Confirmed with Link: Lou Lamoriello Resigns as President of New Jersey Devils

[glenwo2]

It's always hard to be the guy that replaces a hall-of-famer and legend. So far I have no complaints about what Shero has done - with the exception, perhaps, of cutting Conte. I think that was unnecessary.

And drafting Blackwood....

No, this should be Elias's last year in NJ.

Why SHOULD it be? If he can still go, he would stick around for several years more just to mentor Zacha.

 

[NJDevs26]

I guess the Leafs didn't get Lou in time to avoid giving Marner bonuses lol

 

[Tundra]

The primary reason Lou Lamiorello is no longer GM of the Devils.

http://www.tsn.ca/does-devils-draft-record-reflect-on-lamoriello-1.337262

The Devils may not be the league’s worst drafting team over the last twelve years, but they make a pretty convincing argument for a top-five spot. (As an aside, the most convincing part of this graph may be Vancouver’s pitiful showing – perhaps a story for another day!)

Again, not all of this can be attributed to Lou Lamoriello and/or David Conte, nor does it suggest that the pair and their respective scouting department were doing something fundamentally wrong.
It is, however, a curious data point in light of Toronto’s current mandate – to build everything over, to throw infinite resources into draft/development like only they can, to prepare the organization for legitimate competition a few years down the road. A few years down the road, 72-year old Lou Lamoriello may be long gone.

At the absolute minimum, if I’m Brendan Shanahan, and I’m trying to get a pulse for what my longtime friend can bring to the table, I’m asking what the Devils did in terms of leading up to the draft and in the years following each draft selection. Remediate that, and you might have a truly impressive leadership contingent that excels at every facet of the business.

 

[Emperoreddy]

The article flat out stated it can't all be attributed to Lou and Conte.

The author is partially vindicating Lou.

You are spinning what the author wrote to fit your narrative that Lou doesn't know what he is doing.

 

[MadDevil]

Do we really need to rehash this **** yet again? What's done is done. Saying the same thing for the 1,000th time isn't going to change anything. Lou is gone. Move on.

 

[217 Forever]

The article flat out stated it can't all be attributed to Lou and Conte.

The author is partially vindicating Lou.

You are spinning what the author wrote to fit your narrative that Lou doesn't know what he is doing.

The author of that article was being completely objective IMO. He correctly pointed out that our drafting has been an issue while at the same time pointing out that some of it is random and shouldn't be blamed on anybody.

Lou wasn't making the picks so it's hard to blame him directly, but as the man ultimately in charge he never made Conte accountable which was the issue for me.

 

[devilsblood]

Do we really need to rehash this **** yet again? What's done is done. Saying the same thing for the 1,000th time isn't going to change anything. Lou is gone. Move on.

So the guy was here 30 years, but a week after he leaves it's time to move on?

 

[Richer's Ghost]

"Success" is defined as playing 100 games. No weighting on if that's as a 4th line grunt logging 3 minutes, or top line producing points. Just show up and you're a success.

I also love the 11% range for all but 2 teams on the left Y axis. Says nothing at all really. And all but 2 teams are packed into a 20% range on the X axis too - showing yet another tight grouping on the total scale right between 30-50%.

So the defined success is yet again where you fall in a 20% range for rounds 1-3 of an overall failing grade of sub 50% success chart. No wonder they call it a coin flip.

 

[Wingman77]

Wow. I never would have guessed Lou could look past blow ups like that but I suppose it was part of that loyalty to a fault thing.

That was what made him more unique; he knew how to handle and work with different personalities on a team and look past a guy like who was emotional but with good intentions

So the guy was here 30 years, but a week after he leaves it's time to move on?

Not in the slightest what he said.

 

[Cheddabombs]

Guess I need to change the "Status Quo" below my name, unless Shero adopts that saying as well

 

[billingtons ghost]

The primary reason Lou Lamiorello is no longer GM of the Devils.

http://www.tsn.ca/does-devils-draft-record-reflect-on-lamoriello-1.337262

Thanks for posting it. Finally, absolute proof that no teams have been more successful in the last decade than Buffalo, Columbus, Ottawa and Montreal. err....

 

[billingtons ghost]

Guess I need to change the "Status Quo" below my name, unless Shero adopts that saying as well

Fast and supporting.

 

[billingtons ghost]

"Success" is defined as playing 100 games.

....with an itheberg.

Took me a minute.

 

[tailfins]

"Success" is defined as playing 100 games. No weighting on if that's as a 4th line grunt logging 3 minutes, or top line producing points. Just show up and you're a success.

I also love the 11% range for all but 2 teams on the left Y axis. Says nothing at all really. And all but 2 teams are packed into a 20% range on the X axis too - showing yet another tight grouping on the total scale right between 30-50%.

So the defined success is yet again where you fall in a 20% range for rounds 1-3 of an overall failing grade of sub 50% success chart. No wonder they call it a coin flip.

This is exactly right.

Rounds 4 - 7 = 4 picks * 12 years. That's 48 picks (excluding trades). Having one extra player play 100 games is a 2% swing. So, where the Devils are is ~ 1 player different than other teams. It seems hard to criticize performance over the difference of one 4th liner playing 100 games.

Rounds 1 - 3 = 3 picks * 12 years, or 36 picks excluding trades. Here, the Cory trade and Kovy trade come into play a bit more. Kovy and Cory don't count as draft successes even though those picks were used to acquire players who played more than 100 games with the Devils. I think it's correct to exclude Cory and Kovy (and the pick the Devils gave up in the Malakhov trade, etc.), but it's still worth noting that there are fewer picks because of those trades. The other issue is that the Devils have been drafting lower than most other teams for the bulk of those 12 years. This has more impact at the top of the draft (pick 1 - 10 is much more valuable than 20 - 30, picks 30 - 40 have a higher hit rate than 50 - 60, etc.). So, the Devils had fewer draft picks because of trades and were picking in materially worse position than most other teams.

Once you look at that, I think the Devils drafting looks a lot better. It still wasn't good enough - the reality is that the Devils needed to excel here, not be average / middle of the pack. But, the idea that the Devils were particularly poor at drafting doesn't ring true when you look at the context of the data.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Not adjusting for pick overall is a pretty egregious error.

 

[217 Forever]

This is exactly right.

Rounds 4 - 7 = 4 picks * 12 years. That's 48 picks (excluding trades). Having one extra player play 100 games is a 2% swing. So, where the Devils are is ~ 1 player different than other teams. It seems hard to criticize performance over the difference of one 4th liner playing 100 games.

Rounds 1 - 3 = 3 picks * 12 years, or 36 picks excluding trades. Here, the Cory trade and Kovy trade come into play a bit more. Kovy and Cory don't count as draft successes even though those picks were used to acquire players who played more than 100 games with the Devils. I think it's correct to exclude Cory and Kovy (and the pick the Devils gave up in the Malakhov trade, etc.), but it's still worth noting that there are fewer picks because of those trades. The other issue is that the Devils have been drafting lower than most other teams for the bulk of those 12 years. This has more impact at the top of the draft (pick 1 - 10 is much more valuable than 20 - 30, picks 30 - 40 have a higher hit rate than 50 - 60, etc.). So, the Devils had fewer draft picks because of trades and were picking in materially worse position than most other teams.

Once you look at that, I think the Devils drafting looks a lot better. It still wasn't good enough - the reality is that the Devils needed to excel here, not be average / middle of the pack. But, the idea that the Devils were particularly poor at drafting doesn't ring true when you look at the context of the data.

All I know is that for quite a stretch of time we got virtually no help whatsoever at forward from our drafting. You guys can slice and dice this thing any way that you want to but that is a fact and it has hurt us.

 

[Devils Dominion]

All I know is that for quite a stretch of time we got virtually no help whatsoever at forward from our drafting. You guys can slice and dice this thing any way that you want to but that is a fact and it has hurt us.[/QUOTE]

Well said.

IMO, Conte needed to go so I'm glad he's gone.

 

[Zippy316]

The primary reason Lou Lamiorello is no longer GM of the Devils.

http://www.tsn.ca/does-devils-draft-record-reflect-on-lamoriello-1.337262

I still don't understand how people pin scouting on Lou.

Lou is not the director of scouting. He was the president and the GM of the Devils. During a lot of that time, he handled both the business and hockey sides of the Devils.

I would be willing to bet he did very little scouting over that time. The blame for scouting should solely be on Conte. The only thing is I feel Lou would tell them what he wants and they would deliver on that. Like it was clear that Shero focused on fast, attacking, and supportive this draft and Conte and the scouts picked according to Shero's new philosophy.

Sure he should've fired Conte. But you don't know how draft results are until four or five years down the road. By using common sense, Conte delivered year after year for Lou so it's not like he should've expected a sudden downfall post-lockout. Only until recently did Lou truly realize how bad Conte's drafts were.

 

[217 Forever]

I still don't understand how people pin scouting on Lou.

Lou is not the director of scouting. He was the president and the GM of the Devils. During a lot of that time, he handled both the business and hockey sides of the Devils.

I would be willing to bet he did very little scouting over that time. The blame for scouting should solely be on Conte. The only thing is I feel Lou would tell them what he wants and they would deliver on that. Like it was clear that Shero focused on fast, attacking, and supportive this draft and Conte and the scouts picked according to Shero's new philosophy.

The blame is not doing anything about the guy making the lousy draft picks. If you're the president of a company who sells widgets and you're not selling as many as you need to then you get rid of the head of sales. Pretty elementary stuff.

 

[Cheddabombs]

The blame is not doing anything about the guy making the lousy draft picks. If you're the president of a company who sells widgets and you're not selling as many as you need to then you get rid of the head of sales. Pretty elementary stuff.

It's not that easy. First of all, teams don't typically see the fruits of their drafting labour for a few years at least. Plus there are a lot of factors that play into a player's development and inevitable success or failure. I think we can all agree there's a concept of how to "properly" develop prospects, but that's not on Conte. If we rush someone into the NHL before they're ready and they eventually suck or don't live up to expectations, can you blame the scout?

Scouting and the development of players is never black and white, so the comparison you made just doesn't translate.

 

[217 Forever]

It's not that easy. First of all, teams don't typically see the fruits of their drafting labour for a few years at least. Plus there are a lot of factors that play into a player's development and inevitable success or failure. I think we can all agree there's a concept of how to "properly" develop prospects, but that's not on Conte. If we rush someone into the NHL before they're ready and they eventually suck or don't live up to expectations, can you blame the scout?

Scouting and the development of players is never black and white, so the comparison you made just doesn't translate.

The 6 years between 2005-2010 (I'll cut it off there) produced exactly one impact NHL forward (Henrique). Halischuk and Josefson are bottom rung forwards that you can get anywhere. If you want to say that Bergfors/Cormier got us Kovy then fine, but that was due more to Atlanta's stupidity than great drafting because where are those guys now. That all has nothing to do with player development.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

The 6 years between 2005-2010 (I'll cut it off there) produced exactly one impact NHL forward (Henrique). Halischuk and Josefson are bottom rung forwards that you can get anywhere. If you want to say that Bergfors/Cormier got us Kovy then fine, but that was due more to Atlanta's stupidity than great drafting because where are those guys now. That all has nothing to do with player development.

I'm not going to fault them for Bergfors. Everything in his development through 2011 made him look like a long run second line forward.

 

[Buggsy]

The 6 years between 2005-2010 (I'll cut it off there) produced exactly one impact NHL forward (Henrique). Halischuk and Josefson are bottom rung forwards that you can get anywhere. If you want to say that Bergfors/Cormier got us Kovy then fine, but that was due more to Atlanta's stupidity than great drafting because where are those guys now. That all has nothing to do with player development.

Bergfors had 44 pts in 71 games the year he was traded for Kovalchuk.

 

[devilsblood]

Do we really need to rehash this **** yet again? What's done is done. Saying the same thing for the 1,000th time isn't going to change anything. Lou is gone. Move on.

So the guy was here 30 years, but a week after he leaves it's time to move on?

Not in the slightest what he said.

Nah, he said nothing of the sort.

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

That quote from Deboer on Lou from a few pages ago:

“Not once did he ever tell me what style we should be playing,†DeBoer told the Toronto Sun. “Not once did he ever tell me what line combinations we should be using. Not once did he ever tell me who I should be playing in what situations."

Wow... that makes me feel way better about Lou and way worse about Deboer.