.. we traded a #2/3dman for a top tier forward. We traded a 2nd/3rd line forward for a top-pairing offensive dman. Winning. I liked Henrique, but Vantanen is what we NEEDED, and he's bringing much more to this team than Henrique was. We do miss Larsson, but I think puck-movers like Vantanen are harder to come by, and more difficult to acquire. So we upgraded on D, and heck yes, Hall is an upgrade over Henrique lol.
I knew Vatanen would be good offensively, but I didn't think he would be this good on both ends of the ice, and that his compete level was this high. He was getting pushed down the depth chart in Anaheim, so I was a little nervous. we really scored big with Hall and Vats.
- MartysBetter88

Firstly, the issue with the Hall trade was that it was an overpayment (as all of you may know...) from the get-go, and considering who we had as a GM, Shero f'd Chia in the ass with regards to negotiations guaranteed.

Honestly, if NJ wanted Hall, it should have had to be Larsson/2017 or 2018 1st, depending on what NJ would be willing to let go of, if we look at trade value and risk assessment (based on the development of Larsson, as he finally broke through in terms of his abilities 1.5 years prior in the 40ish games with Oates/Stevens and the year after (however offense [ppg] peaked in 2014/2015 and declined in 2015/2016 though), so still an uncertainty in terms of consistency). If not, I hang up that phone. Nothing on Larsson, as he is a beast of a player in his own zone and I think he can provide more offense (one risk involved), but losing Hall and not gaining an asset based on the risks involved with Larsson's development would not be enough for me at the time.

Now, the question goes back to you guys. Considering that Shero is a smart guy and he knows that the team going into the 2016-2017 season was going to be shaky, especially if he loses a guy like Larsson on the defense and he just added some new pieces, that 1st would most likely be a 2018 1st rounder if he thinks that Hall would be worth it on top of starting the negotiations with Larsson?

So would you still do a Hall for Larsson/2018 1st at the time of the trade? I'd wager that a majority of you in here would still say yes.

Thank god we wound up with Butcher and not Shattenkirk!
- FAZOOL

I'm certainly glad about how that worked out. I've been comparing Butcher to Rafalski.

Thank god we wound up with Butcher and not Shattenkirk!
- FAZOOL

Couldnt agree more. I was pretty disappointed after Shattenkirk signed in NY but man am I happy it turned out the way it did. 😁

Does anyone think we trade KK at the draft? I've seen alot of people rooting for that since his value will be pretty high after this season but idk if I'd want to see him go. He is a very solid backup and has shown can be starter if needed. What could he possibly go for?

Does anyone think we trade KK at the draft? I've seen alot of people rooting for that since his value will be pretty high after this season but idk if I'd want to see him go. He is a very solid backup and has shown can be starter if needed. What could he possibly go for?
- Devils4ever

I don't see it happening. A few reasons why:

1. Schneider is shaky. There is now questions whether the injuries have hurt his value, so moving out one of the solid rungs of a shaky ladder isn't the best plan; might leave you in a Dallas situation next year.

2. Kinkaid loves NJ and I think he wants to stay there, which will affect the team's decision about whether to move him. I "believe" he admired Brodeur growing up.

3. The goaltending situation is too volatile. We don't have a Schneider Luongo situation here: we have two guys who've looked hit and miss this year rather than two guys who look solid in their own way. Unless someone's called up (and we don't have Wedgewood anymore, and Blackwood took a big step back) that can make the situation less volatile, it's difficult to touch the goaltending.

The ONLY way I see the goaltending situation change in the summer, depending on what happens in the playoffs should NJ make it, is if a goalie is moved out and one is traded for, but one would have to be acquired first.

Does anyone think we trade KK at the draft? I've seen alot of people rooting for that since his value will be pretty high after this season but idk if I'd want to see him go. He is a very solid backup and has shown can be starter if needed. What could he possibly go for?
- Devils4ever

You trade him if the offer is good enough and don't look back. He's not as good as he is playing. If someone is offering a good prospect or a high ish pick, it's not even a question.

I don't see it happening. A few reasons why:

1. Schneider is shaky. There is now questions whether the injuries have hurt his value, so moving out one of the solid rungs of a shaky ladder isn't the best plan; might leave you in a Dallas situation next year.

2. Kinkaid loves NJ and I think he wants to stay there, which will affect the team's decision about whether to move him. I "believe" he admired Brodeur growing up.

3. The goaltending situation is too volatile. We don't have a Schneider Luongo situation here: we have two guys who've looked hit and miss this year rather than two guys who look solid in their own way. Unless someone's called up (and we don't have Wedgewood anymore, and Blackwood took a big step back) that can make the situation less volatile, it's difficult to touch the goaltending.

The ONLY way I see the goaltending situation change in the summer, depending on what happens in the playoffs should NJ make it, is if a goalie is moved out and one is traded for, but one would have to be acquired first.
- archromat

Very good points. I've thought that myself. Why would we cripple ourselves at the goalie position for a higher pick or medium prospect. It seems like it wouldn't make sense especially since we don't really have anyone else to fill that void. Blackwood is not nearly good enough to make a jump, for now at least. I agree that KK isn't an all-star but he has shown he can be a good back-up, add that ton the fact that he loves it here and we have no one else I don't see a good enough reason to move him.

You trade him if the offer is good enough and don't look back. He's not as good as he is playing. If someone is offering a good prospect or a high ish pick, it's not even a question.
- willschulme

But then you are left with what? Who becomes the back-up? I don't see anyone offering anything good enough to make me want to break up our goalie duo. I get it's not two solid studs but it could always be worse and I'd rather it not be.

Firstly, the issue with the Hall trade was that it was an overpayment (as all of you may know...) from the get-go, and considering who we had as a GM, Shero f'd Chia in the ass with regards to negotiations guaranteed.

Honestly, if NJ wanted Hall, it should have had to be Larsson/2017 or 2018 1st, depending on what NJ would be willing to let go of, if we look at trade value and risk assessment (based on the development of Larsson, as he finally broke through in terms of his abilities 1.5 years prior in the 40ish games with Oates/Stevens and the year after (however offense
- EdmHockeyMan[ppg] peaked in 2014/2015 and declined in 2015/2016 though), so still an uncertainty in terms of consistency). If not, I hang up that phone. Nothing on Larsson, as he is a beast of a player in his own zone and I think he can provide more offense (one risk involved), but losing Hall and not gaining an asset based on the risks involved with Larsson's development would not be enough for me at the time.

Now, the question goes back to you guys. Considering that Shero is a smart guy and he knows that the team going into the 2016-2017 season was going to be shaky, especially if he loses a guy like Larsson on the defense and he just added some new pieces, that 1st would most likely be a 2018 1st rounder if he thinks that Hall would be worth it on top of starting the negotiations with Larsson?

So would you still do a Hall for Larsson/2018 1st at the time of the trade? I'd wager that a majority of you in here would still say yes.

I actually want to ask you one question: What would you have done as Chiarelli that summer? List at least three preferable scenarios.

Keep in mind that Shero wouldn't have moved Larsson with a first. Chiarelli tried but failed. Shero only accepted one for one or Pete moves on.

I actually want to ask you one question: What would you have done as Chiarelli that summer? List at least three preferable scenarios.
- archromat

i've got the right answer for you, not trade hall.

i've got the right answer for you, not trade hall.
- Pomegrant

And lose again and devalue all your players on your roster except for Hall and McDavid...

Which is what was happening before that. They had to acquire a top defenseman to stop the bleeding.

Draft ?

If season ended today Devils get 17th I think. Joe Veleno keeps dropping, not sure why, he's very talented. Do we pick him up if available or trade up a bit to snag him?

But then you are left with what? Who becomes the back-up? I don't see anyone offering anything good enough to make me want to break up our goalie duo. I get it's not two solid studs but it could always be worse and I'd rather it not be.
- Devils4ever

Appleby or sign someone. Backups are replaceable

Thank god we wound up with Butcher and not Shattenkirk!
- FAZOOL

I don't think it was really one or the other. I wouldn't have minded both.

That said if we had both we wouldn't have traded Henrique for Sami Vats....so yeah. At this point, I'm happy because my sense is Sami Vats is the best defender and we are short of defenders who can really help lock things down.

Draft ?

If season ended today Devils get 17th I think. Joe Veleno keeps dropping, not sure why, he's very talented. Do we pick him up if available or trade up a bit to snag him?
- Leniwm1

I find it hard to believe he'll fall to us but I wouldn't mind.

I also wouldn't entirely mind trading down a few places and picking up little McLeod if there's nothing great where we pick.

I actually want to ask you one question: What would you have done as Chiarelli that summer? List at least three preferable scenarios.

Keep in mind that Shero wouldn't have moved Larsson with a first. Chiarelli tried but failed. Shero only accepted one for one or Pete moves on.
- archromat

Then I move on. No way do I accept that deal, regardless of how much we need Larsson. The value is off, I look somewhere else.

I'll give you two scenarios off the top of my head.

Scenario one: Explore the idea of acquiring PK Subban during that summer. Hall/our 4th for Subban at the time would have been something I would look at and seriously consider.

Scenario two: (goes back into the regular season): Added onto the RNH/Jones with our 2016 1st, which would have been more than enough for Nashville to take our proposal IMO. It would be a really ballsy move considering where we were in the standings, but my god, it means we keep Hall and LD, coupled with McD....

And lose again and devalue all your players on your roster except for Hall and McDavid...

Which is what was happening before that. They had to acquire a top defenseman to stop the bleeding.
- archromat

What are you talking about? Trading Hall and Eberle for nothing is not even valuing your players and they would be better off with them still on the roster. And spending money on players other than Russel and Lucic would go very far.

The only people who thought Eberle was bad was morons. All of the people that claim Hall is a "bad locker room guy" are idiots who believe in #intangibles.

Larsson isn't a top defenseman an what Chiarelli did can't even be seen as stopping the bleeding. What he did was drive a sword through the heart. They can't recover from the numerous organizing crippling moves he's made. It is indefensible.

Draft ?

If season ended today Devils get 17th I think. Joe Veleno keeps dropping, not sure why, he's very talented. Do we pick him up if available or trade up a bit to snag him?
- Leniwm1

I doubt he drops that far but if he does I'd love to get him. I don't see anyone that would be better that far down.

I'm certainly glad about how that worked out. I've been comparing Butcher to Rafalski.
- archromat

Good comparison. Offensively Butcher seems right there with Rafalski. Defensively he's got a little ways to go.... but playing with Scott Stevens might help.

And lose again and devalue all your players on your roster except for Hall and McDavid...

Which is what was happening before that. They had to acquire a top defenseman to stop the bleeding.
- archromat

Basically what's happening this season minus hall though isn't it?

And there have been lots of quality dmen moved since Chiarelli has taken over (Vatanen, Hjalmarsson, Jones, Demers, Hamonic, Hamilton, etc) not to mention they could have possibly taken advantage of the expansion draft. There's really no excuse for his asset management.

Basically what's happening this season minus hall though isn't it?

And there have been lots of quality dmen moved since Chiarelli has taken over (Vatanen, Hjalmarsson, Jones, Demers, Hamonic, Hamilton, etc) not to mention they could have possibly taken advantage of the expansion draft. There's really no excuse for his asset management.
- rmdevil313

Except no one can possibly assert it's because it's "minus Hall", because the Taylor Hall that was traded away literally doesn't exist anymore. He was transformed in this offseason from a 65 point player to a 90 point player.

In Edmonton, he's still a 65 point player and they're still tanking every season for draft picks. That was the train the team was on, and there was no getting off those tracks.

What are you talking about? Trading Hall and Eberle for nothing is not even valuing your players and they would be better off with them still on the roster. And spending money on players other than Russel and Lucic would go very far.

The only people who thought Eberle was bad was morons. All of the people that claim Hall is a "bad locker room guy" are idiots who believe in #intangibles.

Larsson isn't a top defenseman an what Chiarelli did can't even be seen as stopping the bleeding. What he did was drive a sword through the heart. They can't recover from the numerous organizing crippling moves he's made. It is indefensible.
- Pomegrant

Ya...

edit: I guess the GMs all thought he was good, that's why they rushed to make a fair trade for him.

Except no one can possibly assert it's because it's "minus Hall", because the Taylor Hall that was traded away literally doesn't exist anymore. He was transformed in this offseason from a 65 point player to a 90 point player.

In Edmonton, he's still a 65 point player and they're still tanking every season for draft picks. That was the train the team was on, and there was no getting off those tracks.
- archromat

i understand that you have thoughts, but none of them make sense.

Then I move on. No way do I accept that deal, regardless of how much we need Larsson. The value is off, I look somewhere else.

I'll give you two scenarios off the top of my head.

Scenario one: Explore the idea of acquiring PK Subban during that summer. Hall/our 4th for Subban at the time would have been something I would look at and seriously consider.

Scenario two: (goes back into the regular season): Added onto the RNH/Jones with our 2016 1st, which would have been more than enough for Nashville to take our proposal IMO. It would be a really ballsy move considering where we were in the standings, but my god, it means we keep Hall and LD, coupled with McD....

- EdmHockeyMan

Scenario 1: The Oilers don't have Shea Weber. Guess that's the end of that. Montreal tanked that season cuz PK Subban and Markov weren't able to hold the fort. They failed as a number 1 pairing. The Oilers would have had to remedy that. Montreal had goal scoring on the wing with Pacioretty; they were weak at center and perceived to be weak at defense... so they don't want to cripple their defense on a winning team (healthy Carey Price) to pick up Taylor Hall. Draft picks was not what Montreal wanted; they were in a competitive window, looking to win now (ie, they got older with the trade).

Scenario 2: Okay, overlooking that you're in a situation where you're tanking and you may not want to give away your first round pick in a year where if you win the lottery, you get Austin Matthews, Jones was yet to hit his ceiling and RNH didn't have the value at the time to go in a one for one, certainly not Johansson's value so you said you'd add the first, but it would have been too risky, especially if Jones ended up developing the other way in Edmonton. Instead, he's playing in a Tortorella system in Columbus and ended up playing support role to Werenski, which did wonders for his career.

i understand that you have thoughts, but none of them make sense.
- Pomegrant

I understand that you think your opinions are objective...

That's all.