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

[ZYXWVUT]

whether or not Alex Holtz has any value has literally nothing to do with a meaningless offseason tournament. There are enough things to talk about with Holtz, we don't need to stretch it.

IDK who else they have that are in scoring roles, but always a chance if he had made the team, it would be more bottom six, which is a waste and certainly wouldnt be a reason to take him to the tournament.

 

[NJDevs26]

I question his worth as a player based on all of the above, I only question him having 'trade value' because of Fitz's public comments, because if he did have trade value Fitz would be the ultimate knob scuttling it with criticism days before the trade deadline (or last offseason for that matter).

 

[My3Sons]

Me too, but not for #10 when I can get a 3C that can play 2C or higher.

Are you doing this on purpose?

 

[guitarguyvic]

It's kind of easy to not care about the semantics of one post when in his next post, he's comparing Nico and Bratt to Wood disparagingly when nobody brought up Nico and Bratt, as if a separate argument changes the initial point. You get all bothered about actual and perceived strawmanning but seem to have no issue with obvious whataboutism and deflection, which sends too many discussions down a black hole.

It's not whataboutism...he was responding to someone citing Wood's pedestrian playoff productivity in a seeming effort to dismiss the original point which is that players like Miles Wood score big playoff goals. His low productivity doesn't disprove what Jim said, and it's perfectly relevant to call attention to other players with similar playoff production to bolster the point, particularly when those players are overall considered higher caliber ones. It's a logical retort - Miles Wood's low playoff productivity tells us no more about his value in the playoffs or how important the goals he scored were than Bratt and Nico's similarly low productivity tells us about their playoff value.

 

[Guttersniped]

Wood had 2 playoff goals (and 28 PIM) in 13 career playoff games in NJ and got a ridiculous contract

good riddance

I like Wood, think he’s useful to have and I even get why Colorado signed him to that deal.

1) It’s only 2.5m, they might be able to dump him even when his 6 team no trade list.

2) He doesn’t have any signing bonuses, so the buyout isn’t that bad, and it might even make more sense to just bury him in the AHL at the end of his deal.

3) The team might have 7m on the LTIR until 2028-29 unless Landeskog makes a comeback.
He’s still trying to, they said in March he might return in these playoffs, but he hasn’t played since June 2022.

But I don’t care that he’s not on the team anymore. He wouldn’t have helped get us in the playoffs. He played more in a better offense, and on a better 3rd line that we could have put together, and he shot like shit.

This is Even Strength, it looks even worse for Wood if it’s just 5v5.



Ex-Devils can exist on other teams without making me unhappy. Good for Wood.

 

[TrufleShufle]

Its weird to me how many people freak out when a bottom six role player scores a meaningful point or something. It doesn't change what he is / was.

I mean isn't Palat's biggest defense around here the one meaningful goal he scored? Before "he scored X amount over."

Whenever he gets dogged on, that one goal is always referenced and it was over a year ago now.

So are we just talking about when players who use to play here but went on to other teams score?

 

[Guttersniped]

I don't think Holtz has value to anyone, hence Fitz going scorched-earth in public. You don't really do that if you have a hope in hell of trading the guy unless you're (Fitz) a total airhead. Dude couldn't even make the Worlds team above non-NHL players, maybe there is a reason he never 'gets a chance'.

I don’t think Fitz is an airhead but he’s a bit of a blabbermouth.

I sincerely doubt other GMs give a shit about the comments in his presser. Holtz struggled last season, you don’t need commentary from anyone to make that clear.

I don’t think other GMs would care if Fitz publicly praised him either.

The only thing that really matter about that is that it doesn’t have any negative effects on the player himself. Not saying it does, but team’s have to be confident about how public criticisms will go.

 

[Forge]

I mean isn't Palat's biggest defense around here the one meaningful goal he scored? Before "he scored X amount over."

Whenever he gets dogged on, that one goal is always referenced and it was over a year ago now.

So are we just talking about when players who use to play here but went on to other teams score?

Not from what I have seen?

Defense I have mostly seen on Palat is that his underlyings are still okay which is with regards to his current play

I thought most people thought the contract was fairly egregious at the time and still don't think it's very good. There may be a, "I get what they were thinking given how he has performed in the playoffs" situation, but I've seen relatively few people actually support the contract and I don't think that understanding what Fitz may have been thinking is the same as actually supporting it.

But I'm also confused by the comparison because palat has never really been considered just a bottom six player like Miles or boqvist or whatever other random we are lamenting not being on the team

 

[beekay414]

It's not whataboutism...he was responding to someone citing Wood's pedestrian playoff productivity in a seeming effort to dismiss the original point which is that players like Miles Wood score big playoff goals. His low productivity doesn't disprove what Jim said, and it's perfectly relevant to call attention to other players with similar playoff production to bolster the point, particularly when those players are overall considered higher caliber ones. It's a logical retort - Miles Wood's low playoff productivity tells us no more about his value in the playoffs or how important the goals he scored were than Bratt and Nico's similarly low productivity tells us about their playoff value.

It's the literal definition of whataboutism lol

 

[The Wumpus]

AbeSimpsonEntersRoomTakesOffHatDoes180PutsHatBackOnExitsRoom.gif

 

[beekay414]

• whataboutism
  noun
  what·about·ism ˌ(h)wä-tə-ˈbau̇-ˌti-zəm ˌ(h)wə-
  plural whataboutisms
  : the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

 

[JimEIV]

It's kind of easy to not care about the semantics of one post when in his next post, he's comparing Nico and Bratt to Wood disparagingly when nobody brought up Nico and Bratt, as if a separate argument changes the initial point. You get all bothered about actual and perceived strawmanning but seem to have no issue with obvious whataboutism and deflection, which sends too many discussions down a black hole.

You created a false premise then complained about the response.... classic

 

[Monsieur Verdoux]

If they want to bring back Stephenson I guess. Eichel, Hertl, Stephenson or Karlsson is a crowded center group.

I think it's pretty easy decision to keep Roy and let Stephenson walk for the Golden Knights.

 

[Better Call Sal]

Not to continue this discourse on Miles Wood, but he was an active liability in the Rangers series last year. He took a bad penalty in Games 1 and 2, and the Rangers scored on their PP both times he was in the box. He provided the exact opposite of what you want from a bottom 6 player, which is low event hockey with the occasional offensive production. He flipped the script both times, got scratched for it, and returned in Game 7 for 6 minutes.

I still like Miles Wood. I have his jersey. I'm very happy for him that he got a long-term contract. I'm very happy it wasn't us who gave it to him.

 

[guitarguyvic]

It's the literal definition of whataboutism lol

• whataboutism
  noun
  what·about·ism ˌ(h)wä-tə-ˈbau̇-ˌti-zəm ˌ(h)wə-
  plural whataboutisms
  : the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

First, we aren't talking about "wrongdoing". We are citing statistics for comparative analysis.
Secondly, even if you wanted to make the stretch and label it "whataboutism"...from a logical standpoint it's only an issue if it's being used as a non-sequitur that doesn't address or dispute the argument at hand. That's not what's happening here. I've already gone through more effort than should be necessary to point out how.

 

[MartyOwns]

what's up with all the 'nO gOaLiEs oVeR 30' posts? that's a really dumb edict.

also, wood would have been good to re-sign, but not to that contract. signing him to that would have been a lou move, which is the absolute last thing this team needs.

 

[beekay414]

First, we aren't talking about "wrongdoing". We are citing statistics for comparative analysis.
Secondly, even if you wanted to make the stretch and label it "whataboutism"...from a logical standpoint it's only an issue if it's being used as a non-sequitur that doesn't address or dispute the argument at hand. That's not what's happening here.

You're arguing about how poorly players have played in the playoffs for this team or another way of "wrongdoing" so, yes, it's whataboutism. One player was being critiqued so they felt others needed to be brought in. It's a classic example of it. If you can't argue the point without bringing up other players, it's purely whataboutism.

Talk about Miles Wood.

 

[TrufleShufle]

Not from what I have seen?

Defense I have mostly seen on Palat is that his underlyings are still okay which is with regards to his current play

I thought most people thought the contract was fairly egregious at the time and still don't think it's very good. There may be a, "I get what they were thinking given how he has performed in the playoffs" situation, but I've seen relatively few people actually support the contract and I don't think that understanding what Fitz may have been thinking is the same as actually supporting it.

But I'm also confused by the comparison because palat has never really been considered just a bottom six player like Miles or boqvist or whatever other random we are lamenting not being on the team

When his contract comes up and people complain about it, I've 100% seen the response "He helped score one of the most important goals in franchise history, that is worth his contract alone."

He was playing on a line with Mcleod at that point, which was bottom 6. I didn't and don't like the Palat contract, but it isn't that big of a deal and hasn't hindered us yet that I know of, so it's whatever

I just hate the idea that guys become absolute trash when they leave and it's ridiculous to talk about them because of how bad they are, but defend the same stuff that is currently on the team.

 

[guitarguyvic]

I'll also point out that "I wish there was a way we could have kept him" is not necessarily the same as saying "I think we should have signed him to that contract". That's the camp I'm in.

 

[My3Sons]

what's up with all the 'nO gOaLiEs oVeR 30' posts? that's a really dumb edict.

also, wood would have been good to re-sign, but not to that contract. signing him to that would have been a lou move, which is the absolute last thing this team needs.

I don't think anyone is saying they object to a goalie over 30 in the abstract. The only thing I see are a number of posters (including me) who are concerned with the idea of giving a goalie an 8 year extension that only kicks in when the goalie is over 30. I just think that is desperation to sign a goalie who has yet to play for the team to a long extension during what are almost certainly his declining years, but I understand others may not be bothered by that.

 

[TrufleShufle]

You're arguing about how poorly players have played in the playoffs for this team or another way of "wrongdoing" so, yes, it's whataboutism. One player was being critiqued so they felt others needed to be brought in. It's a classic example of it. If you can't argue the point without bringing up other players, it's purely whataboutism.

Talk about Miles Wood.

Unpopular opinion, mildly to not related at all to this current debate, but a "whataboutism" is perfectly acceptable if it shows the other person actually doesn't care about the thing they are pretending to care about to make point.

"That guys a dick, I saw him run a red light"

"Uh..I see you run red lights more than you stop at them.."

"Nice whataboutism, but we are talking about him."

 

[beekay414]

Unpopular opinion, mildly to not related at all to this current debate, but a "whataboutism" is perfectly acceptable if it shows the other person actually doesn't care about the thing they are pretending to care about to make point.

"That guys a dick, I saw him run a red light"

"Uh..I see you run red lights more than you stop at them.."

"Nice whataboutism, but we are talking about him."

They have there uses but they're lazy in the sense of forum arguments or political discourse.

 

[guitarguyvic]

You're arguing about how poorly players have played in the playoffs for this team or another way of "wrongdoing" so, yes, it's whataboutism. One player was being critiqued so they felt others needed to be brought in. It's a classic example of it. If you can't argue the point without bringing up other players, it's purely whataboutism.

Talk about Miles Wood.

Not accurate. The original statement was that players like Miles Wood score big goals in the playoffs, and the poster wished we still had him on the team, it was not about how poorly players have played in the playoffs for this team.

Someone else attempted to dismiss and dispute the original idea (that players like Wood score big goals in the playoffs and he would bring value to the team in the playoffs) by citing Wood's playoff statistics.

Playoff productivity alone is not solid evidence against the original point. It is perfectly logical and appropriate to cite other players with similar statistics to highlight this problem with the response.

 

[Richer's Ghost]

Never change HF, never change.

 

[Forge]

When his contract comes up and people complain about it, I've 100% seen the response "He helped score one of the most important goals in franchise history, that is worth his contract alone."

He was playing on a line with Mcleod at that point, which was bottom 6. I didn't and don't like the Palat contract, but it isn't that big of a deal and hasn't hindered us yet that I know of, so it's whatever

I just hate the idea that guys become absolute trash when they leave and it's ridiculous to talk about them because of how bad they are, but defend the same stuff that is currently on the team.

Yeah, I dunno. I've never seen anyone defend it in that way before, but I'll take your word for it. Right now the strongest defense of palat usually comes down to his underlying numbers still being good and him just not being the biggest problem on the roster.

And nobody said that Wood is trash. I said that he is what he always has been. He hasn't really changed since going to Colorado. If you didn't want to sign him at the end of last season, there's no reason to regret that stance or change your opinion just because he scored an overtime goal. He's not suddenly a substantially better player that the team should have re-signed.