Devils 2019-20 team discussion (news and notes) - part XIII

[Triumph]

Everybody here has been speaking in absolutes. It's nothing new. Welcome to the internet. There's just no value in major contracts to players in their aged 30+ seasons. Especially in our situation. Like Forge said, he's a depreciating asset after this contract. It's not worth the investment to give him that term and that money. It rarely ever is. So, yes, I'm taking the chance on the prospect(s) and pick(s) over the aging veteran not worth his deal every day of the week. The prospects and picks don't handicap you like an anchor contract does.

The Devils have a limited interest in efficiency because, and this is important, they don't have a team. You're saying 'especially in our situation' - no, the situation where deals like that make no sense are where the Devils were in 2015-16, when they had no assets and no picks. Now they have young players but just not enough of them and not enough of a team around them. It's going to be an enormous struggle to build a team that can even come close to the cap in 4 years. The Devils are going to have so many ELCs and players on cheap contracts.

 

[Oneiro]

It's possible you sign Palmieri for 49 x 7, the cap goes up over time and, when the team is a contender, the deal becomes the forward equivalent of the Greene contract. There's no urgency to deal Palmieri. You only do it for a return that's as good or better than Coleman's.

So we're all getting worked up over an unlikely scenario. You only have 6-7 teams in the league that have a true sense of urgency when it comes to maximizing their current window - PIT, WAS, TB, STL, BOS, DAL. Maybe VGK. And I'm not sure that I like what most of them have to offer.

If I'm Sakic, Holland or any other GM of a relatively young, rising team, I don't pay the price for Palmieri this year.

 

[beekay414]

The Devils have a limited interest in efficiency because, and this is important, they don't have a team. You're saying 'especially in our situation' - no, the situation where deals like that make no sense are where the Devils were in 2015-16, when they had no assets and no picks. Now they have young players but just not enough of them and not enough of a team around them. It's going to be an enormous struggle to build a team that can even come close to the cap in 4 years. The Devils are going to have so many ELCs and players on cheap contracts.

Oh really? I didn't know trades and free agency didn't exist! Wow. That's news to me. It STILL doesn't make a Kyle Palmieri extension a good thing. You don't pay depreciating assets, period. Only in sports would anybody even consider investing $$$ into something that depreciates lol. Extensions to players on the wrong side of 30 STILL don't make sense, bud. I mean, we literally argued about Mike Hoffman THIS season so this isn't about 15-16 at all. Why is it okay to invest in a bad contract just because the player is on the team? Nobody can answer me that. It's STILL a bad contract.

 

[beekay414]

It's possible you sign Palmieri for 49 x 7, the cap goes up over time and, when the team is a contender, the deal becomes the forward equivalent of the Greene contract. There's no urgency to deal Palmieri. You only do it for a return that's as good or better than Coleman's.

So we're all getting worked up over an unlikely scenario. You only have 6-7 teams in the league that have a true sense of urgency when it comes to maximizing their current window - PIT, WAS, TB, STL, BOS, DAL. Maybe VGK. And I'm not sure that I like what most of them have to offer.

If I'm Sakic, Holland or any other GM of a relatively young, rising team, I don't pay the price for Palmieri this year.

Paying Palmieri into his aged 37 season is beyond dumb.

 

[NJDevs26]

And the moment Lee signed that deal, people laughed. Yet, it's cool if it's our guy. I don't get this forum lol.

And we would cringe if Palm signed a 7-50 deal. For all your complaining about everyone speaking in absolutes you’re doing it too. You’ve made like fifty posts in the last day demanding we trade Palm, you can’t then blame anyone for thinking you’re just looking to trade him for the sake of trading him. Obviously if you get the home run return trade him, most of us aren’t as far apart as you think we are. But there’s a possibility it won’t happen and he resigns on a 4-5 year deal too.

 

[beekay414]

And we wound cringe if Palm signed a 7-50 deal. For all your complaining about everyone speaking in absolutes you’re doing it too. You’ve made like fifty posts in the last day demanding we trade Palm, you can’t then blame anyone for thinking you’re just looking to trade him for the sake of trading him.

I didn't complain about anybody speaking in absolutes lol.

And I've made posts combating people saying it's imperative we retain him. There's nowhere that shows that I said we should trade him for the sake of trading him. Actually read what's written instead of interpreting it how you choose to.

 

[beekay414]

I've literally said you don't deal him this season if you're getting lowballed. It's actually written on the site. But, sure, I want to trade him just to trade him lol. I've been fighting the extension crap and how dumb it is to give players major money and term in their 30s. Especially on a non-contending team. That's what the posting has been about mainly. Not "trade him to trade him" like you're trying to imply.

 

[Oneiro]

There's just not much urgency to our cap situation.

-No Hall, Coleman or Vatanen to extend
-Subban and Schneider gone in two seasons
-The team's future best player is two years away from legally being able to drink
-The majority of the future contributors to this team are not even on the roster yet

Like I said, I only deal Palmieri for an unequivocally great package. Otherwise, it's hard to get burned by extending Palmieri, even if it ends up being horrific and Skinner-like.

 

[NJDevs26]

I didn't complain about anybody speaking in absolutes lol.

And I've made posts combating people saying it's imperative we retain him. There's nowhere that shows that I said we should trade him for the sake of trading him. Actually read what's written instead of interpreting it how you choose to.

Fine that was Triumph’s post, but constantly going after everyone and complaining about board bias doesn’t help the discussion either.

And complaining about how you can’t resign a ‘depreciating asset’ under almost any circumstances means you do want to trade him. Maybe not tomorrow but you don’t want to sign him at all other than a two year deal which isn’t happening.

 

[Devilsfan992]

I'd sign Palmeiri for 7x5

 

[Billdo]

I'm not moving Palmieri, this season at least, unless the return is something that makes everyone across the league say what the f*** is (insert teams GM name here) doing? I'm not moving him for a late first a fringe B grade prospect. It HAS to exceed Coleman's return. Otherwise I'm fine with going into next season with Palmieri or negotiating an extension this summer.

 

[Triumph]

Oh really? I didn't know trades and free agency didn't exist! Wow. That's news to me. It STILL doesn't make a Kyle Palmieri extension a good thing. You don't pay depreciating assets, period. Only in sports would anybody even consider investing $$$ into something that depreciates lol. Extensions to players on the wrong side of 30 STILL don't make sense, bud. I mean, we literally argued about Mike Hoffman THIS season so this isn't about 15-16 at all. Why is it okay to invest in a bad contract just because the player is on the team? Nobody can answer me that. It's STILL a bad contract.

You're really bad at this. Nico Hischier is now a depreciating asset - the Devils signed him for 7 years and the average player's peak is around age 22 or 23, so most of that is likely to come post-peak when he is thus depreciating. Just blanket saying 'you don't pay depreciating assets' just means 'You don't ever have a good team'.

Why is it okay? Because the risk is theoretically mitigated if the contract is not perceived market value. If the Devils can shave a year or two off and shave some cash off as well, they're more likely to get close to full value on the deal. The return for such a player is quite low and the odds of recouping the full value of the next 18 months of Palmieri's contract are not high - it's just that in the instances they manage to do that, they often manage a lot more, which is why deals like this make sense.

The Devils should get more for Palmieri than they do for Coleman. Again, there's only one Palmieri on the market probably, and if someone is willing to pay 2 1st round picks and something else, or a 1st, a prospect who was a 1st, and more, then the Devils have to consider trading him. But for the Coleman return? Nope.

 

[beekay414]

There's just not much urgency to our cap situation.

-No Hall, Coleman or Vatanen to extend
-Subban and Schneider gone in two seasons
-The team's future best player is two years away from legally being able to drink
-The majority of the future contributors to this team are not even on the roster yet

Like I said, I only deal Palmieri for an unequivocally great package. Otherwise, it's hard to get burned by extending Palmieri, even if it ends up being horrific and Skinner-like.

Still think this line of thinking is super shortsighted. A LOT can change in 4 years.

 

[JrFischer54]

I'm not moving Palmieri, this season at least, unless the return is something that makes everyone across the league say what the f*ck is (insert teams GM name here) doing? I'm not moving him for a late first a fringe B grade prospect. It HAS to exceed Coleman's return. Otherwise I'm fine with going into next season with Palmieri or negotiating an extension this summer.

the thing is if palm gets moved this year it will be because teams meet the devils demand. so if he gets moved im 1000000000000% confident the return will be great.


going into next deadline you will NOT get what coleman got this year and you wont get what hall got this year. if you want to move him now is the time to do it

 

[NJDevs26]

Still think this line of thinking is super shortsighted. A LOT can change in 4 years.

Which is also why you don’t completely rule out signing someone who can be good the next 5-7 years just because you probably won’t be good the first couple. Especially when you have cap space up the wazoo. We’ve had five years of saving cap space and still have cap space and a lousy team.

 

[beekay414]

You're really bad at this. Nico Hischier is now a depreciating asset - the Devils signed him for 7 years and the average player's peak is around age 22 or 23, so most of that is likely to come post-peak when he is thus depreciating. Just blanket saying 'you don't pay depreciating assets' just means 'You don't ever have a good team'.

Why is it okay? Because the risk is theoretically mitigated if the contract is not perceived market value. If the Devils can shave a year or two off and shave some cash off as well, they're more likely to get close to full value on the deal. The return for such a player is quite low and the odds of recouping the full value of the next 18 months of Palmieri's contract are not high - it's just that in the instances they manage to do that, they often manage a lot more, which is why deals like this make sense.

The Devils should get more for Palmieri than they do for Coleman. Again, there's only one Palmieri on the market probably, and if someone is willing to pay 2 1st round picks and something else, or a 1st, a prospect who was a 1st, and more, then the Devils have to consider trading him. But for the Coleman return? Nope.

I'm bad at this but you're comparing a contract signed by a 21 year old to a contract signed by a 31 year old. Right. You're stretching a narrative to make it fit, nothing more. Like I said, it is what it is. Feel free to move on.

 

[beekay414]

Which is also why you don’t completely rule out signing someone who can be good the next 5-7 years just because you probably won’t be good the first couple.

Except the odds of someone in their 30s being good for the next 5-7 years isn't great. Especially at their cost.

It is what it is. I'm okay if we move on. Don't need to keep rehashing something when nobody is saying anything different.

 

[Triumph]

I'm bad at this but you're comparing a contract signed by a 21 year old to a contract signed by a 31 year old. Right. You're stretching a narrative to make it fit, nothing more. Like I said, it is what it is. Feel free to move on.

Again, just pure absolutes, no nuance at all. The majority of players in the NHL are depriciating assets. Somehow teams manage to win Stanley Cups with them signed to long-term contracts.

 

[Nico Hischier]

Nico Hischier is now a depreciating asset

YIKES



That is one hot take and some FAKE NEWS

 

[beekay414]

Fine that was Triumph’s post, but constantly going after everyone and complaining about board bias doesn’t help the discussion either.

And complaining about how you can’t resign a ‘depreciating asset’ under almost any circumstances means you do want to trade him. Maybe not tomorrow but you don’t want to sign him at all other than a two year deal which isn’t happening.

No, you're interpreting it how you choose to, nothing more. I want to cash in on his value, yes, because it'll never be higher but it doesn't mean I want to trade him for the sake of trading him. Next year? Yeah, that'll be the thought process because he'll be a UFA.

Here's something that NONE of you have considered in all this...what if Palms doesn't want to extend here? Nobody ever considers that.

 

[NJDevs26]

the thing is if palm gets moved this year it will be because teams meet the devils demand. so if he gets moved im 1000000000000% confident the return will be great.

I’m confident in that too...IF Fitz has enough autonomy to walk away. If the owners want a complete and immediate tear down though, he might have to do their bidding and just take the best he gets.

 

[beekay414]

Again, just pure absolutes, no nuance at all. The majority of players in the NHL are depriciating assets. Somehow teams manage to win Stanley Cups with them signed to long-term contracts.

Yeah, I'm not the one comparing a 21 year old to a 31 year old. If you can't see the difference in the values, that's your problem, not mine.

It's like comparing buying a new Ferrari to buying a used Dodge Charger.

 

[Triumph]

YIKES



That is one hot take and some FAKE NEWS

should've considered reading the rest of the sentence but thankfully it's still there and you can go back and see it

 

[NJDevs26]

Here's something that NONE of you have considered in all this...what if Palms doesn't want to extend here? Nobody ever considers that.

I’ve posted that before and it would obviously change the equation, but that generally goes without saying and tbh it’s still months before he can sign a contract and commit (or not) either way so unless he’s definitely told management he doesn’t want to re-up or be part of a rebuild at this point then we won’t know what he’s thinking till July.

 

[Triumph]

No, you're interpreting it how you choose to, nothing more. I want to cash in on his value, yes, because it'll never be higher but it doesn't mean I want to trade him for the sake of trading him. Next year? Yeah, that'll be the thought process because he'll be a UFA.

Here's something that NONE of you have considered in all this...what if Palms doesn't want to extend here? Nobody ever considers that.

The Devils should've asked him if he wants a trade by now. If he says yes, then obviously deal him. If he says no, the implication is that he wants to work out an extension and he should be kept unless the Devils get bowled over with an offer (which I doubt they will be at this point).