Jump to content

Photo

If the team continues to struggle, does Lou start to feel the heat?


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#61 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,897 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 06:47 PM

'Lou gives free agents too many years and dollars!'

unlike all those other GMs who do not do that. I'd love to hear about this magical organization that is able to sign desirable free agents to short term deals for less money than that player is worth.

Not to speak for Coldply, but I think he's saying we shouldn't have been in the situation where half our forwards are recent UFAs.

When you're giving up picks for rentals and you pick late every year, these things happen
  • 0

#62 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,896 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:02 PM

The scoring sucks, the goaltending sucks, but you know what hasn't been bad yet? The defense. You just fix one of the other two and you've got a team that's going to win more games than it loses.

The thing about the Devils' UFA signings this year is that one of them lasts more than 3 years. Now it's obviously the worst one and that's too bad, but if these are mistakes, they're theoretically fixable mistakes.


The defense isn't good enough even if with great goaltending to account for the glaring lack of scoring. If Merrill turns into Suter, Gelinas into Keith, Severson into Weber (or two out of the three do that) you can go far, but that's a complete pipe dream. A bunch of Andy Greenes can put an otherwise good team over the top, but that's not what we have.

You're going to lose a lot more games than you win if you can't score more than two goals a game, which is what the Devils offense looks to be for the foreseeable future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#63 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,612 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:04 PM

Not to speak for Coldply, but I think he's saying we shouldn't have been in the situation where half our forwards are recent UFAs.

When you're giving up picks for rentals and you pick late every year, these things happen

Lou tries to put a winning team on the ice every year. We've never had an intended transition year since he's been here. Meanwhile most teams have a short legitimate window before they tear it apart and retool or rebuild over a few years.
  • 0

#64 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,897 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:11 PM

Lou tries to put a winning team on the ice every year. We've never had an intended transition year since he's been here. Meanwhile most teams have a short legitimate window before they tear it apart and retool or rebuild over a few years.

Trying and succeeding are two different things. Unless Lou pulls a rabbit out of his hat, the offense will probably stay the same. Looking at the ufa landscape, our best bets are Steen, Grabovski, Moulson, Gaborik or Vanek. Of course, most of these guys will probably be retained
  • 0

#65 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,612 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:34 PM

Trying and succeeding are two different things. Unless Lou pulls a rabbit out of his hat, the offense will probably stay the same. Looking at the ufa landscape, our best bets are Steen, Grabovski, Moulson, Gaborik or Vanek. Of course, most of these guys will probably be retained

my point was that the people who are calling for a rebuild/Lou to leave are the same ones who can't stand any period if losing. I wonder what this board would be like with a 3 year rebuild/bottom feeder period.
  • 0

#66 Marv4Life

Marv4Life

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:38 PM

The guy is 71. I have yet to hear a valid reason why he should remain should they miss the playoffs AGAIN(3 out of 4 years). The new ownership can talk about Lou's special sauce all they want, but as mentioned they are the same guys who cleaned house with the Sixers and they cannot be happy with the attendance so far, and I doubt it's gonna improve should the team stay on track.


  • 0

#67 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,612 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:45 PM

The guy is 71. I have yet to hear a valid reason why he should remain should they miss the playoffs AGAIN(3 out of 4 years). The new ownership can talk about Lou's special sauce all they want, but as mentioned they are the same guys who cleaned house with the Sixers and they cannot be happy with the attendance so far, and I doubt it's gonna improve should the team stay on track.

funny how you conveniently leave out the fact that the year they made the playoffs, they were a mark fayne empty net miss away from winning the cup.

Edited by dmann422, 04 November 2013 - 07:46 PM.

  • 0

#68 jagknife

jagknife

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,505 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:51 PM

funny how you conveniently leave out the fact that the year they made the playoffs, they were a mark fayne empty net miss away from winning the cup.

 

still woulda had to actually win game 6, and then win game 7.

 

this team has been extremely average since the lockout, its no secret. we had a fluke run in 2012 where the right guys got hot at the exact right time.

 

don't turn a blind eye to their under performing based on the good feeling of the 2012 run.


  • 0

NewKeeperSig.png of each of Toronto's 6 shots on goal in Game 6


#69 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,612 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:00 PM

still woulda had to actually win game 6, and then win game 7.

this team has been extremely average since the lockout, its no secret. we had a fluke run in 2012 where the right guys got hot at the exact right time.

don't turn a blind eye to their under performing based on the good feeling of the 2012 run.

over the past 4 years the devils are a combined 108-93-25. Not as terrible as many make it out to be.

Most gms and teams would kill for a "fluke run". Don't turn a blind eye to that cup run based in a bad 50 game stretch.
  • 0

#70 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,713 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:03 PM

The guy is 71. I have yet to hear a valid reason why he should remain should they miss the playoffs AGAIN(3 out of 4 years). The new ownership can talk about Lou's special sauce all they want, but as mentioned they are the same guys who cleaned house with the Sixers and they cannot be happy with the attendance so far, and I doubt it's gonna improve should the team stay on track.

 

His best 'defense' for the last four years is the two guys who were supposed to be building blocks of the organization for the next decade both walked away for reasons beyond Lou's control (after having one full season together where they happened to go to the Finals).  How many organizations can survive their two franchise players leaving for nothing?

 

And his worst move had absolutely nothing to do with missing the playoffs three out of four seasons (not giving up the #29 pick).


Edited by NJDevs4978, 04 November 2013 - 08:06 PM.

  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#71 coldply123

coldply123

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,257 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:06 PM

Not to speak for Coldply, but I think he's saying we shouldn't have been in the situation where half our forwards are recent UFAs.

When you're giving up picks for rentals and you pick late every year, these things happen

 

That's only one aspect but you are also correct.  The terrible deals given out to the defensemen are another and a result of disregard for scouting/developing defensemen.  Now we've gone the opposite direction in terms of forwards and have collected a lot of defensive prospects.


  • 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

#72 coldply123

coldply123

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,257 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:12 PM

'Lou gives free agents too many years and dollars!'

 

unlike all those other GMs who do not do that.  I'd love to hear about this magical organization that is able to sign desirable free agents to short term deals for less money than that player is worth.

 

You can't just "categorically" ignore it Triumph or try to play the "well everybody else signs players to long-term contracts that cost money too".  I'm well aware of market fundamentals at play in free agency.

 

Go through the FAs we have signed over the years.  I think the only one that could be argued that has worked out has been Zubrus and that's marginal in that it worked out on the back end moreso the front end where he was largely out of place and inconsistent the first few years, and Lou has decided to erase that good memory by giving him a new 3 year deal.  Even the Kovalchuk re-sign despite us getting to a SCF, will prove to be a negative mark on this organization overall in short-term cost and how Lou handled it since he won't be here for the long-term ramifications to rebound from.

 

Locking guys in for too many years results in having to eat huge portions of cap space as well as potentially tying up a roster spot, reducing flexibility in the management of the roster/lines.  Lou has committed this egregiously several times in the last decade (Mogilny, Malakhov, Matvichuk, Rolston) amongst just a few of the well known ones (there's several more).


  • 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

#73 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,326 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:13 PM

funny how you conveniently leave out the fact that the year they made the playoffs, they were a mark fayne empty net miss away from winning the cup.

 

let's pump the breaks there - sure, fayne hitting the empty net and/or kovalchuk not hitting the crossbar makes it a more interesting series - but the kings steam rolled the devils. marty was going to have to have a GAA of 1 or under for the devils to win that series.

 

as for getting truly elite talent - for the most part, you have to draft it. its rare that a player like vanek or parise or kovalchuk hit the free agent market. they're either past their true prime years or they've played for a team that has mismanaged the asset. good teams rarely mismanage their top talent to a point where the player leaves for nothing. 

 

in the instances where a great player is on a team that isn't his original, often its circumstances that got him traded and the return was significant. there are those rare occurances where you get something great for very little because the player blossoms (sharp, naslund, moulson).

 

true top end talent is often drafted fairly high. you have to suck to get those picks. the devils have drafted high once in the last 10 years. despite what some think, they got what looks to be an elite defender with an average to slightly above average offensive game. you would hope that if they had opportunities like pittsburgh or chicago with a low period of 3-4 years, they'd find top end offensive talent there.

 

lou's offseason moves this year made a lot of sense.

 

getting a clarkson replacement who theoretically can do more than clarkson all around, but perhaps not as good at the one thing clarkson does well (score) was a good idea. he just made a high risk gamble with clowe. looks like that's DOA.

 

ryder is a guy who is a scorer - that's his strongest skill set - a guy with a steady high s% that, if given guys that will do the work and get him the puck, can put it in the back of the net. we've seen it happen 4 times. not enough but perhaps we've got the "sample size argument"

 

goaltending has not been good so far - average goaltending has this team with 3-4 more points. excellent goaltending has it with 4-5.

 

the design wasn't terribly flawed with what lou had to work with.

 

but again, and it sucks because it can't happen this year, i think this team needs an awful year with a top draft pick to get a dynamic offensive player - i don't see how they get another one in the organization unless they trade one of merrill, gelinas or larsson for it from someone who overvalues them. ales hemsky is not what this team is missing. patrick kane is what this team is missing.


  • 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)


#74 coldply123

coldply123

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,257 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:15 PM

funny how you conveniently leave out the fact that the year they made the playoffs, they were a mark fayne empty net miss away from winning the cup.

 

This is hilariously untrue.


let's pump the breaks there - sure, fayne hitting the empty net and/or kovalchuk not hitting the crossbar makes it a more interesting series - but the kings steam rolled the devils. marty was going to have to have a GAA of 1 or under for the devils to win that series.

 

as for getting truly elite talent - for the most part, you have to draft it. its rare that a player like vanek or parise or kovalchuk hit the free agent market. they're either past their true prime years or they've played for a team that has mismanaged the asset. good teams rarely mismanage their top talent to a point where the player leaves for nothing. 

 

in the instances where a great player is on a team that isn't his original, often its circumstances that got him traded and the return was significant. there are those rare occurances where you get something great for very little because the player blossoms (sharp, naslund, moulson).

 

true top end talent is often drafted fairly high. you have to suck to get those picks. the devils have drafted high once in the last 10 years. despite what some think, they got what looks to be an elite defender with an average to slightly above average offensive game. you would hope that if they had opportunities like pittsburgh or chicago with a low period of 3-4 years, they'd find top end offensive talent there.

 

lou's offseason moves this year made a lot of sense.

 

getting a clarkson replacement who theoretically can do more than clarkson all around, but perhaps not as good at the one thing clarkson does well (score) was a good idea. he just made a high risk gamble with clowe. looks like that's DOA.

 

ryder is a guy who is a scorer - that's his strongest skill set - a guy with a steady high s% that, if given guys that will do the work and get him the puck, can put it in the back of the net. we've seen it happen 4 times. not enough but perhaps we've got the "sample size argument"

 

goaltending has not been good so far - average goaltending has this team with 3-4 more points. excellent goaltending has it with 4-5.

 

the design wasn't terribly flawed with what lou had to work with.

 

but again, and it sucks because it can't happen this year, i think this team needs an awful year with a top draft pick to get a dynamic offensive player - i don't see how they get another one in the organization unless they trade one of merrill, gelinas or larsson for it from someone who overvalues them. ales hemsky is not what this team is missing. patrick kane is what this team is missing.

 

And that latter part is a big problem for us in that case, because....................


  • 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

#75 sundstrom

sundstrom

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,326 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:29 PM


 

And that latter part is a big problem for us in that case, because....................

 

we've beaten this horse. not giving up the 29th pick was inexcusable to the point of disgusting arrogance. this was a case of lou having absolute autonomy and using the old doctrine "if you've got time, use it." i wish that JVB actually took the reigns there and just said - this makes zero sense, you have to give it up.

 

lou is far from perfect. he has made poor decisions as far as asset allocation the last several years (poor cap management, too many defensemen, not providing a good track for young players to thrive, re-signing vets to contracts when better alternatives for the future exist). but the real issue is he does not have any true high end talent to cover up these mistakes. and that comes back to not being in a position to draft it and missing (badly it appears) with tedenby and josefson.


  • 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)


#76 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,612 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 09:54 PM

let's pump the breaks there - sure, fayne hitting the empty net and/or kovalchuk not hitting the crossbar makes it a more interesting series - but the kings steam rolled the devils. marty was going to have to have a GAA of 1 or under for the devils to win that series.

 

 

This is hilariously untrue.

 

We can agree to disagree and I admit I exaggerate for effect, but that is an entirely different series if we go to LA tied 1-1. And I'm not sure how LA "steamrolled" us by winning twice in overtime and losing 2 games in the series. I think the way the series ended makes it look much worse than it was, but I digress.

 

 

By my quick count, there are only 8 other gms in the NHL that have even been to a cup final (with their current team). It is hilarious to me that some want to drop a gm who has shown consistently he knows how to build a winner for a compete unknown.

 

That's only one aspect but you are also correct.  The terrible deals given out to the defensemen are another and a result of disregard for scouting/developing defensemen.  Now we've gone the opposite direction in terms of forwards and have collected a lot of defensive prospects.

 

 

I believe your problem is that you are evaluating a very small window (end of 2012 season - today), when its quite obvious there were extenuating circumstances occuring during that time (ownership issues, lockout, kovy, etc), and you are simultaneously ignoring all of the success he's had prior to that. And regading the bolded, which is it... I though our drafting was terrible, but we now have a lot of defensive prospects? I'm confused...

 

I still pose this question to you - if Lou is not good enough for the future, I would like to know an example of a GM currently in the NHL who you look at and say "man I wish he could replace Lou". And this is absolutely a viable question, because the true measure of success as a GM is how is he compared to his peers (other teams). To me, there are very few who I would want to replace him if I had the opportunity.


  • 0

#77 jagknife

jagknife

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,505 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:09 PM

We can agree to disagree and I admit I exaggerate for effect, but that is an entirely different series if we go to LA tied 1-1. And I'm not sure how LA "steamrolled" us by winning twice in overtime and losing 2 games in the series. I think the way the series ended makes it look much worse than it was, but I digress.

 

 

By my quick count, there are only 8 other gms in the NHL that have even been to a cup final (with their current team). It is hilarious to me that some want to drop a gm who has shown consistently he knows how to build a winner for a compete unknown.

 

 

 

I believe your problem is that you are evaluating a very small window (end of 2012 season - today), when its quite obvious there were extenuating circumstances occuring during that time (ownership issues, lockout, kovy, etc), and you are simultaneously ignoring all of the success he's had prior to that. And regading the bolded, which is it... I though our drafting was terrible, but we now have a lot of defensive prospects? I'm confused...

 

I still pose this question to you - if Lou is not good enough for the future, I would like to know an example of a GM currently in the NHL who you look at and say "man I wish he could replace Lou". And this is absolutely a viable question, because the true measure of success as a GM is how is he compared to his peers (other teams). To me, there are very few who I would want to replace him if I had the opportunity.

 

you keep saying we all are looking from the end of the 2012 season until today, did you completely forget how absolutely atrocious 2010-2011 was?

 

Lou, admittedly, sat on his hands entirely too long with MacLean, we had young guys and patch work players playing significantly above their potential/capabilities under Lemaire and it nearly saved the season.

 

we have too many players under atrocious contracts, and since the lockout he has a proven track record of making such signings. Clowe isn't the first head scratcher that is probably going to be too much money for too long.

 

You wanna keep supporting Lou, by all means, its your right as a fan, but the fact you're bewildered that fans are kind of getting fed up of "status quo" and b & c list players being plugged in to replace and fill a-player roles is just as dumbfounding.

 

Not to mention our pipeline for prospects went from being amazing to average at best outside of a small handful of players.

 

you wanna know who I'd take to replace Lou if it were a perfect world and we could get whomever we wanted? I'd start with Ray Shero, Stan Bowman, and Ken Holland without looking around the league and putting effort in.


  • 0

NewKeeperSig.png of each of Toronto's 6 shots on goal in Game 6


#78 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,713 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:13 PM

we've beaten this horse. not giving up the 29th pick was inexcusable to the point of disgusting arrogance. this was a case of lou having absolute autonomy and using the old doctrine "if you've got time, use it." i wish that JVB actually took the reigns there and just said - this makes zero sense, you have to give it up.

 

lou is far from perfect. he has made poor decisions as far as asset allocation the last several years (poor cap management, too many defensemen, not providing a good track for young players to thrive, re-signing vets to contracts when better alternatives for the future exist). but the real issue is he does not have any true high end talent to cover up these mistakes. and that comes back to not being in a position to draft it and missing (badly it appears) with tedenby and josefson.

 

I mean you could make the argument giving up 16-20 this year really wouldn't have been that big a deal compared to giving up 29 two years ago...but it was an unneccesary risk that looks like it's going to completely blow up.  I've said this before but it's like taking another card in a game of 21 when you're sitting on 20.  Far more of a chance you bust than not.


We can agree to disagree and I admit I exaggerate for effect, but that is an entirely different series if we go to LA tied 1-1. And I'm not sure how LA "steamrolled" us by winning twice in overtime and losing 2 games in the series. I think the way the series ended makes it look much worse than it was, but I digress.

 

 

By my quick count, there are only 8 other gms in the NHL that have even been to a cup final (with their current team). It is hilarious to me that some want to drop a gm who has shown consistently he knows how to build a winner for a compete unknown.

 

 

 

I believe your problem is that you are evaluating a very small window (end of 2012 season - today), when its quite obvious there were extenuating circumstances occuring during that time (ownership issues, lockout, kovy, etc), and you are simultaneously ignoring all of the success he's had prior to that. And regading the bolded, which is it... I though our drafting was terrible, but we now have a lot of defensive prospects? I'm confused...

 

I still pose this question to you - if Lou is not good enough for the future, I would like to know an example of a GM currently in the NHL who you look at and say "man I wish he could replace Lou". And this is absolutely a viable question, because the true measure of success as a GM is how is he compared to his peers (other teams). To me, there are very few who I would want to replace him if I had the opportunity.

 

We outplayed them two games in that series - Games 2 and 5.  Game 4 was even, the other games the Kings dominated.  The series was about where it should have been, that's why I don't look back at Games 1/2.  We would have been fortunate to be in a Game 7 assuming we win one of the first two, and could have easily lost that game anyway.


  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#79 Mike Brown

Mike Brown

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,954 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:24 PM

The SCF was there for the taking.  In games 1 and 2, the Devils outplayed the Kings both times.  That's not saying much since neither team played well in those games.  The Kings being the fresher team took it to us in game 3.  We won game 4 out of desperation and game 5 we won only because Quick screwed up leading to Parise's goal.  The Devils could have won that series, but let's not kid ourselves.  The Kings outclassed the Devils in that series.  Had the Devils won that series, it would akin to the Pirates beating the Yankees in 1960.


  • 0

temp_zps55e0012a.png

NEW JERSEY DEVILS: 3 TIME STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

NEW YORK YANKEES: 27 TIME WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!


#80 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,920 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:30 PM

we've beaten this horse. not giving up the 29th pick was inexcusable to the point of disgusting arrogance. this was a case of lou having absolute autonomy and using the old doctrine "if you've got time, use it." i wish that JVB actually took the reigns there and just said - this makes zero sense, you have to give it up.

 

lou is far from perfect. he has made poor decisions as far as asset allocation the last several years (poor cap management, too many defensemen, not providing a good track for young players to thrive, re-signing vets to contracts when better alternatives for the future exist). but the real issue is he does not have any true high end talent to cover up these mistakes. and that comes back to not being in a position to draft it and missing (badly it appears) with tedenby and josefson.

 

Why would JVB want him to give it up?  What were the odds in 2012 that Vanderbeek was going to own the team for even six more months?


  • 0

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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users