Jump to content

Devils sign F Yegor Sharangovich


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Triumph said:

Capfriendly already has the numbers:

https://www.capfriendly.com/players/yegor-sharangovich

Devils went over slot for sure, they gave him the maximum signing bonus as well as the potential for a maximum (no bonus) ELC payout if he does hit his bonuses.  

This is the key difference between Shero and Lou.

Shero gave this young man the best deal which in turn results in an initial positive experience with the first contract with this franchise which means more focus, higher sense of motivation, builds loyalty and overall feel good.

Lou, with the old school style, actually hurt prospects and I am pretty sure that went a long way in a lot of prospects not showing their full potential and possibly seeking to leave in the future as their initial experience was somewhat negative.

Shero says, "I am giving you what you want, you give me and the Devils what we want and I will throw the world at your feet."

Lou says, "You don't deserve it, you have to first prove to me you are worthy of anything and then we'll see."

Disclaimer: This is my opinion

Edited by Anhkheg
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Anhkheg said:

This is the key difference between Shero and Lou.

Shero gave this young man the best deal which in turn results in an initial positive experience with the first contract with this franchise which means more focus, higher sense of motivation, builds loyalty and overall feel good.

Lou, with the old school style, actually hurt prospects and I am pretty sure that went a long way in a lot of prospects not showing their full potential and possibly seeking to leave in the future as their initial experience was somewhat negative.

Shero says, "I am giving you what you want, you give me and the Devils what we want and I will throw the world at your feet."

Lou says, "You don't deserve it, you have to first prove to me you are worthy of anything and then we'll see."

Disclaimer: This is my opinion

Problem with this is you're assuming one way will almost always yield positive results and the other will almost always lead to negative returns.  Maybe with some of those kids, giving them the best deal right off the bat means that they can become complacent and less motivated, or has them feeling that they're already better than they really are.  Not every kid is going to react to the same circumstances or handling in the same way...and posting something like "Lou's style actually hurt prospects" is pretty irresponsible...I saw two prospects become Hall of Famers largely because of what they did here (and possibly a third one day in Elias)...doesn't seem like THEY were hurt by Lou's "Old School Style".  And just because a first contract negotiation goes smoothly doesn't mean that the ones that follow automatically will.  A lot can happen later.  I don't think there's nearly as much of a correlation to how "positive" that first contract negotiation is to future performance or loyalty as you're trying to make out.   

I get being pro-Shero at this point, and I maintain that he was absolutely the right guy at the right time to try to lead the Devils into another era of prosperity (though the Devils aren't there quite yet)...with the moves he's made to date, he's proven that.  And has been discussed many times, it was really really ugly at the end of Lou's run, for a lot of reasons, and though it wasn't all because of him, more than enough of it was.  I think Shero is much better in tune with how to build a team to compete in the current NHL than Lou.  But it is kind of ironic that the guy who actually won a few Cups here now on occasion gets blasted for his approach, while the guy who is off to a great start but still has a ways to go gets treated like every last thing he does is perfect.  And that's not to say that I'm not thrilled with Shero's first few years here...it's impossible not to be.  But I think you can praise the new guy and what he's done and how he's done it without having to take shots at the old one.  Especially since it's not like the old guy's way didn't pan out at all. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Especially since it's not like the old guy's way didn't pan out at all. 

What do you mean, the fact that he won three, nearly six Stanley Cups?? Big deal!!!!

;) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Larsson the only 4th overall pick in recent history to not receive any performance / signing bonuses in his contract?  I recall reading something like that.

Only Lou :lol:

Edited by Devilsfan118
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

What do you mean, the fact that he won three, nearly six Stanley Cups?? Big deal!!!!

;) 

6? I’m assuming you’re counting 94 if they had got past the Rags?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Devilsfan118 said:

Wasn't Larsson the only 4th overall pick in recent history to not receive any performance / signing bonuses in his contract?  I recall reading something like that.

Only Lou :lol:

As I recall there were extenuating circumstances in that the team was in cap hell.  People thought he would pull the same thing with Matthews, which he didn’t.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mfitz804 said:

Correct. Fvck them. 

94 ECF was really the series played between the NHL's best two teams that year.  And as it much as it sucks, the Rangers were just that little bit better. 

As for Yegor, don't know much about him, but it seems like Shero sees something there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

94 ECF was really the series played between the NHL's best two teams that year.  And as it much as it sucks, the Rangers were just that little bit better. 

I'll never admit that, and as I said above, fvck them!! :) 

It was pretty well settled that whomever one the East was winning the Cup. Maybe that was only around here, as of course we were in the infancy of the internet and most hockey fans had no idea what the hell Vancouver was up to, or even where Vancouver was located. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Problem with this is you're assuming one way will almost always yield positive results and the other will almost always lead to negative returns.  Maybe with some of those kids, giving them the best deal right off the bat means that they can become complacent and less motivated, or has them feeling that they're already better than they really are.  Not every kid is going to react to the same circumstances or handling in the same way...and posting something like "Lou's style actually hurt prospects" is pretty irresponsible...I saw two prospects become Hall of Famers largely because of what they did here (and possibly a third one day in Elias)...doesn't seem like THEY were hurt by Lou's "Old School Style".  And just because a first contract negotiation goes smoothly doesn't mean that the ones that follow automatically will.  A lot can happen later.  I don't think there's nearly as much of a correlation to how "positive" that first contract negotiation is to future performance or loyalty as you're trying to make out.   

I get being pro-Shero at this point, and I maintain that he was absolutely the right guy at the right time to try to lead the Devils into another era of prosperity (though the Devils aren't there quite yet)...with the moves he's made to date, he's proven that.  And has been discussed many times, it was really really ugly at the end of Lou's run, for a lot of reasons, and though it wasn't all because of him, more than enough of it was.  I think Shero is much better in tune with how to build a team to compete in the current NHL than Lou.  But it is kind of ironic that the guy who actually won a few Cups here now on occasion gets blasted for his approach, while the guy who is off to a great start but still has a ways to go gets treated like every last thing he does is perfect.  And that's not to say that I'm not thrilled with Shero's first few years here...it's impossible not to be.  But I think you can praise the new guy and what he's done and how he's done it without having to take shots at the old one.  Especially since it's not like the old guy's way didn't pan out at all. 

Firstly, I love Lou and he will always be my favorite GM, its why I've loved the Devils since 1994 when I first saw them on TV. Does not mean I must agree with his methods. I didn't agree with him holding back on Neidermeyer and not signing his brother Rob. Had he signed Rob, we may actually have had another Stanley Cup or three. This is an old neverson article which I remember reading back in the day (https://nypost.com/2000/09/19/niedermayer-disgusted-with-devils/). N stands for negative because this writer was always negative against the Devils. Lou's heavy handed approach didn't always bode well for the Devils.

950,000 is no where near a 9,500,000 kind of pressure which definitely can yield negative results. The reality is that they have to earn that deal by making it to the NHL first and will have to work very hard to earn a permanent spot on that roster. So if they become complacent and less motivated, then really and truly, they weren't NHL material in the first place as such a contract has no negative connotations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Problem with this is you're assuming one way will almost always yield positive results and the other will almost always lead to negative returns.  Maybe with some of those kids, giving them the best deal right off the bat means that they can become complacent and less motivated, or has them feeling that they're already better than they really are.  Not every kid is going to react to the same circumstances or handling in the same way...and posting something like "Lou's style actually hurt prospects" is pretty irresponsible...I saw two prospects become Hall of Famers largely because of what they did here (and possibly a third one day in Elias)...doesn't seem like THEY were hurt by Lou's "Old School Style".  And just because a first contract negotiation goes smoothly doesn't mean that the ones that follow automatically will.  A lot can happen later.  I don't think there's nearly as much of a correlation to how "positive" that first contract negotiation is to future performance or loyalty as you're trying to make out.   

I get being pro-Shero at this point, and I maintain that he was absolutely the right guy at the right time to try to lead the Devils into another era of prosperity (though the Devils aren't there quite yet)...with the moves he's made to date, he's proven that.  And has been discussed many times, it was really really ugly at the end of Lou's run, for a lot of reasons, and though it wasn't all because of him, more than enough of it was. I think Shero is much better in tune with how to build a team to compete in the current NHL than Lou.  But it is kind of ironic that the guy who actually won a few Cups here now on occasion gets blasted for his approach, while the guy who is off to a great start but still has a ways to go gets treated like every last thing he does is perfect. And that's not to say that I'm not thrilled with Shero's first few years here...it's impossible not to be.  But I think you can praise the new guy and what he's done and how he's done it without having to take shots at the old one.  Especially since it's not like the old guy's way didn't pan out at all. 

1

Bringing the whole cup things is totally equivalent as saying "Crosby is better than Ovechkin cause he has more Stanley Cups". A GM can only do so much, he does what he can on paper then it's up to the players to make it happen. If it was that black and white they'd just give the GM of the year award to whoever won the cup right? 

Also It's not ironic, it's simply that there are people who appreciate seeing businesses run the "right way". The fans in Tampa or any NHL fans can truly appreciate the job Yzerman did with the team even though they never won a cup with him. I always said Lou is like George Lucas and Steve Jobs. You gotta love the product they put out most of the time but can still hate how they ran their business and how stubborn they were. And funny enough all those guys have/had a strong love/hate relationships with their fans.

Also about your last sentence, his methods did also pan negatively exactly like some predicted. I mean we've been over this a thousand times, if those reactions would be hindsight 20/20 sure, but they are NOT, we all called what would happen years ago based on a projection of his methods and that's exactly what happened. How is it not fair to bring up now that we actually saw the results?

* Relationship analogy alert *

If your new gf helps you clean the apartment, that she has a good job, that you guys have sex regularly and that she let you go out with the boys whenever you want. It's awesome sure but it's almost something you would take for granted. But it feels sooooooooooooooo much better if your ex gf would never clean, would only want sex once every 2-3 months, would always be broke and wouldn't let you do anything with your friends. And it's absolutely fair to bring up that you appreciate her so much because you never had those things before and it's not about bashing your ex, it's about putting things in perspective and appreciating that your gf simply do the right things.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

Bringing the whole cup things is totally equivalent as saying "Crosby is better than Ovechkin cause he has more Stanley Cups". A GM can only do so much, he does what he can on paper then it's up to the players to make it happen. If it was that black and white they'd just give the GM of the year award to whoever won the cup right? 

The GM puts the team together. You can’t win a cup without good players, and you get good players from your GM’s work. To say a GM “does what he can on paper” is a gigantic understatement and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how a team is put together. 

4 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

 

* Relationship analogy alert *

If your new gf helps you clean the apartment, that she has a good job, that you guys have sex regularly and that she let you go out with the boys whenever you want. It's awesome sure but it's almost something you would take for granted. But it feels sooooooooooooooo much better if your ex gf would never clean, would only want sex once every 2-3 months, would always be broke and wouldn't let you do anything with your friends. And it's absolutely fair to bring up that you appreciate her so much because you never had those things before and it's not about bashing your ex, it's about putting things in perspective and appreciating that your gf simply do the right things.

These analogies are getting worse and worse. All I can get from this is that you’d rather bone Ray Shero than Lou Lamoriello. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Anhkheg said:

Firstly, I love Lou and he will always be my favorite GM, its why I've loved the Devils since 1994 when I first saw them on TV. Does not mean I must agree with his methods. I didn't agree with him holding back on Neidermeyer and not signing his brother Rob. Had he signed Rob, we may actually have had another Stanley Cup or three. This is an old neverson article which I remember reading back in the day (https://nypost.com/2000/09/19/niedermayer-disgusted-with-devils/). N stands for negative because this writer was always negative against the Devils. Lou's heavy handed approach didn't always bode well for the Devils.

950,000 is no where near a 9,500,000 kind of pressure which definitely can yield negative results. The reality is that they have to earn that deal by making it to the NHL first and will have to work very hard to earn a permanent spot on that roster. So if they become complacent and less motivated, then really and truly, they weren't NHL material in the first place as such a contract has no negative connotations.

Based on Rob's transaction record, it doesn't appear that he was ever available to be signed as a UFA while Scott was here...Lou did try to trade for him to keep Scott in NJ, but Anaheim (smartly) wouldn't give him up.  And I can't assume that Scott still being here would've led to three more Cups, let alone one.  Easy to forget that Nieds signed at top money probably means that Elias goes across the river. 

Anyway, my point was that assuming one way of doing business is somehow a faster track to negative results while a different method will almost guarantee positive results is not accurate.  What's funny is that some of you basically come off as saying "Yeah, we know that Lou had a lot of success, and yeah, some of his teams even won Championships, but we don't really like how he did it (he could've/should've been nicer about it, etc), and hell, maybe he really didn't have as much to do with it anyway as some people want to believe, so I'm not really sure how much of the credit he actually deserves to begin with."  Sorry, I'm never going to get on board with that mentality. 

Re:  most of the bolded...well yeah, no sh!t.  But you don't get to assume that the "best deal" up front automatically leads to "more focus, higher sense of motivation", blah blah blah.  Like I said, way too much that happens after signing the deal.  What if he winds up having issues with his coach?  Or struggles and starts losing confidence?  Or has a great attitude in the beginning but develops a bad one later (ditto general work habits), because the results and rewards don't seem to be coming?  The "initial positive experience that will lead to more good things" crap is just that...crap.  Way too many uncertainties beyond to make any correlations to an early contract signing. 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
Link to post
Share on other sites

Without Lou, this franchise would’ve moved to fvcking Hamilton, Ontario 25 years ago. I was as fed up with him at the end as anyone else, but I’m getting tired of the Lou bashing. He left three fvcking years ago. Get over it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

The GM puts the team together. You can’t win a cup without good players, and you get good players from your GM’s work. To say a GM “does what he can on paper” is a gigantic understatement and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how a team is put together. 

 

That's like saying all credits should go to producers and not to directors and actors for movies. Truth is EVERYONE has their part and need to work together.

GMs can provide a great team of player, if the coach can't motivate and make the players buy in the system it's useless and vice versa. 

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's like saying all credits should go to producers and not to directors and actors for movies. Truth is EVERYONE has their part and need to work together.
GMs can provide a great team of player, if the coach can't motivate and make the players buy in the system it's useless and vice versa. 

So Lou gets no credit for the good stuff he did, but all the blame for the bad stuff? Got it. We get it, you don’t like or appreciate Lou, and seem to have no regard for what he accomplished here. Point made. It’d be great if you’d stop beating the horse, as it’s several years dead at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MadDog2020 said:


So Lou gets no credit for the good stuff he did, but all the blame for the bad stuff? Got it. We get it, you don’t like or appreciate Lou, and seem to have no regard for what he accomplished here. Point made. It’d be great if you’d stop beating the horse, as it’s several years dead at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well if that's really what you assume that i think you're not reading what im saying at all. You're straight up wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if that's really what you assume that i think you're not reading what im saying at all. You're straight up wrong.

Ok good. Bro, I’m just gonna be honest here- I’m kinda sick of your Lou takes. I like you as a poster and appreciate what you bring to the table and I enjoy talking hockey with you, but if you never mentioned Lou’s name again, or at least until the night he’s rightfully honored as this franchise’s savior-whenever that night comes- that’d be great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:


Ok good. Bro, I’m just gonna be honest here- I’m kinda sick of your Lou takes. I like you as a poster and appreciate what you bring to the table and I enjoy talking hockey with you, but if you never mentioned Lou’s name again, or at least until the night he’s rightfully honored as this franchise’s savior-whenever that night comes- that’d be great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure. But i'll be honest too please let me give you context and this will be my last post about this, i already go out of my way at times to not talk about Lou but sometime it's just on subject. Imagine saying something is a recipe for disaster and list EXACTLY how a situation will turn because of that recipe. Everyone you tell is against you and calls you crazy and ridicule you for years saying nothing is wrong. And then exactly what you said would happen actually happen beat for beat... then you're like "yeah, well I fvcking told you so, I was not crazy" but everyone is just like "yeah wtv we don't want to hear about it shut up and move on". This is straight up what's happening here. Plus not only what i said would happen happen but i also kept on giving suggestions on how it should be done instead. Then what do you know, we actually get a guy who does things EXACTLY like i was suggesting and everyone is incredibly happy with it. And even though this all sounds like "I'm smarter than anyone" it's not at all what I'm going for. I was simply being neutral and not biased towards Lou like most people.

That being said I know damn well a "i told you so" comment never won anyone over and this one won't either lol. But just try to look at it from my perspective for fun, i was just as sick about it as you are, we were just on different sides and i was the black sheep for going against popular belief.

I truly feel / felt like Brodie in Jaws and everyone else was the mayor basically lol Even more from the sequel cause he actually got fired for it haha

Edited by SterioDesign
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.