Jump to content
Neb00rs

Devils 2019-20 Lineup/Notes Thread

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Neb00rs said:

Because Smith wasn't good enough in the pre-season, whether his WHL relegation is best for him or not really doesn't matter - he didn't earn a spot on the team. We all know the transfer agreement between the NHL and CHL isn't ideal but it is what it is.

Some people on this board seem to be working off the logically fallacious thinking, "If Mueller is this bad, then Smith must be better" or perhaps more fairly, "If Mueller is this bad, then Smith should have made the team." They can't seem to process that, both Mueller and Smith can suck - though obviously Smith's age means he has plenty of time to develop still. Based on Smith's play in camp, Mueller is almost certainly a better defender than Smith right now. That doesn't mean Mueller is good, it speaks to how unready Smith is and yes, the Devils might be even worse right now with Smith on the roster - or at least, about the same. If Smith was a better defender than Mueller he would have made the team - Rooney and Hayden are not so valuable that if Smith was good enough to play they couldn't be waived.

Mueller most likely didn't impress the coaches in camp either. That's the likely cause for all the rumors surrounding the Devils looking for another d-man. This is the NHL and the Devils are, as of recent, in "win now" mode. This means, at least I'd assume, that the Devils did not see the D battle in training camp as a binary choice between Mueller and Smith. Because Smith and Mueller both looked sh!tty in camp and Carrick didn't look that good either, they relegated Smith to juniors and are shopping for a Mueller replacement. The latest target, according to rumors, is Mark Pysyk:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/31-thoughts-opening-night-promises-intrigue-fireworks/

 

Again, we pretty much agree on this...as far as Smith goes, I was pointing out that it's not as much of a men vs. boys scenario in the WHL for him as many may have thought.  But yeah, in the end, Ty didn't do enough to stick around, and unfortunately there was only one other option available. 

Mueller's on a $1.4 million "show me" deal, so he's probably going to get a little more time...but not much.  DM84 is right in that Mirco just hasn't shown much progress (minimal at best)...the situation was clearly one where Shero was really hoping, but I think that hope is just about dried up.  To Tri's credit, I remember him not being a fan of this deal at all when it was made...it's probably gone about as he expected it to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the lines of the discussion above--I am not sure when Elliotte said it on the radio though and can't vouch for the twitter handle itself. Todd Cordell felt comfortable enough to use it for his article though FWIW. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Again, we pretty much agree on this...as far as Smith goes, I was pointing out that it's not as much of a men vs. boys scenario in the WHL for him as many may have thought.  But yeah, in the end, Ty didn't do enough to stick around, and unfortunately there was only one other option available. 

Mueller's on a $1.4 million "show me" deal, so he's probably going to get a little more time...but not much.  DM84 is right in that Mirco just hasn't shown much progress (minimal at best)...the situation was clearly one where Shero was really hoping, but I think that hope is just about dried up.  To Tri's credit, I remember him not being a fan of this deal at all when it was made...it's probably gone about as he expected it to. 

Mueller is bad, but everyone knows that. It doesn't mean sending Smith back to the WHL was a mistake (not saying you don't agree with that). My point is more that, it's not "Mueller or Smith." It can be "Neither Mueller or Smith." Which as time goes on, looks more and more to be the case. And there has to be some truth to all these rumors about the Devils shopping for another d-man. I don't think Joe Morrow is the end of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NJDevils1214 said:

Tons of famous people have done morally contemptible things.

Case in point: they are about to stage a Michael Jackson musical on Broadway,

That said, I can see both sides of the debate. Liking a song has nothing to do with the crimes the writer of that song committed. But, still, I don't especially want to support a guy who is a certified, convicted douchebag. If the team made the decision to play the song, I wouldn't be outraged. But on the same token, they've chosen not to and I am not outraged by that either. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NJDevils1214 said:

On the lines of the discussion above--I am not sure when Elliotte said it on the radio though and can't vouch for the twitter handle itself. Todd Cordell felt comfortable enough to use it for his article though FWIW. 

 

 

image.png.2469b3a886546ec58d22a2a663396107.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friedman reported the Devils' interest in Pysyk in his most recent 31 Thoughts column.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

Case in point: they are about to stage a Michael Jackson musical on Broadway

Image result for shocked gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Triumph said:

Friedman reported the Devils' interest in Pysyk in his most recent 31 Thoughts column.

I definitely don't know enough about this guy to have an pinion on him. A shutdown type guy, I assume? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Devilsfan118 said:

Image result for shocked gif

DM when he reads that.

Edited by NJDevils1214
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJDevils1214 said:

I get it. That is totally your choice and I don't disagree that the guy is a piece of sh!t. All I am saying is Imagine filtering every bit of media you consumed though because of the actions of the artist. Tons of famous people have done morally contemptible things. Some things we don't even know about. Where do you draw the line then? Do you choose to not consume their art based on only the things they were proven of or also include accusations? It is a slippery slope. I feel like if we held them all to a standard 70% of Hollywood would be unwatchable. To me that is just punishing yourself. Feel free, but not everyone wants to do that. 

I never said anything about the goal song, you must be reading someone else's comments or are putting words in my mouth.

I tend to draw the line where you don't support a person who was convicted of traveling to another country to intend and actually rape children.  At the very least I would say that is where the line is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I tend to draw the line where you don't support a person who was convicted of traveling to another country to intend and actually rape children.  At the very least I would say that is where the line is.

It's a difference in perspective. To me it's just a song. Supporting him would be standing outside the jail holding #freegary signs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NJDevils1214 said:

It's a difference in perspective. To me it's just a song. Supporting him would be standing outside the jail holding #freegary signs. 

For me it's more that he's still alive and actively padding his bank account with money from it, even if he's in jail. That money can go to his lawyers trying to get him out sooner, etc. Once he's dead and not making any money off it then it's a lot easier to separate the song from the artist. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Satans Hockey said:

For me it's more that he's still alive and actively padding his bank account with money from it, even if he's in jail. That money can go to his lawyers trying to get him out sooner, etc. Once he's dead and not making any money off it then it's a lot easier to separate the song from the artist. 

Yea I can understand that. It is just up to the individual -- whether it is not buying a Bruce album you'd prob enjoy because of his politics, not going to a Tom Cruise movie because he is a Scientologist, not buying Nike because they use slave labor, not buying Nestle because they destroy the Amazon, not going to any movie Harvey Weinstein might profit from, whatever. I am not saying there isn't a gray area, but at some point you just start to punish yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Satans Hockey said:

For me it's more that he's still alive and actively padding his bank account with money from it, even if he's in jail. That money can go to his lawyers trying to get him out sooner, etc. Once he's dead and not making any money off it then it's a lot easier to separate the song from the artist. 

The "good" news re:  GG is that if he ever did somehow get out early (hopefully that NEVER happens), he doesn't have too many places to go.  He's banned from a number of countries.  He's a diseased ship without a port, no matter how much money he might have...and that's a good thing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, NJDevils1214 said:

I get it. That is totally your choice and I don't disagree that the guy is a piece of sh!t. All I am saying is Imagine filtering every bit of media you consumed though because of the actions of the artist. Tons of famous people have done morally contemptible things. Some things we don't even know about. Where do you draw the line then? Do you choose to not consume their art based on only the things they were proven of or also include accusations? It is a slippery slope. I feel like if we held them all to a standard 70% of Hollywood would be unwatchable. To me that is just punishing yourself. Feel free, but not everyone wants to do that.

Pretty easy line to draw around a guy who's been found guilty of raping a whole string of 10-14 year olds. Jesus Christ, what are we even debating here?

We're not talking about people with questionable politics or who wore something offensive on Halloween 40 years ago, this guy was found guilty of raping kids, and fat ass royalty checks from the New Jersey Devils would go straight to his release fund. No thank you! End of discussion.

Edited by DJ Eco
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DJ Eco said:

Pretty easy line to draw around a guy who's been found guilty of raping a whole string of 10-14 year olds. Jesus Christ, what are we even debating here?

We're not talking about people with questionable politics, this guy was found guilty, and fat ass royalty checks from the New Jersey Devils would go straight to his release fund. No thank you! End of discussion.

My comment on "where is the line" is pointing out the hypocrisy in people's commitments to these decisions...I.E. will not listen to GG's song but will still buy clothing made by slave labor or listen to Michael Jackson because it was never proven. I am not debating on "what's worse" I am trying to point out how people pick and choose where to exercise their moral standards. Again, some people can't separate the artist form the art, some people can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJDevils1214 said:

My comment on "where is the line" is pointing out the hypocrisy in people's commitments to these decisions...I.E. will not listen to GG's song but will still buy clothing made by slave labor or listen to Michael Jackson because it was never proven. I am not debating on "what's worse" I am trying to point out how people pick and choose where to exercise their moral standards. Again, some people can't separate the artist form the art, some people can. 

Whether you can separate it in your head is a personal thing. But there is no way to separate it in reality, paying GG royalties is providing financial support to a child predator and rapist no matter how you slice it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Whether you can separate it in your head is a personal thing. But there is no way to separate it in reality, paying GG royalties is providing financial support to a child predator and rapist no matter how you slice it. 

Yea I get that. I said multiple times it is up to the individual. My ending point, cause we're way off topic, is that if you can buy Air Jordans and not care about being complicit in supporting Nike's questionable labor practices across the globe, then drawing the line at Garry Glitter getting 3 cents of your overall ticket at a sporting event is a little...misguided(maybe wrong word)? Again, it's up to the individual. Didn't mean to start such a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NJDevils1214 said:

Yea I get that. I said multiple times it is up to the individual. My ending point, cause we're way off topic, is that if you can buy Air Jordans and not care about being complicit in supporting Nike's questionable labor practices across the globe, then drawing the line at Garry Glitter getting 3 cents of your overall ticket at a sporting event is a little...misguided(maybe wrong word)? Again, it's up to the individual. Didn't mean to start such a debate.

I’ll add, we the fans are not the real issue, it’s the team. Even if 99.999% of people aren’t bothered by it, they can’t risk the inevitable backlash, which might not even come from a fan at all, it could just be someone who heard about it. 

That’s the world we live in. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*obligatory I can’t wait to hear Dano try and pronounce his name comment 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are we rolling out the lines Amanda shared the other day?

I wonder if there's any chance Zacha or Boqvist crack back into the lineup.

Share this post


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

So, are we rolling out the lines Amanda shared the other day?

I wonder if there's any chance Zacha or Boqvist crack back into the lineup.

From what I saw just a few minutes ago, it looks like Zacha, Boqvist and Mueller are sitting while Rooney, Hayden and Carrick are taking their places.

Zacha and Boqvist sit for Rooney and Hayden.  Gotta have that toughness doe...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

From what I saw just a few minutes ago, it looks like Zacha, Boqvist and Mueller are sitting while Rooney, Hayden and Carrick are taking their places.

Zacha and Boqvist sit for Rooney and Hayden.  Gotta have that toughness doe...

Well they did just get a rage room..

Share this post


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.