jim777 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Doesn't bother me really. I think he signed with the closest team because he wasn't motivated enough to pack up his stuff and move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Doesn't bother me really. I think he signed with the closest team because he wasn't motivated enough to pack up his stuff and move. Raleigh and DC are nowhere close But I agree it shouldnt bother anyone, he chose Carolina and thats that. Edited July 27, 2012 by Zubie#8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Rolston had been solid before coming to the Devils, and wasn't showing any signs of becoming the trainwreck he ultimately became as a Devil. Hard to say how much that high-ankle sprain screwed him up, but I could understand the move at the time, even though the contract was risky with its length, given Rolston's age. That's the point. That's exactly the point I am making. There are no sure things, ever, so that's one. Number 2 is, the older the player we're talking about, the less sure you are. That's why things like Holik and Arnott aren't bad, all things considered - they were here for a year. There's not much risk there. But with 4 years, that contract is basically untradeable if Rolston disappoints at all. Rolston played his best as a Devil during his last days with the team - that was when he was given good linemates. But yeah, Lou has gone to the ex-Devil well a lot, with little payoff. It's not just ex-Devil - he's gone to the old-player well a lot. And he hasn't had all that much success doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Certain defensemen and goaltenders age well which is why Salvador, Zidlicky, and Hedberg do not scare me. Old forwards scare the hell out of me which is why I hated the Rolston contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Certain defensemen and goaltenders age well which is why Salvador, Zidlicky, and Hedberg do not scare me. Old forwards scare the hell out of me which is why I hated the Rolston contract. Players like Salvador age terribly. At best you get someone like Luke Richardson or Sean O'Donnell who hung on well past their usefulness - somehow Sean O'Donnell played in the NHL last year. At worst - well, I think we all know what that looks like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Players like Salvador age terribly. At best you get someone like Luke Richardson or Sean O'Donnell who hung on well past their usefulness - somehow Sean O'Donnell played in the NHL last year. At worst - well, I think we all know what that looks like. Haha had no idea O'Donnell played last year, personally for whatever I do not mind certain defensemen getting multi year deals but I understand the concern about Sal. ...maybe I just like Sal too much Edited July 27, 2012 by Zubie#8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) It's not just ex-Devil - he's gone to the old-player well a lot. And he hasn't had all that much success doing it. Well...it's the old ex-Devil well. I think goalies are a different story because depending on the style, and usually it's butterfly, you can keep getting better and better with age. There is so many technical things you can improve on. That's what you are seeing from goalies like Hedberg. Doesn't often happen with skaters. Edited July 27, 2012 by devilsrule33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 That's the point. That's exactly the point I am making. There are no sure things, ever, so that's one. Number 2 is, the older the player we're talking about, the less sure you are. That's why things like Holik and Arnott aren't bad, all things considered - they were here for a year. There's not much risk there. But with 4 years, that contract is basically untradeable if Rolston disappoints at all. Rolston played his best as a Devil during his last days with the team - that was when he was given good linemates. It's not just ex-Devil - he's gone to the old-player well a lot. And he hasn't had all that much success doing it. Did you not like the Rolston deal at the time? I couldn't dig up the Rolston signing thread. Yeah, the downside is rough for a guy like Rolston if he sucks right off the bat for sure (not too many teams are going to rush to trade for a guy who seemingly ages overnight), but Rolston seemed as likely to succeed as anyone would in that position...Lou rolled the dice on that one, but I don't remember too many fans not liking the signing when it was announced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Did you not like the Rolston deal at the time? I couldn't dig up the Rolston signing thread. Yeah, the downside is rough for a guy like Rolston if he sucks right off the bat for sure (not too many teams are going to rush to trade for a guy who seemingly ages overnight), but Rolston seemed as likely to succeed as anyone would in that position...Lou rolled the dice on that one, but I don't remember too many fans not liking the signing when it was announced. I think people were just excited because Rolston was a huge name that off-season (2nd to Hossa I believe), and the Devils actually went after a big fish (one that everyone was gunning for), and he chose them. After losing Niedermayer, Rafalski and Gomez in the prior years and replacing them with nothing substantial, there was some excitement. Add in the fact that the 2008 playoffs were so miserable for everyone. But not everyone agreed that it was a good signing. And some that were happy knew that the numbers could be trouble, but at least thought they could get two very solid years. Maybe a retrospect for later in the summer. On second thought..naaah. Edited July 27, 2012 by devilsrule33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Did you not like the Rolston deal at the time? I couldn't dig up the Rolston signing thread. Yeah, the downside is rough for a guy like Rolston if he sucks right off the bat for sure (not too many teams are going to rush to trade for a guy who seemingly ages overnight), but Rolston seemed as likely to succeed as anyone would in that position...Lou rolled the dice on that one, but I don't remember too many fans not liking the signing when it was announced. I loved it, I think, but I've learned a lot about hockey in those 4 years, and I think had the Devils signed that deal now, I'd hate it. I did say if Rolston's game went south he'd still cut it as a checking line player, which turned out to be true, but that's a job he didn't see himself being fit for. I'd hate it if they signed Shane Doan to a similar 4 year deal, and not just because Vanderbeek opened his wallet the other day and a moth flew out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) I loved it, I think, but I've learned a lot about hockey in those 4 years, and I think had the Devils signed that deal now, I'd hate it. I did say if Rolston's game went south he'd still cut it as a checking line player, which turned out to be true, but that's a job he didn't see himself being fit for. I'd hate it if they signed Shane Doan to a similar 4 year deal, and not just because Vanderbeek opened his wallet the other day and a moth flew out. So you're basically now against these kinds of signings in general...that the upside simply doesn't outweigh the risks, guys around 35 can lose it overnight, etc. I can understand that, and agree with it...they are very risky deals, especially since by their nature they are almost sure to result in two or more years below the money value of the deal. Edited July 27, 2012 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slasher72 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Maybe Lou can bring back Arnott for another go round Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) I'd hate it if they signed Shane Doan to a similar 4 year deal, and not just because Vanderbeek opened his wallet the other day and a moth flew out. another good one - i will continue to quote these as they are legit LOL moments for me Edited July 28, 2012 by sundstrom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) So you're basically now against these kinds of signings in general...that the upside simply doesn't outweigh the risks, guys around 35 can lose it overnight, etc. I can understand that, and agree with it...they are very risky deals, especially since by their nature they are almost sure to result in two or more years below the money value of the deal. I'm not against if you have a team that is really excellent and wants another piece and feels like they can overcome that bad contract. Like, if the Rangers signed Doan to a 4 year deal, it wouldn't be the worst thing they ever did. But you've really got to have a good organization, you have to have faith that in 3 or 4 years, you will have a young player whose value will offset the negative value of that oldster. I don't think the Devils were in that spot in 2008-09 - their defense wasn't strong enough, and their prospect base wasn't quite there. Then again, the Kovalchuk trade changed a lot of things about the organization. another good one - i will continue to quote these as they are legit LOL moments for me Thanks; I can't take credit for that one, I think I read that moth joke on Twitter and repurposed it for this. Edited July 28, 2012 by Triumph 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.