Devils discussion (news, notes and speculation) - offseason part II

[NJDevs26]

Then let other teams be the fools.

Right now it sounds like the team who hired Travis Green as a win-now coach is gonna jump the shark with Markstrom too lol

Except assistant coach Green won't be back. Thats a big omission.

Well he 'wasn't' part of the record breaking season, unlike the others. Most people here credit his predecessor for the 110-point season entirely lol

 

[HughesCorporation]

if the Islanders go in a totally new direction this offseason, what do the Devils need to add to 10 OA for Sorokin?

If 10OA + Mercer for Sorokin was put on the table do you bite?

Whats his yearly salary for the next 20 years of his contract haha. Might be doing them a favor contract wise

 

[MartyOwns]

I mean, coaches have been fired or stepped down later in the offseason. Patrick Roy abruptly left in late August after abruptly losing a power struggle. That was like 3 weeks before camp.

So it's not a guarantee, but it seems odds are very heavy that Rogalski WILL be the goalie coach next year. The team has been done playing for just about 2 months now. I think they would have fired him by now if he's not going to be the goalie coach next year.

Unless there's some sort of schism between him and management or him and Keefe that develops later on in the summer.

Or if by some strange set of circumstances some other goalie coach they didn't know was going to available or interested in being a goalie coach again gets hired by us.

i don't think that's what he was saying. he was talking about how somebody (as usual) took something somebody else said and is repeating it ad nauseum as if it's fact (marty played his hulk hogan creative control card and rescued rogalski from the brink of unemployment).

i didn't want rogalski back either, but in all fairness, he's been given shit to work with and the results reflect it. and that goes beyond the caliber of goalie's we've had; it also speaks to the bonehead system ruff continued to force even when it was clear teams had adjusted to us.

rogalski is pretty far down the line in terms of the problems with this team, most of which can be solved by trading the pick to bring in immediate help now and making a few UFA signings.

 

[forceten]

I am not interested in Allen playing enough games to upgrade the draft pick we owe Montreal for him to 2nd round. I'm tired of losing 2nd round picks.

 

[megajake]

Ullmark is good regardless of Boston. He was good in Buffalo as well.

He barley played on the Sabres and goals have been way up since his time there

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

He barley played on the Sabres and goals have been way up since his time there

???

He played 117 games in Buffalo. He has played 130 in Boston. Nearly the same amount.

 

[theoptimist]

Catching up on the last 20 pages of this thread was definitely a test for my sanity.

I think if #10 does moved it would be for someone who hasn't really been discussed / someone we don't know is available at the moment.

Jordan Binnington

 

[Louskoolaid89]

Who is that?

Palat?

 

[JrFischer54]

People rather have Markstrom over
Iginla?
MBN?
Helenius?
Bium?
Dickinson?
Eiserman?

This is an actual thing?

i rather trade the pick for help on the lineup now doesnt mean for markstrom but helping the roster now instead of 3-4 years from now is the move imo

 

[PKs Broken Stick]

Ullmark is good regardless of Boston. He was good in Buffalo as well.

....no he wasnt

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

....no he wasnt

this revisionist history about Ullmark is weird to me. No, he wasn't a Vezina caliber goalie in Buffalo, but he was still above average. He put up a .912 in his career in Buffalo on some pretty bad teams.

 

[Bleedred]

Ullmark's last two years in Buffalo (and much of his time there, save for the 18-19 season) were pretty identical to 2 of Ullmark's 3 years in Boston.

The Vezina season was the exception.

His 18-19 in Buffalo wasn't good, but other than that, he was pretty good there and his last two seasons in Buffalo were almost identical to his two non-Vezina seasons in Boston.

Boston probably did make him a little bit better. They seem to make their goalies a little bit better, which I'm sure is in no small part due to the goalie coach they have, who has been the goalie coach there for about 20 years I think?

 

[JrFischer54]

no thanks.


Iginla
MBN
Helenius
Bium
Dickinson

may be even Eiserman. And many other prospects like Chernyshov, Silayev, Hage, Solberg. Its not even close. Markstrom MAAAAAY BEEEEE has two years of his career. May be 30-50 good games. This players will play 7-11+ years for Devils.

10 OA is way too much even for Saros and Ullmark. We dont know how many game both have, we dont know how much money for how many years they wanna have on their new deal. Both will be UFA next summer. With Shestyorkin. If Devils want to make a big swing for a goalie, they should make it on the trade deadline for less or sign free agent goalie for free. So Im ok with trading Markstrom for less. We can trade him, play him with Allen and next summer let Allen go(or Markstrom to the hospital) and sign big fish if we need to.

i remember zacha mikey holtz guess no one else does

 

[HoliksGhost]

…”We need a goalie - don’t worry about my Cap, or #10, or Mercer or Holtz”… Lou

 

[Guadana]

i remember zacha mikey holtz guess no one else does

For you may be, not for me. Thats the difference. When you are talking about trading pick you are talking about Zacha and Holtz, people who know draft are talking about players from this draft. Overall- about actual prices and assets, not about "i don't know who they are reason its magic box". Magic box for people who believes in magic.
BTW we changed head scout from that period, Fitz drafted only Holtz, he did well with Mercer and Shakir in the same year.

 

[Forge]

yeah, I don't know where this stuff on Ullmark is coming from. Dude was a fine goalie in Buffalo. As Bleed said, not great in 18-19, but good the other two years. I think we can all agree that you can just throw out the Vezina year as being an aberration, but he's still been a solid goalie outside of that.

The reason I prefer Markstrom over Ullmark is that I have 0 faith in Ullmark's ability to play 50+ games in a season and I definitely have 0 faith in him being good for 23-28 games over the course of a playoff run.

I also like that Markstrom has 2 years left as opposed to either getting Ullmark as a rental or giving him a 6 x 5 or 6 x 6 extension.

 

[Guttersniped]

Good to know!

lol this f***ing league.

 

[tailfins]

yeah, I don't know where this stuff on Ullmark is coming from. Dude was a fine goalie in Buffalo. As Bleed said, not great in 18-19, but good the other two years. I think we can all agree that you can just throw out the Vezina year as being an aberration, but he's still been a solid goalie outside of that.

The reason I prefer Markstrom over Ullmark is that I have 0 faith in Ullmark's ability to play 50+ games in a season and I definitely have 0 faith in him being good for 23-28 games over the course of a playoff run.

I also like that Markstrom has 2 years left as opposed to either getting Ullmark as a rental or giving him a 6 x 5 or 6 x 6 extension.

I don't understand the bolded.

I understand that 2 years is a year longer than 1 year. But, what's supposed to magically happen in 2 years?

Is the timeline that Schmid / Daws are in the AHL next year, one is a back-up in year 2, then that goalie is a full-time starter in year 3? That seems incredibly ambitious. I know Daws will be 25 / 26 in that year, so timing is right (Swayman turns 26 in November). But, what happens if Schmid / Daws don't pan out? Or if they take a little longer (as others have pointed out, Markstrom didn't break out until he was 27).

I understand that Schneider broke down at 30, and Bernier at 33, but I think there's lower risk with Ullmark at 30 vs Markstrom at 34. I get that if Markstrom implodes, you're out of the contract in two years. But, what's the point of that if there's no replacement? We've just gone through years of not having a goalie. Would it matter if our bad goalie was the same guy vs a rotating cast of characters? And, if Daws is ready to take over in three years - ok, you've got an expensive back-up. I'd rather have that vs no goalie.

 

[Rhodes 81]

Yeah consider me dumbfounded that I actually gave teams credit for having the bare basics of conducting business in this league down and was proven wrong within minutes yesterday.

The dumbest thing about all of this is that this information being easily available is good for the league. Not just so teams can have discussions built from a mutual understanding, but also because fan interest is higher. Half the discussion on this board is meaningless if contract lengths and cap space is obfuscated.

 

[Forge]

I don't understand the bolded.

I understand that 2 years is a year longer than 1 year. But, what's supposed to magically happen in 2 years?

Is the timeline that Schmid / Daws are in the AHL next year, one is a back-up in year 2, then that goalie is a full-time starter in year 3? That seems incredibly ambitious. I know Daws will be 25 / 26 in that year, so timing is right (Swayman turns 26 in November). But, what happens if Schmid / Daws don't pan out? Or if they take a little longer (as others have pointed out, Markstrom didn't break out until he was 27).

I understand that Schneider broke down at 30, and Bernier at 33, but I think there's lower risk with Ullmark at 30 vs Markstrom at 34. I get that if Markstrom implodes, you're out of the contract in two years. But, what's the point of that if there's no replacement? We've just gone through years of not having a goalie. Would it matter if our bad goalie was the same guy vs a rotating cast of characters? And, if Daws is ready to take over in three years - ok, you've got an expensive back-up. I'd rather have that vs no goalie.

I don't want to pay Ullmark for 7 years. Especially given that one of the core components of my concerns with him is his ability to withstand the wear and tear.

They have a lot of guys in the pipeline. I can re-evaluate the position in 2 years with potential internal options. If I don't like it, I can then look externally again.

I'd much rather have short term stopgaps on guys in their 30's than committing to them long term.

 

[megajake]

???

He played 117 games in Buffalo. He has played 130 in Boston. Nearly the same amount.

Ignoring that goals were down back then? He was tied for 19th in 2019-2020 in save %. 39th in 2018-2019. 2020-2021 was the only year he was above average, and that was a 20 game sample. You need to look deeper into stats

 

[Guttersniped]

yeah, I don't know where this stuff on Ullmark is coming from. Dude was a fine goalie in Buffalo. As Bleed said, not great in 18-19, but good the other two years. I think we can all agree that you can just throw out the Vezina year as being an aberration, but he's still been a solid goalie outside of that.

The reason I prefer Markstrom over Ullmark is that I have 0 faith in Ullmark's ability to play 50+ games in a season and I definitely have 0 faith in him being good for 23-28 games over the course of a playoff run.

I also like that Markstrom has 2 years left as opposed to either getting Ullmark as a rental or giving him a 6 x 5 or 6 x 6 extension.

Ullmark was very good in Buffalo, when healthy. Ullmark’s biggest issue is he’s always had some trouble staying health.

He needs to be used in a tandem, you can’t get much more than 40 starts out of him. That limited work load, plus a Vezina, makes his next contract extremely problematic. He’s getting a raise from 5m and it will be more than 1m.

Markstrom has been inconsistent at times, he’s a workhorse. He did seem to miss some time with LBI injury stuff at the end of this season, which was unusual for him. (He also missed time with a fractured finger in Dec but that’s just a fluke accident.)

Ullmark is Mr LBI, though he’s been healthier in Boston than Buffalo.

 

[tailfins]

I don't want to pay Ullmark for 7 years. Especially given that one of the core components of my concerns with him is his ability to withstand the wear and tear.

They have a lot of guys in the pipeline. I can re-evaluate the position in 2 years with potential internal options. If I don't like it, I can then look externally again.

I'd much rather have short term stopgaps on guys in their 30's than committing to them long term.

But, we've just been through that. Our "internal option" (Blackwood) self-combusted, and our "short term stopgaps" torpedoed the team.

Put a different way: I'd rather the team commit to Kahkonen for three (or four) years than Markstrom for two.

Let's pick a direction and go with it. Enough of this kicking the can business. Markstrom is nothing more than a stopgap himself - and one we'll have to pay for in assets and cap space. What's the point?

 

[Captain3rdLine]

Let's pick a direction and go with it. Enough of this kicking the can business. Markstrom is nothing more than a stopgap himself - and one we'll have to pay for in assets and cap space. What's the point?

This ^^^
2 year stop gap that may or may not be good and then figure something else out in 2 years. And we supposedly have to pay a premium for it. Makes no sense.

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

Nemec, Mercer, #10 overall for Markstrom with no retention