Devils 2017-18 team discussion (player news and notes) - Offseason part III

[217 Forever]

You mean like taking on Savard for a 2nd round pick...?

Again, who is to say we were not involved in those discussions?

Let's assume you are right. The business development guys in my company get paid on the deals that they close, not on the volume of proposals that we solicit.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

Let's assume you are right. The business development guys in my company get paid on the deals that they close, not on the volume of proposals that we solicit.

How many of said deals were available last offseason...three? four?

Bickell and Teravainen, thats one
Savard's contract to NJ, thats one
Bolland/Crouse to Arizona, thats one

any others of note? I do not count the Datsyuk one because its already been beaten to death that that wasn't some great deal. But even if you do, thats 4 deals.

We completed 1 and I would imagine were involved in others. How many did you think we should have done?

 

[devilsblood]

I understand all that, and it might be more relevant now that we are starting to build back-up our system (the past couple of years we just haven't had much youth of value to get squeezed out), but I'm a little confused. Most people were for signing Cammy and want Shattenkirk no? That seems to counter your argument a bit.

I was not a fan of the Cammy deal.

And I'd like Shatt's at less years. I want to avoid the part where he is not good, taking up cap space and potentially blocking a young player.

But Shatt's would be a useful player. Camm was hoped to be a useful player(and was for a bit). Where as the other side of the argument is saying bring in known bad contracts so as to get a pick.

 

[NJRockinRoller]

Rooney played all of 4 games. C'mon now.

Let me know when that Auston Matthews deal is on the table.

If you really don't understand, the point is that depending on the player being used as compensation, you would be willing to take any level of bad contract. The Bickell deal Carolina took was only 1 year. The Dallas goalies only have 1 year left. But depending on what someone will pay you, you'd consider taking a much worse obligation on if the price was right. How desperate is a team to unload a contract? The Devils, the Coyotes and the Knights are really the only 3 teams I think who have almost no CAP limitations as far as what they can do. I think the Devils have self imposed limitations, which was my statement that got the Harris/Blitzer apostles all worked up, and it's going to be my feeling until there is an indication otherwise (besides an employee saying so).

 

[217 Forever]

How many of said deals were available last offseason...three? four?

Bickell and Teravainen, thats one
Savard's contract to NJ, thats one
Bolland/Crouse to Arizona, thats one

any others of note? I do not count the Datsyuk one because its already been beaten to death that that wasn't some great deal. But even if you do, thats 4 deals.

We completed 1 and I would imagine were involved in others. How many did you think we should have done?

Those are the salary dumps yes. Then there are all of the other pre-emptive moves that have been made by teams in need some of which we've discussed at length(Goligoski, Yandle, Darling, Bishop and I'm probably missing a few). Yes I know we don't need a goalie that's not the point. We also let Schlemko walk for a price that was easily met. Shero just hasn't been aggressive by any measure. He's been opportunistic, but not aggressive. Some of you think that's great (prudent is the buzz word). I just feel like there's more that could have been done. Let's just hope his rhetoric (i.e his end of season comments and that he's allowed to spend) isn't just that. We all want the same result.

 

[NJRockinRoller]

How many of said deals were available last offseason...three? four?

Bickell and Teravainen, thats one
Savard's contract to NJ, thats one
Bolland/Crouse to Arizona, thats one

any others of note? I do not count the Datsyuk one because its already been beaten to death that that wasn't some great deal. But even if you do, thats 4 deals.

We completed 1 and I would imagine were involved in others. How many did you think we should have done?

How many teams are going around for more than a year now looking for any microphone they can find to talk into it about what an asset their cap space is? Not more than 3 or 4. The fact is there are not many teams in the league that could absorb contracts like the ones moved in those deals and I would venture to guess (no evidence) that there are more teams that would LIKE to move bad contracts than teams that actually were able to, just from the simple equation that there are a bunch of bad contracts and a few teams with cap space.

So just as you want to know how I know the Devils were in on those deals I woudl ask you how do you know that there werent 30 more players that teams wanted to trade with picks attached but the devils didnt want to pay the salary of the player involved? There were really only 3 players in the NHL that teams wanted off their books last year? That would be surprisingly low.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

How many teams are going around for more than a year now looking for any microphone they can find to talk into it about what an asset their cap space is? Not more than 3 or 4. The fact is there are not many teams in the league that could absorb contracts like the ones moved in those deals and I would venture to guess (no evidence) that there are more teams that would LIKE to move bad contracts than teams that actually were able to, just from the simple equation that there are a bunch of bad contracts and a few teams with cap space.

So just as you want to know how I know the Devils were in on those deals I woudl ask you how do you know that there werent 30 more players that teams wanted to trade with picks attached but the devils didnt want to pay the salary of the player involved? There were really only 3 players in the NHL that teams wanted off their books last year? That would be surprisingly low.

This is what I like to call "complaining for the sake of complaining". It seems to happen a lot on these boards, especially recently.

Talk about reaching.

The only things we can go on is the deals that were completed. I listed 3-4 of them, and I am not sure if there were any more or not. Worrying about potentials and what ifs is fairytale land and I am not into discussing that.

 

[NJRockinRoller]

This is what I like to call "complaining for the sake of complaining". It seems to happen a lot on these boards, especially recently.

Talk about reaching.

The only things we can go on is the deals that were completed. I listed 3-4 of them, and I am not sure if there were any more or not. Worrying about potentials and what ifs is fairytale land and I am not into discussing that.

So to sum up your position: you believe that the Devils are aggressively pursuing all deals to better their team even those including real money, even though it hasnt happened and is all speculation, but think its a fairytale to take the position that they are not pursuing such deals even tho that actually is what has happened.

Which position represents something that could potentially happen and which positions represents something which has actually happened again? This is getting confusing.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

So to sum up your position: you believe that the Devils are aggressively pursuing all deals to better their team even those including real money, even though it hasnt happened and is all speculation, but think its a fairytale to take the position that they are not pursuing such deals even tho that actually is what has happened.

Which position represents something that could potentially happen and which positions represents something which has actually happened again? This is getting confusing.

Well, there were 4 such "major" deals that occurred last year (listed above), including the Datsyuk one. The Devils were involved in 1 of those (25%). How many of them should we have completed that would have made you happy...50%? 100%? Like I said, I don't want to hear about "Well there may have been 30 other players that could have been dumped with a sweetener but the Devils are too cheap!" That is nonsense thats based on nothing.

As far as Goligoski/Yandle that were mentioned earlier, I agree I would have liked to make a deal like that. As for Darling/Bishop, I am not sure what that has to do with anything since we don't need a goalie.

As for Schlemko? We didn't "let him walk". Everything Shero indicated was that they were trying to keep him. He went to the Stanley Cup runner up and got a 4 year deal. Would you rather play for them or the Devils, all things equal?

Like I said, some of you guys will continue to whine about the ownership not wanting to spend no matter what so I didn't wanna go down this road. It is what it is.

 

[Czech Trio]

I saw TSN speculating whether Montreal will protect either Benn or Beaulieu, with MTL maybe leaning Benn. Beaulieu only 25 and LHD. Nto well versed on him though. Potential target?

 

[NJRockinRoller]

Well, there were 4 such "major" deals that occurred last year (listed above), including the Datsyuk one. The Devils were involved in 1 of those (25%). How many of them should we have completed that would have made you happy...50%? 100%? Like I said, I don't want to hear about "Well there may have been 30 other players that could have been dumped with a sweetener but the Devils are too cheap!" That is nonsense thats based on nothing.

As far as Goligoski/Yandle that were mentioned earlier, I agree I would have liked to make a deal like that. As for Darling/Bishop, I am not sure what that has to do with anything since we don't need a goalie.

As for Schlemko? We didn't "let him walk". Everything Shero indicated was that they were trying to keep him. He went to the Stanley Cup runner up and got a 4 year deal. Would you rather play for them or the Devils, all things equal?

Like I said, some of you guys will continue to whine about the ownership not wanting to spend no matter what so I didn't wanna go down this road. It is what it is.

Well, likewise, I don't want to hear about how the Devils "may" have been involved in the other discussions there that involved real actual young players and real actual money instead of settling on the deal that required pennies (500k) and a 2nd rd pick 2 years away (actual nhl eta 5 years best case scenario). If you can make your assumptions on deals the Devils were involved in, I can make assumptions on deals the Devils were not involved in.

I think its reasonable to believe there would have been more players "dumped" around the NHL if there were more teams willing to take them. I really think its inconceivable to argue otherwise. The Devils should be one of those teams. They have not been to this point, outside of the one deal that you are hanging your hat on with 500k for a 2 year out round 2 pick. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they made that deal. It's better than nothing. But for as many times as I have heard Shero talk about cap space being an asset, to have a pick that amounts to a MAYBE nhl player in 2021 leaves alot to be desired 2 years into this cap space PR tour he has been on.

 

[Billdo]

This is a pretty wide span. 7 years at $5 mil. Done.

7 years at $7mil. I'm on the fence.

I don't see 5 per being anywhere in the ballpark though. I'd go 7 years at 42-45 total.

Do something like

1. 8
2. 8
3. 6
4. 6
5. 5.5
6. 5.5
7. 5

 

[Stephen Gionta]

I saw TSN speculating whether Montreal will protect either Benn or Beaulieu, with MTL maybe leaning Benn. Beaulieu only 25 and LHD. Nto well versed on him though. Potential target?

From what I've seen, Beaulieu is pretty terrible to be honest. One of my good friends is a MTL fan, and he was VERY high on Beaulieu a couple years ago, but now, he thinks he will be nothing more than a bottom pairing D. And I agree with that.
But who knows, I would take a gamble on him, but wouldn't give anything more than a 4th round pick. Maybe the Montreal microscope is too much, and he would excel elsewhere. Maybe its the system. I wouldnt give up a 3rd rounder, but I would for sure give them Nashville's 4th round pick.

 

[217 Forever]

Well, there were 4 such "major" deals that occurred last year (listed above), including the Datsyuk one. The Devils were involved in 1 of those (25%). How many of them should we have completed that would have made you happy...50%? 100%? Like I said, I don't want to hear about "Well there may have been 30 other players that could have been dumped with a sweetener but the Devils are too cheap!" That is nonsense thats based on nothing.

As far as Goligoski/Yandle that were mentioned earlier, I agree I would have liked to make a deal like that. As for Darling/Bishop, I am not sure what that has to do with anything since we don't need a goalie.

As for Schlemko? We didn't "let him walk". Everything Shero indicated was that they were trying to keep him. He went to the Stanley Cup runner up and got a 4 year deal. Would you rather play for them or the Devils, all things equal?

Like I said, some of you guys will continue to whine about the ownership not wanting to spend no matter what so I didn't wanna go down this road. It is what it is.

I think you'd have a much stronger argument if the team wasn't so awful (or was at least showing some improvement). We were unwatchable much of the last two seasons. Is the bulk of that due to years of lousy drafting? Absolutely. But you're making it sound like there isn't a bloody thing that the organization could be doing to be making itself better besides just making draft picks. That just can't be true.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

The team was awful because of what the prior regime left us with. The team wasn't awful because we didn't keep David Schlemko or didnt sign David Backes.

Plus, last year got us the #1 pick in the draft so was it really that bad in the end?

I believe that SHero has a plan. This is a big summer for that plan, so we will see what happens. If we don't make 1-2 "big" moves (trade for a DMan, make a splash signing, etc), then I will start to get skeptical but until then, I'm on board with the path.

 

[TheDuke93]

I think you'd have a much stronger argument if the team wasn't so awful (or was at least showing some improvement). We were unwatchable much of the last two seasons. Is the bulk of that due to years of lousy drafting? Absolutely. But you're making it sound like there isn't a bloody thing that the organization could be doing to be making itself better besides just making draft picks. That just can't be true.

This is true, but management made it clear they would rather play the kids and redemption prospects over signing play and plug players that just probably give us 2-3 more wins at most and just make our prospect pool weaker.

 

[devilsblood]

If you really don't understand, the point is that depending on the player being used as compensation, you would be willing to take any level of bad contract. The Bickell deal Carolina took was only 1 year. The Dallas goalies only have 1 year left. But depending on what someone will pay you, you'd consider taking a much worse obligation on if the price was right. How desperate is a team to unload a contract? The Devils, the Coyotes and the Knights are really the only 3 teams I think who have almost no CAP limitations as far as what they can do. I think the Devils have self imposed limitations, which was my statement that got the Harris/Blitzer apostles all worked up, and it's going to be my feeling until there is an indication otherwise (besides an employee saying so).

Carolina also sent a 2nd and a 3rd the other way.

We sent over a 2nd a a 3rd for Palm's without having to take on $$$.

Would it have been nice if Shero was able to outbid Carolina on that(I'll assume he got a phone call)? Sure, Teravainen does look like a good young player. Does Shero need to win every deal, and steal trades from every team in the league for me to think the organization has a long term commitment to winning? No, I think that is an unreasonable expectation.

 

[devilsblood]

I think you'd have a much stronger argument if the team wasn't so awful (or was at least showing some improvement). We were unwatchable much of the last two seasons. Is the bulk of that due to years of lousy drafting? Absolutely. But you're making it sound like there isn't a bloody thing that the organization could be doing to be making itself better besides just making draft picks. That just can't be true.

The teams budget the last couple years, and the bad on ice product that comes with that, says one of two things imo.

Either:

We were in soft tank mode,

or

The owners will not spend $$$ on this team.

I'm pretty confident it's the former. I'll admit, at this point, we can't say for sure, but I'm pretty confident that when the time comes to spend $$$, we will.

 

[Triumph]

Well, likewise, I don't want to hear about how the Devils "may" have been involved in the other discussions there that involved real actual young players and real actual money instead of settling on the deal that required pennies (500k) and a 2nd rd pick 2 years away (actual nhl eta 5 years best case scenario). If you can make your assumptions on deals the Devils were involved in, I can make assumptions on deals the Devils were not involved in.

I think its reasonable to believe there would have been more players "dumped" around the NHL if there were more teams willing to take them. I really think its inconceivable to argue otherwise. The Devils should be one of those teams. They have not been to this point, outside of the one deal that you are hanging your hat on with 500k for a 2 year out round 2 pick. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they made that deal. It's better than nothing. But for as many times as I have heard Shero talk about cap space being an asset, to have a pick that amounts to a MAYBE nhl player in 2021 leaves alot to be desired 2 years into this cap space PR tour he has been on.

Teams don't dump players for much, as we've established about 5 times before. This is in part because for shorter contracts, teams can often buy those players out, pushing the problem into future years, but they manage to save themselves money and don't have to lose an asset. Dallas will almost certainly buy one of their goalies out rather than trade one somewhere and lose an asset. Who would take one of them on and for what price? It's only when a buyout becomes difficult that teams look at other options, as Carolina did with Bickell, but I don't think the addition of Bickell into that deal was looked as a pure salary dump for Carolina, otherwise they got robbed. I think they thought Bickell was an expensive but functional NHLer. Sadly he was not that and his career is likely over, but it wasn't like he was a terrible player.

So the real expense comes when a contract buyout becomes more difficult with a longer contract. But what team wants to take that on? Plus a lot of undesirable contracts have NTCs attached to them - that makes a trade a tougher sell for the player if it's a place he doesn't want to go. The Devils are not currently in a position to take on a bad deal that goes for more than one year. They should actually be trading for players they want and signing players they want very soon.

Vegas is the one place who might be interested in those longer deals with NTCs for picks. They have this expansion draft where those players cannot choose their destination, and they have the slightly difficult task of hitting the salary floor in Year 2. They're going to need some large deals for that. So if they can swing a deal where they get a 1st round pick for taking on Dan Girardi or Brooks Orpik or whoever the actual player is? Great for them. They have to spend to the floor anyway, and it's not like they are going to have a choice of all these great contracts. They're going to be taking on some garbage somewhere. If they can get a 1st round pick out of it they'll be much better off in 5-6 years.

 

[devilsblood]

Teams don't dump players for much, as we've established about 5 times before. This is in part because for shorter contracts, teams can often buy those players out, pushing the problem into future years, but they manage to save themselves money and don't have to lose an asset. Dallas will almost certainly buy one of their goalies out rather than trade one somewhere and lose an asset. Who would take one of them on and for what price? It's only when a buyout becomes difficult that teams look at other options, as Carolina did with Bickell, but I don't think the addition of Bickell into that deal was looked as a pure salary dump for Carolina, otherwise they got robbed. I think they thought Bickell was an expensive but functional NHLer. Sadly he was not that and his career is likely over, but it wasn't like he was a terrible player.

Carolina may have crossed their fingers on Bickell, but I'll assume they saw him as a salary dump.

But given that Carolina sent a 2nd and a 3rd the other way, it does speak to your point that taking on the bad contract does not carry a ton of value. It's not like they got Teurovainen for free.

 

[NJDevs26]

Carolina may have crossed their fingers on Bickell, but I'll assume they saw him as a salary dump.

But given that Carolina sent a 2nd and a 3rd the other way, it does speak to your point that taking on the bad contract does not carry a ton of value. It's not like they got Teurovainen for free.

And some of these contracts being debated that we should have taken on were more than one year long. It's one thing to take on a single-year cap hit but I'm sure management didn't want to lock itself into a multi-year cap hit that 'could' hurt down the road, we can't and shouldn't be a near floor team forever.

 

[Triumph]

Carolina may have crossed their fingers on Bickell, but I'll assume they saw him as a salary dump.

But given that Carolina sent a 2nd and a 3rd the other way, it does speak to your point that taking on the bad contract does not carry a ton of value. It's not like they got Teurovainen for free.

Carolina ended the season over the salary floor but not by much. So to that end I guess it didn't matter a ton whether or not the Bickell contract was a dump or not.

 

[Bcap88]

Those are the salary dumps yes. Then there are all of the other pre-emptive moves that have been made by teams in need some of which we've discussed at length(Goligoski, Yandle, Darling, Bishop and I'm probably missing a few). Yes I know we don't need a goalie that's not the point. We also let Schlemko walk for a price that was easily met. Shero just hasn't been aggressive by any measure. He's been opportunistic, but not aggressive. Some of you think that's great (prudent is the buzz word). I just feel like there's more that could have been done. Let's just hope his rhetoric (i.e his end of season comments and that he's allowed to spend) isn't just that. We all want the same result.

Could have done more? with what the last couple of free agent classes have been garbage look at half the deals handed out the last two years. We weren't in a position to spend the last two years. We have finally squired players pennies on the dollar (Hall,Palmieri) and it looks as if the kids are on the right path (Severson,Santini,Zacha etc.) The only player I can see him spending money on this year is Shatty and even thats a stretch. Just because he hasn't spent money doesn't mean hes not out there trying to get us better. It takes two Gm's to dance, I expect him to be more aggressive this year than the last couple due to the expansion draft as well as the kid's are developing.

 

[tailfins]

Well, there were 4 such "major" deals that occurred last year (listed above), including the Datsyuk one. The Devils were involved in 1 of those (25%). How many of them should we have completed that would have made you happy...50%? 100%? Like I said, I don't want to hear about "Well there may have been 30 other players that could have been dumped with a sweetener but the Devils are too cheap!" That is nonsense thats based on nothing.

As far as Goligoski/Yandle that were mentioned earlier, I agree I would have liked to make a deal like that. As for Darling/Bishop, I am not sure what that has to do with anything since we don't need a goalie.

As for Schlemko? We didn't "let him walk". Everything Shero indicated was that they were trying to keep him. He went to the Stanley Cup runner up and got a 4 year deal. Would you rather play for them or the Devils, all things equal?

Like I said, some of you guys will continue to whine about the ownership not wanting to spend no matter what so I didn't wanna go down this road. It is what it is.

Why do you post things like this? If you can't be bothered to do the research, don't post things as if they are facts.

Let me help you.

Here is the list of trades for 2016-2017:
https://www.nhl.com/news/2016-17-nhl-trades/c-281003458

Here is the list of trades for 2015 - 2016:
https://www.nhl.com/news/2015-16-nhl-trades/c-278555954

Salary dumps:
Versteeg + Nordstrom + 3rd
Phaneuf / Michalek (interestingly, Toronto took on more salary in year 1 to make this deal happen...similar to what NJ could do with Cammalleri if they wanted)
Laich + Carrick
Maroon for nobody
Shaw for picks
Datsyuk to move up in draft
DeAngelo (perhaps not a salary dump, but still, TB dumped an asset)
Bolland + Crouse
Bickell + Teuvo
Filpula + 4th for Streit
Streit for 4th
Fehr + 4th
Spaling + Polak for Torres + picks

That's 13 deals in the past 2 years, not including the Devils Savard deal. And, the original Savard deal sent Savard + Reilly Smith for Jimmy Hayes - also a salary dump.

 

[tailfins]

Could have done more? with what the last couple of free agent classes have been garbage look at half the deals handed out the last two years. We weren't in a position to spend the last two years. We have finally squired players pennies on the dollar (Hall,Palmieri) and it looks as if the kids are on the right path (Severson,Santini,Zacha etc.) The only player I can see him spending money on this year is Shatty and even thats a stretch. Just because he hasn't spent money doesn't mean hes not out there trying to get us better. It takes two Gm's to dance, I expect him to be more aggressive this year than the last couple due to the expansion draft as well as the kid's are developing.

Why would you expect Shero to be more aggressive?

Last year was a better free agent pool than this one for the Devils, but the Devils didn't even make an effort. Demers and Okposo were better fits than shattenkirk and oshie will be given that Demers and Okposo are younger and likely cheaper. Plus Okposo wanted to stay in the NY metro area.

Meanwhile, which kids have developed? Unless you mean Merrill and Moore, we are at the start of the kids development, not the end.

I fully expect another year of incremental and opportunistic changes. Shero has said over and over that "there are no short cuts" and that the rebuild will take time. Whether that's just cover for the owners not allowing him to spend or it's actually his philosophy doesn't matter. It's the path we're traveling.

ETA: I'm speaking of being aggressive in the free agent market only. I'm hopeful your point on the expansion draft is correct and that Shero will be able to get a trade or two done.