Jump to content

Photo

Elias about Lou's free agents approach


  • Please log in to reply
339 replies to this topic

#261 Beetlebum

Beetlebum

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,401 posts

Posted 23 April 2013 - 01:49 PM

No. Elias is a God we will pay him what he wants.

 

Luckily you are not in charge of the team. Patty can play forever his game is not built on speed he is the Czech Teemu.


  • 0

#262 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,127 posts

Posted 23 April 2013 - 01:55 PM

No. Elias is a God we will pay him what he wants.

 

Luckily you are not in charge of the team. Patty can play forever his game is not built on speed he is the Czech Teemu.

He's very much like Teemu, except Teemu has a better shot imo, making him a better PP force. Just look at what Jagr got: $4.5M this year. That's a one year deal, but I'd give Elias between $4-5M for 2 years since he's younger. The 3rd year is risky, as it's very rare for a player to look good at 40, but Elias plays a game, like you said, not built on speed, but reaction time and smarts that he will be able to continue playing, possible less effectively, but I don't see him dropping off the map with regards to production.


  • 0

#263 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts

Posted 23 April 2013 - 04:35 PM

Do the Devils get to within two victories of a SC without Parise last season?  How well do you think it would've flown with both the Devil players and the Devils fans if Lou had traded Parise in-season, when the team had clearly come together after a rocky start and was playing good hockey?  And as we saw with the Devils gave up for Kovy, the returns don't always amount to as much as one might think.      

 

Stop acting like you have a better handle on how to do Lou's job than Lou does.  Lou should've done this and Lou should've done that, blah blah blah.  Maybe Lou simply thought he had a very good chance to re-sign Parise, and thought Parise helped to give the Devils the best chance to win the Cup in 2012, and a SC run like the one the Devils enjoyed made a good case as any for why re-signing with the Devils would've been a good move for Parise. 

 

It...just...didn't...work...out, as far as Parise leaving goes. 

 

But are you now saying you didn't want the 48-28-6 season you saw last season?  The Devils taking out two hated rivals in both the Flyers and the Rangers on the way to the SCF?  Do you think all of that happens without Parise last year? 

 

And what you keep forgetting is Parise was coming off a knee injury before the '11-'12 season.  His trade value was probably not that high coming into the '11-'12 campaign.  And it took him a while to get going that year...when he found his stride, the Devils were really playing terrific hockey...after a 12-12-1 start that included 5 SO wins, the Devils went 36-16-5.  Lou was supposed to potentially wreck that team's mojo?  This is why you have to stop looking at everything so damned black-and-white.  There were a lot of shades of gray that made everything involving Parise much trickier than you want to believe.             

 

well first calm down you missed the WHOLE POINT of my post you just went straight to some rahh rahh rahhhhh about Zach's situation. Which was not the point. Its not about not re-signing Zach its about how he handled it putting himself in a corner. 

 

So now let's take ALL those excuses and shades you talked about of Zach's situation and let's throw that out of the window cause we know the management, injuries and all of that was there and who knows.

 

So now tell me. i want an answer now and ill keep it in a safe place until i need it again later. What's the excuse now for Lou to risk the same thing with Elias and Clarkson or any UFAs for that matter? he may very well re-sign them both, who knows. But what if he waits again til one week before free agency and that they both jet somewhere and that we lose them for NOTHING, then you guys will all defend Lou "well they didnt want to be here what can you do? he was not gonna overpay bla bla bla bla". Point is, if they don't want to be here, by fvcking talking with them earlier you can figure that out and make a move and get something for them before it's too late.

 

so again, anyone tell me what's so complicated that Lou can't approach players like this:

 

"Buddy you can either re-sign now if you really want to be here we'll deal the numbers and get it done but if you want to be here we'll make it happen, if you want to test the market and see the interest out there, I cannot risk losing you for nothing so i have to deal you for assets and if you can't get a good offer you can still re-sign here in july but i CAN'T lose you for nothing. The ball is in your court now." 

 

He never does it and he's too stubborn to change his way and he's losing all his leverage. And i mean don't jump on me to be the messenger here even his own players said they didnt really like that approach.

 

edit: just in case you dont understand the point of my WHOLE POST once again all im saying is WHY would you do things that way? its way too risky for absolutely NOTHING. He's just stubborn and want to stick to his oldschool ways. and wtv what his track records shows its still a dumb way to run things, i can cross the road running with my eyes close a hundred times without getting runover, doesnt mean its smart.


Edited by SterioDesign, 23 April 2013 - 04:41 PM.

  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#264 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,420 posts

Posted 23 April 2013 - 05:03 PM

So now tell me. i want an answer now and ill keep it in a safe place until i need it again later. What's the excuse now for Lou to risk the same thing with Elias and Clarkson or any UFAs for that matter? he may very well re-sign them both, who knows. But what if he waits again til one week before free agency and that they both jet somewhere and that we lose them for NOTHING, then you guys will all defend Lou "well they didnt want to be here what can you do? he was not gonna overpay bla bla bla bla". Point is, if they don't want to be here, by fvcking talking with them earlier you can figure that out and make a move and get something for them before it's too late.

 

And get what?  Do you really think the Devils should have traded Elias or Clarkson at the deadline?  Do you really think what teams get back at the deadline is significant?

 

 

so again, anyone tell me what's so complicated that Lou can't approach players like this:

 

"Buddy you can either re-sign now if you really want to be here we'll deal the numbers and get it done but if you want to be here we'll make it happen, if you want to test the market and see the interest out there, I cannot risk losing you for nothing so i have to deal you for assets and if you can't get a good offer you can still re-sign here in july but i CAN'T lose you for nothing. The ball is in your court now."

 

This is an awful way to treat valued employees.  'Sorry, this is just business, but either stay or you're traded, sounds like a great deal, right?  This is clearly where you want to be, where you're subject to being traded on my whim if I think you're thinking about leaving'

 

He never does it and he's too stubborn to change his way and he's losing all his leverage. And i mean don't jump on me to be the messenger here even his own players said they didnt really like that approach.

 

He doesn't have any leverage at all.  The players are going UFA.  The only thing he has is gambling - players know what their market value is generally, they have agents who tell them what it is.  So by signing a player early, you gamble that A: the player will stay healthy and B: that the player will continue producing as you expect him to or better.  

 

edit: just in case you dont understand the point of my WHOLE POST once again all im saying is WHY would you do things that way? its way too risky for absolutely NOTHING. He's just stubborn and want to stick to his oldschool ways. and wtv what his track records shows its still a dumb way to run things, i can cross the road running with my eyes close a hundred times without getting runover, doesnt mean its smart.

 

You don't risk signing players with career-ending injuries to long-term contracts this way.  All it takes is one Marc Savard deal and you've thrown a lot of money down a well.  I don't know how much money insurance covers on a deal like Marc Savard's - I'd really like to know - but the Bruins are ostensibly spending $6M a year on a guy who can't play.  They signed him to a 7 year deal during the season, he got hurt that season, and has played less than 40 games since.  That's a giant risk.  Furthermore, a week is plenty of time for a guy to figure out whether or not he wants to stay with the organization, and the Devils have retained a ton of players by acting this way.  I also don't want an organization full of players that totally loves the way they are treated by the front office.  That probably means they are being overpaid.

 

Plus the Devils already signed Zajac to a long-term contract before the season, taking all the risks I just mentioned.  Zajac had a big downturn in performance and NJ probably could've cut $500k a year off that contract as a result, but they would've risked losing him for nothing, and he's quite difficult to replace.  I would feel better as a Devils fan had the Devils done the same thing for Elias, but I'd feel worse if NJ locked up Elias to a 3 year 15M deal and he had a large downturn in performance.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#265 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts

Posted 23 April 2013 - 05:47 PM

And get what?  Do you really think the Devils should have traded Elias or Clarkson at the deadline?  Do you really think what teams get back at the deadline is significant?

 

Of course it's not much. But if a good UFA walks in July, that Lou deals with him for 3 days (june 28-29-30) and they both figure they won't be able to match each others offer... boom buddy walk and we get nothing for him. I dont care if we can only get a pick for him at least it's something. Why wait 'til the very end? you can run of out time.

 

 

This is an awful way to treat valued employees.  'Sorry, this is just business, but either stay or you're traded, sounds like a great deal, right?  This is clearly where you want to be, where you're subject to being traded on my whim if I think you're thinking about leaving'

 

Could you twist what i said more in case you could make it look even worst you think ? Man you have to do this on purpose to piss me off seriously.

 

In any kind of job if you're a boss and you have an employee that you really need and appreciate. It goes both ways, if you know you need him why would you risk only approaching him a week before his contract is over, employees are humans and they want stability and want to know where their life is heading. The other way around, from the employee if youre thinking about another job, you give your boss a notice cause obviously he's gonna have to replace you and if he can't he's in trouble for awhile. Lou is like the boss who doesnt want to know if his employee want to stay and for some reason doesnt mind not having a notice even though he might be fvcked in the end.

 


He doesn't have any leverage at all.  The players are going UFA.  The only thing he has is gambling - players know what their market value is generally, they have agents who tell them what it is.  So by signing a player early, you gamble that A: the player will stay healthy and B: that the player will continue producing as you expect him to or better.  

 

Did the ducks played with fire with Perry and Getzlaf ? risking losing them both to free agency? cause it could of happened. He couldnt afford to let them go.He knew he'd want them, why risk it?

 


You don't risk signing players with career-ending injuries to long-term contracts this way.  All it takes is one Marc Savard deal and you've thrown a lot of money down a well.  I don't know how much money insurance covers on a deal like Marc Savard's - I'd really like to know - but the Bruins are ostensibly spending $6M a year on a guy who can't play.  They signed him to a 7 year deal during the season, he got hurt that season, and has played less than 40 games since.  That's a giant risk.  Furthermore, a week is plenty of time for a guy to figure out whether or not he wants to stay with the organization, and the Devils have retained a ton of players by acting this way.  I also don't want an organization full of players that totally loves the way they are treated by the front office.  That probably means they are being overpaid.

 

where did i talk about signing players with caeer ending injuries anyway? and you cant stop yourself from acting cause you're scared that someone get injured. A guy can get injure at ANY TIME. 


Edited by SterioDesign, 23 April 2013 - 05:52 PM.

  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#266 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,420 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:04 AM

Of course it's not much. But if a good UFA walks in July, that Lou deals with him for 3 days (june 28-29-30) and they both figure they won't be able to match each others offer... boom buddy walk and we get nothing for him. I dont care if we can only get a pick for him at least it's something. Why wait 'til the very end? you can run of out time.

 

I don't believe that's what happens in the majority of cases.  There are only a few players who I thought were definitely walking out the door.  And these players really don't get traded for that much, usually - a 4th or 5th round pick in next year's draft.  I'd rather take a very low probability that they sign here on a good deal against that.

 

 

Could you twist what i said more in case you could make it look even worst you think ? Man you have to do this on purpose to piss me off seriously.

 

In any kind of job if you're a boss and you have an employee that you really need and appreciate. It goes both ways, if you know you need him why would you risk only approaching him a week before his contract is over, employees are humans and they want stability and want to know where their life is heading. The other way around, from the employee if youre thinking about another job, you give your boss a notice cause obviously he's gonna have to replace you and if he can't he's in trouble for awhile. Lou is like the boss who doesnt want to know if his employee want to stay and for some reason doesnt mind not having a notice even though he might be fvcked in the end.

 

It's hard to imagine that the Devils' staff isn't prepared for all these contingencies.  You don't always get the players you want in free agency, but it's hard to imagine the team not having a clue about whether players want to stay or go.  The Devils have retained a ton of players who've hit unrestricted free agency - Elias, Oduya, Kovalchuk, Greene, Brodeur, Salvador, etc.  

 

Did the ducks played with fire with Perry and Getzlaf ? risking losing them both to free agency? cause it could of happened. He couldnt afford to let them go.He knew he'd want them, why risk it?

 

The Getzlaf deal is not good (but probably a must), the Perry deal is atrocious.  You don't always win by signing your best players.  Anaheim is going to regret that Perry deal.  Could they replace Perry through free agency?  No, but they are going to be paying a boatload of money to a player who doesn't seem like he's all that good, and for a very long time too.

 

where did i talk about signing players with caeer ending injuries anyway? and you cant stop yourself from acting cause you're scared that someone get injured. A guy can get injure at ANY TIME.

 

You didn't talk about that, because you're not properly assessing the risk of signing a player to a long-term contract.  One of the risks is injury.  You increase that risk when you sign a player before or during the season.  One thing we also haven't mentioned is not knowing where the cap will fall, but this year is unusual in that regard - we know exactly what the salary cap will be.  


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#267 EdgeControl

EdgeControl

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:24 AM

Right now I'd do 3 yr 15 mil to patty, is the third stupid? yeah, probably. but certain players earn that

 

he's not slow. he's our points leader.


  • 0

#268 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:32 AM

I don't believe that's what happens in the majority of cases.  There are only a few players who I thought were definitely walking out the door.  And these players really don't get traded for that much, usually - a 4th or 5th round pick in next year's draft.  I'd rather take a very low probability that they sign here on a good deal against that.

 

It's hard to imagine that the Devils' staff isn't prepared for all these contingencies.  You don't always get the players you want in free agency, but it's hard to imagine the team not having a clue about whether players want to stay or go.  The Devils have retained a ton of players who've hit unrestricted free agency - Elias, Oduya, Kovalchuk, Greene, Brodeur, Salvador, etc.  

 

The Getzlaf deal is not good (but probably a must), the Perry deal is atrocious.  You don't always win by signing your best players.  Anaheim is going to regret that Perry deal.  Could they replace Perry through free agency?  No, but they are going to be paying a boatload of money to a player who doesn't seem like he's all that good, and for a very long time too.

 

You didn't talk about that, because you're not properly assessing the risk of signing a player to a long-term contract.  One of the risks is injury.  You increase that risk when you sign a player before or during the season.  One thing we also haven't mentioned is not knowing where the cap will fall, but this year is unusual in that regard - we know exactly what the salary cap will be.  

 

My point is... let's say NJ really wants to re-sign Clarkson. Why risk to wait til the guy have the option and think... "well i could sign this but why not wait an extra week to see what i could get out there?" (the who shall not be named said it himself 2 summers ago and im convinced most players would think the same way in that situation) so seriously? if you have the control and that the guys are saying they'd like to stay in NJ, why risk giving them the opportunity to think about going somewhere else? it's not protecting your asset. And that way you can lose them for absolutely nothing. Even if you can simply get a 5th rounder, obviously those late pick doesnt pan out you still have a chance that they could be something or its extra assets for trades. We got Loktionov for a 5th, Gallagher from MTL was a 5th round pick... etc etc you never know. Why miss on that possibility SIMPLY cause you wanted to wait last minute for absolutely no reason, just cause it's your policy.

 

Also the excuse that you could save maybe 500K off a contract on the Zajac contract for example... that also goes both ways... you think Salvador would have signed that ridiculous contract if they would have make a deal like mid season or wtv? NEVER.

 

By no mean im saying Lou should try to sign all his players during the season, but at least keep the option to do so in some particular situation to assure the best outcome, he's restraining his dealing process and said himself that he "ran out of time" a few times, you'd think he would learn.

 

I also understand that you can get strapped with some contract but Getzlaf and Perry should be good for awhile and the ducks are winning and contender because of them now. if they eventually suck it's a bridge they'll have to cross in time if it's happening. Until then they still need guys to win and if they would have lost both of those guys to free agency for NOTHING they'd have to rebuilt their whole team around what? Bobby Ryan and Smith-Pelley? a lot worst than having "bad contracts" 6-7 years from now, considering the cap will go up too. 


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#269 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,240 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:04 AM

My point is... let's say NJ really wants to re-sign Clarkson. Why risk to wait til the guy have the option and think... "well i could sign this but why not wait an extra week to see what i could get out there?" (the who shall not be named said it himself 2 summers ago and im convinced most players would think the same way in that situation) so seriously? if you have the control and that the guys are saying they'd like to stay in NJ, why risk giving them the opportunity to think about going somewhere else? it's not protecting your asset. And that way you can lose them for absolutely nothing. Even if you can simply get a 5th rounder, obviously those late pick doesnt pan out you still have a chance that they could be something or its extra assets for trades. We got Loktionov for a 5th, Gallagher from MTL was a 5th round pick... etc etc you never know. Why miss on that possibility SIMPLY cause you wanted to wait last minute for absolutely no reason, just cause it's your policy.
 
Also the excuse that you could save maybe 500K off a contract on the Zajac contract for example... that also goes both ways... you think Salvador would have signed that ridiculous contract if they would have make a deal like mid season or wtv? NEVER.
 
By no mean im saying Lou should try to sign all his players during the season, but at least keep the option to do so in some particular situation to assure the best outcome, he's restraining his dealing process and said himself that he "ran out of time" a few times, you'd think he would learn.
 
I also understand that you can get strapped with some contract but Getzlaf and Perry should be good for awhile and the ducks are winning and contender because of them now. if they eventually suck it's a bridge they'll have to cross in time if it's happening. Until then they still need guys to win and if they would have lost both of those guys to free agency for NOTHING they'd have to rebuilt their whole team around what? Bobby Ryan and Smith-Pelley? a lot worst than having "bad contracts" 6-7 years from now, considering the cap will go up too. 


Re: Salvador - he would've signed that contract anytime Lou offered it. It's awful. He got it because of his playoff work. I would have to imagine in season Lou never even thought to resign him.
  • 0

"This team was never the same once we lost Patrik Sundstrom"- Lou Lamoriello


20082719943.png
_________________________________________________________________
“They’re the ones that makes it happen,” Lemaire said. “It’s not us. It’s not me. It’s not the other guy. It’s not the guy before. It’s not the guy after. It’s them. And they have to take care of business.”
-
"I guess I just miss my friend" (#28)


#270 Devil Dan 56

Devil Dan 56

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,653 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:12 AM

My point is... let's say NJ really wants to re-sign Clarkson. Why risk to wait til the guy have the option and think... "well i could sign this but why not wait an extra week to see what i could get out there?" (the who shall not be named said it himself 2 summers ago and im convinced most players would think the same way in that situation) so seriously? if you have the control and that the guys are saying they'd like to stay in NJ, why risk giving them the opportunity to think about going somewhere else? it's not protecting your asset. And that way you can lose them for absolutely nothing. Even if you can simply get a 5th rounder, obviously those late pick doesnt pan out you still have a chance that they could be something or its extra assets for trades. We got Loktionov for a 5th, Gallagher from MTL was a 5th round pick... etc etc you never know. Why miss on that possibility SIMPLY cause you wanted to wait last minute for absolutely no reason, just cause it's your policy.

Also the excuse that you could save maybe 500K off a contract on the Zajac contract for example... that also goes both ways... you think Salvador would have signed that ridiculous contract if they would have make a deal like mid season or wtv? NEVER.

By no mean im saying Lou should try to sign all his players during the season, but at least keep the option to do so in some particular situation to assure the best outcome, he's restraining his dealing process and said himself that he "ran out of time" a few times, you'd think he would learn.

I also understand that you can get strapped with some contract but Getzlaf and Perry should be good for awhile and the ducks are winning and contender because of them now. if they eventually suck it's a bridge they'll have to cross in time if it's happening. Until then they still need guys to win and if they would have lost both of those guys to free agency for NOTHING they'd have to rebuilt their whole team around what? Bobby Ryan and Smith-Pelley? a lot worst than having "bad contracts" 6-7 years from now, considering the cap will go up too.


The Clarkson example is perfect. If you started talking contract with him in February, you'd have massively overpaid. He crashed down to earth, and that 30 goal season is looking more and more like a fluke. Lou likes to assess the situation when the season is done, so he can look at the whole picture. He'll most likely be gone because Clarkson's agent is still going to try to get a ton of money for him whether he kept scoring or not.

Most of these players have families here. They would most likely prefer to stay where they are. They would also like to make a lot of money. You keep bringing up all of this risk, but who left to go "home" (as in, reasons other than cash)? Parise and Nieds? Maybe Rafalski, but the Devils didn't have the money to match what he could get in the market. Everyone else left for cash that the Devils wouldn't have given them whether it was October, December, or July 1st.
Martin was overpaid, Gio made more than the Devils were willing to give, Gomez saw dollar signs so bad that Lou didn't even bother trying to match. Clarkson will either stay for decent money, or join the list. Elias will most likely stay, because it won't just be about money for him. He'll probably get one too many years, though.

Also, Perry and Getzlaf are a different situation. Elias is much older, and do you really want to risk 5 million a year for 8 years on Clarkson, which is what his agent will probably go for? If that CBA was around last year, Parise might have stayed just for the extra year of guaranteed money.

Edited by Devil Dan 56, 24 April 2013 - 10:15 AM.

  • 0
Official NJDevs.com Keeper of Gory Corey Schwab, Mike Peluso, Troy Crowder, Jeff Frazee, and Rich Shulmistra.
"The Devils are that zombie that takes an ax to the skull, a bullet to the temple and is set on fire … and yet keeps lumbering along to the annoyance of all the other zombies." - Puck Daddy

#271 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,396 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:16 AM

His previous playoffs were SO sh!tTY!  I just can't hack that being the sole reason Lou signed him again.  I see no other logic.  but he SUCKED SOOOOOOOO   BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD in playoffs before - never mind he assisted in NOT getting us to the playoff in between.

 

AHHHhhhhhhhhhh  :argh:

 

SOMEONE explain it to me.  What am I not seeing what is it I have NEVER seen?    AHhhhhhhhh  :argh: :argh: :argh:


  • 0

I'm here for the party


#272 NewarkDevil5

NewarkDevil5

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:27 AM

His previous playoffs were SO sh!tTY!  I just can't hack that being the sole reason Lou signed him again.  I see no other logic.  but he SUCKED SOOOOOOOO   BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD in playoffs before - never mind he assisted in NOT getting us to the playoff in between.

 

AHHHhhhhhhhhhh  :argh:

 

SOMEONE explain it to me.  What am I not seeing what is it I have NEVER seen?    AHhhhhhhhh  :argh: :argh: :argh:

 

Pardon my ignorance, but who are you talking about?


  • 0

Newark: The City of New Jersey

gallery_45_180_172422.png


#273 EdgeControl

EdgeControl

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:04 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but who are you talking about?

I would think its Sal


  • 0

#274 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,420 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:09 PM

My point is... let's say NJ really wants to re-sign Clarkson. Why risk to wait til the guy have the option and think... "well i could sign this but why not wait an extra week to see what i could get out there?" (the who shall not be named said it himself 2 summers ago and im convinced most players would think the same way in that situation) so seriously? if you have the control and that the guys are saying they'd like to stay in NJ, why risk giving them the opportunity to think about going somewhere else? it's not protecting your asset. And that way you can lose them for absolutely nothing. Even if you can simply get a 5th rounder, obviously those late pick doesnt pan out you still have a chance that they could be something or its extra assets for trades. We got Loktionov for a 5th, Gallagher from MTL was a 5th round pick... etc etc you never know. Why miss on that possibility SIMPLY cause you wanted to wait last minute for absolutely no reason, just cause it's your policy.

 

Also the excuse that you could save maybe 500K off a contract on the Zajac contract for example... that also goes both ways... you think Salvador would have signed that ridiculous contract if they would have make a deal like mid season or wtv? NEVER.

 

By no mean im saying Lou should try to sign all his players during the season, but at least keep the option to do so in some particular situation to assure the best outcome, he's restraining his dealing process and said himself that he "ran out of time" a few times, you'd think he would learn.

 

I also understand that you can get strapped with some contract but Getzlaf and Perry should be good for awhile and the ducks are winning and contender because of them now. if they eventually suck it's a bridge they'll have to cross in time if it's happening. Until then they still need guys to win and if they would have lost both of those guys to free agency for NOTHING they'd have to rebuilt their whole team around what? Bobby Ryan and Smith-Pelley? a lot worst than having "bad contracts" 6-7 years from now, considering the cap will go up too. 

 

The Ducks are not particularly good - good goaltending, good special teams, mediocre 5 on 5, undisciplined - and they have Kyle Palmieri who can probably do a lot of Perry's job soon for a fraction of the cost.  The Ducks don't care about the cap as they are a floor team, and floor teams can't jam up a huge portion of their budget in a guy like Corey Perry with a contract that extends into his mid 30s.

 

I'm aware it goes both ways.  That's my point.  Sometimes it's better to be late, sometimes it's better to be early.  Predicting which is which is darn near impossible.  I'm not saying Lou's way is better, I just don't think it's worse.  It's worse for fans because fans think locking up all your good players early is good.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#275 coldply123

coldply123

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,182 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:30 PM

Devils have plenty of cap room. It's not whether they spend but how they spend or allocate it. Don't forgot they have over 10 mil coming off after next season as well in Marty, Hedberg, and Tally.
  • 0
Bill Simmons: "The Bruins are like Fredo -- they're dead to me as long as the owner is alive."

"I'm Going With The Devils over Anaheim"-Barry Melrose

#276 NewarkDevil5

NewarkDevil5

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:43 PM

I would think its Sal

 

That's what I thought, but I couldn't tell because there were about a half dozen players being talked about in the page or so before. In any event, didn't Salvador miss the whole MacLean/Lemaire no-playoff season due to his mysteriously perfectly timed concussion? How could he have assisted in us not making the playoffs in a season he didn't play?


  • 0

Newark: The City of New Jersey

gallery_45_180_172422.png


#277 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,127 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 03:45 PM

The Clarkson example is perfect. If you started talking contract with him in February, you'd have massively overpaid. He crashed down to earth, and that 30 goal season is looking more and more like a fluke. Lou likes to assess the situation when the season is done, so he can look at the whole picture. He'll most likely be gone because Clarkson's agent is still going to try to get a ton of money for him whether he kept scoring or not.

Most of these players have families here. They would most likely prefer to stay where they are. They would also like to make a lot of money. You keep bringing up all of this risk, but who left to go "home" (as in, reasons other than cash)? Parise and Nieds? Maybe Rafalski, but the Devils didn't have the money to match what he could get in the market. Everyone else left for cash that the Devils wouldn't have given them whether it was October, December, or July 1st.
Martin was overpaid, Gio made more than the Devils were willing to give, Gomez saw dollar signs so bad that Lou didn't even bother trying to match. Clarkson will either stay for decent money, or join the list. Elias will most likely stay, because it won't just be about money for him. He'll probably get one too many years, though.

Also, Perry and Getzlaf are a different situation. Elias is much older, and do you really want to risk 5 million a year for 8 years on Clarkson, which is what his agent will probably go for? If that CBA was around last year, Parise might have stayed just for the extra year of guaranteed money.

That's what I've been trying to say to people. No one wants to recall that half the players we "lost", we lost without putting up a fight, Gio, Martin, Gomez, Nieds, Parise, all left for contracts or situations we could not/would not replicate here.


  • 0

#278 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:10 PM

The Ducks are not particularly good - good goaltending, good special teams, mediocre 5 on 5, undisciplined - and they have Kyle Palmieri who can probably do a lot of Perry's job soon for a fraction of the cost.  The Ducks don't care about the cap as they are a floor team, and floor teams can't jam up a huge portion of their budget in a guy like Corey Perry with a contract that extends into his mid 30s.

 

I'm aware it goes both ways.  That's my point.  Sometimes it's better to be late, sometimes it's better to be early.  Predicting which is which is darn near impossible.  I'm not saying Lou's way is better, I just don't think it's worse.  It's worse for fans because fans think locking up all your good players early is good.

 

well thats my big problem with Lou and his method, im really not saying that he should try to sign every player early, it always depends and it's a gamble. But that's the thing, you have to adjust depending on the situation cause the way you deal with it will likely help the outcome. But Lou is simply doing it and sticking to his ONE WAY of doing it and for no other reason that he's stubborn and think it's a distraction during the season. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that way ( i couldnt do Lou's job, but i know enough about management to know that you can't ALWAYS call head on every single decision and expect to get the best results all the time.

 

and for the last time with my example im not referring specifically to ANY players or situation simply about the way he's doing it all the time.


Edited by SterioDesign, 24 April 2013 - 04:13 PM.

  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#279 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,240 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 04:11 PM

That's what I've been trying to say to people. No one wants to recall that half the players we "lost", we lost without putting up a fight, Gio, Martin, Gomez, Nieds, Parise, all left for contracts or situations we could not/would not replicate here.

 

not to come back to parise hindsight, but that's one where lou not only "put up a fight" in that he offered him a serious contract, but had the opportunity before the going home with his buddy scenario presented itself. if ownership was a bit more in line, it's conceivable he could've signed Parise to 7/50 going into last season. I'm pretty sure parise would've taken it. hell, he was almost ready to take it during the season but his agents advised him against it. when you're 4 months away, it makes sense to wait - especially when minnesotta let it be known they would not be outbid. but the summer 2011, that wasn't out there. of course, he was coming off his knee injury but that's one where lou had a kick at the can very early and didn't/couldn't take it. when he tried mid-season, it was too late.

 

 

edit: and for the "lou doesn't negotiate in-season and he's stuck in his ways" people - just look a zajac. he took care of him because they felt that was a known quantity they wanted locked up.

 

i'm sure that he knows he can keep elias if he wants. elias isn't going to leave for spite. if someone offers him 3/18 or something and we all want to kill lou because he could've had him at 2/10 but once he hit ufa, the bidding took him away, we'll revisit.

 

as for clarkson, he says all the right things (clarkson that is). lou knows what he is and has made up his mind that is worth X dollars. he wants clarkson on that deal. but if he starts negotiating in season, and clarkson says no, you're raising what you thought was your best offer.

 

in my mind, parise and neidermayer were the only guys lou lost that he really wanted to keep. perhaps holik was the same but i'd let HOI answer that. in the end, there was nothing he could've done to keep any of them once they hit UFA. that is NOT the case with elias and clarkson. if he wants them, he'll keep them, UFA or not.


Edited by sundstrom, 24 April 2013 - 04:15 PM.

  • 0

"This team was never the same once we lost Patrik Sundstrom"- Lou Lamoriello


20082719943.png
_________________________________________________________________
“They’re the ones that makes it happen,” Lemaire said. “It’s not us. It’s not me. It’s not the other guy. It’s not the guy before. It’s not the guy after. It’s them. And they have to take care of business.”
-
"I guess I just miss my friend" (#28)


#280 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 05:00 PM

not to come back to parise hindsight, but that's one where lou not only "put up a fight" in that he offered him a serious contract, but had the opportunity before the going home with his buddy scenario presented itself. if ownership was a bit more in line, it's conceivable he could've signed Parise to 7/50 going into last season. I'm pretty sure parise would've taken it. hell, he was almost ready to take it during the season but his agents advised him against it. when you're 4 months away, it makes sense to wait - especially when minnesotta let it be known they would not be outbid. but the summer 2011, that wasn't out there. of course, he was coming off his knee injury but that's one where lou had a kick at the can very early and didn't/couldn't take it. when he tried mid-season, it was too late.

 

Not to drag this but when people say that agents have adviced the player to wait and bla bla as an excuse. Yes it's totally true and i understand the reasoning and everything. But don't you think Richards, Carter, Getzlaf, Perry etc etc had an agent telling them they could get more if they'd wait to hit the market? If the player really want to stay and feel good about the organization he has the final say and will sign if its a fair deal. I'm CONVINCED that if Lou would have made a good offer and some pressure around january when Zach kept saying he'd like to begin talks to re-sign. He would be a Devils now and to a better deal than the one he signed. There's no way to know for sure and the management issues was there i know. But im not really talking specifically about Zach's situation either. More about how i think he should have done it. I also don't necessarely buy that Lou offered something during the season.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users