2013 New Jersey Devils (Team/Player Discussion)- Offseason FA and trade talk Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.

Holtz My Bahls

Registered User
Jan 5, 2011
3,934
37
New Jersey
Definition of a red flag, no?

And I don't think that is true. Lou just didn't want to pay the exorbitant amount he probably asked for and eventually got in minny.

It doesn't matter anymore and we will likely never know what actually happened either way I'm not placing the blame solely on Parise it was a two way street.
 

Devils86

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
2,088
5
Definition of a red flag, no?

And I don't think that is true. Lou just didn't want to pay the exorbitant amount he probably asked for and eventually got in minny.

Again don't want to re hash but I have some knowledge into this and ZP camp wanted the bridge deal. They were not going to sign any long term deal and if you are being honest it was the right move for both parties. ZP wanted to get to Free agency and lou didn't want to give huge money to a guy coming off a knee injury. You think Lou made the wrong choice, you are entitled to your opinion but do a little research, Look at ZP 2 years before the knee and his two years after,,Hes not the same player, still a very good one but not a 7.5 cap hit guy.
 

Edmonton East

BUT the ADvaNCEd STatS...
Nov 25, 2007
6,566
2,558
Too bad Horton had a great playoffs and is going to command god knows how much now :why:

Actually, that's a great thing. Otherwise there was virtually no chance of Boston letting him walk. Now it might be a bit more difficult for them to afford him given their soon to be free agents.
 

Balance

Jesus loves you!
May 20, 2013
2,568
1,106
I don't think Parise was much of a loss at all in terms of where the team should spend its payroll (towards the defense). In terms of offensive production Parise hasn't reached 70 pts in 3 years and his career point production is a 60 pt player. His playoff stats are dismal and are at the production rate of a 50 pt player.

You can't fault Lou for using common sense and realizing that Parise at even somewhere close to the price of what Minnesota was paying would hurt the franchise for years and years. In fact you can say Lou is an absolute genius in that he predicted this possibility years before, picked up Kovalchuk, and not only paid the same that he would have got for Parise but he actually got a franchise player. People complain that as a result of getting Kovalchuk we had to let Parise go. That was the good part about the whole thing. The team no longer needed Parise so there was no chance of overpaying him and the team got Kovalchuk so they could wisely spend their money on improving the team in other ways.

It's scary to think where this franchise would be if Lou was forced to resign Parise at his demand because the team lacked depth.
 

CerebralGenesis

Registered User
Jul 23, 2009
24,429
2
Actually, that's a great thing. Otherwise there was virtually no chance of Boston letting him walk. Now it might be a bit more difficult for them to afford him given their soon to be free agents.

Sure there is, their cap space. We can be outbid easily by another team though based on the playoffs now.
 

Bleedred

#FIREDAVEROGALSKI
Sponsor
May 1, 2011
133,132
62,421
I don't think Parise was much of a loss at all in terms of where the team should spend its payroll (towards the defense). In terms of offensive production Parise hasn't reached 70 pts in 3 years and his career point production is a 60 pt player. His playoff stats are dismal and are at the production rate of a 50 pt player.

You can't fault Lou for using common sense and realizing that Parise at even somewhere close to the price of what Minnesota was paying would hurt the franchise for years and years. In fact you can say Lou is an absolute genius in that he predicted this possibility years before, picked up Kovalchuk, and not only paid the same that he would have got for Parise but he actually got a franchise player. People complain that as a result of getting Kovalchuk we had to let Parise go. That was the good part about the whole thing. The team no longer needed Parise so there was no chance of overpaying him and the team got Kovalchuk so they could wisely spend their money on improving the team in other ways.

It's scary to think where this franchise would be if Lou was forced to resign Parise at his demand because the team lacked depth.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you think we should spend our payroll towards defense?

We already have TOO MUCH money invested in the defense. Over $10 million a year in Salvador, Volchenkov, and Tallinder.
 

Classic Devil

Spirit of 1988
Dec 23, 2003
39,365
4,094
Columbus, Ohio
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you think we should spend our payroll towards defense?

We already have TOO MUCH money invested in the defense. Over $10 million a year in Salvador, Volchenkov, and Tallinder.
The problem there isn't the amount of money spent, it's what the money is spent on.
 

Brooklyndevil

Registered User
Jun 24, 2005
20,484
1,290
Freehold, NJ USA
He also traded him for nothing. He got a fourth for his rights. Who is Lou going to deal that realistically has that kind of value - Elias and Clarkson? Elias has a chance to stay even if he gets to July 5. Clarkson not so much so but who freaking cares about a fourth-rounder anyway? The chance of those players coming back is worth more than a fourth-rounder.

In the Isles' case there was no chance of Streit coming back since they didn't want to go over x number of years/dollars, or he flat told them he wasn't coming back regardless. Usually with our FA's, Lou will let them get their value and come back to him with the offer. That's why he'll never trade a guy's rights, even someone like Gomez who was 99% gone.

I never said move Elias. However, if Lou is negotiating with both players, he should know what it will take to sign them, right? And if he believes they're both not worth the money they want, why not get something instead of nothing. As for Gomez, that was a mistake by our GM, if he knew 99% Gomer was gone and didn't pick up a 4th or 5th, don't you think? Just maybe it's time he changed a bit or retire, so we can get a young GM with a fresh thought process.
 

Feed Me A Stray Cat

Registered User
Mar 27, 2005
14,847
144
Boston, MA
I don't think Parise was much of a loss at all in terms of where the team should spend its payroll (towards the defense). In terms of offensive production Parise hasn't reached 70 pts in 3 years and his career point production is a 60 pt player. His playoff stats are dismal and are at the production rate of a 50 pt player.

You can't fault Lou for using common sense and realizing that Parise at even somewhere close to the price of what Minnesota was paying would hurt the franchise for years and years. In fact you can say Lou is an absolute genius in that he predicted this possibility years before, picked up Kovalchuk, and not only paid the same that he would have got for Parise but he actually got a franchise player. People complain that as a result of getting Kovalchuk we had to let Parise go. That was the good part about the whole thing. The team no longer needed Parise so there was no chance of overpaying him and the team got Kovalchuk so they could wisely spend their money on improving the team in other ways.

It's scary to think where this franchise would be if Lou was forced to resign Parise at his demand because the team lacked depth.

I'm glad we didn't sign Parise to a huge contract, but you're aware that the Devils made a mega offer that wasn't too far off from Minnesota's, right?
 

CerebralGenesis

Registered User
Jul 23, 2009
24,429
2
That's what I'm saying. That's too much for those guys.

He's saying that you can spend that amount on D and not have it be an issue, it's just we spent the money on players we don't really need on this team anymore.

I'm glad we didn't sign Parise to a huge contract, but you're aware that the Devils made a mega offer that wasn't too far off from Minnesota's, right?

if 20 mill short and less frontloaded isn't far off.
 

Bleedred

#FIREDAVEROGALSKI
Sponsor
May 1, 2011
133,132
62,421
He's saying that you can spend that amount on D and not have it be an issue, it's just we spent the money on players we don't really need on this team anymore.

I know and I'm saying that's too much for those 3 guys particularly. Like you said, it's money on players we don't really need on this team anymore.
 

Balance

Jesus loves you!
May 20, 2013
2,568
1,106
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you think we should spend our payroll towards defense?

We already have TOO MUCH money invested in the defense. Over $10 million a year in Salvador, Volchenkov, and Tallinder.

Besides rightly spending it the payroll should go to the defense for a long term contract. See those guys respectively have 1 to 3 years left on their contract so it isn't something that would cripple the team because it's either easy to move their contract or to just pay them off. Every team overpays some players but the reason why the defense is so weak and overpaid is because of the lack of any long term contracts on the defense. If you look at the NJD defense since the lockout it has constantly changed and that is not good.

A long term contract is an amazing investment when you get the right player. Instead of throwing it all to Parise and Kovalchuk the team has the payroll to toy around with and give guys small contracts to eventually test out who deserves a long term contract or to give that type of contract to a D-man.

You don't even need a long term contract on the defense at all but that comes at the cost of not paying guys the type of money like Salvador, Volchenkov, and Tallinder. And even with their contracts, the good thing is that the team can move at least 2 of them and get a great defensive upgrade.
 

Balance

Jesus loves you!
May 20, 2013
2,568
1,106
I'm glad we didn't sign Parise to a huge contract, but you're aware that the Devils made a mega offer that wasn't too far off from Minnesota's, right?

The deals were really far off. Lou didn't come close to 44m in the first 4 years and nor should he have.

Did the team want Parise back? Yes. Did the team need Parise with Kovalchuk? Absolutely not.
 

JimEIV

Registered User
Feb 19, 2003
67,699
30,517
The deals were really far off. Lou didn't come close to 44m in the first 4 years and nor should he have.

Did the team want Parise back? Yes. Did the team need Parise with Kovalchuk? Absolutely not.

Yes because missing the playoffs 2 out of 3 years with Kovalchuk and without Parise is poof-positive.....

Ohhhhh wait... I think I get it now!

Kovalchuck is "franchise player" because he brings us top 10 picks...

We haven't had 2 top 10 picks (of our own) in over a generation (since 1987 and 1989)....

Kovalchuck single handily rebuilding the franchise!


I finally understand! I agree.
 

MartyOwns

thank you shero
Apr 1, 2007
24,664
19,250
and when he helped us to secure a playoff spot, he did his best to make sure we bowed out early 99% of the time. that’s minnesotas problem now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad