The 2021 Offseason Thread

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

48 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I am not going to beat up the team over not signing UFA because, frankly, the Devils have never been a great destination.  In the case of Laine possibly bolting for that same reason, I can imagine that living in JC is probably a better/more exciting proposition for him than living in the Peg or Columbus.  Plus the UFA we tend to sign are more for compliance mixed with low risk such as signing Simmonds for $5M for 1 season so we can be over the cap floor.  I am fully expecting to land a mid to lower tier UFA just for that purpose again as Zajac and Palms are going to be fully off the books now.

The issue is exactly the "weaponizing cap space" part.  Fitz already started with that shortly after the Devils season ended.  I am not going to be fooled over and over again by this team that talks about weaponizing cap space only to get other team's crap.  To truly make good on those promises, the Devils will have to follow through on trades where they would have to part with players that many in our  gee-willickers fanbase will cry over and I really don't think they have the guts to do it (Nico is the obvious one in my mind).  In short, I just don't believe the Devils anymore when it comes to off-season promises.

At this point I see Harris and Blitzer as more like Max and Leo from the movie/musical the Producers where they find out they can make more money from a flop than a hit.

What we really need to see is more of a firm definition of what "weaponizing cap space" means to the Devils.  Because to me, that term means using that space to do something REAL bold...like dare to offer sheet a top RFA whose team is in serious cap trouble (I know almost no one does this...teams always find a way to match).  Or like you allude to, make a huge deal involving some surprising names, who have multiple prime years left.  I do think that Fitz and others think highly enough of Nico that they're simply not ready or willing to deal him just yet...I don't have him as an untouchable anymore, but I still think there's still nice upside that we haven't fully seen yet, so I'm not opposed to him staying here in the slightest.  I don't think it's fair to knock the fanbase as "gee-willickers" for something that hasn't happened...if there's a deal that involved Nico that seems beneficial to the Devils but fans simply refuse to acknowledge that it makes sense, then yeah, they're not thinking rationally.  But let's see a potential deal involving Nico actually materialize first, before making any assumptions about reactions...does take two to make a deal happen.  Just because fans suggest "How about Nico and maybe something else for Eichel?" doesn't mean either team ever pursues it.

Agree that I don't want "weaponizing" to consist of deals for expensive (but cost-controlled) players who are on the decline, or for guys who've more or less been deemed expendable by their teams (or not worth spending the money on, compared to other players), who seem like bargains when first acquired (but in the end don't turn out to be much).  I've already said where I think the weaponizing will happen:  extensions for the kids who've earned them, without having to haggle or come up with creative ways to squeeze their contracts under the cap.  I'm OK with that...I always like spending on my own guys, if possible.  But when the Devils say the W-word, they have a way of making it sound like something bigger and sexier is coming.

Another way of putting it:  I think Fitz is betting pretty heavily that his group of kids (with more on the way) will form a winning core.  He may or may not add to it, via a big trade...as far as a blockbuster-type trade goes, I think he waits one more year, because he wants to see his fruit ripen a little more (and up their value).

If Fitz actually goes out and manages to sign a Hamilton-type, then I'm going to be pretty blown away.  Because that would be "weaponizing" in a way I never would've dreamed of.    

Edited June 14, 2021 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[mfitz804]

23 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

What we really need to see is more of a firm definition of what "weaponizing cap space" means to the Devils.  Because to me, that term means using that space to do something REAL bold...like dare to offer sheet a top RFA whose team is in serious cap trouble (I know almost no one does this...teams always find a way to match).  Or like you allude to, make a huge deal involving some surprising names, who have multiple prime years left.  I do think that Fitz and others think highly enough of Nico that they're simply not ready or willing to deal him just yet...I don't have him as an untouchable anymore, but I still think there's still nice upside that we haven't fully seen yet, so I'm not opposed to him staying here in the slightest.  I don't think it's fair to knock the fanbase as "gee-willickers" for something that hasn't happened...if there's a deal that involved Nico that seems beneficial to the Devils but fans simply refuse to acknowledge that it makes sense, then yeah, they're not thinking rationally.  But let's see a potential deal involving Nico actually materialize first, before making any assumptions about reactions...does take two to make a deal happen.  Just because fans suggest "How about Nico and maybe something else for Eichel?" doesn't mean either team ever pursues it.

Agree that I don't want "weaponizing" to consist of deals for expensive (but cost-controlled) players who are on the decline, or for guys who've more or less been deemed expendable by their teams (or not worth spending the money on, compared to other players), who seem like bargains when first acquired (but in the end don't turn out to be much).  I've already said where I think the weaponizing will happen:  extensions for the kids who've earned them, without having to haggle or come up with creative ways to squeeze their contracts under the cap.  I'm OK with that...I always like spending on my own guys, if possible.  But when the Devils say the W-word, they have a way of making it sound like something bigger and sexier is coming.

Another way of putting it:  I think Fitz is betting pretty heavily that his group of kids (with more on the way) will form a winning core.  He may or may not add to it, via a big trade...as far as a blockbuster-type trade goes, I think he waits one more year, because he wants to see his fruit ripen a little more (and up their value).

If Fitz actually goes out and manages to sign a Hamilton-type, then I'm going to be pretty blown away.  Because that would be "weaponizing" in a way I never would've dreamed of.    

The whole phrase bothers me, because "weaponizing cap space" doesn't, to me, mean using it to pay players. That would be weaponizing payroll. If you are weaponizing cap space, to me, that means you are going to basically sell your cap space and trade for guys on LTIR to get assets. 

If you are planning to spend money, you just say you are going to spend money. Calling that "weaponizing cap space" is stupid, because fvcking just about everyone does that. 

[SterioDesign]

46 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

The whole phrase bothers me, because "weaponizing cap space" doesn't, to me, mean using it to pay players. That would be weaponizing payroll. If you are weaponizing cap space, to me, that means you are going to basically sell your cap space and trade for guys on LTIR to get assets. 

If you are planning to spend money, you just say you are going to spend money. Calling that "weaponizing cap space" is stupid, because fvcking just about everyone does that. 

it doesn't mean just spending money so you think something is stupid when its not event the intent.

Weaponizing just means that when it comes to multiple situations, having all that cap space is a strength for the team. They can take on salary if they want, they can sell cap space, they can offer big contracts and they are not in a place where they might have to get rid of players just to fit the cap. All of that can be resumed as "weaponized cap space". It's about the flexibility, being in a position that if something happen, they can make it happen with their cap. Many teams don't have that now

Edited June 14, 2021 by SterioDesign

[Devilsfan118]

Rangers hire Gallant.

fvck.

[SterioDesign]

15 minutes ago, Devilsfan118 said:

Rangers hire Gallant.

fvck.

was there ever any doubt. fvck sakes

[MadDog2020]

Everyone knew that was gonna happen. At least after they fire him he should have no issues hailing a cab outside the Garden.

[mfitz804]

This is not news. 

[Lateralous]

The more I think about it, I think this is the off-season to go big on Hamilton or Jones.   With the NHL warning that the cap could be flat for the next several years, that has to take 2/3rds of the league out of the running right off the bat.  You have to think of we put up a serious offer we would be in major contention.  I guess Jones could be serious about waiting for UFA but if the Devils wanted to trade and sign him this off-season, he might think twice after watching Taylor Hall’s “bet on himself”. 
 

It might be a year or two earlier than ideal in terms of the rebuild but I also don’t trust that the big boys won’t get together and tell Gary that they want another compliance buyout since they were all banking on the cap continuing to rise.   I don’t think there will ever be a better chance for us to add a young #1 D through free agency than this summer.  

[titans04]

1 hour ago, SterioDesign said:

 

Weaponizing just means that when it comes to multiple situations, having all that cap space is a strength for the team. They can take on salary if they want, they can sell cap space, they can offer big contracts and they are not in a place where they might have to get rid of players just to fit the cap. All of that can be resumed as "weaponized cap space". It's about the flexibility, being in a position that if something happen, they can make it happen with their cap. Many teams don't have that now

I respect your opinion.

I just disagree sounds like it means you're sitting on your hands you know just in case you may need to use them some day to actually do something helpful. But in the meantime they're there doing absolutely nothing of value.  Yet you can tell us year after year about them and how great they are while nothing changes. 

Obviously not "you".

Edited June 14, 2021 by titans04

[mfitz804]

24 minutes ago, titans04 said:

I respect your opinion.

I just disagree sounds like it means you're sitting on your hands you know just in case you may need to use them some day to actually do something helpful. But in the meantime they're there doing absolutely nothing of value.  Yet you can tell us year after year about them and how great they are while nothing changes. 

Obviously not "you".

I don’t think we’re far apart. What I said is what I think it SHOULD mean. They’re still talking about it and not actually doing it, in my opinion. They are still sitting on their hands and failing to weaponize cap space. 

[titans04]

39 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I don’t think we’re far apart. What I said is what I think it SHOULD mean. They’re still talking about it and not actually doing it, in my opinion. They are still sitting on their hands and failing to weaponize cap space. 

Agreed, we're almost if not entirely on the same page when it comes to this essentially meaningless theme of weaponizing cap space.  

[SterioDesign]

3 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

I don’t think we’re far apart. What I said is what I think it SHOULD mean. They’re still talking about it and not actually doing it, in my opinion. They are still sitting on their hands and failing to weaponize cap space. 

Well that's like people thinking when the team is not signing any top free agents that they didn't try and just sat on their hands and watch free agency come and go. Cause they didn't see anything happen. You can be sure our GMS have been looking at deals like when Lou fvcked toronto signing yet another vet to a bad deal and it gave Carolina a FIRST round pick. That's a situation that you can benefit from by having the space. And IMO it's better to have the option to do things that will help your team in the long run. Than spending just to spend (not saying that's what you're suggesting) but what's the alternative?

With the cap not going up for awhile and with the seatle expansion coming. That something can be done with it or not. The best we can do is being in a situation to strike when there's an opportunity. And not many teams will be able to do that

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by SterioDesign

[mfitz804]

26 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Well that's like people thinking when the team is not signing any top free agents that they didn't try and just sat on their hands and watch free agency come and go. Cause they didn't see anything happen. You can be sure our GMS have been looking at deals like when Lou fvcked toronto signing yet another vet to a bad deal and it gave Carolina a FIRST round pick. That's a situation that you can benefit from by having the space. And IMO it's better to have the option to do things that will help your team in the long run. Than spending just to spend (not saying that's what you're suggesting) but what's the alternative?

With the cap not going up for awhile and with the seatle expansion coming. That something can be done with it or not. The best we can do is being in a situation to strike when there's an opportunity. And not many teams will be able to do that

 

Sure, but sitting around with cap space and doing nothing with it, whether because you choose not to or you are unable to, is not “weaponizing” cap space. 

[SterioDesign]

11 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Sure, but sitting around with cap space and doing nothing with it, whether because you choose not to or you are unable to, is not “weaponizing” cap space. 

So say you have gun or some sort of weapon at your house, an alarm system and cameras... but that nothing happen and there's never anyone breaking in... you didn't protect your house then? 

It's like you're taking the term weaponizing as in it's some sort of offensive tactic. It's not. It's more like booby trapping your house. You need something to happen in order to use it

Edited June 15, 2021 by SterioDesign

[mfitz804]

11 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

So say you have gun or some sort of weapon at your house, an alarm system and cameras... but that nothing happen and there's never anyone breaking in... you didn't protect your house then? 

It's like you're taking the term weaponizing as in it's some sort of offensive tactic. It's not. It's more like booby trapping your house. You need something to happen in order to use it

You can literally make a stupid argument out of any topic. But let’s assume for a second that you’re right, that would mean there’s no difference between having cap space and weaponizing it.

That makes no sense, because a team that always has a ton of cap space every year wouldn’t be taking about weaponizing cap space if it meant that. What were they saying, then? “We have a ton of cap space and this year will be different because we are going to continue to have a ton of cap space”? Why the fvck would anyone say that like it was a good thing?

It’s patently obvious from the context that they were not talking about just having cap space for a rainy day, but rather actually doing something with it. Weaponize literally means to make something into a weapon, sitting on it and doing nothing could never be considered weaponizing. 

 

[Devil Dan 56]

Weaponizing literally means to use as a weapon. 
Having and using are not the same

[SterioDesign]

18 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

You can literally make a stupid argument out of any topic. But let’s assume for a second that you’re right, that would mean there’s no difference between having cap space and weaponizing it.

That makes no sense, because a team that always has a ton of cap space every year wouldn’t be taking about weaponizing cap space if it meant that. What were they saying, then? “We have a ton of cap space and this year will be different because we are going to continue to have a ton of cap space”? Why the fvck would anyone say that like it was a good thing?

It’s patently obvious from the context that they were not talking about just having cap space for a rainy day, but rather actually doing something with it. Weaponize literally means to make something into a weapon, sitting on it and doing nothing could never be considered weaponizing. 

 

it makes no sense only if you continue to think that they didn't try to do anything with it or not trying to. We got Subban that way, that you like it or not, they did it. That's one example of weaponizing cap space. It happened, it's history. It justifies the term. Then god knows what other things our GMs tried.

And depending on the structure of your team, there's a different between having cap space and weaponizing it. 

[SterioDesign]

9 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

Weaponizing literally means to use as a weapon. 
Having and using are not the same

it literally doesn't mean that. Its "turning something" into something you can potentially use as a weapon. The focus / meaning is on the adaptation and not on the "attack" or wtv.

weap·on·ize

/ˈwepənīz/

 

verb

gerund or present participle: weaponizing

 

to make it possible to use something to attack a person or group: 

 

- They claimed that the security agency had weaponized the internet. 

- He hoped to weaponize the issue of healthcare as part of his election campaign.

1. 1. 

   adapt for use as a weapon.

   "they had produced and weaponized many deadly biological agents, including anthrax"

    
2. 2. 

   install weapons in.

   "critics see this effort to weaponize space as profoundly dangerous for national security"

Edited June 15, 2021 by SterioDesign

[mfitz804]

I’m not sure you know what a verb is. 

“Turning something into something” requires action. Sitting on cap space is inaction, which is the opposite. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by mfitz804

[SterioDesign]

35 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I’m not sure you know what a verb is. 

“Turning something into something” requires action. Sitting on cap space is inaction, which is the opposite. 

Well listen, i'm not the one annoyed by my perception of a term that is widely accepted and used around the league lol I totally get the term, how we're in that position and how they could use it and not annoyed by it at all. 

So who's likely looking at it the wrong way here?

Edited June 15, 2021 by SterioDesign

[mfitz804]

7 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

Well listen, i'm not the one annoyed by my perception of a term that is widely accepted and used around the league lol I totally get the term, how we're in that position and how they could use it and not annoyed by it at all. 

So who's likely looking at it the wrong way here?

Still you. 

[vadvlfan]

Does anyone else believe that the addition of 3/4 quality UFA (or by trade)  players would be enough to add to this group and sneak devils into a playoff spot? The Rag$ made a huge addition w/ bread man & Trouba .  We'll all have our opinions as to which individuals would make that happen.  A top 6 fw, top 2 D man , and a 3rd line center that is great in faceoff dot? These would likely be vets 26-30 yrs old.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

My perception of "weaponizing cap space" is pretty close to SD's definition...you have much more space than other teams, and are in a position to make moves (especially ones that involve spending serious coin) that other teams simply can't...but at some point, it has to actually happen to be called legit weaponizing.  I have no issues with the fact that the Devils have largely sat on their cap space so far, because there wasn't much of a core to add to, and Panarin-types weren't coming here anyway.  The time wasn't right yet.  

So far, I haven't seen much "real" weaponizing to date...more like pure stockpiling.  I don't consider bringing in PK truly weaponizing...I consider that more picking up a player because the price seemed like it was cheap at the time, and that's the kind of move that I'm ready to see the Devils move away from.  It's been discussed, and based on the general lack of assets to use in deals since Shero took over, I understand why deals like this one were made, but I don't need to see a declining player paid a fortune by the Devils because it didn't cost much to get him, and his former team relieved beyond words that they were able to wash their hands of a player they clearly no longer were interested in (over)paying.  Nashville probably would've even taken less to get PK off their books...for them, it was never about getting much of a haul for PK.  It was about not having to pay him and deal with his cap hit anymore, and having newfound flexibility to spend on players they really wanted to pay.  Next time the Devils go shopping in this aisle, I want the team on the other end to be stuck trading a guy that really hurts them to deal...to see the Devils truly take advantage of a team that's painted itself into a capped-out corner and is stuck having to make a painful decision.  

If the Devils offer Hamilton top money that not many teams can match, and manage to land him, to me that will represent true weaponizing, for a couple of reasons.  First, it's a way of signaling to the fans (and players) that the Devils are fully back in business, and don't consider themselves to be that far away from being a playoff contender again...why spend all of that money otherwise?  But second, it means the Devils will have actually dug into that cap space by making a move for a player that wasn't considered expendable, relatively cheap to bring in, or someone that his prior team no longer was interested in paying.  The perception that the Devils are a team that top UFAs don't want to play for will take a huge hit, in the best way possible.

In the end, I still think the weaponizing will happen through retaining every kid that's deemed crucial to the core, without having to make any rough deals just to stay under the cap.  Like I've said, if I see unnecessary haggling or a young player dealt for picks to keep the payroll down just because...then my days of defending the owners are done.

Anyway, if the next couple of offseasons lead to :  1) signing Hamilton or trading for Jones and then signing him to a sizable extension, 2) signing Coleman to a mild overpayment, then 3) extending the kids deemed essential to the core who will be due raises in the next few years (boatloads of RFAs coming up this year and next) or trading some of them in a blockbuster deal for a guy that isn't being acquired just because he's cheap to acquire from an asset standpoint, and suddenly the Devils are a hell of a lot closer to the cap ceiling, then I'll say that the Devils truly weaponized their space.  Obviously this is just one way to get there, but if in two seasons I see nothing but more "didn't cost much" deals, stockpiled cap space, and players sent out who should've been kept but the Devils chose not to pony up...I'm gonna be pissed. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Under-the-radar type signing, but one that makes sense...there's one RFA taken care of:

 

[mfitz804]

1 minute ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Under-the-radar type signing, but one that makes sense...there's one RFA taken care of:

 

Good deal for Nathan, I think. I hope Seattle doesn’t reap the benefits of it.