Speculation: 2017 TDL/Draft/Off-Season

Status
Not open for further replies.

MadDevil

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2007
33,586
23,074
Bismarck, ND
He's a guy who I guess we can plug in in case of injury, but even with our weak depth this guy isn't likely to get much PT.

Maybe it's an indictment on guys like Mozik and Jacobs as much as anything else.

Mozik is most likely never going to be more than an AHL player, and Jacobs is probably a couple of years away at best. The right side on the third pairing was pretty much a mess until Santini got called up, so I can understand wanting somebody on the right side who can fill in if need be. We've got other options on the left side with Auvitu, Stollery, Loov, etc.
 

devilsblood

Registered User
Mar 10, 2010
29,457
11,711
Mozik is most likely never going to be more than an AHL player, and Jacobs is probably a couple of years away at best. The right side on the third pairing was pretty much a mess until Santini got called up, so I can understand wanting somebody on the right side who can fill in if need be. We've got other options on the left side with Auvitu, Stollery, Loov, etc.
Loov and Prout appear to be pretty similar players, just one being lefty and the other righty.

Depth moves for sure.
 

Feed Me A Stray Cat

Registered User
Mar 27, 2005
14,847
144
Boston, MA
Prout is a right handed shot who can play as the 7th D and come in sometimes and not get cratered. Can also fight.

Whatever. Not happy with it, not upset with it. Move on.
 

Wingman77

Registered User
Mar 16, 2010
20,251
765
I'll be indifferent till the first game Prout plays over Santini or Severson :P

You know they'll want to get him in some games down the stretch and he's a RHD. Unless they sit their boy Lovejoy or play four RHD it'll be hard to find him playing time otherwise.

Shero may or may not be telling the full truth (he's not going to admit if this was a favor to Jarmo) but this was his rationale for not taking a pick instead of Prout:

"Knowing we already had 10 (2017 draft picks) already, Quincey for Prout made sense for us," Devils general manager Ray Shero said. "We liked Prout as a player. This year he's certainly not where he was with John Tortorella as he was the previous three years in Columbus."

http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2017/03/why_did_devils_move_kyle_quincey_for_dalton_prout.html

Shero's rationale doesn't make much sense there so you hope that he just made a poor excuse as to the actual reasoning for the trade. Makes it seem as if he's essentially saying, 'ah we had enough picks already' which is head scratching.
 

ghdi

Registered User
Feb 4, 2009
2,445
4
NJ
No, it doesn't make sense. The Devils only have to expose one defenseman who is under contract and has a NHL history, and we have enough of those (Greene, Moore, Merrill, Lovejoy, Severson) that we couldn't even protect them all if we wanted to anyway.

We can't expose Greene unless we asked him to waive his NMC. He is literally the only player who cant be exposed (beside the 1st and 2nd year guys).

We only have 2 forwards at the moment who qualify and who realistically make sense for exposure (DSP & Camm) since the other 4 guys (Hall, Palmieri, Zajac, Henrique) won't be exposed. We have to expose 2. NTCs can be exposed.

We have to choose between two compositions for the ED either 7 FWD, 3 DEF and 1 G, or 8 Skaters (F or D) and 1 G.

As it stands today, we're likely going the 8 skater route. The only thing Im unclear of is if we "have" to protect 8. If we do, then Prout's trade makes a little sense since we'll be protecting Greene, Severson, and probably Merrill for sure. Leaving 1 more out of the remaining Lovejoy, Moore, and Prout protected, which I guess would be Lovejoy.
 

Emperoreddy

Show Me What You Got!
Apr 13, 2010
129,839
75,228
New Jersey, Exit 16E
The question of whether we "have" to protect 8 skaters is irrelevant.

No team would ever protect less. That literally makes zero sense. We will use every protection whether it is a rule or not.
 

ghdi

Registered User
Feb 4, 2009
2,445
4
NJ
The question of whether we "have" to protect 8 skaters is irrelevant.

No team would ever protect less. That literally makes zero sense. We will use every protection whether it is a rule or not.

Yeah, I dont disagree. We actually have more players we can leave unprotected, as Vegas has a 48 hour window to sign an RFA or UFA if we dont protect them (I didnt notice this rule before), so we could protect Cammalleri in this respect and leave Bennett and Josefson unprotected regardless of their contract status, so yeah we'll be protecting 8 skaters regardless.

So in this scenario:

Protected: Hall, Henrique, Zajac, Palmieri, Cammalleri + Greene, Severson, Merrill + Schneider

Unprotected: DSP, Bennett, Josefson + Lovejoy, Prout, Moore + Kinkaid

So, Prout was brought on solely for RHD purposes or Columbus was the only place that wanted Quincey. Prout being brought on for ED purposes wasnt necessary. Id also not be surprised if Lovejoy was protected, I just dont care if he isn't.
 

NJDevs26

Once upon a time...
Mar 21, 2007
67,117
31,153
Don't they also have to expose 25% of the value of their cap hit, or some arcane codicil like that? (i.e. if they have a $50 million payroll they have to expose guys making $12.5 million)
 

Zajacs Bowl Cut

Lets Go Baby
Nov 6, 2005
71,819
44,245
PA
Don't they also have to expose 25% of the value of their cap hit, or some arcane codicil like that? (i.e. if they have a $50 million payroll they have to expose guys making $12.5 million)

no

that was one of the initial speculations but it didnt make the final cut
 

Emperoreddy

Show Me What You Got!
Apr 13, 2010
129,839
75,228
New Jersey, Exit 16E
I could see them exposing Camm and protecting JJ or Bennett.

I could also seem them doing 4+4 and protecting one of Moore or LJ on top of Merrill and exposing Camm.
 

Tundra

Registered User
Oct 20, 2005
10,363
1,375
I'd expose Zajac and Camm. If LV wants Zajac until age 34 then they can have him. If not, I keep him and he grows into the 3rd line role. It's a win win.
 

Zippy316

aka Zippo
Aug 17, 2012
19,490
4,481
New Jersey
I'd expose Zajac and Camm. If LV wants Zajac until age 34 then they can have him. If not, I keep him and he grows into the 3rd line role. It's a win win.

Cammalleri sure whatever.

Completely disagree on Zajac though. Hard to replace centers who can do everything.

I'd rather hold onto Zajac and slowly phase him down the line-up. Contract isn't going to hurt us with all the ELCs coming in.
 

Zajacs Bowl Cut

Lets Go Baby
Nov 6, 2005
71,819
44,245
PA
exposing Zajac :laugh:

unbelievable. We don't even have enough forwards to protect as it is, and you want to expose our only good center. amazing strategy!
 

NJDevs26

Once upon a time...
Mar 21, 2007
67,117
31,153
Yeah let's expose the team MVP this year. That would be a great strategy to get the #1 pick though :P
 

Tundra

Registered User
Oct 20, 2005
10,363
1,375
Cammalleri sure whatever.

Completely disagree on Zajac though. Hard to replace centers who can do everything.

I'd rather hold onto Zajac and slowly phase him down the line-up. Contract isn't going to hurt us with all the ELCs coming in.

The potential to remove 24 million instantaneously at the tail end of a long-term contract is too enticing. Spend the 24 million somewhere else (via trade or FA) and get a younger piece that slots into Shero's projected timeline. I'm not even sure McPhee would take that contract.
 
Last edited:

Zajacs Bowl Cut

Lets Go Baby
Nov 6, 2005
71,819
44,245
PA
The potential to remove 24 million instantaneously at the tail end of a long-term contract is too enticing. Spend the 24 million somewhere else (via trade or FA) and get a younger piece that slots into Shero's projected timeline. I'm not even sure McPhee would take that contract.

I'm going to put this lightly

you have no idea what you're talking about.
 

Emperoreddy

Show Me What You Got!
Apr 13, 2010
129,839
75,228
New Jersey, Exit 16E
There isn't anything out there in trades and UFA to spend Zajac's contract on top of the space we already have, which is substantial.

We might have to take on a contract just to get to the floor next year if we don't sign Shatty, and that is with Zajac. We don't need the space.
 

Zippy316

aka Zippo
Aug 17, 2012
19,490
4,481
New Jersey
The potential to remove 24 million instantaneously at the tail end of a long-term contract is too enticing. Spend the 24 million somewhere else (via trade or FA) and get a younger piece that slots into Shero's projected timeline. I'm not even sure McPhee would take that contract.

So get rid of Zajac to go spend money when we have plenty of room to do that in the first place?

We'd basically expose Zajac only to try to go out and spend money to replace him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->