Jump to content

2021 Around The League Thread


Satans Hockey
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Unfortunately i can see Wood's agent getting into his head and asking wayyyy too much money for what he brings. Kind of like what happened with Clarkson.

Could be totally wrong though. But he does bring something that we do need but you shouldnt overpay for that unless you're in a position where you can but meh

Yeah, if Wood plays in over 75 games and puts up 25 goals or so this season, yeah, I could see his agent suddenly talking about $5 million or so per year for 4-5 years...I want no part of that...of course, Fitz probably won't entertain that kind of deal...they'll go to arbitration and if Wood gets, say, a one-year, $3.5 - 5.0 million deal (wide range is based on what he'll do this season), the Devils will live with it, and say soyonara.  Depending on what's going on with the team, if Fitz ever decided to fortify the 2021-22 Devils with a good to very good player still under contract, I could see Wood being part of the package. 

Not that every player on your roster is going to be 100% cost-effective right down to the penny, but when you start giving out too much money to pretty good (at best) players just to keep status quo...that's how you can get yourself into cap trouble.  I don't want to make Wood sound like he's some zilch who brings nothing to the table at all, but I do think he's a guy you can absolutely find ways to replace, preferably from within, for considerably less coin.

re:  Clarkson, man did he time things just right...he had a stretch between the 2011-12 and 2013 regular seasons where he somehow managed to score 33 goals in 69 games...he never scored anywhere near that pace, before or after.  The Leafs clearly thought they were getting some semblance of that player when they made him that insane offer...they got all of 118 games and 15 goals out of him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Yeah, if Wood plays in over 75 games and puts up 25 goals or so this season, yeah, I could see his agent suddenly talking about $5 million or so per year for 4-5 years...I want no part of that...of course, Fitz probably won't entertain that kind of deal...they'll go to arbitration and if Wood gets, say, a one-year, $3.5 - 5.0 million deal (wide range is based on what he'll do this season), the Devils will live with it, and say soyonara.  Depending on what's going on with the team, if Fitz ever decided to fortify the 2021-22 Devils with a good to very good player still under contract, I could see Wood being part of the package. 

Not that every player on your roster is going to be 100% cost-effective right down to the penny, but when you start giving out too much money to pretty good (at best) players just to keep status quo...that's how you can get yourself into cap trouble.  I don't want to make Wood sound like he's some zilch who brings nothing to the table at all, but I do think he's a guy you can absolutely find ways to replace, preferably from within, for considerably less coin.

re:  Clarkson, man did he time things just right...he had a stretch between the 2011-12 and 2013 regular seasons where he somehow managed to score 33 goals in 69 games...he never scored anywhere near that pace, before or after.  The Leafs clearly thought they were getting some semblance of that player when they made him that insane offer...they got all of 118 games and 15 goals out of him.  

I still remember the Leafs acting like they signed Wendel Clarke in his prime when they got Clarkson. Good dude but I think that Toronto fanfare really got into his head. That’s a lot more media pressure than he ever got in Jersey 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Devil Dan 56 said:

I still remember the Leafs acting like they signed Wendel Clarke in his prime when they got Clarkson. Good dude but I think that Toronto fanfare really got into his head. That’s a lot more media pressure than he ever got in Jersey 

I believe the headline was "Wendel Clarkson."

IIRC, that first preseason he got himself suspended for several games for jumping on the ice from the bench to join in on a brawl.  What a debut lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I believe the headline was "Wendel Clarkson."

IIRC, that first preseason he got himself suspended for several games for jumping on the ice from the bench to join in on a brawl.  What a debut lol.

 

57B1D864-6E61-4D72-9DA0-41F2BAA1615C.webp

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I believe the headline was "Wendel Clarkson."

IIRC, that first preseason he got himself suspended for several games for jumping on the ice from the bench to join in on a brawl.  What a debut lol.

wasn't it over something stupid like a water bottle or something? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DevsMan84 said:

I believe the headline was "Wendel Clarkson."

IIRC, that first preseason he got himself suspended for several games for jumping on the ice from the bench to join in on a brawl.  What a debut lol.

Yeah, I remember that too...that reeked of a guy who was trying to do too much from Day 1...who desperately wanted to prove that he was worth the money, but had absolutely no idea how to do it.  I feel for him in that of course if a team's willing to offer you that kind of money, you're signing on the dotted line immediately...but I'm sure he strongly suspected deep down that he was never going to be able to live up to it...like DD56 and you alluded to, the Leafs really thought they were getting something close to Wendel Clark...and that was beyond stupid, because all they had to do was look at the entire balance of Clarkson's career to realize that he not nearly as prolific of an offensive contributor.  And of course, the Leaf faithful are not exactly known for being patient and forgiving.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Yeah, I remember that too...that reeked of a guy who was trying to do too much from Day 1...who desperately wanted to prove that he was worth the money, but had absolutely no idea how to do it.  I feel for him in that of course if a team's willing to offer you that kind of money, you're signing on the dotted line immediately...but I'm sure he strongly suspected deep down that he was never going to be able to live up to it...like DD56 and you alluded to, the Leafs really thought they were getting something close to Wendel Clark...and that was beyond stupid, because all they had to do was look at the entire balance of Clarkson's career to realize that he not nearly as prolific of an offensive contributor.  And of course, the Leaf faithful are not exactly known for being patient and forgiving.

As maddening as Lou’s overbearing rules and structure were, I think guys like Clarkson (and a young Gomez) needed stuff like that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Yeah, I remember that too...that reeked of a guy who was trying to do too much from Day 1...who desperately wanted to prove that he was worth the money, but had absolutely no idea how to do it.  I feel for him in that of course if a team's willing to offer you that kind of money, you're signing on the dotted line immediately...but I'm sure he strongly suspected deep down that he was never going to be able to live up to it...like DD56 and you alluded to, the Leafs really thought they were getting something close to Wendel Clark...and that was beyond stupid, because all they had to do was look at the entire balance of Clarkson's career to realize that he not nearly as prolific of an offensive contributor.  And of course, the Leaf faithful are not exactly known for being patient and forgiving.

While im speaking out of my ass here. I think this is a case of an agent not looking out for the best interest of the player but rather the most money, at any cost. So he can make more money too. If the player sh!t the bed well wtv.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SterioDesign said:

While im speaking out of my ass here. I think this is a case of an agent not looking out for the best interest of the player but rather the most money, at any cost. So he can make more money too. If the player sh!t the bed well wtv.

I mean, one could argue that a player's best interest is the most money.  Depends how the player is wired.

David Clarkson retired with an estimated ~46M in career earnings while averaging .35PPG (28 points per 82).  That is.. I mean, that's highway robbery but good for him.  

It certainly wasn't easy for him at times I'm sure, and it's not like he's going to have his jersey hung in any rafters, but Jesus Christ the guy retired richer than 99.9% of humanity.  I would say his career was a major success.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MadDog2020 said:

Blake Wheeler is good people. 

5A05EAF9-DD56-4771-A363-C5A33114C116.jpeg

I love hearing stories like this. Especially when it's they come out like this. Like when Luc Bourdon died. Only then it came out that he gave a large sum of money to youth hockey where we grew up. He asked that his contribution remained anonymous and never wanted to make a big deal out of it or people to know. That's very very humble and really almost all athletes are like this and do things like this constantly. You just don't hear about it

It's really rubbing me the wrong way when i see those videos of people filming themselves giving money to homeless people or wtv. Like... you couldn't just give them the money and thats it? It's about them, not you. You really had to let the whole world know? At the end of the day as long as a person in need gets what they need that's the most important part, obviously. But if people just do it to bring attention to themselves and virtue signaling, it's pretty lame. Just my opinion.

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I love hearing stories like this. Especially when it's they come out like this. Like when Luc Bourdon died. Only then it came out that he gave a large sum of money to youth hockey where we grew up. He asked that his contribution remained anonymous and never wanted to make a big deal out of it or people to know. That's very very humble and really almost all athletes are like this and do things like this constantly. You just don't hear about it

It's really rubbing me the wrong way when i see those videos of people filming themselves giving money to homeless people or wtv. Like... you couldn't just give them the money and thats it? It's about them, not you. You really had to let the whole world know? At the end of the day as long as a person in need gets what they need that's the most important part, obviously. But if people just do it to bring attention to themselves and virtue signaling, it's pretty lame. Just my opinion.

What if the attention from giving is what the donor needs?  Then it's a win/win and the only loser is you - the person not involved that is getting upset about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I love hearing stories like this. Especially when it's they come out like this. Like when Luc Bourdon died. Only then it came out that he gave a large sum of money to youth hockey where we grew up. He asked that his contribution remained anonymous and never wanted to make a big deal out of it or people to know. That's very very humble and really almost all athletes are like this and do things like this constantly. You just don't hear about it

It's really rubbing me the wrong way when i see those videos of people filming themselves giving money to homeless people or wtv. Like... you couldn't just give them the money and thats it? It's about them, not you. You really had to let the whole world know? At the end of the day as long as a person in need gets what they need that's the most important part, obviously. But if people just do it to bring attention to themselves and virtue signaling, it's pretty lame. Just my opinion.

In the end, at least they're doing it...a lot of people in a position to do the same don't even think to give back...and I'm not saying that they absolutely have to or should, but I'm not going to knock those who choose to help (the only exception I could possibly think of is if they're grossly misrepresenting what they've done). 

Even if you're not a fan of some people's methods in how they're doing good deeds, better that, than never doing anything at all.  So even if it seems like getting a little publicity is a factor for some (and like Crisis just pointed out, that publicity can be a good thing for sure in many cases), I'll give them a pass.   

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

10 minutes ago, Crisis said:

What if the attention from giving is what the donor needs?  Then it's a win/win and the only loser is you - the person not involved that is getting upset about it.

I'd challenge the notion that it's healthy to "expect or need" to get something back for doing something good for someone in need. It shouldn't.

Or if you're suffering in any way and "need" the attention of doing something good. In my opinion, t should come from what you get directly from the person you're giving it to. Not from likes you get on social media.

I literally know people who do things like... bring their kids to a park or pool. Get a bunch of balloons and stuff out to make it look like the best time. Scream to their kids the whole time, get the pictures. Then leave right away and the kids never really had fun. But damn it sure look like they did on social media. It's cynical and toxic. Not a good mentality to encourage at all IMO. And again, i said this was my opinion, we don't have to agree

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Crisis said:

What if the attention from giving is what the donor needs?  Then it's a win/win and the only loser is you - the person not involved that is getting upset about it.

I personally don’t like those videos but I’ve never looked at it that way before. That’s an interesting point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I'd challenge the notion that it's healthy to "expect or need" to get something back for doing something good for someone in need. It shouldn't.

Or if you're suffering in any way and "need" the attention of doing something good. In my opinion, t should come from what you get directly from the person you're giving it to. Not from likes you get on social media.

I literally know people who do things like... bring their kids to a park or pool. Get a bunch of balloons and stuff out to make it look like the best time. Scream to their kids the whole time, get the pictures. Then leave right away and the kids never really had fun. But damn it sure look like they did on social media. It's cynical and toxic. Not a good mentality to encourage at all IMO. And again, i said this was my opinion, we don't have to agree

I'm not saying it is or isn't healthy.  But some people for whatever reason need validation or positive feedback in certain places in their lives.  Maybe that place is cringey social media.  Maybe without it they blow their brains out (extreme, sure).  But I don't know, I don't know why they do it.  Not going to pretend to either.  But in the end, someone is making someone else's life better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

I personally don’t like those videos but I’ve never looked at it that way before. That’s an interesting point

It is interesting and it touches on a lot more than the example i gave. I know a lot of people are using it to feel better about themselves, which is a fair need but in the end it's not good for them. Like a lot of the funnier people in the world are that way because they are struggling internally. See Robbin Williams. It's truly tragic. But its psychological and the reason its rubbing me the wrong way is cause i see that it's toxic for them and not addressing the real problem.

One good example is this dude i worked on years ago at a design firm. Amazing guy that'd literally take off his shirt off and give it to you if you needed it. He's a great guy and i'd do anything for him. so from that angle, it's great, of course.

Well that guy is obviously very unhappy deep down with his life. He's single, lives alone, depressed and puts 100% of his energy in his work so that he's not facing his own deeper problems. And his boss sure knows this and he's brainwashing him that it's a good thing and that he needs to push push push and give everything he has to the business. He's getting paid 40 hours and easily works 80 hours a week, constantly. He's basically like a Dwight from the office. And he's always willing to bend over backward for the boss or anyone. And he says he doesn't mind working that much cause he has nothing to go back to home anyway.... which is the saddest thing. But the thing is... his constant need to do something for others to feel better for himself is actually not the right solution or healthy for him and it's just a bandaid over a deeper problem that is not getting addressed. And while he's doing this to "feel good" in the moment and doing everything for others, he's not building something he can go back home to. Which is what he truly needs and deserves

We all know people that are incredibly insecure physically and rely on social media likes to get approval or wtv. So of course, on one hand it's great if they actually do get in shape and healthy out of it. But the deeper problem doesn't go away and then needing all those likes and attention is obviously not healthy. It would be a lot healthier to learn how to accept yourself the way you are or wtv and not requiring superficial things to be truly happy. A lot harder to do though so that's why most people tend to get their kicks from likes. Thats literally how people create addictions, they use wtv to escape their own problems and then they are dependant on it. From that angle should we be happy for booze and drug dealers cause they make money out of people's addictions? Just something to think about

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Crisis said:

I'm not saying it is or isn't healthy.  But some people for whatever reason need validation or positive feedback in certain places in their lives.  Maybe that place is cringey social media.  Maybe without it they blow their brains out (extreme, sure).  But I don't know, I don't know why they do it.  Not going to pretend to either.  But in the end, someone is making someone else's life better.

yup and i agree with that premise but see my previous post and in many cases it's making their own life worse. Or at least not addressing their problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crisis said:

What if the attention from giving is what the donor needs?  Then it's a win/win and the only loser is you - the person not involved that is getting upset about it.

This. Plus, if an “influencer” or celebrity films themselves giving money to those who need it, maybe some of the millions of doofs who follow their content will think it’s a good idea to be involved in charity. I mean, if they are willing to buy the goods they are selling, maybe they would follow suit just to be more like the person they admire? 

In the end, I don’t care if someone gets attention from it, charity is charity. Whether it’s giving a homeless guy a sandwich or millions of dollars to a children’s’ hospital. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2021 at 2:26 PM, DevsMan84 said:

Donating has always have been always at least partially about clout.  If that wasn't true, buildings and wings wouldn't be named after their donors.

Regardless, donating for any reason is always good.

I don’t think donating is ever about clout.

Sent from the MB3 Memorial Wing “Suck It SD” Section of NJDevs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like what started off as a nice story about someone doing some "stealthy" good turned into a rather judgmental psychoanalysis about what various people are doing, as seen through a very cynical lens.  It's not like human beings aren't known for judging what fellow human beings are doing on occasion, but SD's takes on this just feel...kinda unnecessary?            

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2021 at 2:26 PM, DevsMan84 said:

Donating has always have been always at least partially about clout.  If that wasn't true, buildings and wings wouldn't be named after their donors.

Regardless, donating for any reason is always good.

It’s also about tax breaks for the super wealthy. When you give a homeless guy a dollar, that’s one thing. If you are donating millions of dollars, you aren’t doing it just to help. It’s obvious. But, without those donations, how many charitable organizations would fail to have sufficient capital? 

All of them. 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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