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

[Jason MacIsaac]

Ulmark not waiving his NTC for a trade mid season to a team unlikely to make playoffs means jack shit. He has had time to consider with his family and essentially choose where he wants to play. Maybe he just doesn’t want to move ATM.

 

[NJDevs26]

I remember there being some talk that la wasn't the team he vetoed and I think it was frank who said that the LA trade just didn't quite get finished.

That quote makes it seem like he vetoed a devils deal, but Weekes indicated that he vetoed a deal based on geography, so that would be weird to do for Jersey

Geography could be code for location in the standings

 

[britdevil]

I really hope we don't give up a lot for goalie.

See the problem is, Jake Allen and Akira Schmid ain't getting it done.

It feels like damn near half the league is looking for a starter.

This trade is going to hurt. People need to just accept it for what it is and be done with it.

 

[NJDevs26]

See the problem is, Jake Allen and Akira Schmid ain't getting it done.

It feels like damn near half the league is looking for a starter.

This trade is going to hurt. People need to just accept it for what it is and be done with it.

The other part is though, how many guys are really worth ‘paying the price’ for at this point? Especially since most are short term options if that. Markstrom who had a meh second half and has been up and down in his career? Ullmark with his Vitek like playoff numbers? Saros who had an average year and just got outdueled by a third stringer in the playoffs? Sorokin who looks like he might have a Cory-esque early end to his career with a long contract?

A lot of these potential trades come off like spending the rest of your savings on lottery tickets cause you have no other recourse for paying off your debt type desperate.

 

[britdevil]

The other part is though, how many guys are really worth ‘paying the price’ for at this point? Markstrom who had a meh second half and has been up and down in his career? Ullmark with his Vitek like playoff numbers? Saros who had an average year and just got outdueled by a third stringer in the playoffs? Sorokin who looks like he might have a Cory-esque early end to his career with a long contract?

A lot of these potential trades come off like spending the rest of your savings on lottery tickets cause you have no other recourse for paying off your debt type desperate.

Totally agree. All have questions marks.

If trading for Markstrom can get us to the playoffs over the next two seasons, I'll take it. Anything can happen once you get there, let's just get there.

Trading from Markstrom also allows Fitz to re-evaluate in two years, rather than having to gamble it all with a mega extension.

 

[HBK27]

I feel like Markstrom is probably our best bet. His poor performance down the stretch last season, overall inconsistencies, full NMC and seemingly being jerked around by Calgary at this past season's TDL should all lower his trade value to a reasonable rate - particularly if Markstrom wants out, given Calgary is seemingly rebuilding. Markstrom has only had 2 career playoff runs, so maybe he tells management he wants one more chance at the Cup and "forces" a trade to NJ. Probably the best case scenario overall. Also buys us a couple of years to see how the young goalies in the Devils pipeline develop.

May be a matter though of whether or not Calgary is willing to throw Wolf...to the wolves, given he just turned 23 years old. He already has 3 solid AHL seasons under his belt though, posting a .924, .932 & .922 SV% so I'm not sure what he has left to prove at that level at this point and Calgary already has Vladar under contract for next season...though he was awful this past season (3.62 GAA / .882 SV%).

I don't really trust Ullmark, particularly in the playoffs and Saros is going to be very expensive in terms of assets and cap space. Nothing much out there in UFA, though Stolarz and Brossoit both had solid seasons in backup roles and at various points of their careers. Curious to see how they make out this offseason given the demand for decent goaltending.

 

[JimEIV]

See the problem is, Jake Allen and Akira Schmid ain't getting it done.

It feels like damn near half the league is looking for a starter.

This trade is going to hurt. People need to just accept it for what it is and be done with it.

I see the problem differently. I see goaltending, (while it was a problem) being made as an excuse for poor, soft team play and bad defense.

We had a few stretches this last season of good goaltending in particular January and after the trades and we still couldn't win games.

You'd hope a new coach can address some of that structural issues and maybe even get a little more out of the current roster defensively. But I think the flaws on the roster can't be covered up by a goalie or coaching.

We are small, soft, don't play defense very well, have no bottom 6 at all, our defense is still very young and inexperienced and has virtually no physical element to it at all.

Coach or goaltending can't fix most of those things.

And in my opinion giving up a lot for goaltending is two steps backwards one step forward with this current roster.

Edit: and paying a lot for 30+ year old with this current roster is just plain dumb in my opinion.

 

[TheUnseenHand]

See the problem is, Jake Allen and Akira Schmid ain't getting it done.

It feels like damn near half the league is looking for a starter.

This trade is going to hurt. People need to just accept it for what it is and be done with it.

The problem isn't that a trade will hurt in assets given up. The problem is all but about 3 goalies in the league would look like garbage behind the defense that was played last year. I'm not excusing the horrendous goaltending we got, but no available goalie is going to come here and look great until the team defense is fixed.

Allen played phenomenal for us and they still could not win games consistently. Or even come close. If you think Saros or Ullmark or Markstrom are going to step in and take a team picking in the top 10 to a playoff team, you're going to be disappointed. And that's what will hurt. We will give up a ton for a very marginal improvement at best. Negligible at worst.

I'm not suggesting we roll Allen and Schmid. But I am suggesting there are bigger problems that need to be addressed if any goalie is going to succeed on this team. Honestly I don't think this team is at a place yet where any of the available goalies are going to make a big difference. Just getting healthy is going to make the biggest difference.

 

[Forge]

See the problem is, Jake Allen and Akira Schmid ain't getting it done.

It feels like damn near half the league is looking for a starter.

This trade is going to hurt. People need to just accept it for what it is and be done with it.

Depends on what your definition for "hurt" is.

Like, for Ullmark, the Kuemper trade return seems like a good comp. That trade was a first + Timmins as the main piece. There was also a conditional third that was based on the Avs winning the cup, which they actually did lol. So Arizona got a third as well. So if you consider that "hurting", I'm with you.

The trade comp indicated in that article though is batshit bonkers though lol. And I don't think 10 gets moved for anyone. Saros with an extension I could have seen, but since they can't sign a deal until after the draft, I assume that would be scuttled.

I don't know if as many teams will be looking for a goalie as people think. Toronto, Devils and Kings seem like the ones who will aggressively go at it. But I don't think Carolina is going to look into it. Elliott has already said he thinks Colorado rides with Georgiev. I don't know that edmonton has the capacity to go big goalie shopping. Ottawa probably wants to make that type of move, but I'm curious how many waive for the senators. I feel like there are a few teams that would like to upgrade in goal but probably have to be able to move their own problem in goal first, which complicates matter (a team like Pitt, Ottawa, Seattle, etc)

 

[MartyOwns]

I see the problem differently. I see goaltending, (while it was a problem) being made as an excuse for poor, soft team play and bad defense.

We had a few stretches this last season of good goaltending in particular January and after the trades and we still couldn't win games.

You'd hope a new coach can address some of that structural issues and maybe even get a little more out of the current roster defensively. But I think the flaws on the roster can't be covered up by a goalie or coaching.

We are small, soft, don't play defense very well, have no bottom 6 at all, our defense is still very young and inexperienced and has virtually no physical element to it at all.

Coach or goaltending can't fix most of those things.

And in my opinion giving up a lot for goaltending is two steps backwards one step forward with this current roster.

Edit: and paying a lot for 30+ year old with this current roster is just plain dumb in my opinion.

we dressed 5 goalies this year, of which 2 were able to stop 9 pucks out of 10 (the 2 that got here with a few weeks left in the season). that is absolutely atrocious. to say those putrid numbers were a reflection of the team's lack of physicality is just you trying to shoehorn your narrative in no matter how absurd it sounds.

 

[britdevil]

Guys, I know this team has a myriad of issues. Absolutely no denial here on that.

But for me, it's like a tier list. Coaching and goaltending were my number one concerns this offeason. Fitz has addressed one already, quite well in my opinion. Let's see how it goes with a goalie, it won't be cheap that's for sure.

Defensive ability is third on my list. I believe we now have a coach that can execute on that. Ruff and Green, the chuckle brothers, were useless at this aspect. Piss poor in fact. Look at the roster Keefe had in Toronto, then look at ours. It's hard not to at least believe that they will vastly improve on the backend.

Softness, bleh. We can talk about this until we're blue in the face. My personal belief is that Ruff and co had this team play weak. You won't change my mind on this, so don't bother.

But this idea that the team should not spend on a decent starter, is crazy to me. A true starter can strengthen the entire spine of your team.

Build from the net out.

 

[BostonDevil]

I will, once again, state my preference for Markstrom. Least risky, least commitment, least cost. Has been a true #1.

I don't want to take the chance on the backup goalie in Boston who never really was a #1 on a team with some of the best defensive structure in the league. In his exit interview he talks about how he wants to stay in Boston too. If we end up prying him loose, he's going to be an emotional wreck on top of it.

There are so many things that remind me of Vitek in Ullmark if he comes here.

Go with Markstrom for a few years and see how the kids develop.

 

[Lindys Lazy Eye]

If we can get Markstrom and not give up a first - roll with Markstrom/Allen for 2 years or so.

But that doesn't seem 'big game hunting' so much as it does 'fishing for bluegill'

 

[amikaro]

To Calgary: Alex Holtz, Akira Schmid, Seamus Casey and a 2025 conditional second-round pick (upgrades to a first-round pick if the Devils make the second round of the playoffs in 2025)

To New Jersey: Jacob Markström (50 percent retained), Andrei Kuzmenko and a 2025 third-round pick.

I like that trade i stumbled on ...

'Who Says No?' mailbag: Where will top NHL trade candidates land?

Let's evaluate your trade proposals for Jacob Markström, Pierre-Luc Dubois, Juuse Saros and more.

www.nytimes.com

Yes or no?

 

[Devils731]

To Calgary: Alex Holtz, Akira Schmid, Seamus Casey and a 2025 conditional second-round pick (upgrades to a first-round pick if the Devils make the second round of the playoffs in 2025)

To New Jersey: Jacob Markström (50 percent retained), Andrei Kuzmenko and a 2025 third-round pick.

I like that trade i stumbled on ...

'Who Says No?' mailbag: Where will top NHL trade candidates land?

Let's evaluate your trade proposals for Jacob Markström, Pierre-Luc Dubois, Juuse Saros and more.

www.nytimes.com

Yes or no?

No.

I only get 1 year of Kuz, arguably the most valuable piece in the trade.

I may be getting the second best goalie in the trade. Maybe not but it’s certainly possible, especially in the final year of the deal.

And to do that I’m giving up a decent prospect, a good prospect, and hopefully a first round pick.

——————

I’m losing way too much talent, control, and money to only be improved for probably next season.

Edit: that columnist also thinks it’s reasonable for the Devils to trade the 10th overall pick up straight up for Markstrom and that’s borderline insane.

 

[Cheddabombs]

To Calgary: Alex Holtz, Akira Schmid, Seamus Casey and a 2025 conditional second-round pick (upgrades to a first-round pick if the Devils make the second round of the playoffs in 2025)

To New Jersey: Jacob Markström (50 percent retained), Andrei Kuzmenko and a 2025 third-round pick.

I like that trade i stumbled on ...

'Who Says No?' mailbag: Where will top NHL trade candidates land?

Let's evaluate your trade proposals for Jacob Markström, Pierre-Luc Dubois, Juuse Saros and more.

www.nytimes.com

Yes or no?

 

[Forge]

To Calgary: Alex Holtz, Akira Schmid, Seamus Casey and a 2025 conditional second-round pick (upgrades to a first-round pick if the Devils make the second round of the playoffs in 2025)

To New Jersey: Jacob Markström (50 percent retained), Andrei Kuzmenko and a 2025 third-round pick.

I like that trade i stumbled on ...

'Who Says No?' mailbag: Where will top NHL trade candidates land?

Let's evaluate your trade proposals for Jacob Markström, Pierre-Luc Dubois, Juuse Saros and more.

www.nytimes.com

Yes or no?

No. And that's a pretty comfortable no for me.

 

[Rhodes 81]

I will, once again, state my preference for Markstrom. Least risky, least commitment, least cost.

I don't want to take the chance on the backup goalie in Boston who never really was a #1 on a team with some of the best defensive structure in the league. In his exit interview he talks about how he wants to stay in Boston too. If we end up prying him loose, he's going to be an emotional wreck on top of it.

There are so many things that remind me of Vitek in Ullmark if he comes here.

Go with Markstrom for a few years and see how the kids develop.

I've come around on Markstrom as the best trade option simply because of your point that he should cost the least and provides flexibility.

But the closer Talbot gets to free agency the more intrigued I am by that prospect. He should be safe enough to be average or better, will only cost cap dollars, and likely willing to sign a short deal given his age. It's less boom potential than trading for a a better goalie, but the cost is so much lower. I think this would be similar to the Crawford signing which would have been a great move if he had actually played.

To Calgary: Alex Holtz, Akira Schmid, Seamus Casey and a 2025 conditional second-round pick (upgrades to a first-round pick if the Devils make the second round of the playoffs in 2025)

To New Jersey: Jacob Markström (50 percent retained), Andrei Kuzmenko and a 2025 third-round pick.

I like that trade i stumbled on ...

'Who Says No?' mailbag: Where will top NHL trade candidates land?

Let's evaluate your trade proposals for Jacob Markström, Pierre-Luc Dubois, Juuse Saros and more.

www.nytimes.com

Yes or no?

No way. Kuzmenko is nice but he isn't really the player we need and giving up Holtz+Casey+a potential first is all of our bargaining power gone in one trade. Sure the retention means we can still add in free agency but that's too much long-term loss for short-term gains.

 

[Forge]

If we can get Markstrom and not give up a first - roll with Markstrom/Allen for 2 years or so.

But that doesn't seem 'big game hunting' so much as it does 'fishing for bluegill'

I think Markstrom definitely qualifies as "big game hunting", tbh. At least when you adjust for the fact that the real "big game" isn't actually going to go anywhere (Igor, Sorokin, Helle, etc etc etc).

Markstrom and Ullmark are the headliners, imo.

I still have interest in Gustavsson though, ngl. There's risk involved, but I'm not sure the risk is any worse than Markstrom falling apart at his age. Given that I don't think he'll cost a ton, there's some really nice value upside potentially.

Ullmark is the least "risky", if you know what you're doing with him. Bottom line is he's a 50% starter and you probably have to continue that into the playoffs. But for the games he'll start, he'll likely be consistently the best out of the guys they could acquire. But again, you're alternating games and by the times the playoffs roll around, he could gas...so you're going to be reliant on Jake Allen in the post season

 

[Normal Devil]

I'd still much prefer Markstrom over Ullmark because he's capable of handling a heavy load if need be. Ullmark has never done that, and can't imagine he anything more than a 40-45 start guy in NJ. Marky can handle 55, and he's going to be cheaper to aquire more than likely.

 

[Forge]

No way. Kuzmenko is nice but he isn't really the player we need and giving up Holtz+Casey+a potential first is all of our bargaining power gone in one trade. Sure the retention means we can still add in free agency but that's too much long-term loss for short-term gains.

Agreed. Kuz is also a rental who probably has a value at the deadline no better than Toffoli. You figure a second +.

I think I'd just tackle that at the deadline if needed? And if we can't land Kuzmenko, I'm sure there will be plenty of other scoring wingers available for trade. They aren't exactly hard to acquire at the deadline, tbh.

Don't care about the third coming back. It has negligible value.

The condition on the first is poor. Makes more sense for that to convert to a first if the devils make the conference finals when the picks reset. Winning a round as a wild card hands over a decent first round pick in that situation.

Casey + Holtz + Schmid + pick is just way too much for Markstrom even with retention.

 

[Ripshot 43]

To Calgary: Alex Holtz, Akira Schmid, Seamus Casey and a 2025 conditional second-round pick (upgrades to a first-round pick if the Devils make the second round of the playoffs in 2025)

To New Jersey: Jacob Markström (50 percent retained), Andrei Kuzmenko and a 2025 third-round pick.

I like that trade i stumbled on ...

'Who Says No?' mailbag: Where will top NHL trade candidates land?

Let's evaluate your trade proposals for Jacob Markström, Pierre-Luc Dubois, Juuse Saros and more.

www.nytimes.com

Yes or no?

No

 

[Forge]

I'd still much prefer Markstrom over Ullmark because he's capable of handling a heavy load if need be. Ullmark has never done that, and can't imagine he anything more than a 40-45 start guy in NJ. Marky can handle 55, and he's going to be cheaper to aquire more than likely.

Not sure he'll be cheaper, but I'm fascinated to see how that plays out. Wouldn't be surprised if they get very similar value back.

Markstrom has a full no move, so he can make life a pain in the ass on Calgary, but the Flames have less reason to move him than Boston does Ullmark (Calgary ownership has never fully embraced a tank, so Markstrom winning them games and pulling them out of the bottom 5 seems unlikely to matter). The primary force pushing for a trade in that situation is Markstrom wanting out and Calgary getting a solid return. Markstrom seems more willing to just get away from Calgary right now which means he may not have many restrictions on who he'll waive his clause for. If you're decent and trying to win, he may be okay with that.

Ullmark, meanwhile, has an inferior clause but seems far less willing to get away from his current location. Also, there seems to be personal reasons for his NTC selections. He can craft his NTC in such a way that makes him very difficult to move and if he doesn't want to move, there's a decent chance he won't. If Ullmark does move and agrees to be traded, I think he probably can and will drive his trade to specific suitors.

 

[theoptimist]

To Calgary: Alex Holtz, Akira Schmid, Seamus Casey and a 2025 conditional second-round pick (upgrades to a first-round pick if the Devils make the second round of the playoffs in 2025)

To New Jersey: Jacob Markström (50 percent retained), Andrei Kuzmenko and a 2025 third-round pick.

I like that trade i stumbled on ...

'Who Says No?' mailbag: Where will top NHL trade candidates land?

Let's evaluate your trade proposals for Jacob Markström, Pierre-Luc Dubois, Juuse Saros and more.

www.nytimes.com

Yes or no?

I would need to isolate the trades to understand it conceptually:
Holtz and conditional 2nd = Markstrom (50%)

Schmid + Casey for Kuzmenko is not what I want.

I would entertain trading Schmid + Casey for Coleman (with retention, 33-50%). It stinks because we essentially received 2 1sts for Coleman (Foote + Mercer). Right now, Schmid is not worth a 1st rounder and Casey could be considered a top half 1st rounder. Coleman is older so his value is a bit less than in 2019. I would ask for a 2025 2nd in return, or remove it from the Holtz/Markstrom package.

 

[Saugus]

To Calgary: Alex Holtz, Akira Schmid, Seamus Casey and a 2025 conditional second-round pick (upgrades to a first-round pick if the Devils make the second round of the playoffs in 2025)

To New Jersey: Jacob Markström (50 percent retained), Andrei Kuzmenko and a 2025 third-round pick.

I like that trade i stumbled on ...

'Who Says No?' mailbag: Where will top NHL trade candidates land?

Let's evaluate your trade proposals for Jacob Markström, Pierre-Luc Dubois, Juuse Saros and more.

www.nytimes.com

Yes or no?

Remove Casey from the deal and keep everything else the same and we might do that. Otherwise the value seems too high from our side.

I also don't think Casey is going anywhere soon, given that he was just signed to his ELC after having two excellent seasons at Michigan.