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

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

the drafting from 2005 to 2010 was horribad. That really cannot even be debated.

actually, the entire decade of the 2000s was mostly terrible. The only "good" players from 2001-2010 were Parise, Zajac, and Henrique.

 

[MartyOwns]

When you have fewer picks than there are rounds every single year that is a problem. You have to go back all the way to 2012 to find a Devil draft with 7 picks(aside from the last two)

And their last 10 years really haven't been that bad (I would even argue it was decent)... There was a contributor on this team from every single year going back 2008

Henrique 2008, Josefson 2009, Merrill 2010, Larsson/Hall, Coleman, Boucher, Pietila 2011, Severson 2012, Santini, Wood 2013, Quennville 2014, Zacha, Blackwood, Speers 2015....

Sure the talent might be less than we wanted or needed but imagine if we were adding that to Parise and Kovalchuk over the last 4 or 5 years. Or imagine if we actually got a return for Fayne, Clarkson, Parise, Kovalchuk and Martin instead of just losing them to free agency.

agreed, there are different circumstances that led us down this path. but, looking back, we weren't drafting the right types of players. i'm not one to play monday morning quarterback and say 'we should've drafted XXXXX instead of XXXX!' ...but there were some teams who more recently began anticipating what types of players to draft, and they did so, which paid off. our guys seemed asleep at the wheel and unwilling to adapt.

that, plus the fact that we weren't drafting in the top 10 (not management's fault, really), refusing to sell off assets and acquire more picks, etc was just a perfect storm

 

[Triumph]

i'm trying to boil this pretentious argument down to the essentials. as a blanket statement, would you say that you are better than NHL GM's and front office staff at knowing how age curves work?

GMs? Absolutely. Front office staff, if you're including analytics departments, absolutely not.

When do GMs study age curves? Is this something they talk a lot about? Maybe in between their hockey playing career and their GM job, they start hammering away on hockey-reference? I guess I don't know that they don't for sure, but evidence certainly suggests they're not aware of it. From what I've seen from their public quotes, they generally think that players peak later and decline later than is actually observed. I'd love to hear 31 GMs talk about the peak age for forward scoring, for instance.

In baseball, ever since sabermetrics departments took over and dudes with Ivy League MBAs run teams instead of former jocks, baseball revenues are up but salaries have not risen coincidently with revenue. There was talk that the MLB union might want a salary floor and ceiling because too little baseball revenue was being spent on player salaries relative to the other major leagues. I think there is no chance we would see this sort of thing if the salary cap were removed from hockey.

 

[Nocashstyle]

the drafting from 2005 to 2010 was horribad. That really cannot even be debated.

actually, the entire decade of the 2000s was mostly terrible. The only "good" players from 2001-2010 were Parise, Zajac, and Henrique.

Yeah, 3 notable players in an entire decade of drafting is atrocious. That's pretty inexcusable.

 

[Triumph]

When you have fewer picks than there are rounds every single year that is a problem. You have to go back all the way to 2012 to find a Devil draft with 7 picks(aside from the last two)

And their last 10 years really haven't been that bad (I would even argue it was decent)... There was a contributor on this team from every single year going back 2008

Henrique 2008, Josefson 2009, Merrill 2010, Larsson/Hall, Coleman, Boucher, Pietila 2011, Severson 2012, Santini, Wood 2013, Quennville 2014, Zacha, Blackwood, Speers 2015....

Sure the talent might be less than we wanted or needed but imagine if we were adding that to Parise and Kovalchuk over the last 4 or 5 years. Or imagine if we actually got a return for Fayne, Clarkson, Parise, Kovalchuk and Martin instead of just losing them to free agency.

...the Devils would still be trash and would be in need of a total rebuild. I know Devils fans lament that they never got to see Zach Parise and Blake Coleman in the red and black at the same time, and it's a sad state of affairs here in Jersey now, but trading those guys who the Devils let walk as UFAs at the deadline doesn't rebuild this team - it gets them some more draft picks that might be helping now, but the franchise trajectory is still downward, and dealing UFAs also potentially costs them playoff rounds (as it almost certainly would have in 2012, and could have in 2010 if that team could've won a round)

 

[Bleedred]

Yeah, 3 notable players in an entire decade of drafting is atrocious. That's pretty inexcusable.

There's also Mark Fayne, who is probably better than half our current defensemen, but Edmonton buried in the minors after Chiarelli came in and took over for MacBraindamage, who was the one signed Fayne.
I said Conte sucked and wasn't good anymore before it became the general consensus among the fan base.

Yeah he's had some good finds, like Damon Severson. Doesn't make up for the ineptitude for the better part of a decade and a half. I maintained that he had a job because of what he did and who he drafted decades ago. Brodeur, Niedermayer and Elias. Elias remains his best find. A 51st overall pick in a very weak draft.

 

[Bleedred]

When you have fewer picks than there are rounds every single year that is a problem. You have to go back all the way to 2012 to find a Devil draft with 7 picks(aside from the last two)

And their last 10 years really haven't been that bad (I would even argue it was decent)... There was a contributor on this team from every single year going back 2008

Henrique 2008, Josefson 2009, Merrill 2010, Larsson/Hall, Coleman, Boucher, Pietila 2011, Severson 2012, Santini, Wood 2013, Quennville 2014, Zacha, Blackwood, Speers 2015....

Sure the talent might be less than we wanted or needed but imagine if we were adding that to Parise and Kovalchuk over the last 4 or 5 years. Or imagine if we actually got a return for Fayne, Clarkson, Parise, Kovalchuk and Martin instead of just losing them to free agency.

Come on man, how were Pietila and Coleman contributors?

Unless you're just counting the guys that played NHL games. These aren't even good prospects, let alone contributors at the NHL level.

That's like giving Lou credit for finding a contributor in that lousy and worthless bum Sergey Kalinin, because he played 120 NHL games for us.

 

[Devilswede]

Lou's biggest failure was that he refused to rebuild on the fly like so many successful teams do. Retool or call it whatever you want.

Significant players left us via free agency when we could've acquired assets in return for them. Lou was also not reluctant to give up draft picks in trades for insignificant players. That hurt our drafting and our youth.

Lou and Conte absolutely sucking at drafting with the very few picks that we did have is another factor of course.

 

[Triumph]

Lou's biggest failure was that he refused to rebuild on the fly like so many successful teams do. Retool or call it whatever you want.

Significant players left us via free agency when we could've acquired assets in return for them. Lou was also not reluctant to give up draft picks in trades for insignificant players. That hurt our drafting and our youth.

Lou and Conte absolutely sucking at drafting with the very few picks that we did have is another factor of course.

Who are these teams that 'rebuild on the fly'? You can only sensibly do this when you have reinforcements coming through the minors. Lou's teams of the late 00s and early 10s did not have this.

 

[Missionhockey]

Lou's biggest failure was that he refused to rebuild on the fly like so many successful teams do. Retool or call it whatever you want.

Significant players left us via free agency when we could've acquired assets in return for them. Lou was also not reluctant to give up draft picks in trades for insignificant players. That hurt our drafting and our youth.

Lou and Conte absolutely sucking at drafting with the very few picks that we did have is another factor of course.

I would disagree with that. The Devils were successful for 20 years and you can't sustain that kind of success with out core players changing. Detroit I think is a pretty great example of that. They went from Fedorov, Yzerman, Hull, Robtaille, to Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc. Maybe Holland lucked into a couple late round franchise players, but there was still a major transfer in power on that team.

NJ went through something similar. At first it was John MacLean, Scott Stevens, Scott Neidermayer, Bobby Holik, then Elias, Arnott, Sykora, Gomez came along, and then after that Zajac, Parise, Langenbrunner. Lou had a philosophy of not giving up on a season and he wouldn't give up on players with expiring deals because he wanted to put the best team on the ice, but I would still consider that "rebuilding on the fly" because the team was so successful for so long.

 

[MartyOwns]

GMs? Absolutely. Front office staff, if you're including analytics departments, absolutely not.

When do GMs study age curves? Is this something they talk a lot about? Maybe in between their hockey playing career and their GM job, they start hammering away on hockey-reference? I guess I don't know that they don't for sure, but evidence certainly suggests they're not aware of it. From what I've seen from their public quotes, they generally think that players peak later and decline later than is actually observed. I'd love to hear 31 GMs talk about the peak age for forward scoring, for instance.

dont know/care about MLB at all... but i'll just say that GM's, who make mistakes like anyone else, know more about any aspect of hockey than any poster on a message board. i think anyone saying that someone here knows more about anything related to building hockey teams in any capacity is delusional, IMO.

 

[Merrills Marauders]

in depressing news, BetOnline released their prelimary win totals for each team (not point total). Unsurprisingly we're ahead of only Colorado by 1.5 wins and Vancouver by .5 with a total of 31. Oh and poor VGK set at 26.5.

 

[devilsblood]

I would disagree with that. The Devils were successful for 20 years and you can't sustain that kind of success with out core players changing. Detroit I think is a pretty great example of that. They went from Fedorov, Yzerman, Hull, Robtaille, to Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc. Maybe Holland lucked into a couple late round franchise players, but there was still a major transfer in power on that team.

NJ went through something similar. At first it was John MacLean, Scott Stevens, Scott Neidermayer, Bobby Holik, then Elias, Arnott, Sykora, Gomez came along, and then after that Zajac, Parise, Langenbrunner. Lou had a philosophy of not giving up on a season and he wouldn't give up on players with expiring deals because he wanted to put the best team on the ice, but I would still consider that "rebuilding on the fly" because the team was so successful for so long.

Ya the narrative for awhiles was it didn't matter who the Devils plugged in, they just kept on winning. Of coarse this was more in regards to the fwd's, goal and defense was locked down.

So where did Lou go wrong? It was his inability to find 2 d-men the level of Stevens and Nied's.

Marty to Schneids? A bit of a step down. Marty's puck handling was a huge advantage that Schneids did not bring, but I say that drop off was not near the drop that we saw on defense.

 

[Triumph]

dont know/care about MLB at all... but i'll just say that GM's, who make mistakes like anyone else, know more about any aspect of hockey than any poster on a message board. i think anyone saying that someone here knows more about anything related to building hockey teams in any capacity is delusional, IMO.

Oh man, no. If you pay close attention to the league you'll see that this is not the case. GMs know a lot about their own team. They do not know the rest of the league. As an isolated example, Shero, who I like and think is okay, couldn't remember if the Devils, the team he now works for and a team who was in the same division as the team he GMed at the time, made the playoffs in 2012-13. Lots of people who play fantasy hockey would know the scorers in the league better than GMs, and I guarantee I know a lot of people online who watch more NHL hockey than GMs do, and I include myself in that group.

All this bashing might make you think that I think all NHL GMs are idiots, but I don't think that. They have different institutional knowledge. Anyone I've talked to who has worked in the NHL has a lot of respect for the front office people they've worked with, and I don't think they're just blowing smoke - there's some serious knowledge out there. It's just not the knowledge you might think it is. That's why the best approach, both in baseball and in hockey, combines this older, institutional knowledge with the newer statistical methods.

 

[MartyOwns]

Lots of people who play fantasy hockey would know the scorers in the league better than GMs, and I guarantee I know a lot of people online who watch more NHL hockey than GMs do, and I include myself in that group.

fantasy hockey?...

let’s agree to disagree this is dangerously similar to 40 year old beer leaguers saying they could outplay a steve ott or tom wilson

 

[Missionhockey]

Ya the narrative for awhiles was it didn't matter who the Devils plugged in, they just kept on winning. Of coarse this was more in regards to the fwd's, goal and defense was locked down.

So where did Lou go wrong? It was his inability to find 2 d-men the level of Stevens and Nied's.

Marty to Schneids? A bit of a step down. Marty's puck handling was a huge advantage that Schneids did not bring, but I say that drop off was not near the drop that we saw on defense.

That probably one area, also I think he failed to find us a center combination after 2003 that could really push us through. IMO the positions that are most important to least are : Center, Defense, Goaltending, Wings.

Centers are the most important IMO because they're a major factor in all three zones, they have the most impact on the game. I don't think it was a coincidence that the year the Devils went to the Cup Finals in 2012, they had Zajac, Henrique and Elias down the middle all playing pretty well. Marty for a long time masked a lot of the team's problems, as great as he was he probably doesn't even get as much credit as he should. He was really great from about 2006-2010, and with out him, the Devils might have been where they are now a lot earlier.

 

[Missionhockey]

Oh man, no. If you pay close attention to the league you'll see that this is not the case. GMs know a lot about their own team. They do not know the rest of the league. As an isolated example, Shero, who I like and think is okay, couldn't remember if the Devils, the team he now works for and a team who was in the same division as the team he GMed at the time, made the playoffs in 2012-13. Lots of people who play fantasy hockey would know the scorers in the league better than GMs, and I guarantee I know a lot of people online who watch more NHL hockey than GMs do, and I include myself in that group.

All this bashing might make you think that I think all NHL GMs are idiots, but I don't think that. They have different institutional knowledge. Anyone I've talked to who has worked in the NHL has a lot of respect for the front office people they've worked with, and I don't think they're just blowing smoke - there's some serious knowledge out there. It's just not the knowledge you might think it is. That's why the best approach, both in baseball and in hockey, combines this older, institutional knowledge with the newer statistical methods.

I think you're probably right on this. Scouting is a small part of the job as a GM because in addition to day to day management of the team there's also marketing and sales, contracts, actual management of the front office staff. In my mind, it's kind of like being the President. Most politicians are military experts but they listen to the opinions of the specialists that are, manage the overall picture and close the big deals.

 

[Triumph]

fantasy hockey?...

letÂ’s agree to disagree this is dangerously similar to 40 year old beer leaguers saying they could outplay a steve ott or tom wilson

It's not at all, not even close. There's a huge difference between saying 'I could be a better GM than all or most GMs', something which I have not at all said and do not agree with and 'I know more about one specific thing than GMs do'. In this case, it would be akin to me saying I can skate faster than the slowest guy in the NHL, or something like that. Skating is not playing hockey, it is just one hockey skill.

And for the record, I don't play fantasy hockey. But yes, the discussion has run its course.

 

[captainscott]

...the Devils would still be trash and would be in need of a total rebuild. I know Devils fans lament that they never got to see Zach Parise and Blake Coleman in the red and black at the same time, and it's a sad state of affairs here in Jersey now, but trading those guys who the Devils let walk as UFAs at the deadline doesn't rebuild this team - it gets them some more draft picks that might be helping now, but the franchise trajectory is still downward, and dealing UFAs also potentially costs them playoff rounds (as it almost certainly would have in 2012, and could have in 2010 if that team could've won a round)

There can be absolutely no question about the decision to keep parisi in 2012 .. they made it to cup finals.. they don't without him.. you play to win.. and that years team was an anomaly but anyone that watched that team play night in and night out should have known they were going to be a decent playoff team.. they had the right makeup at the right time.. no regerts there .. but this team has been very mediocre for about 8-10 years other than that year

 

[captainscott]

Lou's biggest failure was that he refused to rebuild on the fly like so many successful teams do. Retool or call it whatever you want.

Significant players left us via free agency when we could've acquired assets in return for them. Lou was also not reluctant to give up draft picks in trades for insignificant players. That hurt our drafting and our youth.

Lou and Conte absolutely sucking at drafting with the very few picks that we did have is another factor of course.

they could draft but I think they were a little slow to realize that the game of hockey went through a bit of a change in the mid 2000;s and they were still drafting guys that would have had more success in the 1990's

Lou was a great GM... his course ran out any devils fan should have nothing but praise for the job he did since 1987... they were one of the best franchises in hockey for 15-20 years.... first place practically every year and 5 stanley cup finals only a few organizations in hockey can be compared to the devils

detroit
pittsburgh ( and they were 100x more fortunate in drafting)
that may be it...

 

[captainscott]

Oh man, no. If you pay close attention to the league you'll see that this is not the case. GMs know a lot about their own team. They do not know the rest of the league. As an isolated example, Shero, who I like and think is okay, couldn't remember if the Devils, the team he now works for and a team who was in the same division as the team he GMed at the time, made the playoffs in 2012-13. Lots of people who play fantasy hockey would know the scorers in the league better than GMs, and I guarantee I know a lot of people online who watch more NHL hockey than GMs do, and I include myself in that group.

All this bashing might make you think that I think all NHL GMs are idiots, but I don't think that. They have different institutional knowledge. Anyone I've talked to who has worked in the NHL has a lot of respect for the front office people they've worked with, and I don't think they're just blowing smoke - there's some serious knowledge out there. It's just not the knowledge you might think it is. That's why the best approach, both in baseball and in hockey, combines this older, institutional knowledge with the newer statistical methods.

I think some take the advanced stats a little too far....just my humble opinion

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

I think some take the advanced stats a little too far....just my humble opinion

and I think some dismiss the advanced stats way too quickly....just my humble opinion.

 

[Devilswede]

Who are these teams that 'rebuild on the fly'? You can only sensibly do this when you have reinforcements coming through the minors. Lou's teams of the late 00s and early 10s did not have this.

I obviously didn't mean during our heyday years in 00-03, but from 2005 and 2014 there should've been a different approach.

Losing guys like Niedermayer, Rafalski, Gomez, Gionta, Parise, Clarkson, Martin, Fayne, Madden, etc etc for absolutely NOTHING in return will catch up to you eventually, and it did. There's no way anyone can survive that.

And combine that with giving up draft picks in trades for guys like Martin Skoula, Niclas Hävelid, Ponikarovsky, Tuomo Ruutu etc etc. The future was not planned at all.

I know Lou had a different mind and he was always going for it, but he also could've taken care of the future while still being competitive.

You can see what for example Chicago has done over the past few years. They've traded away big pieces, but they've remained successful because they've acquired good young players to replace them. Same with Pittsburgh.

Look at what St.Louis did this past season. They traded a star player like Kevin Shattenkirk while still staying competitive, because they knew they wouldn't be able to keep him. So they acquired future in exchange for him.

 

[JimEIV]

Yeah, 3 notable players in an entire decade of drafting is atrocious. That's pretty inexcusable.

I think it is very excusable...In fact, most who were here on this site at the time not only excused it, they vehemently defended it...

We knew we were trading picks and never picking high in exchange for wins...And we all relished it while it was happening. We all knew picking 51th overall with our fist pick in a **** draft year wasn't bringing back anything of value into the organization and we knew the 29 and 30th picks were long shots and laughed about in at parking lot parades in the Meadowlands.

 

[Patrik26]

Because he couldn't do anything away from the puck and pretty much just drifted this whole season and even when he did have the puck he couldn't do anything with it because he played god awful. Have you completely forgotten that half of his points came in am 8 GAME STRETCH. He went on a 1 goal in 41 game stretch. That is half of he season with 1 GOAL! I don't know how anyone could defend that Cammalleri played even decent last year, because he just straight up sucked.

There were Score-O contestants whose shots were harder than Cammalleri's.