Jump to content

Photo

Ryane Clowe signs with the Devils. 5 years. 4.85 per.


  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic

#121 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,746 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 06:48 PM

I understand. It's just a terrible strategy that will keep a team perpetually trading away players that say they may not be interested in returning. Maybe you get back a couple of picks which could take 4-5 years to pan out if they ever do, but you sacrifice a playoff run. Re explaining it doesn't make it a good idea.

 

So where did i say that you have to trade away players that may not be returning? where dude? tell me where. seriously.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#122 TheRedStorm

TheRedStorm

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 762 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:03 PM

well thats a low 2nd/3rd and a 5th more than what we got for Clarkson. 

 

Like i said in the previous post, there was no good possible scenarios with Clarkson staying in NJ. 

 

Not as if i'm saying that you have to trade any player that you're scared of losing cause you don't know if you'll be able to keep them. but in some cases simply an early discussion could really help. In this case Clarkson was a goner and Lou could have known that months ago.

 

FWIW, in the same assumption, Lamorello couldn't have traded Parise in 2012, either. Aside from the Devils being in a playoff sport or competing for one, you also have to think about the message that sends to the fanbase and locker room then consider how future potential FA's and FA's coming here will think if that's how Lamoriello does business.

 

Look, it sucks the last two years the Devils have had the bad luck of losing two homesick players that we would have been upset with had they been given the exact contracts here. It was really a no win and Lamoriello has gone on record before stating that he does not trade away upcoming FA's or "assets" to the team and it's goals. I'm sure he knew privately the odds of both players returning were slim to none and he did the right thing by holding onto them. It's a dog eat dog business and it's not always fair and for the Devils to do business the way you want to would be counter productive to the team's goals.

 

What bothers me the most is dopes like Burnside are running with the old "the Devils can't attract top level FA's" (to paraphrase) and even LeBrun snuck in the old "losses are piling up" comment. From the outside, it is a very real perception and source of ridicule that this team can't keep FA's, but like most media types they really don't bother to do their homework or look at things in persepctive. The Devils had zero chance of keeping Clarkson or Parise and it had zero to do with money or not liking NJ. I'm pleased that Lamoriello learned from the past to just let go instead of courting the uncourtable. This was evident at the Draft when he offered Clarkson terms, Clarkson refused and Lamoriello moved on immediately as not to get screwed on Clowe, i'd guess.


Edited by TheRedStorm, 06 July 2013 - 07:06 PM.

  • 0

The Devil wears Prada....and has the luggage to match :-)


#123 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,746 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:04 PM

That's ridiculous.  Clarkson says he thought returning to NJ was still an option on Friday.  Why would he say that?

 

You can say what you want and turn it the way you want saying it would have been stupid back then. At the end of the day.

 

1- Lou made his first and only offer the day before Clarkson can talk with other teams

2- He wanted more than was Lou was willing to spend.

3- He walked for nothing

4- Said the leafs would throw the bank at him.

5- Signed with the leafs

 

at the second Clarkson refused that offer it was over and Lou moved on. 

 

i'm 5/5 on my predictions, called it months ago. it's not a coincidence. I was right and thats it. You can try to tweak it the way you want, i was right and it would have been the best move "in this particular situation" considering all the factors.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#124 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,558 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:12 PM

You can say what you want and turn it the way you want saying it would have been stupid back then. At the end of the day.

 

1- Lou made his first and only offer the day before Clarkson can talk with other teams

2- He wanted more than was Lou was willing to spend.

3- He walked for nothing

4- Said the leafs would throw the bank at him.

5- Signed with the leafs

 

at the second Clarkson refused that offer it was over and Lou moved on. 

 

i'm 5/5 on my predictions, called it months ago. it's not a coincidence. I was right and thats it. You can try to tweak it the way you want, i was right and it would have been the best move "in this particular situation" considering all the factors.

 

You are not Lou, nor are you Dave Nonis.  The fact that you 'called it' has zero bearing on what actually took place, because none of those things were close to a certainty, especially since you don't have any idea whether Clarkson would want to play for the Leafs and would possibly give up money to do so.  In fact, you don't even have any idea whether the Devils offered more money than the Leafs.

 

And again, the Devils could've made the playoffs, too, and won several rounds.  They didn't, but again, I exist in the world of possibility, not in the world of hindsight.


Edited by Triumph, 06 July 2013 - 07:13 PM.

  • 1

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


#125 Neb00rs

Neb00rs

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,399 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:22 PM

Like i said in the previous post, there was no good possible scenarios with Clarkson staying in NJ. 

 

Not as if i'm saying that you have to trade any player that you're scared of losing cause you don't know if you'll be able to keep them. but in some cases simply an early discussion could really help. In this case Clarkson was a goner and Lou could have known that months ago.

 

 

at the second Clarkson refused that offer it was over and Lou moved on. 

 

With all due respect, doesn't this contradict the idea that Lou knew Clarkson would walk months ago and that there was, "no good possible scenarios with Clarkson staying in NJ?"


Edited by Neb00rs, 06 July 2013 - 07:22 PM.

  • 0

gallery_47_36_882.png of No One
Proud to be King of the Kovalnuts (Est. June 2010 by MantaRay)


#126 hystyk28

hystyk28

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:26 PM

With the questionable team finances, making the playoffs is crucial.  Trading away pending UFA's is unfortunately not an option this team has, unless it is in the cellar at the deadline.  This team isn't a media darling or a financial powerhouse, but that Lou sure does a bang up job with what he has to work with, which makes liking this team even more enjoyable. After the next generation of Devils fans have kids, I think these issues will be gone, which makes winning another Cup all that more important in the next few years Also, this team need to push into non-Devil areas.


  • 0

#127 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,746 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:29 PM

FWIW, in the same assumption, Lamorello couldn't have traded Parise in 2012, either. Aside from the Devils being in a playoff sport or competing for one, you also have to think about the message that sends to the fanbase and locker room then consider how future potential FA's and FA's coming here will think if that's how Lamoriello does business.

 

Look, it sucks the last two years the Devils have had the bad luck of losing two homesick players that we would have been upset with had they been given the exact contracts here. It was really a no win and Lamoriello has gone on record before stating that he does not trade away upcoming FA's or "assets" to the team and it's goals. I'm sure he knew privately the odds of both players returning were slim to none and he did the right thing by holding onto them. It's a dog eat dog business and it's not always fair and for the Devils to do business the way you want to would be counter productive to the team's goals.

 

What bothers me the most is dopes like Burnside are running with the old "the Devils can't attract top level FA's" (to paraphrase) and even LeBrun snuck in the old "losses are piling up" comment. From the outside, it is a very real perception and source of ridicule that this team can't keep FA's, but like most media types they really don't bother to do their homework or look at things in persepctive. The Devils had zero chance of keeping Clarkson or Parise and it had zero to do with money or not liking NJ. I'm pleased that Lamoriello learned from the past to just let go instead of courting the uncourtable. This was evident at the Draft when he offered Clarkson terms, Clarkson refused and Lamoriello moved on immediately as not to get screwed on Clowe, i'd guess.

 

Good post, i feel i can actually get my point straight with you, you seem more comprehensive than others. What bothers me about that whole thing and what seems to not translate in my posts apparently. Its NOT even that we lost Zach for nothing and its NOT that we lost Clarkson for nothing and that we might lose others.

 

What bothers me is that Lou is sticking to his way and will be very stubborn about it. and by doing that, he's turning his back on certain possibilities that could have helped the team but its ultimately hurting it sometimes and for no reasons than him being stubborn. THAT'S whats pissing me off and it's simply not a good way to do business.

 

Now i'm bringing examples here and there that indeed hurt the team, meaning to show examples of cases where it could have been avoided if dealt differently. It's not directly bitching about that particular case or saying he should do it a different way with all the players.

 

My whole point is that by sticking to strict rules like "not talking to players during the season" and "not trading players while in playoffs run (which is not 100% true, we traded Arnott 2 years ago) and other rules like that... you're gonna fail in 100% of the situation where doing that particular thing could have made a difference. Thats kinda my whole point.

 

So now for example Clarkson, i'm not saying Lou should have traded him 100%. Not at all.  I just wish he would have took a few steps earlier so that he would have been in a "situation to make a decision". To trade him or not, thats up to him and what he think is best. But by sticking to one strict rule without even considering the consequences, thats not a good way to do it (in anything really you can never stick by one decision and expect the best results every time, its common sense, some particular situations at times needs a different approach and if you dont take that approach you're not gonna get the best results)


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#128 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,558 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:44 PM

The rest of these points you've already made, so I don't feel I need to address them, but the Devils weren't in the playoff race in the 2011 trade deadline, and Lou got killed here for not dealing Greene.


Edited by Triumph, 06 July 2013 - 07:45 PM.

  • 0

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


#129 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,746 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:49 PM

With all due respect, doesn't this contradict the idea that Lou knew Clarkson would walk months ago and that there was, "no good possible scenarios with Clarkson staying in NJ?"

 

Ok. Let's put it this way. As simple as it get.

 

All i wish is that before free agency Lou could have been sitting in his office with the knowledge of what Clarkson's ballpark expectations was (not an offered contract or anything, just get an idea) and that based on that he could have weight the pros and cons and look at all possibilities to make sure to make the best move for the organization, knowing he would be willing or not to match it and if he was willing to overspend on him.

 

Once he has those infos taken into consideration. Its his call and he can gamble all he want with his decisions and on any hockey decision Lou knows a lot more than i do i trust him on that. I don't really care if he makes the wrong call and that it's bitting us in the ass in the end, at least there was a slim chance that he could have CHOOSE the option that could have helped the team, rather than getting fvcked last minute when you have no control on the situation.

 

But but not approaching players during the season 100% of the time. It means that 100% of the players who will have a demand that Lou will not be willing to match will walk. and will walk while Lou could have at least have the option of moving him with the knowledge that he would lose him if he thought it would be best that way.

 

do you somewhat understand what i'm saying here?


Edited by SterioDesign, 06 July 2013 - 07:53 PM.

  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#130 Neb00rs

Neb00rs

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,399 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:14 PM

Ok. Let's put it this way. As simple as it get.

 

All i wish is that before free agency Lou could have been sitting in his office with the knowledge of what Clarkson's ballpark expectations was (not an offered contract or anything, just get an idea) and that based on that he could have weight the pros and cons and look at all possibilities to make sure to make the best move for the organization, knowing he would be willing or not to match it and if he was willing to overspend on him.

 

Once he has those infos taken into consideration. Its his call and he can gamble all he want with his decisions and on any hockey decision Lou knows a lot more than i do i trust him on that. I don't really care if he makes the wrong call and that it's bitting us in the ass in the end, at least there was a slim chance that he could have CHOOSE the option that could have helped the team, rather than getting fvcked last minute when you have no control on the situation.

 

But but not approaching players during the season 100% of the time. It means that 100% of the players who will have a demand that Lou will not be willing to match will walk. and will walk while Lou could have at least have the option of moving him with the knowledge that he would lose him if he thought it would be best that way.

 

do you somewhat understand what i'm saying here?

 

How do you know that he didn't do that? Just because he didn't trade Clarkson away? It's not that you have no point at all but that the whole argument is a moot point - as posters have said before - it serves no purpose to know what a player wants contract-wise 4 months before the season ends and the team is still in the playoff race. 

 

Your logic doesn't just go against Lou, it goes against the entire NHL for the entire age of free agency. Teams in the playoff hunt keep their players and attain veterans at the deadline who are at the ends of their contracts and teams out of the playoff hunt trade away their outgoing veterans. You have yet to state what exactly gauging Clarkson's contract desires would have gotten us. We certainly couldn't trade him - he led our team in goals and were looking playoff-bound.


  • 0

gallery_47_36_882.png of No One
Proud to be King of the Kovalnuts (Est. June 2010 by MantaRay)


#131 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,258 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:28 PM

sterio - i'm not sure what you want lou to do wrt/ clarkson in the middle of the season.

 

think about it - lets say in february, he asks clarkson what he's thinking and is told it will take 5/35 (it would behoove clarkson to ask for the moon to give up the chance to reach UFA). so now, lou knows this and clarkson knows this. lou either has to deal him which means you have zero chance of resigning him, sign him with no leverage, or try to trade him and fail getting what's left of the season's worth of clarkson knowing he's got a foot out the door.

 

i'm not killing him on the way he handled clarkson. lou's "ways" are usually a case by case basis more than we'd care to admit


  • 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)


#132 Devil Dan 56

Devil Dan 56

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,717 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:59 PM

So where did i say that you have to trade away players that may not be returning? where dude? tell me where. seriously.

 

I never said that you said you HAD to trade players away who won't be returning. I said using whether a player will or will not re-sign as a deciding factor in trading them hurts the team as it approaches the playoffs. Lou wants the complete team going into the playoffs, and he'll worry about contracts afterwards. Why would you not want your best possible team in the playoffs? Lou doesn't care if a player may or may not re-sign. Until July 1st, they are a Devil and will contribute to the Devils unless a trade comes along that makes the team better now.


  • 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

#133 njdevsftw

njdevsftw

    Senior Devil

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 783 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 03:04 AM

It's pretty silly for a casual fan such as myself to question the dealings of LL with the success he's had, that said, I'm gonna do it anyway. :P

 

The last two major cases we're talking about are players who were going back to their home towns for a predictable sh!tLOAD of money that we were never going to match. Unless we're a cup contender it should be a no-brainer to move them for assets once it's clear they aren't resigning. It's perfectly possible to offer them contracts before the trade window closes, instead of waiting untill they are UFAs. If I remember correctly we let Pony walk, and then traded a pick for him to get him  back no? Seems like a really bad way of doing business.

 

Granted, in the case of Parise we were legit contenders at the time.. This time we weren't.

 

The last decade has shown us that the fastest way to success in todays salary capped NHL is through tanking, or at least piling up a few early draft picks in consecutive years. Consistently trading away draft picks (and loosing our biggest assets for nothing) while trying to remain a fringe playoff team every year seems less likely to reward us with the main prize.

 

That said, we were two games away last year, and I certainly like the team Lou has put together. Hopefully we'll have a shot this season. :)


Edited by njdevsftw, 07 July 2013 - 05:17 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#134 95Crash

95Crash

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,950 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 10:33 AM

In a nutshell, I sure hope Clowe re-gains some of his scoring touch, doesn't take too many dumb penalties, and stops getting hurt.


  • 0



#135 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,746 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 10:37 AM

How do you know that he didn't do that? Just because he didn't trade Clarkson away? It's not that you have no point at all but that the whole argument is a moot point - as posters have said before - it serves no purpose to know what a player wants contract-wise 4 months before the season ends and the team is still in the playoff race. 

 

Your logic doesn't just go against Lou, it goes against the entire NHL for the entire age of free agency. Teams in the playoff hunt keep their players and attain veterans at the deadline who are at the ends of their contracts and teams out of the playoff hunt trade away their outgoing veterans. You have yet to state what exactly gauging Clarkson's contract desires would have gotten us. We certainly couldn't trade him - he led our team in goals and were looking playoff-bound.

 

i know it cause Lou himself, Clarkson and Clarkson's agent and any other player who's been in that situation and every agents that we heard from other than Brodeur and Stevens maybe reported it that Lou refuse to talk contract and extension during the season. Brodeur and Stevens are the only 2 in like 20+ years.

 

and its not true that it goes against the whole NHL thing. Could name a bunch of example but i'll just pick Getzlaf and Perry for example.

 

and now... for the last time, cause this is getting fvcking ridiculous. Im not saying he should have traded this guy and this guy and bla bla. If anyone here still thinks that thats what im saying, i simply don't know what to tell you anymore.

 

All i want is Lou not to turn his back on opportunities simply by stubborness of sticking to his way. Thats fvcking it. I'm using examples of guys just as EXAMPLES of situations. this is like the 78th time that im saying this its absolutely ridiculous that people still think im saying we should trade away any player or that im saying that in this situation he should have done that.

 

and its not true that it serves no purpose, nothing negative can come out of a simple discussion. Again Elias himself which is a legend said that its somewhat bothering him the way Lou does, why isnt that holding any water for you guys what Elias is saying now?


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#136 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,746 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 10:46 AM

I never said that you said you HAD to trade players away who won't be returning. I said using whether a player will or will not re-sign as a deciding factor in trading them hurts the team as it approaches the playoffs. Lou wants the complete team going into the playoffs, and he'll worry about contracts afterwards. Why would you not want your best possible team in the playoffs? Lou doesn't care if a player may or may not re-sign. Until July 1st, they are a Devil and will contribute to the Devils unless a trade comes along that makes the team better now.

 

i get what you're saying dude and as much as you won't believe it im not that far off from thinking the same thing, i want the best possible team for the playoffs in most case. But i wouldnt go as far as saying "im not gonna trade away any player without even thinking of the consequences and probability EVER. It all blew out of proportion lately cause im trying to use examples to make my point by people are focusing on those "examples" as if its something legit that im suggesting and people are jumping on me for that.

 

All im saying is that business wize its not really smart to stick to one way of doing something without looking farther. There's no "strategy" in this. It's simply him sticking to "talking contracts during the season is a distraction" and thats the main reason he's not doing it. 


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#137 Devil Dan 56

Devil Dan 56

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,717 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 12:46 PM

 

and its not true that it serves no purpose, nothing negative can come out of a simple discussion. Again Elias himself which is a legend said that its somewhat bothering him the way Lou does, why isnt that holding any water for you guys what Elias is saying now?

 

Elias himself re-signed twice after other teams had a crack at him. It may bother him, but he's still signed 7 year and 3 year deals regardless. Elias is very out spoken and I'm sure he was trying to apply pressure, but in the end he wanted to be here. Detroit was going to go hard after him, and he still decided to stay in NJ. It was never enough of a dislike that he would leave over it. 

 

 

 

i get what you're saying dude and as much as you won't believe it im not that far off from thinking the same thing, i want the best possible team for the playoffs in most case. But i wouldnt go as far as saying "im not gonna trade away any player without even thinking of the consequences and probability EVER. It all blew out of proportion lately cause im trying to use examples to make my point by people are focusing on those "examples" as if its something legit that im suggesting and people are jumping on me for that.

 

All im saying is that business wize its not really smart to stick to one way of doing something without looking farther. There's no "strategy" in this. It's simply him sticking to "talking contracts during the season is a distraction" and thats the main reason he's not doing it. 

 

I disagree on one point there. I do think it's a matter of strategy. I think Lou views each season as a whole, and is willing to sacrifice a possible free agency loss for a possible cup run. In his mind, I believe the goal is always the cup, and you make certain sacrifices for that. Had they won in 2012, I don't think Parise leaving would have stung much at all. It was a definite risk, no doubt. But I do believe there's reasoning behind. 

 

Unless, of course it's someone like Marty or Stevens who is looked at as a mainstay no matter what. I think Schneider will also be offered a contract as soon as possible next summer. 


  • 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

#138 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,746 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 01:57 PM

Elias himself re-signed twice after other teams had a crack at him. It may bother him, but he's still signed 7 year and 3 year deals regardless. Elias is very out spoken and I'm sure he was trying to apply pressure, but in the end he wanted to be here. Detroit was going to go hard after him, and he still decided to stay in NJ. It was never enough of a dislike that he would leave over it. 

 

I disagree on one point there. I do think it's a matter of strategy. I think Lou views each season as a whole, and is willing to sacrifice a possible free agency loss for a possible cup run. In his mind, I believe the goal is always the cup, and you make certain sacrifices for that. Had they won in 2012, I don't think Parise leaving would have stung much at all. It was a definite risk, no doubt. But I do believe there's reasoning behind. 

 

Unless, of course it's someone like Marty or Stevens who is looked at as a mainstay no matter what. I think Schneider will also be offered a contract as soon as possible next summer. 

 

You have some good point and i get all of them. Let's just agree to disagree here i guess there's some people more willing to sacrifice the future for the present and willing to gamble more than others, its all about personality. Those decisions will sometimes bite you in the ass or not. Its all gamble and calculated risk. Personally like i said i know trading Zach was not an option at that point of course and all. I just don't like the setup Lou is putting himself into in negotiations, buts thats his problem i guess.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users