Problem solved. Disregard my past posts.
This is a great example of why we all need to sometimes take a step back and see how things shake out before going ballistic (and I do this sometimes too, so I'm not saying I'm never guilty of it).
Jump to content
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 11 November 2015 - 02:54 PM
Problem solved. Disregard my past posts.
This is a great example of why we all need to sometimes take a step back and see how things shake out before going ballistic (and I do this sometimes too, so I'm not saying I'm never guilty of it).
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 08 November 2015 - 07:07 AM
Lou clearly ran his course here and it was time for a change. The fact that he was successful for so long allowed him to retain the benefit of the doubt with the new owners (and others), but when the team was no longer getting positive results (and let's face it, Lou's way gets hard to take for several factions when the wins stop coming), with a number of players committed to being here for a while, it was time to move on and try something different. These players probably feel like that they can breathe a lot easier now, and are enjoying and appreciating their newfound freedoms...and though it's been said many times, it's nice that some deadwood has been trimmed away.
It wasn't like the Leafs were having loads of fun before Lou arrived there, so I don't know how much of what's happening there can be put on him...he inherited a pretty serious mess. I do think he's going to fail up there though, and pretty badly. If he really wants to keep being a GM in the NHL, he's probably going to have to start compromising and adjusting some of the more "my way or the highway" parts of his personality. I don't think he can or will. I could understand his being that way here, as his run was one of the most successful ever in his era, but if he insists on continuing that with the Leafs, results be damned, then Sterio (not knocking him here) and others who have criticized him for being stubborn and refusing to adapt are going to have some evidence to back up their arguments.
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 17 August 2015 - 07:01 PM
Those games were great. He was so pumped when he scored.
I think he is probably good for about 20 goals a season here in the UK lol , he won't know what to do with himself.
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 10 August 2015 - 12:45 PM
If I may jump in here - nowhere did I downplay the seriousness of sexual assault.
I was commenting how on sensitive the internet can be, and difficult it can be to be 100% "politically correct" at times. People (self-proclaimed "SJW's" especially) are so quick to jump on others, claim people are being misogynistic and/or claim they are "victim blaming/shaming" for objectively discussing sexual assault that it's almost not worth even going into it.
I think what you probably meant to say instead of "sensitive" is "reactionary", when it comes to the word rape, because that word always causes a reaction, and unfortunately so many people react before they have anywhere near all of the facts. And far too often, when we read or hear about rape allegations in the media, the primal reactions are:
1) The guy did it, no questions asked, and in some circles, men are guilty automatically because men are scum by default and they're just prone to this behavior. They're all capable under certain circumstances.
2) The woman, either through being promiscuous (through manner or dress or both), impaired, or simply using "poor judgment" (Well, why did you go up to his room? What did you think was going to happen?), was asking for it, and is as much to blame (if not more so) as her assailant.
Neither of the above is remotely fair, and what's even worse, men who are 100% exonerated from rape charges often never truly are...there's always those who take the "Well, he must have done something, or it never would've gotten this far..." It's always a black mark.
As for feminism...most American women who like to think of themselves as feminists are full of it, because they have no idea what true feminism is. They interpret feminism to mean "have our cake and eat it too, and come back for seconds at the expense of men". I'm all for equality...but equal means equal. That means if a draft is ever re-instituted, then you're eligible too (and this is one of the things that stopped the ERA dead in its tracks from passing, when women suddenly started to realize that you just don't get to pick and choose the parts of equality that constitutes the "good" stuff). Guys who don't pay for every last thing on your dates aren't cheapskates. If you commit domestic violence against a man, then it's not some joke that the man got hit by a "girl", or that the man is 100% guilty of being a "woman beater" because he finally dared to defend himself after you assaulted him over and over and over again...and you don't get the play the emotional card either...you get handcuffed, shackled, dragged and humiliated too...you deserve the same punishment as a man who strikes you. And no more playing the "damsel-in-distress" card in court in divorce cases...in marriages that fail where both parties simply couldn't work it out, the guy doesn't screwed in court to the point where he can barely support himself, but is now stuck paying both child AND spousal support to a woman who is very capable of supporting herself (and don't get me started on the women who move on with another man where both he and she are clearly well-to-do, but look to find ways around the rules so she can keep collecting her money. My brother was married to one of these beauties).
Anyway, back on topic...Stoll signed by the Rangers to a one-year, $800k contract.
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 04 August 2015 - 02:25 PM
I know we are going into a new direction but this goes beyond getting new, younger players and even changing the atmosphere culture like the goal song. This was an agreement between Lou and McMullen. I know Lou is gone but it just doesn't seem right to me, and doesn't really sit well to me that, that agreement I'd now disregarded. You can say it's just a number but Dr. McMullen is pretty much why the Devils are here. That should go beyond what Shero wants. You got to respect tradition while embrace new ideas. Not just tear everything down like the new regime seems to be doing.
And I like Shero so far, the jury is still out on our new owners but...I don't know if I can't fully get behind this. As silly as it sounds because you can just say "it's just a number", it still doesn't sit right to me
McMullen was also almost the reason they left in 1995, and I don't care what anyone says, that Nashville crap hanging over our heads did take away a little of the enjoyment of that otherwise awesome Stanley Cup run (on some level, that's something I'll never quite forgive him for). It sucked that the players who had suffered through the lean years here had to deal with that too, when they were trying to win a damned Cup. It was great that McMullen brought the Devils to NJ, but he wasn't exactly Captain Benevolence or Mr. Loyalty.
I don't see what's so untouchable about the low number/no #13 tradition...I don't put it on the same level of "Don't ever fvck with this" as, say, the Yankees deciding to add names to the back of their jerseys, or deciding it's finally time to come up with a 2015 refresh of their uniforms. That would be blasphemous. Lou and McMullen have clearly provided us with a lot of great memories that will live on in our rooting souls forever. That's enough for me...I don't need to see their traditions carried on for all eternity. And there's just simple logistics, which Tri and others have already discussed...three numbers are already hanging in the rafters, and two more soon will. There's no obvious number-retirement candidates beyond that, but five less numbers to choose from in a limited pool is a lot. I'm fine with more available numbers helping to put an end to the "musical numbers" thing that seems to afflict some players.
I think they just realize a number is just a number. It doesn't have any outcome on how players perform so might as well just let them wear whatever they want.
Is Crosby cocky? Sure I would say so but I don't think it's because he wears 87 cause of his birthday. I think it's because he's good and he knows it.
My "cocky" thing isn't an indictment on the player wearing the number. I just call those numbers that because they have a certain flash and "look at me" feel to them...you almost assume that someone wearing a high number is supposed to be dynamic and well-aware of the fact that he is. But it goes without saying that such a generalization isn't accurate in all cases. It's just a nickname I have for those numbers.
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 03 August 2015 - 01:03 PM
I'm not sure what was said before but I thought I'd clarify since so many people tried making my point without actually having it, then we can get back on topic about Zubrus. I feel like I am just waiting for this last trade that is my impatience short term. Shero keeps hinting at it and I keep waiting for it but I don't see it. I only value Palmieri for what he has actually done to improve the team (Moore was an unqualified RFA, hardly something to praise). I feel like that is the point of a GM and I'm sort of surprised that this offseason is considered a success considering it was just Palmieri, plus letting players that contributed were allowed to walk (Bernier, Gomez) without replacing them. They being replaced by players that couldn't replace them last year. So the point of a GM is to make the team better and he has done nothing to do that. If you say that wasn't the point for this year, I'd say you want the team to tank, not rebuild. That's fine if you want them to tank, but I prefer not the euphemisms.
If it's about the impatience long term, it's because I don't agree with tanking. Getting marginally better each year and keeping a concept of winning is better than throwing out the concept of winning for a couple of years because it is hard to get back to a winning concept (especially with the same GM, coach, owner, etc) with any player that was in the culture of "losing is ok." Lou may not have been the best with a lot of things, but culture there is bar none. I really like the Palmieri trade, and I hoped for one other piece that would contribute to the top 9 for our team this year. That's it. Two top 9 forwards in an offseason isn't impatient. It's just a step in the right direction and not towards tanking.
The season doesn't start until October. Again, why is it so friggin' imperative that Shero gets what you want right this second? The offseason is still ongoing. He may be able to pick up another Top 9 or two during the season.
Do you know what a true tank even is? Do you know what a team that is truly trying to tank would do? Zubrus would've been kept and given the same ice time he was last season, because we know he'd be awful. A guy like Joe Whitney gets re-signed and he, Paul Thompson, and Mike Sislo all get a shot at Top 6 minutes, Top 9 at the very least, for the entire season even if their progress is minimal. Shero looks into dealing Schneider for assets (players and picks that will start to help in 2-4 years, but clearly isn't helping the team right now).
Zubrus was dumped and others were allowed to walk so that Shero would have flexibility to add a player or two that might help in the seasons to come. Why is it such a big friggin' deal that he's waiting to see what becomes available in time? Maybe there's no one on 8/3 that appeals to him...and yeah, no sh!t his job is to improve the team...duh! Did it ever occur to you that Shero's idea of improving the team is to show the slightest bit of patience so he has some more options, that maybe his best deals to be made haven't materialized yet? Did it ever strike you that as teams inevitably realize that their dream of making the playoffs is just that - a dream - that doors that were closed start to open?
Just the fact alone that Schneider is here and not going anywhere should tell you that this is not a tank job in the slightest, because provided he stays healthy and plays to his typical level, he'll start his 65+ games and give his team upper-level goaltending. His presence pretty much makes the team a 75+ point entity.
Your timetable for the "improvement" is preposterous and beyond unreasonable. I'll give you the same advice I would give to the rest of the entitled instant-gratification crowd: go watch one of the right-now teams for a while, because you obviously don't have the patience for this. The new GM's been here for a whopping three months and for most of that time was in a sticky situation with Lou still being here. The season doesn't start for another two months. Give the guy some friggin' time. God damn.
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 27 July 2015 - 09:06 AM
The problem with actually trying to put a real Devil face on the front of a jersey is that just about every design of it is either going to look cartoony or become dated within four or five years. It's the relative simplicity of the NJ with horns (and the fact that it ties in with New Jersey) that's allowed that logo to remain relevant, without ever looking silly. I can't think of a single actual Devil face (or full-bodied version) that will ever remain timeless, or come close to having universal appeal. They'll all likely be a "love it or hate it thing", no matter how they're depicted.
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 25 July 2015 - 07:25 AM
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 24 July 2015 - 01:52 PM
This is actually an incredibly sad commentary about what our society has become.
It's not, actually. SD left out some things. Like players having more and more opportunities to decide to play where they want to. If the previous generations of players had those same opportunities for the same salaries, you can bet they would've taken advantage. I can guarantee you that some terrific players who had to endure playing on bad teams year after year after year (sometimes for entire careers) because they had no say in where they played would've loved to have been playing in the present time period. They didn't stay with their teams completely out of loyalty and because they were all swell guys. They stayed because they had no choices, didn't know any better and became products of their environments, and way back in the day didn't think to fight for free agency rights and the rest. Owners often treated their players like sh!t back in the "good ol' days"
As for divorce...same thing. Do you really think people stayed together back in the day simply because they were loyal? Women often stayed with men because they simply couldn't support themselves in what was a limited job market for them. Career opportunities were not lucrative enough to support a family if they had kids. Even obviously abused women often stayed in marriages because they felt like they had nowhere else to go, or were simply that terrified to leave. That must have been great for the kids of families like that. Yeah, high divorce rates does cheapen the whole institution of marriage somewhat, and some people probably don't put as much effort into their marriages as they should, but part of the whole "increased divorce thing" is people actually realizing life is too damned short to stay trapped in miserable and hopeless situations, and because they are better able to handle the financial hardships and other issues that come with divorce, they aren't staying in it for the sake of staying in it.
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 28 June 2015 - 10:07 AM
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 24 June 2015 - 11:50 AM
Being there was pretty amazing. Tons of enthusiasm and anticipation in the parking lot...it was windy but sunny, and everyone was just enjoying each other's company and the whole experience. When Chambers' second goal in the third period gave the Devils that 5-2 lead, the feeling among the crowd was exhilaration and almost a little disbelief...the only thing separating the Devils from the Cup at the point was time left on the clock, and there was definitely a "Holy sh!t is this REALLY happening?!" sentiment going around.
As the minutes left in the game dwindled down to seconds, the build-up was almost too much...time seemed to slow down exponentially...sometimes it felt completely frozen. But when the clock FINALLY showed 0.00...god DAMN...the pure rush of emotions...everyone losing their collective minds...strangers hugging...scoreboard fireworks...all of it was so overwhelmingly beautiful...felt like a room full of people were somehow one and the same...I'll never ever forget it. My finest moment as a sports fan, without question.
Thanks DM84...the b-days stop being happy after 21 though. Now it's just about getting older and older. Can't believe 50 is only five short years away.
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 19 May 2015 - 12:25 PM
This is actually quite a revealing time on this board.
You can see quite clearly who likes what I'll call Devils hockey - which I consider consistent hockey throughout the ages unaffected by trends of the times.
You can see who didn't really know what they were watching. You can see now that all their years of hockey talk actually boil down to their pretty much just trying to second guess what Lou would do next - not really seeing the WHY he might do it or why he did do something.
You can see who kind of bandwagoned onto to the team - yet still felt great loyalty and stuck with the organization despite it not representing a product they liked at ALL. The winning was cool but they didn't actually enjoy the hockey. hmm.
You can see who reeeally doesn't know sh!te from shinola about hockey and has been trying to figure it out all this time latching on to a winning team and trying to figure it all out from there. Sort of a "these guys are winning and they make me admire them - there is strength and I'm going to sit here and watch and try to figure it all out."
Many people are quite lost... they have no clue why they did or did not like Lou or in fact the Devils. You can tell by what and how you all are writing.
I enjoy the people trying to see how to get Devils hockey back in play. They reference decent teams and look for HOCKEY options. Maybe they came to the team for any one of the reasons above but they've come out the other side KNOWING. They found hockey. Which is ... its the best ever... My nephew is finding hockey playing and that's adorable not sure he likes it...but I thinkhe does. He's a scaredy cat -- but as he grows I see he's just a big thinker -- I hope he starts to enjoy the game <3
First bolded isn't really accurate, as far as Lou's era goes...Lou's era can really be divided into sub-eras. The first part (prior to Jacques Lemaire, through the end of the '92-'93 season) was Lou collecting and dealing pieces and having some very good talent, but not really sure how to turn it into a consistently winning hockey team, or what the team identity should be. That changed when Lemaire was hired, and when Brodeur joined the team. Lemaire provided the blueprint, Brodeur the continuity and the face.
Though many (even some Devils fans who really should know better) insist that the Devils were winning 2-1 trap-driven borefests every night, we all know that wasn't really true...at least, not nearly to the extent that so many from the media and other teams' fanbases wanted to believe. In the middle part of Lou's era (say '94-'03), there were actually some terrific Devil teams that could do it all: play top-notch defense AND put pucks in the net, and some of those teams were - gasp! - quite easy on the eyes and exciting. The 2000 and 2001 squads were a blast to watch. And even the Devils teams that weren't scoring as much weren't nearly as boring as made out to be. It's one of those things where enough people said it that it just became accepted as gospel, regardless of what was happening on the ice.
The 2004+ phase of Lou's tenure could be rough at times...many of those teams seemed to have to claw for every point and every win, and at times could just be so ugly to watch...felt like a number of those teams overachieved, only to turn into the two-steps-slower, easily-overwhelmed Devils come playoff time. Marty did his best work during this time, though that doesn't always get noticed. Sure, the fact that the Devils were still finding ways to put up 100-point seasons with what seemed to be smoke and mirrors was great, but those teams were not always easy or enjoyable watches, and sometimes looked completely out-of-sync...sometimes it felt like they were winning in spite of themselves. I do think most fans appreciated what Lou did and how he did it for as long as he did, though those who didn't definitely spoke with loud voices.
The second bolded: be careful with that one. You're not exactly renowned for coherent and cohesive articulation. You shouldn't be judging anyone.
On topic: it's so quiet in Devil-land...I get the feeling the coach is going to be a "wha, who, huh?" kind of choice.
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 09 May 2015 - 11:32 AM
Now apparently Gee is on the DL and Syndergard will be making his debut sooner than expected.
You probably already know this by now, but Syndergaard will make his major-league debut Tuesday against the Cubs.
Hoping it's the last we see of Dillon Gee in the Mets' rotation. Nothing against him, and he's clearly a decent major-league pitcher who, if he's able to stay healthy, should be in the majors for at least 4-5 more seasons. But when you've got superior talent not getting a shot because a meh-ish player has "experience" (not having experience hasn't seemed to affect Harvey and deGrom all that much), or is getting paid too much to sit (Gee's salary definitely was a factor here), it's kind of maddening. We kind of knew Gee and/or Niese would go down with an injury in due time, and yep, it happened. Really hope Noah makes the most of this opportunity and never gives the Mets a reason to send him back down.
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 05 May 2015 - 09:18 AM
CR, history lesson please. I always heard how pissed Stevens was, but what was going on with players on the Devils team?
The short of it: Stevens was making considerably more money at that time than many Devils, who basically were taking a "Well, if he's making that much, then I want this much" stand. Here's some articles on what a mess things were back then:
http://www.nytimes.c...ract-sport.html Driver saying a lot of Devils weren't happy with their contracts.
http://www.nytimes.c...-walks-out.html This was shortly before Muller was then traded for Richer.
http://www.nytimes.c...the-devils.html Stevens still having no intention of reporting to the Devils.
http://www.nytimes.c...for-rebels.html Muller taking some shots at the Devils on his way out.
Lou also had to deal with potentially not having Sean Burke due to contract issues (Terreri had moved ahead of him anyway, simply by outplaying him, and as we know, Burke did indeed sit out the entire 91-92 season), and then lost John MacLean (one of the dissenters) to an ACL tear in preseason. Losing MacLean was a killer...he was on a tear that preseason (7 goals in 8 GP), and I think he would've flirted with 50 that season if he had stayed healthy. He looked terrific that preseason.
Just a very ugly time in Devils' history, but Lou somehow got them through it, and they went on to have a respectable season. The team went 32-18-7 before fading (they finished 38-31-11), and put up a then-franchise-high 87 point in making the playoffs, and took a superior Rangers team to seven games before losing in the first round. Messier said the Devils took just enough out of them in that first round to have an affect in their next series against the Penguins (the Rangers lost in six).
Posted by Colorado Rockies 1976 on 05 May 2015 - 08:19 AM
This what I meant when I said I really need something to react to (in dr33's thread) before speculating/reacting. Though it was looking more and more like Lou was going to remain the GM, no one really knew for sure what the future held.
My mentality is pretty similar to a lot of other fans'. I greatly appreciate everything Lou did. He'll go down as one of the best GMs ever, especially when one considers that, though he did have higher payrolls than people remember, he was never spending to top-of-the-league levels. He somehow steered the Devils through a near-mutiny after Stevens was awarded as compensation, from many players on his team and from Stevens himself. He had GMs calling him in mostly condescending fashion, who were basically saying, "You know Stevens won't ever play for you, so do the right thing and trade him to a real team and we'll try to give you something decent in return." Lesser GMs might've blinked. Lou didn't. He more or less told every GM to fvck off, that Stevens was a Devil and that was that. He then told the potential mutineers that enough was enough and that they were Devils under contract. That was really the beginning of Lou's "my way or no way" Devils as far as I'm concerned...sure, we saw some of that before, but I'm still amazed how he got through such a tumultuous offseason.
But more and more it just like Lou's time as GM here needed to be over. Under the circumstances of the past few seasons, some of which were complicated (Kovalchuk deciding to bail, VBK's finances), I understood most of Lou's moves. But I've always felt a GM's time with a franchise has run its course when it seems like even the decent "on paper" moves stop working. As much as I wanted to believe that Lou could somehow turn this around if given the chance, I wasn't feeling terribly hopeful that it was possible, for many reasons which have been extensively covered. I think it was simply time for new ideas and a different perspective.
As for as Shero goes, this is almost like if the Yankees' Brian Cashman eventually gets another GM job where he doesn't get to enjoy spending as twice as much as several other teams. Shero isn't walking into an ideal situation here. He's going to have his work cut out for him, and we're going to see what he's made of. Not saying he's not capable of rebuilding the Devils into a contender, and Shero is young enough and did show enough with Pittsburgh that I do think he's earned a second chance as an NHL GM, and I'm fine with it being here. The time felt right for a change, and though I can't say I'm outright "glad" about it, I stand behind it. Looking forward to seeing what comes next.