Prospect Info: #46 Overall, RD Seamus Casey US-NTDP

[PKs Broken Stick]

i think the idea that we are just “average goaltending” away from being a contender is probably true again, like we said two off seasons ago. i’d say average goaltending/competent coaching but i don’t think we need to blow up assets for saros or ullmark or especially markstrom.

if we can get one of them for a palatable offer then do it, but i think having great goaltending with poor coaching and no depth is worse for next season than having great coaching with average goaltending and solid depth.

this year was a combination of all lacking all 3 and im worried fitz might try to overcorrect

From what I've seen so far, and some might disagree (or a lot), I'd be comfortable going into next season with Allen/Daws as our duo. But we need much better coaching. And like you said, if we throw the farm for better goalie and don't improve the coaching situation, it's just gunna be bad

I do think Saros will just be too expensive. For Markstrom, If it's a reasonable deal sure, otherwise it's not worth it

 

[Unknown Caller]

From what I've seen so far, and some might disagree (or a lot), I'd be comfortable going into next season with Allen/Daws as our duo. But we need much better coaching. And like you said, if we throw the farm for better goalie and don't improve the coaching situation, it's just gunna be bad

I do think Saros will just be too expensive. For Markstrom, If it's a reasonable deal sure, otherwise it's not worth it

Allen/Daws is considerably better than Vanecek/Daws, but it's just too risky. That tandem can easily go south and we're sitting in the same position we've been in all over again with yet another burned season.

My preference is Markstrom at a reasonable cost due to age and contract status. If Markstrom/Saros/Ullmark are exorbitantly expensive, then I could maybe live with something like Allen/Brossoit or Allen/Driedger.

 

[Emperoreddy]

We saw how quickly D depth can vanish in an instant, and it's more then fair to question Siegs and Marino's long term outlook with the team.

We need to be trying to keep this kid

 

[Billdo]

Allen/Daws is considerably better than Vanecek/Daws, but it's just too risky. That tandem can easily go south and we're sitting in the same position we've been in all over again with yet another burned season.

My preference is Markstrom at a reasonable cost due to age and contract status. If Markstrom/Saros/Ullmark are exorbitantly expensive, then I could maybe live with something like Allen/Brossoit or Allen/Driedger.

Allen and Kahkonen > Allen/Driedger and probably Allen/Brossoit. I think the cost to acquire Markstrom/Ullmark and a D and bottom 6 forwards will ultimately be too much and I THINK I'd rather try and significantly upgrade our D core and gamble on Allen & Kahkonen

 

[Unknown Caller]

Allen and Kahkonen > Allen/Driedger and probably Allen/Brossoit. I think the cost to acquire Markstrom/Ullmark and a D and bottom 6 forwards will ultimately be too much and I THINK I'd rather try and significantly upgrade our D core and gamble on Allen & Kahkonen

I'm not gambling on Allen/Kahkonen and Fitz thankfully won't either. We've had goaltending destroy this team so many years recently that it would be malpractice to allow it to happen again. They're going to get more reliability.

There's also minimal room to "significantly upgrade" the defense unless you're somehow moving out guys like Marino and Siegenthaler. If anything other than goaltending needs to get significantly upgraded, it's the forward depth.

 

[Guadana]

From what I've seen so far, and some might disagree (or a lot), I'd be comfortable going into next season with Allen/Daws as our duo. But we need much better coaching. And like you said, if we throw the farm for better goalie and don't improve the coaching situation, it's just gunna be bad

I do think Saros will just be too expensive. For Markstrom, If it's a reasonable deal sure, otherwise it's not worth it

Allen\Kahkonen\Daws as trio. Call up Daws until he has no waive option. Saros is too expensive for a trade for 1 year away UFA goalie. As Ullmark. Markstrom is okayish but still expensive for his level of potential Crawford/Bernier experience. Saved money can be invested in good second pair defenseman.

And the most important part - save Mercer, Gritsyuk, Lenny, Holtz and Casey. This team needs more depth. depth is a bigger problem. And we need only one eye to understand it after goalie trades.

 

[PKs Broken Stick]

Allen/Daws is considerably better than Vanecek/Daws, but it's just too risky. That tandem can easily go south and we're sitting in the same position we've been in all over again with yet another burned season.

My preference is Markstrom at a reasonable cost due to age and contract status. If Markstrom/Saros/Ullmark are exorbitantly expensive, then I could maybe live with something like Allen/Brossoit or Allen/Driedger.

Of course it is, but it's not exactly something people can just whip up something with nothing. I'm not for trading our entire prospects away just to try to fix the goalie situation.

Trading away our 1st and some prospects for Markstrom is gunna backfire hard if they don't fix the coaching situation as well. Main reason I'd rather stay away from that. Hopefully Fitz knows it too

 

[Brodeur]

Michigan plays Friday and then potentially Sunday. If they're eliminated, it's conceivable that they'd try to lure Casey with an ELC which starts with the current season.

 

[MasterofGrond]

Markstrom wouldn't even get our first without an additional something of value coming back, much less prospects on top of that. 34 year old goalies making 6M a year simply don't have that kind of value.

You can "I told you so" if I'm wrong, but the fear is not rational.

 

[devilsfan950003]

Will Ullmark cost as much as Markstrom or Saros?

 

[MasterofGrond]

Will Ullmark cost as much as Markstrom or Saros?

More than Markstrom, imo. Less than Saros.

 

[PizzaAndPucks]

Michigan plays Friday and then potentially Sunday. If they're eliminated, it's conceivable that they'd try to lure Casey with an ELC which starts with the current season.

He could maybe play the last few games or go straight to Utica. I'd rather he not burn a year of his ELC though.

 

[Devils731]

He could maybe play the last few games or go straight to Utica. I'd rather he not burn a year of his ELC though.

It’s always pick your poison with starting ELC.

If you started his ELC this year and then he plays 2 years in the AHL, his next contract is definitely not going to be big.

While if you wait and he goes fast he may have 1 AHL year, 1 NHL rookie year, and a NHL year where he somehow ended up on the PP and he scored 40 points and now he wants a fairly big deal.

I think the first scenario is more likely for him with how the Devils are made up so I think I’d prefer to get the ELC years started now. I think burning this year probably maximizes the “value” years you get out of him.

——————-

Either way it’s a guess though. Both paths provide risks and rewards.

 

[NJDfan86]

I'd imagine that if the devils want to sign Casey after his season then he will likely be burning year this year - otherwise you have to convince him to leave Michigan to play in Utica full time which might be a bit tough.

Probably reward him with some games this year, and put a plan in place for Utica next year.

 

[Brodeur]

He could maybe play the last few games or go straight to Utica. I'd rather he not burn a year of his ELC though.

ATO for this year with an ELC starting next year would be great, but that might be the price to get him to sign. We burned the first year for Joey Anderson, Miles Wood, and Steve Santini to get them in the fold.

 

[MasterofGrond]

All other things being equal, I think you generally want to start the ELC as late as possible. Getting it "over with" and signing him to a smaller contract only works if he signs a long deal immediately off an ELC, which I think a lot of guys are wary of if they trend towards being good but dont have much to show yet.

But if the price for getting him in the org is burning a year, that's the price. Doesn't have to be advantageous from a cap perspective to be the right move.

 

[OmNomNom]

All other things being equal, I think you generally want to start the ELC as late as possible. Getting it "over with" and signing him to a smaller contract only works if he signs a long deal immediately off an ELC, which I think a lot of guys are wary of if they trend towards being good but dont have much to show yet.

But if the price for getting him in the org is burning a year, that's the price. Doesn't have to be advantageous from a cap perspective to be the right move.

if he showcases well at nhl level this season, his value skyrockets

 

[NjdevilfanJim]

Allen and KK wouldn't be bad can allow us to sign a Trennin and a defenseman....Daws and Schmid and the future Malek

 

[NjdevilfanJim]

Fitz made a mistake of ruling KK as backup and praising Allen as a 1b ....Make the trade see where it goes ....I think he will over correct and hopefully it works because if it doesn't could devastate the future

 

[NjdevilfanJim]

Hopefully Casey will be kept

 

[Triumph]

All other things being equal, I think you generally want to start the ELC as late as possible. Getting it "over with" and signing him to a smaller contract only works if he signs a long deal immediately off an ELC, which I think a lot of guys are wary of if they trend towards being good but dont have much to show yet.

But if the price for getting him in the org is burning a year, that's the price. Doesn't have to be advantageous from a cap perspective to be the right move.

I don't think this is true, and it doesn't even have to be a large deal - that 2nd contract is critical for just about any player, and if you somehow miss the player's breakout season in the ELC, it can work out great. The only times a team definitely wants it to start as late as possible is if they are absolutely jammed up on the cap, which the Devils are not quite (yet).

 

[MasterofGrond]

I don't think this is true, and it doesn't even have to be a large deal - that 2nd contract is critical for just about any player, and if you somehow miss the player's breakout season in the ELC, it can work out great. The only times a team definitely wants it to start as late as possible is if they are absolutely jammed up on the cap, which the Devils are not quite (yet).

I’m not saying there aren’t situations where it works out that earlier was better, but I think without the benefit of hindsight, it is broadly advantageous to start ELCs later.

I haven’t seen a study but I would suspect that player who start their ELCs later earn less over the course of their careers, even once you try to filter out player quality effects

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

All other things being equal, I think you generally want to start the ELC as late as possible. Getting it "over with" and signing him to a smaller contract only works if he signs a long deal immediately off an ELC, which I think a lot of guys are wary of if they trend towards being good but dont have much to show yet.

But if the price for getting him in the org is burning a year, that's the price. Doesn't have to be advantageous from a cap perspective to be the right move.

Agree with this wholeheartedly, we're in a spot with this core where you can't really be thinking to penny pinch with what we have. If Casey can play, then let him play in the league. But that being said, I think his transition will be a bit more rocky than Luke or Nemec especially the latter's. Plus the next few years are gonna be our main window with this core before questions come up with say a guy like Hischier's UFA (he'll re-sign, gives Patty 2.0 vibes but you never know with how his career's gone so far in NJ with 2 playoff appearances in 7 years? and I'll never hold it to an athlete for signing for more with how injuries are)

 

[TheUnseenHand]

Of course it is, but it's not exactly something people can just whip up something with nothing. I'm not for trading our entire prospects away just to try to fix the goalie situation.

Trading away our 1st and some prospects for Markstrom is gunna backfire hard if they don't fix the coaching situation as well. Main reason I'd rather stay away from that. Hopefully Fitz knows it too

Literally all tandems are a risk. It's arguably a bigger risk with Markstrom or Ullmark or Saros as they will make considerably more money on longer contracts. So if/when the likely event that they go south happens, we are out trade assets and stuck with the contracts.

 

[Triumph]

I’m not saying there aren’t situations where it works out that earlier was better, but I think without the benefit of hindsight, it is broadly advantageous to start ELCs later.

I haven’t seen a study but I would suspect that player who start their ELCs later earn less over the course Eid their careers, even once you try to filter out player quality effects

Of course they do, but the problem is that you also have to filter out the survivorship bias as well, and there's multiple types of survivorship bias. The most critical thing is that a good player have as few games in the NHL as possible to prove how good they are. For a 1st overall pick like Hughes who struggled in his first season, that provided a gigantic savings - probably something like $20M over the 8 year deal he signed. For someone like Casey, that could mean burning an ELC, having him spend most of next season in the AHL, and then only getting 3rd pair minutes in 2025-26. This could lead to him being nicely bridged.