GDT: Devils @ Rags 3/7 7PM

[mfitz804]

22 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

And I disagree we’re that far off. Maybe our top 10 pick makes the team out of camp, Ty Smith comes up, we add a veteran backup, we get more out of Hughes, Goose and Bratt’s play carries over to next season, etc. I don’t think it’s that unlikely they could be a bubble team. 

I agree. Of course, I thought that this year also. 

[Nicomo]

3 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I agree. Of course, I thought that this year also. 

True, but next season we won’t have the Hall situation hanging over everyone’s heads, Cory won’t be around (hopefully), we’ll have more realistic expectations for Subban, etc. 

And I didn’t even mention possibly having a new coach. 

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

25 minutes ago, Devilsfan118 said:

Just like how people are now proclaiming PDB a genius coach for turning Vegas around.

When, in reality, they got sh!t goaltending early on and have gotten pretty decent goaltending since the hiring of PDB.  IIRC their underlying numbers were fantastic from the get-go.

I would hope folks here don't fall for the mirage that is February-March Devils hockey.  That isn't to say we can't enjoy it, but this team is way farther off than it appears right now imo.

It's a team that will definitely see change this offseason.  I get the feeling only Severson and PK (mostly due to his contract in his case) are locks on D to be coming back next year...Carrick has a year left and is relatively cheap, so I won't be surprised if he's back too.  Not that every single other D body currently here absolutely WON'T be a Devil next season, but I could see Mueller and Butcher being gone, for starters.  And obviously the idea is to get Ty Smith up here next season.  

Though I couldn't be happier with Blackwood's play, he can't play any better than he has, really...he's been a complete beast, especially considering that the D still has its share of iffy moments most games.  Hopefully some of the young D in the system aren't too far from contributing/helping.  I also expect the Devils to sign at least one new defender via UFA (and/or trade for one).  

8 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

PDB is a good coach. Always has been. That last game against the Devils was as well coached and executed as any I’ve seen all season. 

And I disagree we’re that far off. Maybe our top 10 pick makes the team out of camp, Ty Smith comes up, we add a veteran backup, we get more out of Hughes, Goose and Bratt’s play carries over to next season, etc. I don’t think it’s that unlikely they could be a bubble team. 

The bolded is the way I'm looking at it...that the future isn't as gloom-and-doom as it appears.  It's kind of nice that the Devils have put up the record that they have over their last 37, despite not getting much offense from Hughes, Hischier missing games and seeming a little off lately, and Domingue having been here for a chunk of that stretch.  Obviously the GM (be it Fitz or someone else) has to have a solid offseason, Hughes has to take a step forward, and guys like Bratt can't regress...I'm still relatively hopeful.  Most of my hope comes from the fact that even if Mac can't continue to play THIS good, that our days of sub-.900 team save% are done.    

And maybe this ultimately doesn't mean that much, but I like the fact that these guys are not only getting a taste of winning, but are doing it against some good teams, as well as the bad ones.  

[Devil Dan 56]

58 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Dude if you're not going to listen and try to understand what im saying there's no point arguing.

And you're right. Every GM in the league outside of Lou did it. Remember when Jagr, Lemieux, Modano, Roy and all those guys were weeks away from free agency and could have walk if they wanted? Oh right. No. You don't cause you don't let guys like that get to that point. I'm not saying to trade them. It's not like we were the only team ever to be in the playoffs lol All those teams were able to manage their ufas a lot better too. I'm saying that you need to fvcking take care of that before it's too late. I'm sure we could have kept a bunch of our guys if we would have offered a contract the summer before or during the season. But nope, for no fvcking reason we had to let them finish the season. It makes no sense. We've seen it where players we're given an ultimatum before the season and it made them sign. Why wait til they can be like "well i got to this point... i have this brother or good buddy on that other team, might be cool to play with them". Negotiation tactics, ever heard of that? You put yourself in the best possible position to get what you want

Why wouldn't you try to do everything you can to keep guys like Nieds, Gomez etc etc? Why the fvck would you wait til they are weeks away from free agency to finally reach out when you have absolutely no leverage? Why would you stick to "no talk during the season" and willingly give away any leverage you'd have to sign them at the right timing?

So youre saying that a HOF general manager didn't weigh his options because he wasn't begging people to sign early? He knew the market better than anyone. He knew Gomez and Holik would be overpaid and he let them go. It was more important to try to win. He attempted to get Rob Neids and couldn't, so he tried the max salary and it wasn't enough. He was betting on Elias, Marty, Sal, Langs, etc being loyal and he was right. He lost out on a few, especially Rafalski. That was a market misjudgment on his part. 

Lou knew what he felt a player was worth within his budget and wasn't going to let himself be used as leverage for other teams' offers. Stevens and Marty and Elias were almost always the top paid guys.

He wasn't "willingly giving up leverage". His leverage was the team itself. As in "this team is built this way. This is your role and this is what that's worth. Play ball and we can win." If that wasn't good enough he didn't have much use for you. It was very rigid but it was a necessity for what he was trying to accomplish. Whether you agree with it or not, it was a philosophy that worked for a very very long time before the bottom inevitably fell out. 
 

Now... What your way does, is it puts all of the leverage in the players hand. If someone comes to me a year before my contract is up trying to see how much I want and if I want to stay and how long do I want to stay etc, then I know they are desperate and that I can string them along. Negotiating tactics. Ever heard of that? You put yourself in the best possible position to get what you want. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Devil Dan 56

[mfitz804]

4 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

Now... What your way does, is it puts all of the leverage in the players hand. If someone comes to me a year before my contract is up trying to see how much I want and if I want to stay and how long do I want to stay etc, then I know they are desperate and that I can string them along. Negotiating tactics. Ever heard of that? You put yourself in the best possible position to get what you want. 

This exactly why I disagree with the people who think Sheri should have just given Hall an offer so something was "on the table". After he says he wants to wait, if you do that you reek of desperation. That would be horrible negotiating. 

I negotiate for a living and I use that tactic all the time, if you want me to show you mine, you have to show me yours first. 

Wait, what??

[Devil Dan 56]

6 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

This exactly why I disagree with the people who think Sheri should have just given Hall an offer so something was "on the table". After he says he wants to wait, if you do that you reek of desperation. That would be horrible negotiating. 

I negotiate for a living and I use that tactic all the time, if you want me to show you mine, you have to show me yours first. 

Wait, what??

I don't know what you're negotiating but I think I saw that in a movie once. 

[SterioDesign]

2 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

I understand what you're saying.

BUT, I would add, that happened with Nieds and Gomez at a time where it was still desirable to be a Devil. That logic doesn't fully apply anymore, because there's going to be some guys that will just not want to be here no matter when you make an offer. Still others will be happy to receive your offer, but may want to see what other teams are going to have to say before locking themselves into a rebuild.  

In fact, Niedermayer may have been one of the originators of that, wanting to go play with his brother. Will we ever know if an earlier offer would have kept him here? No, we won't. I'd like to think probably not, but who knows. Still remains probably the biggest loss in free agency we ever had, including Parise IMHO. 

A policy of NOT negotiating extensions for guys during the season is incredibly short sighted, in my opinion. Again that does NOT apply to Hall, who specifically said he wanted to wait. I maintain my original position on that, which is that when a guy says that, making him an offer would be a horrible negotiating tactic. 

You bring up a good point and i brought that up before. Back then it was desirable to be a devil and while it didn't excuse playing hardball with top guys, you could do it a bit. Cause they likely didn't have much better options out there. Plus then guys were not texting each others from other teams and it was quite different, you were not as exposed to greener grass. 

But once the devils started to go down... that simply doesnt work and you have to play your cards differently to make sure you keep your guys. So when you approach them can be very important. With Hall, i don't think he was ever set on staying but after all the moves we made in the offseason and tthere was a positive vibe around the team... that would have been a good time. I understand maybe Hall wanted to see how the team would actually do, its understandable. But then you risk the team sh!tting the bed too and obviously you can be sure he wouldnt sign an extension. So i understand the Hall situation was different. But i also don't want to prove that it was never about "lou" or "shero" but about what was done. But still, if those older guys were not part of our timeline, then why wouldnt you trade hall for maximum return to surround jack and nico? I understand they kind of saw they possibly had 2 windows of possible success... with hall, vats, subban, palms in their prime... and then in a few years with nico, jack, smith etc in their prime... but obviously that first window didnt pan out so they are focusing on the 2nd one. 

[mfitz804]

Like I said, if you want to argue that hole was not traded soon enough, that’s a better argument than saying he should have been given an offer sooner/at all.

I don’t know how much higher the return would have been, however. It’s an extra two months of a guy who is not playing at the level he played during his MVP season worth more than what we got? Maybe a little. Maybe not at all.

[SterioDesign]

1 hour ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

So youre saying that a HOF general manager didn't weigh his options because he wasn't begging people to sign early? He knew the market better than anyone. He knew Gomez and Holik would be overpaid and he let them go. It was more important to try to win. He attempted to get Rob Neids and couldn't, so he tried the max salary and it wasn't enough. He was betting on Elias, Marty, Sal, Langs, etc being loyal and he was right. He lost out on a few, especially Rafalski. That was a market misjudgment on his part. 

Lou knew what he felt a player was worth within his budget and wasn't going to let himself be used as leverage for other teams' offers. Stevens and Marty and Elias were almost always the top paid guys.

He wasn't "willingly giving up leverage". His leverage was the team itself. As in "this team is built this way. This is your role and this is what that's worth. Play ball and we can win." If that wasn't good enough he didn't have much use for you. It was very rigid but it was a necessity for what he was trying to accomplish. Whether you agree with it or not, it was a philosophy that worked for a very very long time before the bottom inevitably fell out. 
 

Now... What your way does, is it puts all of the leverage in the players hand. If someone comes to me a year before my contract is up trying to see how much I want and if I want to stay and how long do I want to stay etc, then I know they are desperate and that I can string them along. Negotiating tactics. Ever heard of that? You put yourself in the best possible position to get what you want. 

No i say he didn't weight his options cause he refused to talk contract with players/agents during the season. Saying it was a distraction.

Lou is a mastermind when it comes to hockey. But his stubbornness to stick to his ways was the problem and often got in the way. Stupid unnecessary rules like no beards, no contract talks, no jewelry, no contact with fans, no fun, etc etc it's quite up to debate if there was any true benefits coming out of those. And again, if you're succesful you can kind of force those things... but the league evolved and he didn't want to adjust. I mean, stupid sh!t like that can actually make a difference when it comes to attract players or keep your players. Loyalty is not as much a thing now and while it's great to be like "i want loyal players and players fitting the mold"... well if that cost you a top player who likes social media... is it really worth it?

If you work for Apple or Google... maybe you'll be okay with strict rules cause the money and benefits can compensate from the bullsh!t... but if you work at one McDonalds locations where you have stricter rules for no reasons than any other mcdonalds or fast food in your region... chances are you'll jump ship at your first chance lol It's CLEAR that some players didn't like those rules.

[mfitz804]

9 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Stupid unnecessary rules like no beards, no contract talks, no jewelry, no contact with fans, no fun, etc etc it's quite up to debate if there was any true benefits coming out of those.

It has never hurt the Yankees. 

[SterioDesign]

1 minute ago, mfitz804 said:

It has never hurt the Yankees. 

i dont follow baseball at all. So i can't tell if youre serious or sarcastic lol

 

[mfitz804]

26 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

i dont follow baseball at all. So i can't tell if youre serious or sarcastic lol

 

I’m serious. The Yankees have had similar rules for decades and everyone always wants to play there, because money and championships. 

[Nicomo]

52 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

It has never hurt the Yankees. 

The Reds also did it up until the late 90’s. Some of the best teams of all time without beards and long hair, sucked for decades with them...

Airtight case if you ask me. Lol

[SterioDesign]

42 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I’m serious. The Yankees have had similar rules for decades and everyone always wants to play there, because money and championships. 

Well we all hate to admit this but also because its New York. It's not just in hockey that athlete and famous people want to live there or LA

[mfitz804]

28 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Well we all hate to admit this but also because its New York. It's not just in hockey that athlete and famous people want to live there or LA

Why would anyone not want to play for the team that pays the most and is almost always in the playoffs? 

[Devil Dan 56]

2 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

No i say he didn't weight his options cause he refused to talk contract with players/agents during the season. Saying it was a distraction.

Lou is a mastermind when it comes to hockey. But his stubbornness to stick to his ways was the problem and often got in the way. Stupid unnecessary rules like no beards, no contract talks, no jewelry, no contact with fans, no fun, etc etc it's quite up to debate if there was any true benefits coming out of those. And again, if you're succesful you can kind of force those things... but the league evolved and he didn't want to adjust. I mean, stupid sh!t like that can actually make a difference when it comes to attract players or keep your players. Loyalty is not as much a thing now and while it's great to be like "i want loyal players and players fitting the mold"... well if that cost you a top player who likes social media... is it really worth it?

If you work for Apple or Google... maybe you'll be okay with strict rules cause the money and benefits can compensate from the bullsh!t... but if you work at one McDonalds locations where you have stricter rules for no reasons than any other mcdonalds or fast food in your region... chances are you'll jump ship at your first chance lol It's CLEAR that some players didn't like those rules.

I get what you're saying, but none of that stuff means anything in relation to what I was saying. For Lou it was all about winning. In his philosophy,  these distractions weren't necessary. If you want to tweet, go tweet in San Jose or something. If you want to mess around you'll leave. If you want a chance to win in a structured environment, you'll stay. It works for some people, others like you said aren't into that. He wasn't looking for that type of player. 

Now I don’t necessarily agree with that. I think there’s still room for guys to have some fun but that was how he viewed it. That was one of the better things about him leaving. The team needed to enter the 21st century very badly. I haven’t looked but I’m assuming he’s abandoned a lot of that or at least softened since leaving. 

It’s really just an entirely different way of building a team. Lou had a college background and has said his management style was based on Montreal in the 70’s and the Steinbrenner Yankees. Its just that old school logo on the front is more important than the name on the back type thing. 

[ajsgolf]

In my opinion I think the players that are a must keep (however that is accomplished) is as follows:

Blackwood

Gusev

Bratt

Hischier

Hughes

Severson - more for his offense than his reliable defense

Palmieri

Anderson - he’s impressed me

McLeod - pretty fast with nice moves

Subban - holding out hope

Mermis - still need some defenseman but not tied to him

 

Feel free to adjust as you see fit but what’s everyone else’s take?

[mfitz804]

10 minutes ago, ajsgolf said:

In my opinion I think the players that are a must keep (however that is accomplished) is as follows:

Blackwood

Gusev

Bratt

Hischier

Hughes

Severson - more for his offense than his reliable defense

Palmieri

Anderson - he’s impressed me

McLeod - pretty fast with nice moves

Subban - holding out hope

Mermis - still need some defenseman but not tied to him

 

Feel free to adjust as you see fit but what’s everyone else’s take?

I think the last 4 are absolutely not “must keep” players, Anderson I would like to keep, Subban I think you have to keep, Mermis is fine to keep, McLeod doesn’t make any list and I would include him in a trade. 

[Rob_Ottawa]

ya McLeod is the one on your list that really stands out. Why are you so high on him?

 

[ajsgolf]

27 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I think the last 4 are absolutely not “must keep” players, Anderson I would like to keep, Subban I think you have to keep, Mermis is fine to keep, McLeod doesn’t make any list and I would include him in a trade. 

Oops, I should have put the last 4 as not must keep, meant to break that down.  Prob why I put a short explanation next to each one of those since I felt I needed to justify my reasoning.

Rob, to answer your inquiry I found him to have real nice speed and saw potential with him moving the puck.  Yet to be seen once he’s in the zone but his movement and puck entry have been impressive in my eyes.  We’ll see how that unfolds.

Gonna be at the game tomorrow.  Friend got tix in a suite so def can’t turn that down, free food

[mfitz804]

Just now, ajsgolf said:

Gonna be at the game tomorrow.  Friend got tix in a suite so def can’t turn that down, free food

Thats how you do it. Have fun!