Of all the times Lou has curiously fired coaches out of the blue

[mouse]

There's a reason for that -- he's the farthest one from the ice and farthest from having an impact on the outcomes of games.  There's a hierarchy of blame, and it is as follows:

 

1- Players.  Players play, and coaches coach.  A goalie lets in a weak goal?  He shoulders the blame.  A player takes a stupid penalty and that costs his team a goal and/or the game?  It's on him

 

2-  Coaches.   So the players are playing well, but the decisions, strategy, formations, call-ups, etc do not make sense.  That's on the coach.  Not motivating his team?  Also on him.  Team choking when it matters or unable to hold leads?  On him.

 

3-  GM.  The GM is third on the list because the only thing he can really be blamed for is bringing in the wrong coach or players, or spending money in the wrong places.  The former is hard to prove right away because it takes players AND coaches a while to form chemistry, run their own system/style, and so forth.  The latter doesn't happen that often unless you're Glen Sather -- most GMs, especially Lou, are pretty good at spending money on the right players. 

 

4- Owner.  Most owners are hands-off and just serve as bank accounts for the GMs to build and construct teams.   We've had our share of screw ups in that department recently, as have other teams (i.e. the Lightning with those 2 clowns from the movie industry before Vinik took over who btw has just been a phenomenal owner), but other than that it's pretty easy to be an owner.

Our players aren't that good, and Larsson's in Albany for Sal. That's on Lou. At least to some degree -- losing Zach and Kovy was bad luck/timing.

[SterioDesign]

Considering we're in good shape at 2 of 3 positions if we re-sign Schneids, and not in terrible shape with the cap, you don't know and neither does he. If we can't bring in a couple of high end forwards, we will suck. If we can, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, we won't.

 

look at the upcoming ufas, then if there's any we'd have to overpay big time, then look at our trades options, we have nothing plus most of our scorers will be gone in a few years so yeah... 

[Pepperkorn]

Yeah -- I actually wanted specifics not just anyone can see, sundstrom. It sounded like you had something more than just observation.

[Pepperkorn]

It woudl be nice to hear an unbiased assessment of the team in the news.  I mean - it's time to bash players who suck.  Why does no one says Salvador sucks in the press? Why does no one call DeBoer out on Salvador.  Not as in Why is larsson in Albany  - that's easy to answer.

 

"Why is Salvador playing?"  "He bring spit to the team" "no, no he actually doesn't" 

"we're really happy with what he brings to the team"  "Well it really doesn't translate to the on ice product Pete -- you shouldn't be happy"

 

Why does someone not say "Having Sal continually fake aches is not a good thing -- it's not a solution.  Take the C away - it's the first step to admitting YOU ARE ON THE WRONG COURSE!  YOU'RE VISION IS WRONG!  Seriously.  At least it sends a message that you understand that.

 

I mean -- if we want to make sure these guys know something isn't working why do we all only say Marty sucks?  Marty getting aged is the least of this teams problems -- why is that the sole problem the press latches on to?  It's not real. 

[mouse]

look at the upcoming ufas, then if there's any we'd have to overpay big time, then look at our trades options, we have nothing plus most of our scorers will be gone in a few years so yeah... 

We got Zach with a crappy pick. Elias was a second rounder. We got our pick back this year. I'm not saying we WILL get guys of that caliber, but I'm not willing to go all doom and gloom when we have good young d and will most likely have a good goalie hitting his prime. At worst, that keeps us in contention for a playoff spot every year. If we get a little lucky at forward, we're in good shape.

[mouse]

It woudl be nice to hear an unbiased assessment of the team in the news.  I mean - it's time to bash players who suck.  Why does no one says Salvador sucks in the press? Why does no one call DeBoer out on Salvador.  Not as in Why is larsson in Albany  - that's easy to answer.

 

"Why is Salvador playing?"  "He bring spit to the team" "no, no he actually doesn't" 

"we're really happy with what he brings to the team"  "Well it really doesn't translate to the on ice product Pete -- you shouldn't be happy"

 

Why does someone not say "Having Sal continually fake aches is not a good thing -- it's not a solution.  Take the C away - it's the first step to admitting YOU ARE ON THE WRONG COURSE!  YOU'RE VISION IS WRONG!  Seriously.  At least it sends a message that you understand that.

 

I mean -- if we want to make sure these guys know something isn't working why do we all only say Marty sucks?  Marty getting aged is the least of this teams problems -- why is that the sole problem the press latches on to?  It's not real. 

Agreed. I like Sal, and am willing to believe he's a great locker room presence, but his on ice product is just sad. Seeing him play over Larsson would bother me even if I wasn't interested in Larsson's future. At this point, Sal isn't much better than Mike Mottau.

[MadDog2020]

Agreed. I like Sal, and am willing to believe he's a great locker room presence, but his on ice product is just sad. Seeing him play over Larsson would bother me even if I wasn't interested in Larsson's future. At this point, Sal isn't much better than Mike Mottau.

Don't insult Mike Mottau like that.

[sundstrom]

Yeah -- I actually wanted specifics not just anyone can see, sundstrom. It sounded like you had something more than just observation.

 

i alluded to specifics that you'd have to be a player to see. you know that i am not a player.

[Neb00rs]

Am I alone in the opinion that we should keep BOTH Deboer and Lou?

[Devil Dan 56]

Am I alone in the opinion that we should keep BOTH Deboer and Lou?

 

I question some of Deboers personnel decisions and how he handles some situations, but otherwise he's a great motivator and has kept this mediocre team believing and playing hard. I absolutely think he should be kept.

 

As for Lou, he has his problems and makes his mistakes, but you'd be hard pressed to find another GM outside of Detroit who has kept a team as competitive as he has for as long as he has. He's done a lot through years of limited budgets back in the McMullen days and usually drafting in the last 10 picks of the first round. There will be a lot that changes for the better when he leaves, and a lot that may get worse as well.

[sundstrom]

I question some of Deboers personnel decisions and how he handles some situations, but otherwise he's a great motivator and has kept this mediocre team believing and playing hard. I absolutely think he should be kept.

 

As for Lou, he has his problems and makes his mistakes, but you'd be hard pressed to find another GM outside of Detroit who has kept a team as competitive as he has for as long as he has. He's done a lot through years of limited budgets back in the McMullen days and usually drafting in the last 10 picks of the first round. There will be a lot that changes for the better when he leaves, and a lot that may get worse as well.

 

just because this comes up somewhat often - this is a huge fallacy. The devils were always in the top 10-20% of the league in terms of salary. just because they weren't the rangers and didn't partake in the huge early UFA deals (guerin, tkachuk, hull, weight, etc) and because some of their guys left and got way overpaid it seemed like they were low budget. they were not.

 

if i have a criticism of lou, it's that he uses the "what i've seen done against us" theory too often on player acquisition and he can be slow to recognize a players downturn in their career. he is the opposite of branch rickey's mantra of dump a guy a year early than a year late.

[Neb00rs]

There will be a lot that changes for the better when he leaves, and a lot that may get worse as well.

 

I agree, but I am just not willing to deal with what gets worse. Lou has kept us afloat through our post-Cup years and in the playoffs most of the time - with a SCF run not too long ago. I like knowing that the Devils will at least be a half-decent team as long as someone named John MacLean is not behind the bench.

[DJ Eco]

Am I alone in the opinion that we should keep BOTH Deboer and Lou?

 

What Lou does this offseason with a bigger wallet offered to him will probably pave the way for the answer there. I'm of the opinion that DeBoer should stay though. Give him a slightly better roster and we're top 3 in our division, easy. I've felt this way all season.

Edited March 21, 2014 by DJ Eco

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I question some of Deboers personnel decisions and how he handles some situations, but otherwise he's a great motivator and has kept this mediocre team believing and playing hard. I absolutely think he should be kept.

 

As for Lou, he has his problems and makes his mistakes, but you'd be hard pressed to find another GM outside of Detroit who has kept a team as competitive as he has for as long as he has. He's done a lot through years of limited budgets back in the McMullen days and usually drafting in the last 10 picks of the first round. There will be a lot that changes for the better when he leaves, and a lot that may get worse as well.

 

In PDB's case, before I could think about canning him, I'd have to see what else is out there.  Laviolette?  He's got a solid record from a pure wins and losses standpoint, and led a team to a Cup, though the league was so screwed up in that first season back after the strike that I really don't make that much of that Cup win.  I guess you can make an argument for giving Laviolette a shot, but I don't know how much of a difference he'd ultimately make.  It would feel like change for change's sake.  Like you say, the one thing you can say in PDB's defense is his team does TRY..they may not always look good doing it, but it does look like they're trying to me.     

 

Re:  Lou...the two main arguments you can make for him being fired are that maybe he's simply been here too long and now it's time for a change, and that a new GM coming in here without loyalties to any of the current players might be more willing to truly shake things up.  The fact that some people do want him canned is actually a testament to how long this team has been competitive.  Missing the playoffs in potentially three out of four seasons is a major shock to a lot of Devils fans' systems, and this is Lou's first real down period in over 25 years on the job.  How many GMs last even 10 years in their positions, let alone 20+? 

 

On one hand, you look at a guy who has Lou's insanely overall terrific track record and say "He should get a chance to turn this around."  But I'd be lying through my teeth if I said I felt 100% confident that Lou can turn this around.  I honestly don't know.  It's going to take some serious creativity to change and improve this roster, especially since there's a fair number of forwards here that don't exactly have loads of trade value.  I really hope Marty is not back next year...nothing against him, but I think his presence is becoming more overwhelming by the day, and not in a good way.  If Lou brings him back, then I think he's truly stuck in the past.  I've said that Lou keeping Marty around would be his equivalent to jumping the shark, and if that happens, I don't really know how much I can believe in him anymore. 

 

I also can't say that the idea of the post-Lou Devils doesn't intrigue me.  It does.  It will be such upheaval...Jesus, for just about every Devil fan, Lou practically IS the Devils!  As much as I can't imagine him not being the GM, I'm still curious about what his not being around could potentially mean.  Better?  Worse?  I'm not as afraid or saddened by the idea of chance as I am curious. 

 

So basically, I won't be angry if they're both back next season, but I won't be saddened if they're both gone either.  Like Tom McVie once said when he asked about being an interim coach:  "It's always on an interim basis."  Same for GMs I guess.  It's so weird to even think that Lou won't be here someday...I don't even really know how to process the idea. 

Edited March 21, 2014 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[RizzMB30]

Am I alone in the opinion that we should keep BOTH Deboer and Lou?

DeBoer admittedly does drive me a little crazy, but I still trust his judgement.  I'm with you on wanting both to stick around.  Most of the time I'm a pretty big kool-aid drinker. 

[Pepperkorn]

anyway im done talking about this. Absolutely I will ever change my opinion on that subject ever. There's no point

Lighten up.  Make your point once.  let people ponder it.  No one will say "Hey, you know, I take it all back -- that fifteenth time you wrote that really made it all clear to me - I think it was that particular attitude you copped on that last one - you found my soft spot and I now agree with all you wrote this whole time.  Thanks for sticking with me on this"

 

That honestly seems about all you'd be satisfied with.  and I still don't buy you think there's no point to it.  I think that's just another tac you're taking. 

[Pepperkorn]

Am I alone in the opinion that we should keep BOTH Deboer and Lou?

 Not at all.

 

What gets me, is there's got to be something missing. No one sees a complete picture. The team is not balanced somehow. 

 

It may be the new NHL -- but it feels like wildly successful parents with underachieving, though sweet and sincere children.

 

I cannot see the coach/player relationship.  It's this barely contained acceptance.  All of Salvador's convenient injuries rather actually having to accept public acknowledgement of his weakness?  His being the Captain says so much.  It's an acceptance of mediocrity.  A lack of confidence and passion -- but a really nice guy.  That is being held up as the Devils standard.  It is.  

 

I'm not Sal bashing - I'm saying this seems to epitomize this teams philosophy of nonsuccess.  He is NOT the Devils system.  It's like corruption of the concept of team play.  it's not REAL.  It's not looking for real success.  It's hollow.  It's a hollow empty act - It's like the cardboard Rockville in Blazing Saddles. The communication is very much the same way -- a very unsatisfying compromise -- a lose/lose set up.  and the Marty/Cory thing is the same way - unsatisfying compromise - a lose/lose.

 

I feel awful being so negative on what might be an upswing.  but --- we've been here before.  Why pretend now it will be different because we're that much closer to the finish line?  Now I'm so grumpy,  I just drove my husband out of the room.

[Triumph]

just because this comes up somewhat often - this is a huge fallacy. The devils were always in the top 10-20% of the league in terms of salary. just because they weren't the rangers and didn't partake in the huge early UFA deals (guerin, tkachuk, hull, weight, etc) and because some of their guys left and got way overpaid it seemed like they were low budget. they were not.

 

if i have a criticism of lou, it's that he uses the "what i've seen done against us" theory too often on player acquisition and he can be slow to recognize a players downturn in their career. he is the opposite of branch rickey's mantra of dump a guy a year early than a year late.

 

No, it's not, and no they weren't.  They were a mid-budget team.  Once McMullen left YankeeNets opened the coffers and the team spent more.

 

I mean - there's this old article from the Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/24/sports/devils-injury-list-continues-to-grow.html

 

I imagine they were small budget when Lou was going through negotiations with Muller/Burke/etc. but as the team started winning playoff rounds consistently they got more cash to spend.

['7']

No, it's not, and no they weren't.  They were a mid-budget team.  Once McMullen left YankeeNets opened the coffers and the team spent more.

 

I mean - there's this old article from the Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/24/sports/devils-injury-list-continues-to-grow.html

 

I imagine they were small budget when Lou was going through negotiations with Muller/Burke/etc. but as the team started winning playoff rounds consistently they got more cash to spend.

 

btw. They beat Gretzky and the Oilers in that game mentioned in the article. 4-2. Playing only 5 D for 60 minutes

[sundstrom]

No, it's not, and no they weren't.  They were a mid-budget team.  Once McMullen left YankeeNets opened the coffers and the team spent more.

 

I mean - there's this old article from the Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/24/sports/devils-injury-list-continues-to-grow.html

 

I imagine they were small budget when Lou was going through negotiations with Muller/Burke/etc. but as the team started winning playoff rounds consistently they got more cash to spend.

 

 

sorry - i wasn't referring to the late 80's teams. i was referring to the 90's teams. those teams spent money on their guys and didn't "go cheap".

[mouse]

In PDB's case, before I could think about canning him, I'd have to see what else is out there.  Laviolette?  He's got a solid record from a pure wins and losses standpoint, and led a team to a Cup, though the league was so screwed up in that first season back after the strike that I really don't make that much of that Cup win.  I guess you can make an argument for giving Laviolette a shot, but I don't know how much of a difference he'd ultimately make.  It would feel like change for change's sake.  Like you say, the one thing you can say in PDB's defense is his team does TRY..they may not always look good doing it, but it does look like they're trying to me.     

 

Re:  Lou...the two main arguments you can make for him being fired are that maybe he's simply been here too long and now it's time for a change, and that a new GM coming in here without loyalties to any of the current players might be more willing to truly shake things up.  The fact that some people do want him canned is actually a testament to how long this team has been competitive.  Missing the playoffs in potentially three out of four seasons is a major shock to a lot of Devils fans' systems, and this is Lou's first real down period in over 25 years on the job.  How GMs last even 10 years in their positions, let alone 20+? 

 

On one hand, you look at a guy who has Lou's insanely overall terrific track record and say "He should get a chance to turn this around."  But I'd be lying through my teeth if I said I felt 100% confident that Lou can turn this around.  I honestly don't know.  It's going to take some serious creativity to change and improve this roster, especially since there's a fair number of forwards here that don't exactly have loads of trade value.  I really hope Marty is not back next year...nothing against him, but I think his presence is becoming more overwhelming by the day, and not in a good way.  If Lou brings him back, then I think he's truly stuck in the past.  I've said that Lou keeping Marty around would be his equivalent to jumping the shark, and if that happens, I don't really know how much I can believe in him anymore. 

 

I also can't say that the idea of the post-Lou Devils doesn't intrigue me.  It does.  It will be such upheaval...Jesus, for just about every Devil fan, Lou practically IS the Devils!  As much as I can't imagine him not being the GM, I'm still curious about what his not being around could potentially mean.  Better?  Worse?  I'm not as afraid or saddened by the idea of chance as I am curious. 

 

So basically, I won't be angry if they're both back next season, but I won't be saddened if they're both gone either.  Like Tom McVie once said when he asked about being an interim coach:  "It's always on an interim basis."  Same for GMs I guess.  It's so weird to even think that Lou won't be here someday...I don't even really know how to process the idea. 

This. I'm starting to be concerned about Lou. I don't blame him at all for losing Parise or Kovy, or for failing to replace them, but I'm concerned how sentimental the Devils have gotten. When they had no young talent, I was fine with them riding the vets, for better or worse, but Volch or Sal should have been amnestied, or traded for nothing, to free up spots for the young d. If that wasn't an option, they should have traded Fayne to break up the logjam, but instead, they have good kids sitting when IMHO they need to learn to skate with the big boys. I think Lou deserves another season or two to rebuild post Kovy, but if he makes a sentimental move for Marty, he's done. Also, if we have to blame someone, and I don't know if we do, it should be Lou over PDB. I don't agree with everything DeBo's done by a long shot, but he's had a terrible group of forwards, and is still managing to win more games than he should.

 

Finally, it's weird seeing guys who were larger than life start to get older. It's obviously true with Marty and I'm starting to get afraid it's true with Lou. It may very well be time for both of them to go, but, much as I've liked what I've seen from Schneids, there is no way this franchise is as good with a new goalie and GM as it was with Lou and Marty in their primes. We were lucky enough to watch 2 of the all time greats, possibly the best ever at their respective jobs, work for a very long time. No matter what the future holds, we're going to be telling our grandkids about watching the Devils of Lou and Marty.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

mouse, I posted my feelings about Marty and Lou when things were looking rough in the beginning of 2012, when Marty was stuck in the .880s and looking like he was done...how it was sad to see two of the best at what they do finally succumbing to the wrath of time.  Both Lou and Marty were starting to get hammered pretty regularly.  Then it turned around...which maybe shouldn't have been that big of a surprise once Kovy and Parise hit their strides, and Clarkson enjoyed one of the most fortuitous seasons of puck luck ever.  It's actually comical that he can be called "30-goal scorer David Clarkson" and have it be TRUE. 

 

We know the situation with Marty...he'll never have half-seasons of .920+ play again, the way he did in 2011 and 2012.  And now he seems ticked off and cranky to boot, and I have no idea why.  Did he really want out of here that badly?  It sucks and I can't wait for that to be over.

 

As for Lou...I'd be stunned if he was fired, or resigned on his own, so I think he's back here next season.  We'll know very soon where his head is.  If he talks about liking his team and/or talks about bringing back Marty, I'm going to find it damned near impossible to defend him on either count. 

[LucifersDog]

Stevens would be a terrible coach. I cannot stress this enough.

 

absolutely agree, Steven should be fired for the way he handled the Defense.

[Daniel]

absolutely agree, Steven should be fired for the way he handled the Defense.

You mean that defense that is among the best on the league at shots against.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mouse]

You mean that defense that is among the best on the league at shots against.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. Stevens is getting better. Doesn't mean I think he'd be a good head coach -- don't know that he has the patience to deal with young players and losing, definitely doesn't have the experience, and, while to some degree assistants are there for a reason, I'd rather have somebody with a good offensive system (like DeBo actually) trying to get the most out of this team, since their weakness is forward.