is no longer wanted. And now -- he's back. That is not a productive situation. It wasn't productive before either. This at least garners the greatest chance that Rolston can go somewhere else. You go through the steps. You try to trade him, you waiver him, you re-entry him, you work on trades based on nobody claiming him. Rolston isn't the first, nor the last, that will go through that process. I think I've seen the word "disaster" used for this, I don't see it as being a big deal. It's way less of a problem than Rolston not playing well to begin with. Edited December 30, 2010 by Devils731 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Really? You don't see it? The team has told Rolston that they would like to move on without him. They have told him he is no longer wanted. And now -- he's back. That is not a productive situation. My point exactly.. and fwiw he was playing his best hockey as a Devil BEFORE they waived him... then he went back to really sucking again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldply123 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 My point exactly.. and fwiw he was playing his best hockey as a Devil BEFORE they waived him... then he went back to really sucking again Lou has little else to do other than throw something against the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Lou has little else to do other than throw something against the wall. Maybe he'd like to get Langenbrunner the fvck out of here already then. Long overdue doesn't even begin to describe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 I think I've seen the word "disaster" used for this, I don't see it as being a big deal. It's way less of a problem than Rolston not playing well to begin with. It's not a disaster. But there's no reason for Rolston to be in NJ at this time. Somehow hoping that he plays better so that he can attract the interest of other teams -- not a good enough reason for me. The Devils tried re-entry waivers, now it's time to end it. Let him play better in Albany, not NJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 The Devils tried re-entry waivers, now it's time to end it. Let him play better in Albany, not NJ. Doesn't playing Rolston in Albany just make him less moveable? Right now there is still the option to move Rolston for getting other bad contracts back(hopefully under 35+), adding sweeteners, or a combination of both. If he's in the AHL he ends up that less likely to be traded, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 (edited) My point exactly.. and fwiw he was playing his best hockey as a Devil BEFORE they waived him... then he went back to really sucking again LOLWUT? Rolston has five or six points this year in 20+ games. He was never playing his best hockey as a Devil this year in the regular season, hell his best hockey as a Devil came in 1999 I don't feel bad for him one iota, he brought it on himself. I feel bad for his family, that's it. But this IS a total disaster, another embarassment in a season of them. Now you've got a player who's clearly not wanted, not moveable and not motivated still on the roster. Doesn't playing Rolston in Albany just make him less moveable? It's impossible for anything to be less than zero, unless you're talking about the plus-minus of just about everyone on the team. Edited December 30, 2010 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Doesn't playing Rolston in Albany just make him less moveable? Right now there is still the option to move Rolston for getting other bad contracts back(hopefully under 35+), adding sweeteners, or a combination of both. If he's in the AHL he ends up that less likely to be traded, IMO. That's just not a good enough reason for him to be suiting up in red and black. I don't think we want another bad contract. I think we want to turn the page ... or that's what we should be doing anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Didn't Lou say the other day Rolston needed to go to make room for a younger player (Zharkov)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Didn't Lou say the other day Rolston needed to go to make room for a younger player (Zharkov)? Indeed he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 That's just not a good enough reason for him to be suiting up in red and black. I don't think we want another bad contract. I think we want to turn the page ... or that's what we should be doing anyway. Trading Rolston or not you have a bad contract, so it's quite possible the Devils would be better off with a different bad contract. A contract that they can waive would be much better. A contract that is 3 million instead of 5 would be much better. A contract that's an overpaid but ok defenseman instead of an overpaid forward, would be better. There are lots of options with Rolston that would be better and just burying him for the rest of this season and next in Albany is one of the poorest choices, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Trading Rolston or not you have a bad contract, so it's quite possible the Devils would be better off with a different bad contract. A contract that they can waive would be much better. A contract that is 3 million instead of 5 would be much better. A contract that's an overpaid but ok defenseman instead of an overpaid forward, would be better. There are lots of options with Rolston that would be better and just burying him for the rest of this season and next in Albany is one of the poorest choices, IMO. not one of the poorest, the poorest (well okay poorer still would be extending him for 15 years and $100 million). i would rather the devils buy him out next off-season than continue to pay him to suck in albany. i've been shopping around for bad contracts but it seems that rolston's is the worst and it's going to be tough to convince someone to take it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 (edited) not one of the poorest, the poorest (well okay poorer still would be extending him for 15 years and $100 million). i would rather the devils buy him out next off-season than continue to pay him to suck in albany. i've been shopping around for bad contracts but it seems that rolston's is the worst and it's going to be tough to convince someone to take it on. Scott Gomez is probably worse because of the $ amount, decreasing production and NMC (I think). That's about it. At least Redden doesn't have a NMC, it's just the worst in terms of dollars spent. Trading Rolston or not you have a bad contract, so it's quite possible the Devils would be better off with a different bad contract. If that option even existed do you really think we would have entertained re-entry before making that deal? Unless we really are hard up financially that saving $2.5 million this year and next trumps making a much better cap deal. Problem with Rolston is you basically need a contract worse to do a deal that gets back a moveable piece since the 35+ provides a virtual cap NMC to go along with the player NMC. Edited December 30, 2010 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-SS Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Damn it.I waived Rolston in NHL 11 and no one claimed him in the game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 A roster spot for a player who has been practically ostracized (and who maybe has mentally checked out) is the poorest choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Scott Gomez is probably worse because of the $ amount, decreasing production and NMC (I think). That's about it. At least Redden doesn't have a NMC, it's just the worst in terms of dollars spent. Gomez has a very limited NTC. i would trade rolston for gomez in a second if we could clear the needed cap room. If that option even existed do you really think we would have entertained re-entry before making that deal? Unless we really are hard up financially that saving $2.5 million this year and next trumps making a much better cap deal. Problem with Rolston is you basically need a contract worse to do a deal that gets back a moveable piece since the 35+ provides a virtual cap NMC to go along with the player NMC. first, rolston may not have been open to a trade until they re-entry waived him. second, it's hard to imagine a trade that would be better than re-entry waivers. where lou made his mistake with rolston is in not front-loading the contract - i see why he wouldn't do that, but the devils have to start doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice dog Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 (edited) this situation is crazy. looks like Rolston is here to stay... hope they can make him feel welcome... sooo awkward! this crap would be great reality tv... they should be filming them for HBO... this season would be hilarious! Edited December 30, 2010 by ice dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 A roster spot for a player who has been practically ostracized (and who maybe has mentally checked out) is the poorest choice. he has not been ostracized. everyone insists he is great in the locker room and so on. it's the only way to get up his value so that he might go through this process again in a few weeks. 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.