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)