jagknife Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 You know that lava pit Obi Wan tosses Anikan in that leads to Vader? This thread belongs there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Cory for Clarkson straight up. Columbus throws in a 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Clearly this thread broke the board for a couple hours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLL765 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) A good GM would always open an ear to an offer, sure. If, let's say, Carolina offered up Jeff Skinner, Cam Ward, and a 1st rounder, I would do it. Why not.Ward is barely a league average goalie nowadays and Skinner isn't enough to turn around this offense. I don't think he's as good as some people pegged him to be after his rookie season, his shot totals are down almost 1shot per game this year and LW isn't the spot where we need help anyways. Only way we win that trade is if the pick turns into an elite forward.If the trade was Skinner+Faulk+2015 1st+Alex Nedeljkovic, then I'd probably do it, but I doubt Carolina would agree to that since it would gut their team just to acquire a quality netminder and they're even farther away from being a contender than we are. Clearly this thread broke the board for a couple hours Lol. I was pissed at first since I had yet to hit reply and figured I had lost my post, but luckily it survived somehow. Edited February 27, 2015 by ATLL765 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDfan1711 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 This is fvcking ridiculous. And you DESERVE to be flamed for this. It's near-sighted worrywort garbage. Needless to say: absolutely not. Guys like Cory do not grow on trees. And wtf are you talking about 3-4 years? He's 28 and goaltender is one position that guys can still play at a high level for a long time. You also seem to completely forget the fact that he does not have tons of miles on him. His highest GP before he came here was 33 games. He's got a lot of mileage left on him. Guys like Roy, Marty, Belfour, and Hasek all played at a very high level until later in their careers and obviously there's plenty of names I'm not mentioning. Hell, Marty won the Vezina at 36 if we want to keep a NJ perspective. Goaltenders are not forwards, they dont have to worry as much about things like concussions and things that significantly can shorten a career or turn them into liabilities. Trading him for "assets" now would be absolutely insane. He's proven himself over the last 2 seasons here to be one of the elite players at his position. What sort of assets are you asking for? Picks that are nothing more than a lottery ticket and could bust? Unproven prospects? We have a surefire elite goaltender for the next 5-10 years. 10 may be pushing it, but its certainly likely to be double your estimation. We dont have to worry about grooming anyone or hoping a "chance" on another goaltender works out. We are set at the position for a significant amount of time and more than enough that hes still playing at an elite level by the time the franchise is back to being contenders. He doesn't deserved to be flamed for this. Unfortunately a question like this generally has only two, very distinct sides and answers, but try to have a level head and find the middle ground. The guy is just bringing up an interesting point. While I agree he shouldn't be traded, mainly because great goalies are hard to find and to me they are the cornterstone with which a team is built around (i.e. a QB in football), think about the other side for moment. It is very possible that it takes us 3-4 years to even get back into a decent playoff contender. Do you really think it's going to be light years different next year? No. What about the year after that? Doubtful. We have virtually NO assets or promising forwards at the moment. It's fvcking sad. I've always said depth is the key to winning championships, and we have almost none at the moment. That 2nd pick we just got from FL....guess what, that guy's going to be 18 or 19 when he gets drafted, and IF he develops into anything, it's going to be 3-4 years+ before he sniffs the team and makes an impact. It is entirely possible that Cory's play slips and declines before this team has any offensive talent capable of supplementing his fantastic play and making this team actually playoff-conversation-worthy. I think you've been spoiled by a guy named Marty Brodeur. He is a once in a lifetime goalie. They don't come around often and not every goalie plays til 42. The only reason I think Cory is still of value to us and will be for the next 5 years or so is because he does indeed have low miles on him and he wasn't a true everyday starter really before he came here. But the fact is, he's going to be 29 next month. If it wasn't for the fact that he was seldom used in Vancouver, it's possibly me tune would change and I would say sell-sell-sell on him now, and let Kinkaid try to be our #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruM Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 This is the thing, you would be STUPID not to listen. the thread is not suggesting you trade him, just that you listen. The Devils need alot of pieces, I think YOU ALWAYS listen to trade offers, but if you are not blown away, you donot trade him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrthemike Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruM Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Honestly if you could say you wouldn't consider it under any circumstances, you'd be the worst GM ever. Exactly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BostonNala370 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Absolutely not, you build from the goalie out. We have a great one now in Cory. We have 4 young D excluding Gelinas so we need to get say 2 more D and then work on the offense., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Honestly if you could say you wouldn't consider it under any circumstances, you'd be the worst GM ever. There's also the realism factor...would you trade Cory for Stamkos? Sure but that trade's not happening, there's no realistic trade that makes it worth it valuewise or make sense to go all Sixers and set the rebuild back MORE years. Unless you're getting McEichel back. But that trade's not happening either. Some teams in our area have been looking for decades for a goalie, let's not take having Cory for granted Edited February 27, 2015 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Still don't know how this thread started off so poorly. I've said time and again that I like DM's laid-back moderating style - but jumping on someone for trying to start a discussion like this shouldn't be something that happens here. Some of you guys need to chill out. Anyway - guess what it boils down to is: What's easier to build? Goaltending, or Offense? Personally, if Cory nets an elite young forward and a 1st, I at least listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matteau#32 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) I'd like to see what people think about this: now that CS's value is about as high as it is going to be for the foreseeable future, do you cash in on this and turn him around for assets? For example, what if a team that was currently looking to go over the top offered a couple 1sts and a good prospect? There is no chance of them getting a couple of firsts and a good prospect for Schneider. Only goalie I could see a GM even considering giving up that much for is Price. Salary is not too offensive for a goalie and he is locked up for another 3 or 4 years. Edited February 27, 2015 by Matteau#32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck the Duck Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Reading through this thread, I'm amazed at how quick some people have overreacted to what is, IMO, a though provoking question meant to stir some discussion. It's an interesting question based upon a premise that Cory's prime years are going to be wasted as part of a rebuilding project here in NJ. I wouldn't trade him. Like some have said before, we are lucky to go from an all time great in Marty to an elite goalie in Cory, without having any growing pains in between. That's pretty rare. However, what would you do if Anaheim came calling and offered John Gibson (or Andersen - take your pick), a 2015 1st, a 2016 1st, and Kyle Palmieri (or another one of their top young forwards in their system)? Take the Ducks perspective out of it for a second, as I'm looking at it from our end and what it would take to even consider trading Cory. Gibson is supposed to be an absolute beast even though he is no sure thing, and the prospect and picks will hopefully speed up the rebuild of our forward prospect pool, even though they will both be late 1st round picks. I don't think this trade would ever happen, but I would at least listen to the offer and give it serious consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matteau#32 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) However, what would you do if Anaheim came calling and offered John Gibson (or Andersen - take your pick), a 2015 1st, a 2016 1st, and Kyle Palmieri (or another one of their top young forwards in their system)? There isn't a GM In the league that wouldn't take that package for their goalie. Sather included for Lundqvist. edit: Today, Sather and other teams would reject the deal, especially if they are in the "Win Now" mode. However, night before the draft? EVERYONE would take that deal. Edited February 27, 2015 by Matteau#32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck the Duck Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 There isn't a GM In the league that wouldn't take that package for their goalie. Sather included for Lundqvist. edit: Today, Sather and other teams would reject the deal, especially if they are in the "Win Now" mode. However, night before the draft? EVERYONE would take that deal. I agree, except for the Lundqvist part. I intentionally made it over the top and threw that out there to make a point that if someone was willing to offer a package like that, you can't say that you wouldn't even listen to any offers for Cory. However, I can't see the Rangers ever trading Lundqvist, even if they got that package offered to them. He is the face of that franchise and, honestly, the only reason they have a chance at making a Stanley Cup run year after year. Not saying that the team around him isn't good, but if you had John Gibson or Cam Talbot playing in goal during the playoffs this season or next with their current roster makeup, they likely don't make it out of the divisional rounds. Trading him would be similar to the Devils trading Marty in his prime. It would never have happened for just about any return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) No issue wih considering it, but realistically it would never and should never happen..The prime reason being IMO goaltenders' trade value is much less than what their on ice value is. I would imagine we could probably get a first in the 8-15 range (figure teams like minny, Calgary, Philly) + prospect for Cory and he is worth much more than that to us. I mean sure if someone offered a top 5 pick + elite prospects you listen but that would never happen. Plus, as has been proven time and again, an elite goaltender can be the difference between a playoff bubble team and a Stanley cup champ. Edited February 27, 2015 by dmann422 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sokar Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Trading Greene would make more sense to me than trading Schneider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEWHistory Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 No issue wih considering it, but realistically it would never and should never happen..The prime reason being IMO goaltenders' trade value is much less than what their on ice value is. I would imagine we could probably get a first in the 8-15 range (figure teams like minny, Calgary, Philly) + prospect for Cory and he is worth much more than that to us. I mean sure if someone offered a top 5 pick + elite prospects you listen but that would never happen. Plus, as has been proven time and again, an elite goaltender can be the difference between a playoff bubble team and a Stanley cup champ. This isn't so much directed at you Dman, but at the idea in general that goalies wouldn't get as much in return. I've seen this reiterated throughout this thread. I'm not saying this is or isn't true, but I find it illogical. The argument seems to be this: 1. that goalies are the MOST important part of the puzzle in assembling a winning hockey team. 2. That CS is an elite player at the most important position in assembling a winning hockey team. 3. And players at the most important position don't get much in return, even when they are elite. I find this difficult to swallow. We gave up a high first rounder for an unproven CS. We've proven him now and his value will be high for a win-now team. But his ability to play at an 'elite' level over the longhaul is still, IMHO, in doubt. Moreover, he is still completely unproven in the playoffs. I get that most teams don't trade their goalies precisely because they are difficult to find, but if you all think back, the devils system produced a bunch of goaltenders in the '80s and we were able to parlay some of them into more and deeper talent for the team precisely because goalies bring value. --What I'm proposing is that we don't repeat the error of Sean Burke.-- Had we traded him earlier we'd have walked away with a mother lode. Instead we got a much more modest (though still impressive) return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) This isn't so much directed at you Dman, but at the idea in general that goalies wouldn't get as much in return. I've seen this reiterated throughout this thread. I'm not saying this is or isn't true, but I find it illogical. The argument seems to be this: 1. that goalies are the MOST important part of the puzzle in assembling a winning hockey team. 2. That CS is an elite player at the most important position in assembling a winning hockey team. 3. And players at the most important position don't get much in return, even when they are elite. I find this difficult to swallow. We gave up a high first rounder for an unproven CS. We've proven him now and his value will be high for a win-now team. But his ability to play at an 'elite' level over the longhaul is still, IMHO, in doubt. Moreover, he is still completely unproven in the playoffs. I get that most teams don't trade their goalies precisely because they are difficult to find, but if you all think back, the devils system produced a bunch of goaltenders in the '80s and we were able to parlay some of them into more and deeper talent for the team precisely because goalies bring value. --What I'm proposing is that we don't repeat the error of Sean Burke.-- Had we traded him earlier we'd have walked away with a mother lode. Instead we got a much more modest (though still impressive) return. the game has changed so much that it's hard to compare moves from two decades ago to now. With that I honestly think you have it backwards- great goalies aren't not traded because they're hard to find (IMO there are a lot of quality goalies out there)... the reason they're not traded is because gms just don't see the proper value in return for a top 10 net minder.Think about the market- for rebuilding teams it's not worth it to deplete their system for a goalie when there are other passable options out there (think halak this year). And obviously playoff contenders by and large are set in goal unless they have an injury, so they aren't ponying up big offers either. Consider the goalies who have been traded in recent years- I can't think of a single one that was signed long term and was in his prime. There's obviously a reason for this and again I believe it's that trade markets for goalies are historically weak. Do you believe schnieder's value has increased that much in two years? He was worth 9th overall in a weak draft, albeit reports said Edmonton offered their 7th. Now that he's signed long term I can see stronger offers possible, like I said maybe a first in the 8-12 range plus good prospect, but nothing that would make it worthwhile for us. Just my opinion. As I've said, sure if someone blows you away with an offer like the one proposed up thread you take it, but I don't see that as even remotely possible. Edited February 27, 2015 by dmann422 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 AEW: there was reason to think that the "unproven" Schneider would be very good though, based on his numbers. And in his last season with Vancouver, even though it was an abbreviated one, he was getting more of a #1-type workload. I don't think too many people thought he wouldn't justify the cost of bringing him here. The Devils hung onto Sean Burke because they were hopeful he'd be as good as he was during the '87-'88 run. At the time, he was also seen as the prototype for the "Goalie of the Future", due to his size. As far as mother lode deals go, I remember hearing rumors about Calgary offering Doug Gilmour and Detroit offering Jimmy Carson for Burke. Not sure about anything else. But Holik did work out pretty well regardless. I think the Cory being "unproven in the playoffs" observation isn't fair. You could say that about a lot of goalies. I understand your viewpoint (it's definitely open-minded), but I haven't read anything that would sway me into thinking trading Cory would be good for the Devils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteyvegas51 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Have to build from the net out. Schneider+Larsson+? We'll get there. All we have to do is live long enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I find this difficult to swallow. We gave up a high first rounder for an unproven CS. We've proven him now and his value will be high for a win-now team. But his ability to play at an 'elite' level over the longhaul is still, IMHO, in doubt. Moreover, he is still completely unproven in the playoffs. The difference in goaltending from the regular season to the playoffs is just overrated. Goalies are who they are and the best goalies during the season are the best goalies in the playoffs. Sure there might be a marginal 'pressure' effect (one that certainly never affected Marty) but for the most part calling Cory, 'unproven in the playoffs' is easy and really just not well...not a fair thing to do. If Cory had a history of bombing in the playoffs then fine, call him 'unproven'. Cory pretty much hasn't played in the playoffs yet, but in his 10 career playoff games he has managed a .922 save percentage. The fact that Cory has little playoff activity to his name, does not marginalize his value in the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louismydad Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The difference in goaltending from the regular season to the playoffs is just overrated. Goalies are who they are and the best goalies during the season are the best goalies in the playoffs. Sure there might be a marginal 'pressure' effect (one that certainly never affected Marty) but for the most part calling Cory, 'unproven in the playoffs' is easy and really just not well...not a fair thing to do. If Cory had a history of bombing in the playoffs then fine, call him 'unproven'. Cory pretty much hasn't played in the playoffs yet, but in his 10 career playoff games he has managed a .922 save percentage. The fact that Cory has little playoff activity to his name, does not marginalize his value in the least. Quick is a prime example of why you are wrong in stating that "the best goalies during the season are the best in the playoffs" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Quick is a prime example of why you are wrong in stating that "the best goalies during the season are the best in the playoffs" 45-31 2.22 GAA .923 SV% in the playoffs. Two Cups in the past three years. In consecutive playoffs 2012 and 2013 he had about a .940 save pct. and like a 1.64 GAA. You were saying? Btw, Cory is much better than Quick. Edited February 27, 2015 by Neb00rs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louismydad Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 45-31 2.22 GAA .923 SV% in the playoffs. Two Cups in the past three years. You were saying? Btw, Cory is much better than Quick. He plays marginally better in the playoffs than in the regular season, especially the last few years. No way in hell do I think Cory is a better goaltender that Quick. If he gets 1 more cup, hes in the conversation with top goalies in history including our own Marty Brodeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.