The thing with trades is that in general, the other team wants something back. If a team has too many defensemen and want to move one, they might be looking for a forward back to fill other needs. We don't have a lot of forwards that we'd like to trade because of our lack of depth. Let's say a team wants to trade a defenseman for some reason but needs defense back. In this scenario we don't have a lot of defensemen to trade back because our younger talent failed to develop in any type of meaningful way, excluded Severson in my mind. What about trading young prospects? Don't have a lot of those. What about draft picks? This works but do you really want to trade draft picks when you're team lacks prospect depth because of poor draft position and lack of ability to develop young talent.

Personally, I think singing players through free agency is the way to go. We're not going to get any of the high profile free agents until the team because more playoff ready, but you'll still get players that will be worth trading in the future or quality players until younger players develop.

The thing with trades is that in general, the other team wants something back. If a team has too many defensemen and want to move one, they might be looking for a forward back to fill other needs. We don't have a lot of forwards that we'd like to trade because of our lack of depth. Let's say a team wants to trade a defenseman for some reason but needs defense back. In this scenario we don't have a lot of defensemen to trade back because our younger talent failed to develop in any type of meaningful way, excluded Severson in my mind. What about trading young prospects? Don't have a lot of those. What about draft picks? This works but do you really want to trade draft picks when you're team lacks prospect depth because of poor draft position and lack of ability to develop young talent.

Personally, I think singing players through free agency is the way to go. We're not going to get any of the high profile free agents until the team because more playoff ready, but you'll still get players that will be worth trading in the future or quality players until younger players develop.
- Pomegrant

I would trade picks. Under circumstances where the return was players with years left before UFA status, like a Palmieri type situation.

I would trade picks. Under circumstances where the return was players with years left before UFA status, like a Palmieri type situation.
- smellmyfinger

i just don't know how many times you can trade a 2nd round pick for a 30 goal scorer before people start to catch on.

It seems like the system the Devils were using this year restricted Devils d-men from putting up points.

If an offensive d (preferably one with a shot) were to make his way onto the roster somehow, I don't know what he'll do in the current system.

This year, the Devils scored 182 goals and got 103 points from the back-end.

Last year, the Devils scored 176 goals and got 132 points from the back-end.

(This is quick math, so I might be off one or two).

MAYBE it's an aberration, or maybe Hynes' system is clearly jacking up the forwards, but taxing the defense. It seems like even if we pulled a 40-50 pt d-man this way, he'd only end up in the mid 30s in Jersey, tops.

The problem with fans is they tend to overvalue prospects and players in general. Usually because they think they're more knowledgeable than the professionals who get paid to value, rate, and scout prospects for actual NHL teams and not their fantasy league.

NJ has some interesting prospects, but unless NJ packages a pick, they're probably not getting very far at the negotiating table.

I'm in favor of acquiring another top-4 Defenseman, provided the cost doesn't deplete an established piece of the future at FW (which is really only a couple players), so in essence I'd be OK giving up a pick as a package in my opinion if it netted NJ a top-4 guy.

However, there may be a team that is willing to trade an established D-man who they feel with relative certainty will not re-sign in exchange for a prospect D-man they value or saw as a good, young defenseman who may develop in another year or two to replace them.

I'd be OK moving one of our as of yet "unknown" defensive prospects for an established player if NJ was certain enough they could re-sign that guy. Or if they thought they had a good enough chance, I'd trust their judgment. Of course, the other team would have to actually want one of NJ's prospects.

I'd be hesitant to move a 1st round pick in the next 3-4 years given NJ's likelihood of having some higher picks. I think this past season was sprinkled with a bit of overachievement and they very well could have a high pick next season (or not, who knows really). I'd rather they move a prospect and a 2nd round pick, but that may not realistically get the deal done.

Regardless of what they do with the defense, the FW situation is a more glaring need. I'd be willing to part with a 1st rounder maybe 2 years out for another legit top 6 guy who can safely be expected to chip in 30 goals consistently.

But, what top 6 FWs are available via trade?

And don't say Yakupov. Headache players who need "a change of scenery" or anything else to magically become productive don't bring in 1st round picks, I don't care where they were originally drafted.

It seems like the system the Devils were using this year restricted Devils d-men from putting up points.

If an offensive d (preferably one with a shot) were to make his way onto the roster somehow, I don't know what he'll do in the current system.

This year, the Devils scored 182 goals and got 103 points from the back-end.

Last year, the Devils scored 176 goals and got 132 points from the back-end.

(This is quick math, so I might be off one or two).

MAYBE it's an aberration, or maybe Hynes' system is clearly jacking up the forwards, but taxing the defense. It seems like even if we pulled a 40-50 pt d-man this way, he'd only end up in the mid 30s in Jersey, tops.
- archromat

Valid point, but realistically what "offensive" defensemen does NJ have right now?

Is that a reflection of the system, or a lack of offensive talent on the backend?

Are your expectations too high for players who are more defensively oriented and are not puck movers?

i just don't know how many times you can trade a 2nd round pick for a 30 goal scorer before people start to catch on.
- Pomegrant

True, but look at the Isles with Leddy and Boychuk, etc. teams get cash strapped and lose assets at a discount. It won't always be a 30 goal scorer, but if we can get a potential top 4 defenseman for a 2nd and 3rd, I say do it.

The trade deadline is usually a sellers market, the draft is usually a buyers market. We are definitely buyers right now.

It seems like the system the Devils were using this year restricted Devils d-men from putting up points.

If an offensive d (preferably one with a shot) were to make his way onto the roster somehow, I don't know what he'll do in the current system.

This year, the Devils scored 182 goals and got 103 points from the back-end.

Last year, the Devils scored 176 goals and got 132 points from the back-end.

(This is quick math, so I might be off one or two).

MAYBE it's an aberration, or maybe Hynes' system is clearly jacking up the forwards, but taxing the defense. It seems like even if we pulled a 40-50 pt d-man this way, he'd only end up in the mid 30s in Jersey, tops.
- archromat

The problem with this thinking is that you're just looking at numbers without context. Under Deboer we were a much better puck possession team so we were in the opponents end a lot more during a game. If you're consistently cycling the puck that means your defensemen are going to get more points because they are just physically touching the puck more. Under Hynes we were a terrible possession team and we scored a ton of goals off of fast breaks and odd man rushes up the ice. Your defensemen are going to touch the puck a lot less in these scenarios because they aren't in a possession to help offensively.

I don't think Hynes' system is inherently flawed from an advanced stats perspective, but rather we didn't have the personnel to properly execute it. We had a lot of players who were basically useless having to play lots of minutes. It's a product of the team being bad more than anything.

It seems like the system the Devils were using this year restricted Devils d-men from putting up points.

If an offensive d (preferably one with a shot) were to make his way onto the roster somehow, I don't know what he'll do in the current system.

This year, the Devils scored 182 goals and got 103 points from the back-end.

Last year, the Devils scored 176 goals and got 132 points from the back-end.

(This is quick math, so I might be off one or two).

MAYBE it's an aberration, or maybe Hynes' system is clearly jacking up the forwards, but taxing the defense. It seems like even if we pulled a 40-50 pt d-man this way, he'd only end up in the mid 30s in Jersey, tops.
- archromat

DeBoer loved to use the point men to generate offense. Almost every defender on the team under Deboer would average at least 1 shot per game and every defender that played with us the past 2 seasons saw their shots per game drop.

True, but look at the Isles with Leddy and Boychuk, etc. teams get cash strapped and lose assets at a discount. It won't always be a 30 goal scorer, but if we can get a potential top 4 defenseman for a 2nd and 3rd, I say do it.

The trade deadline is usually a sellers market, the draft is usually a buyers market. We are definitely buyers right now.
- smellmyfinger

I think its important to keep an eye out for anyone on the trade market. As you mentioned you never know when a player with untapped potential like Leddy or Palmieri will go for cheap. Unless we're getting a player with top line potential or is a top line player we should definitely be holding on to our first round picks but I have no problem giving up 2nd/3rd round picks.

Today @ 12:56 PM ET
Horvat, markstrom and Edler for Schneider, 2016 1st and Kyle Palmeiri

Keep dreaming! Schneider is here to stay!
- Crushers68

Horvat, markstrom and Edler for Schneider, 2016 1st and Kyle Palmeiri
- Itsjustarash

I'm missing something right?

The problem with this thinking is that you're just looking at numbers without context. Under Deboer we were a much better puck possession team so we were in the opponents end a lot more during a game. If you're consistently cycling the puck that means your defensemen are going to get more points because they are just physically touching the puck more. Under Hynes we were a terrible possession team and we scored a ton of goals off of fast breaks and odd man rushes up the ice. Your defensemen are going to touch the puck a lot less in these scenarios because they aren't in a possession to help offensively.

I don't think Hynes' system is inherently flawed from an advanced stats perspective, but rather we didn't have the personnel to properly execute it. We had a lot of players who were basically useless having to play lots of minutes. It's a product of the team being bad more than anything.
- Pomegrant

I don't think it's inherently flawed either, and I agree about the rest of your assessment.

I just don't think the team has an absolutely pressing need for offensive d-men if they're not going to be used as offensive catalysts to begin with.