Jump to content

Ray Shero and Devils Part Ways Effective Immediately


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, vadvlfan said:

Larry brooks just tweeted over the weekend that Mike Gillis had a 2nd interview with the Devils? Why the hell are they so enamored with this guy.  Fitz did a great job at trade deadline. Give him a shot. He knows all the prospects in the system. And although he was close to Ray and learned from him, he's his own man. How "hands on" is Harris/Blitzer going to be? You can't run a team based mostly on analytics. Even if it's short term.

It is concerning.  The theory running in my head now is that the owners are convinced the team is closer to contention than they really are and Gillis is just a "yes man" who will say anything to get this job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 674
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Looks like Shero sent Fitzgerald down to the bench to diagnose the problems with team and he came back to the owners and told them the problem is Ray Shero.

I’d believe that 100% to be honest

I'm so sick of hearing about 2015. The end of the 2019-2020 season is a couple of months away. I don't care about 2015. We know it wasn't much, but like I said earlier, I'm focused on 2018. That team

Posted Images

40 minutes ago, vadvlfan said:

Larry brooks just tweeted over the weekend that Mike Gillis had a 2nd interview with the Devils? Why the hell are they so enamored with this guy.  Fitz did a great job at trade deadline. Give him a shot. He knows all the prospects in the system. And although he was close to Ray and learned from him, he's his own man. How "hands on" is Harris/Blitzer going to be? You can't run a team based mostly on analytics. Even if it's short term.

I have a bad feeling Gillis will get the job because of the analytics bullsh!t. Which sucks, because I like Fitz, and he’ll probably go somewhere else and do a great job. 

Edited by MadDog2020
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

I have a bad feeling Gillis will get the job because of the analytics bullsh!t. Which sucks, because I like Fitz, and he’ll probably go somewhere else and do a great job. 

That’s the worst part for me, he’s going to be a great GM somewhere. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vadvlfan said:

Larry brooks just tweeted over the weekend that Mike Gillis had a 2nd interview with the Devils? Why the hell are they so enamored with this guy.  Fitz did a great job at trade deadline. Give him a shot. He knows all the prospects in the system. And although he was close to Ray and learned from him, he's his own man. How "hands on" is Harris/Blitzer going to be? You can't run a team based mostly on analytics. Even if it's short term.

Do we know for sure he’s interviewing for the GM spot though? Could be for another FO position. I keep seeing it mentioned that Gillis doesn’t even want to be a GM again. 

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

We will be first in expected goals.  I guess that counts for something.

I expect a million goals, so we definitely are the favorite to with the Cup next year. Sorry everyone else. 

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

I expect a million goals, so we definitely are the favorite to with the Cup next year. Sorry everyone else. 

We will be first in expected goals, nearly last in actual goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will really be pissed if that clown Gillis is hired. Haven’t agreed with any of the personnel decisions coming from the pro-tank owners. 
Give the job to Fitz.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, devlman said:

I will really be pissed if that clown Gillis is hired. Haven’t agreed with any of the personnel decisions coming from the pro-tank owners. 
Give the job to Fitz.

Owners are not pro-tank.

Shero made moves that were designed to expedite a return to consistent contention and was allowed to spend money to do it (taking on all of PK's remaining money, paying a fair amount for an unproven Goose, etc).  They didn't work out.  But Plan A this season obviously didn't involve punting the season.  

But yeah, I'm all on board with Fitz getting the job.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Owners are not pro-tank.

Shero made moves that were designed to expedite a return to consistent contention and was allowed to spend money to do it (taking on all of PK's remaining money, paying a fair amount for an unproven Goose, etc).  They didn't work out.  But Plan A this season obviously didn't involve punting the season.  

But yeah, I'm all on board with Fitz getting the job.  

Owners have a strong history of tanking with the Sixers. Shero made those moves and got fired and then they authorized all the selling off. All the evidence points to pro-tank.

Edited by devlman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, devlman said:

Owners have a strong history of tanking with the Sixers. Shero made those moves and got fired and then authorized all the selling off. All the evidence points to pro-tank.

The NBA is a different beast.  You are way oversimplifying in trying to make a point.  

None of the evidence points to pro-tank...the team wasn't playing well, and a good chunk of that fell on Shero's moves (like I've said many times, I think he did have his share of rotten luck here)...I did like him and I would have given him another season, but the team didn't progress enough from a pure results standpoint under his watch, and when the team was SCREAMING for a coaching change, he waited too long to make it.  As for the "selling off", that's not uncommon practice when you have guys who are going to leave, or guys whose value is higher than it might be otherwise.  Devils absolutely should have been sellers at the time and I have no issue with them going in that direction.

All I've seen these owners do is give their GMs considerable freedom to spend money and make moves.  They did that with Lou, and they did the same with Shero.  Lou wouldn't blow up what sorely needed to be...so yeah, that and years of poor drafting helped to lead to some lean years.  Shero had to come in and try to build both the AHL and NHL teams with not very much to work with initially.  The team's overall record the past couple of years isn't good, but he left considerably more behind than did his predecessor.  I'd like to see what Fitz can do...I don't think this team is as far away from being decent and on the upswing as some do, I really don't.  

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

The NBA is a different beast.  You are way oversimplifying in trying to make a point.  

None of the evidence points to pro-tank...the team wasn't playing well, and a good chunk of that fell on Shero's moves (like I've said many times, I think he did have his share of rotten luck here)...I did like him and I would have given him another season, but the team didn't progress enough from a pure results standpoint under his watch, and when the team was SCREAMING for a coaching change, he waited too long to make it.  As for the "selling off", that's not uncommon practice when you have guys who are going to leave, or guys whose value is higher than it might be otherwise.  Devils absolutely should have been sellers at the time and I have no issue with them going in that direction.

All I've seen these owners do is give their GMs considerable freedom to spend money and make moves.  They did that with Lou, and they did the same with Shero.  Lou wouldn't blow up what sorely needed to be...so yeah, that and years of poor drafting helped to lead to some lean years.  Shero had to come in and try to build both the AHL and NHL teams with not very much to work with initially.  The team's overall record the past couple of years isn't good, but he left considerably more behind than did his predecessor.  I'd like to see what Fitz can do...I don't think this team is as far away from being decent and on the upswing as some do, I really don't.  

Agree re everything said about Shero. He ultimately had to go for hanging onto Hynes way too long, although one could argue Hynes had nothing to do with the terrible goaltending. The owners though are no strangers to tanking and will have no trepidation when they feel they aren’t contending for a playoff spot imo. 

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

Agree re everything said about Shero. He ultimately had to go for hanging onto Hynes way too long, although one could argue Hynes had nothing to do with the terrible goaltending. The owners though are no strangers to tanking and will have no trepidation when they feel they aren’t contending for a playoff spot imo. 

But I have yet to see them mandate a tank with the Devils.  If they wanted to interfere, they could (as some meddlesome owners can and will).  They could've easily forced the coaching staff to play Schneider over Blackwood (hey, we're paying him, he needs to play)...but they allowed him to be mothballed in the minors for a while, while the clearly better player in Mac was allowed to play.  They could've held Shero back from making obvious "Let's get better NOW" moves this past offseason, and found a GM to sell off as many useful assets as possible (like Palms and some others).  You've seen what teams that are purposely tanking will do...look at last season's Dolphins.  That's not happening here.  Like I said, you have more a series of moves that didn't pay off as hoped, and a franchise that simply does what so many others do when their team is not anywhere near being in a playoff hunt, in what's very much become a defined "Buyer/Seller" market.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it's becoming clearer and clearer that the owners may be a problem. Which sucks cause they saved us by having money and being willing to invest... but if they are not hockey smart we're fvcked. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

But I have yet to see them mandate a tank with the Devils.  If they wanted to interfere, they could (as some meddlesome owners can and will).  They could've easily forced the coaching staff to play Schneider over Blackwood (hey, we're paying him, he needs to play)...but they allowed him to be mothballed in the minors for a while, while the clearly better player in Mac was allowed to play.  They could've held Shero back from making obvious "Let's get better NOW" moves this past offseason, and found a GM to sell off as many useful assets as possible (like Palms and some others).  You've seen what teams that are purposely tanking will do...look at last season's Dolphins.  That's not happening here.  Like I said, you have more a series of moves that didn't pay off as hoped, and a franchise that simply does what so many others do when their team is not anywhere near being in a playoff hunt, in what's very much become a defined "Buyer/Seller" market.   

I’m not criticizing them for being sellers at all. But here’s the thing, last off-season’s moves probably convinced them, like it did all of us, that we could be contenders for a playoff spot. That’s why they approved them (that, and being dead last in cap spend). It wasn’t their idea or credit for them, it was Shero’s. However, once it became clear that we would again suck, Shero was out. Shero likely stayed with Hynes as long as he did because he thought we were close and wasn’t going to rebuild from scratch. The owners’ firing of him and sanctioning of sell-offs not only showed accountability for results but also that they were fine with going for another high lotto pick. There’s also the game of public perception. They’ve alread gained the reputation in the NBA world for being shameless tankers, imagine if they publicly demonstrated they’d want to do the same in the NHL.
 

The firing of Shero has been the closest they’ve come to a public signal that they prefer rebuilds over retools. Your Schneider point I don’t have a rebuttal for. Can’t explain that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The current team outside of 3-4 players is compete and utter sh!t.  They absolutely need a rebuild rather than a retool.  Shero built a house of cards going into this season that collapsed almost immediately.  His delay in addressing it and/or having no contingency plan is what sunk him.  This season is on Shero, not the owners.

The one point I will agree on against the owners is if they fall prey to the advanced stat crowd and their nonsense.  From what we have been reading, they seem to have the owners ear.  If that is the case I may just check out while we accumulate the Beau Bennett's of the world.

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

I’m not criticizing them for being sellers at all. But here’s the thing, last off-season’s moves probably convinced them, like it did all of us, that we could be contenders for a playoff spot. That’s why they approved them (that, and being dead last in cap spend). It wasn’t their idea or credit for them, it was Shero’s. However, once it became clear that we would again suck, Shero was out. Shero likely stayed with Hynes as long as he did because he thought we were close and wasn’t going to rebuild from scratch. The owners’ firing of him and sanctioning of sell-offs not only showed accountability for results but also that they were fine with going for another high lotto pick. There’s also the game of public perception. They’ve alread gained the reputation in the NBA world for being shameless tankers, imagine if they publicly demonstrated they’d want to do the same in the NHL.
 

The firing of Shero has been the closest they’ve come to a public signal that they prefer rebuilds over retools. Your Schneider point I don’t have a rebuttal for. Can’t explain that.

Comparing the NBA to the NHL will never work, from an apples-to-apples comparison.  Teams are built much differently in the NBA.  You're trying to make an unfair link to prove a point.  

The owners do get credit for allowing Shero to spend in the first place.  Devils could've been much closer to the floor if that's what the owners wanted.  You can cheap out very easily if you truly want to tank.  You don't take on $27 million on a potentially almost impossible-to-move contract in PK's if you're truly in tank mode...absolutely no reason to.  You can overpay a mehish defenseman for one or two years instead.  

Shero clearly thought a lot of Hynes...probably too much.  Definitely factored in heavily in Shero's downfall.  

What's funny about what you're saying is that I think what cost Shero his job was actually quite the opposite.  I think he was trying to sell ownership on another rebuild, and after Shero had been given five years to build a team and had made moves that were supposed to move the train forward, they didn't want to hear that.  I think they don't want to go through another rebuild at all.    

Give me one sell-off this season that made sense to keep:

Hall?  Once it was clear that he wasn't going to re-sign, what other choice did Shero have but to move him?  He couldn't possibly take a Tavares-type gamble.  And to Shero's credit, he didn't fvck around...with a guy who's injury-prone and soon-to-be-UFA, that's what you do...trade him before he gets hurt and you're then stuck with him.  I think Shero got a pretty good return.

Greene?  Aging and his best seasons were clearly behind him.  UFA-to-be.  Who wouldn't take a second-rounder for him?

Coleman?  I liked him a lot, but the return was just too damned good to pass up.  To put it another way...if I had heard that Fitz had turned that offer DOWN, part of me definitely would've wondered if he'd made a mistake.  

Vats?  Devils at least got an interesting young piece for him, and wasn't even able to hit the ice at the time of the deal.  I like Vats, but he's a guy who's ripe to be overpaid as a UFA.  And as we've seen, he misses plenty of games.  

Simmonds?  Didn't work out, wasn't going to be back.  Might as well get what you can.

Domingue?  He got some mileage out of being not-Cory, but that was about it.  Some good moments and many more not-so-good ones.  

If a guy like Hischier or Blackwood had been traded (or Blackwood wasn't being given as much of an opportunity as he has the last season+), you'd have a much better case for ownership supporting tanking.  But the only guys who were sold off were ones that made perfect sense to sell off (even if it hurt a little to see Coleman go).  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me make clear, I fully support the offloading moves we’ve made. There was no point to keeping a Greene or a Vats and not building around our youthful core with similarly-aged players. 

But why was firing Shero necessary given his rebuild wasn’t complete and ready for judgment? Why couldn’t he be left to execute these offloading deals being the infamous trader that he is? It’s like the owners were somehow punishing him for accelerating the rebuild with the Subban, Gusev, Simmonds deals. If the owners thought we were a playoff team because of those deals then they’re truly lacking in the hockey knowledge dept. Rather, I think they resented the accelerated moves and approved them reluctantly and with a short leash. They didn’t want Shero hanging on to anyone. Their methodology would have been to keep stockpiling picks the whole time. It makes sense NOW, but I believe this has and is their approach to sports. Again, the conjecture for this is based on the firing of Ray (timing, communication around it, actual decision itself). 

Edited by devlman
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Domingue?  He got some mileage out of being not-Cory, but that was about it.  Some good moments and many more not-so-good ones.  

Earned a meme in the shortest tenure possible. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, devlman said:

I’m not criticizing them for being sellers at all. But here’s the thing, last off-season’s moves probably convinced them, like it did all of us, that we could be contenders for a playoff spot. That’s why they approved them (that, and being dead last in cap spend). It wasn’t their idea or credit for them, it was Shero’s. However, once it became clear that we would again suck, Shero was out. Shero likely stayed with Hynes as long as he did because he thought we were close and wasn’t going to rebuild from scratch. The owners’ firing of him and sanctioning of sell-offs not only showed accountability for results but also that they were fine with going for another high lotto pick. There’s also the game of public perception. They’ve alread gained the reputation in the NBA world for being shameless tankers, imagine if they publicly demonstrated they’d want to do the same in the NHL.
 

The firing of Shero has been the closest they’ve come to a public signal that they prefer rebuilds over retools. Your Schneider point I don’t have a rebuttal for. Can’t explain that.

I think Shero stuck with Hynes cause he felt the record was a bit unfair to him. Goaltending was the big reason this team kept blowing leads. Which was not Hynes fault if they had to give Schneider a chance for contract reason and also cause he did show some promise the year before. And Blackwood then didnt find his groove either. So Hynes was thrown in there with 2 goalies not stopping beach balls. Obviously that's going to affect your results so i think he didnt want to fault him for what was not his fault

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The team needed a hard reset. I think ownership failed to do that fully by keeping Hynes’ protege as the coach and Shero’s as the GM. At this point, keep the RFA’s, and a veteran or two, and burn it all down. 

I’ll add, trading Hall, Vatanen, Simmonds and Domingue were not for the purpose of tanking. We were finishing in the bottom third and out of the playoffs for certain, that’s when you get rid of free agents who aren’t going to re-sign, or who you don’t want to re-sign. If whoever was in charge (Shero then my dad) didn’t make those deals, they should have been immediately fired. What would be the point of letting all of those contracts expire while missing the playoffs by a mile? 

And Coleman we know, they offered a good deal on him because he had that extra year getting paid nothing. I have no problem with any of the above moves. 

  • 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.