Primary Sidebar
Devils Fan Confidence Poll
Last tallied on 07/28.
Presented by
Please help with Nashville flood relief!
In Lou We Trust Apparel
Player Fan Pages
Prospect Profile: Brandon Burlon
by Tom Stivali on Jul 29, 2010 10:45 PM EDT
in Prospects - Devils & Otherwise
11 comments
In the first three prospect profiles I posted I looked at some of the organizational depth the Devils have on defense and reviewed prospects Matt Taormina, Tyler Eckford and Alexander Urbom. Keeping with the defensive theme, I will now look at 2008 2nd round pick (52nd overall) Brandon Burlon.
Burlon has been one of the Devils' ‘silent prospects'. Hockey's Future has had him ranked as the Devils 7th and 8th overall prospect in the last two years, but besides posts on ILWT and Hockey's Future there has been little fanfare or information posted on Devils sites about Burlon. Hockey's Future has always been one of his proponents though as you can see from the following write-up in 2008:
Set to play at the University of Michigan this fall, he's probably at least three collegiate seasons away from turning pro, but he is only going to get better and better and his skill set is tailor made for the up-tempo style of play in the NHL. This will quite possibly be the lowest that Burlon will ever be ranked in the top 20.
You have probably heard little about Burlon due to the fact that he is playing NCAA hockey at the University of Michigan [he will be joined by 2010 2nd round pick Jon Merrill] and we don't see or get regular updates on his progress. (Although I will do my best to keep everyone informed in the future)
Fans and media alike tend to focus on high-end prospects (Jacob Josefson, Mattias Tedenby) and steady, developing prospects like Burlon tend to get lost in the shuffle. Burlon isn't a player that will wow us but he is one that looks poised to have a solid career contributing to a hockey club. After the jump we will look at how Burlon got to this point in his hockey career.
Mark Fraser Re-Signs: What Does this Mean for the Devils
by Kevin Sellathamby on Jul 28, 2010 7:30 PM EDT
in Devils Issues & Views
32 comments
Earlier today, the Devils have re-signed Defenseman Mark Fraser to a 1-year, one way deal today, worth $500 000 dollars. As I mentioned in the fanshot announcing this news, Fraser will recieve the same amount of money he made last year, and he will not go to arbitration, which is good. While Fraser wasn't the most impressive player out there, if he had went to arbitration, he could've made abit more than the $500 000 that he's going to make in the upcoming season. With Cap space at a premium (The Devils are currently over the cap if you count the Kovalchuk contract), re-signing Fraser for cheap means that Lou made a good move here as the cap conundrum will be much easier to sort out for the Devils.
| Year | Team | GP | G | A | P | +/- | PIM | PPG | SHG | GWG | GTG | SOG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | Devils | 61 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 |
Devils Re-Sign Mark Fraser
according to Tom Gulitti, the deal is a one year, one way deal worth $500 000. Fraser's salary last year was $500 000, meaning he did not recieve a raise in salary. The Devils also avoid arbitration with Fraser.
Jeff Vanderbeek & New Jersey Devils Alumni Met with Fans in First Stop of Jersey Tour in Long Branch
by John Fischer on Jul 27, 2010 11:06 PM EDT
in Devils Issues & Views
37 comments
New Jersey Devils owner Jeff Vanderbeek is interested in the fans' opinion; enough to go to parts of the state and interact with them directly. They've kicked off what has been titled the Jersey Tour in Long Branch this evening. The event was MC'ed by Devils radio announcer Matt Loughlin, featured the mascot, Devils alumni Ken Daneyko, Grant Marshall, and Bruce Driver, food and drink, and - most of all - the opportunity to ask Jeff any question about the team or the Prudential Center in a public forum.
This is the first of such events and the Devils have planned four in total so far to gauge whether there would be interest in such an open forum. I don't know where the other three events are; but as soon as I get word from the Devils, I will let you know. Provided it isn't too late to let you know, that is. The event in Long Branch was held at McCloon's Pier House and there were only 100 slots available for anyone to RSVP, first come, first serve, regardless of whether you were a season ticket holder or just a casual fan.
According to Jeff Vanderbeek, while the initial emails were sent out 5 days ago, it only took about 1 hour and 50 minutes for the whole event to be filled. And they clearly showed up on a Tuesday evening for the event, interacting with Jeff and the alumni both before and after in good spirits in addition to asking a variety of questions in an informal environment.
Needless to say, I think the first stop went well from my standpoint.
Switching tracks a bit, thanks to the New Jersey Devils organization, I was able to get a media credential for this event, so I was able to hear Jeff answer questions from the media separate from the event in addition to the public Q & A session. I even asked a few of my own. I believe the Devils were recording the public event, so if there is video from that, it should be up in a few days. All the same, I'll list what I've heard in both sessions after the jump.
Ilya Kovalchuk, A Contract Rejection, A Filed Grievance, and Two Outcomes: A Poll
by John Fischer on Jul 26, 2010 8:06 PM EDT
in What Do You Think?
78 comments
Today, the National Hockey League Player's Association, the union, did file a grievance to the NHL's rejection of the $102 million/17 year contract between Ilya Kovalchuk and the New Jersey Devils.
I've written at length for the past few days explaining why I don't think the contract violated Article 50, which defines the Upper Limit (a.k.a. the salary cap ceiling) and the Maximum Player Salary. The two areas the NHL claims that was circumvented I've also explained that the events done so far - the rejection of the contract (per Article 11.6.(a)(i)), the wait for the NHLPA to file a grievance, and the NHLPA actually filing a grievance - all fits under the provisions of Article 11.6(a). There will be an arbitration hearing to determine whether the NHL's rejection was valid. Therefore, the provisions being followed are under Article 11.6(a) and will continue flowing down that path.
I've also written a second post later that day on why Article 26.13 does not apply to this situation at this juncture. Unless the NHL has conducted an investigation into whether the Kovalchuk contract was circumvention in some form (Article 26.10); the NHL met with all parties involved in a joint discussion for possible circumvention to reconcile the issue (Article 26.12); and attempts at reconciliation failed, the NHL (or the PA) filed for the Systems Arbitrator, and said arbitrator agrees with the NHL's claims within 7 days (Article 26.13(a)), then and only then do the penalties described in 26.13(c) apply. That's a lot to happen completely under the radar, so unless there's some news of some of this or all of this happening, there's no reason at all to worry about Article 26.13. On top of that, Article 26 isn't even called out in Article 11. Do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
You don't even need to believe me. Here is a PDF of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Read through Article 11 and 26, compare what has happened to what is described in each, and decide for yourself what provisions are being followed. I think you'll agree that it's Article 11.6 and not any part of Article 26.13.
To that end, let's have an entirely informal poll. At some point in the future, the NHLPA and the NHL will go in front of an arbitrator and argue whether the rejection is valid or not. How do you think they'll decide? I've cited the two possible scenarios under Article 11.6(a) after the jump in case you're interested in the actual text of the CBA. While I can't control how you vote, please vote on what you think will happen - not what you want to happen.
Please feel free to elaborate on what you will think will happen in the comments. If I am mistaken in my citation of the CBA, please point out where exactly I got it wrong and I'll correct this post accordingly. As far as what to do in the meantime, may I suggest relaxing while you wait? There's no need to get worked up over something that hasn't happened yet, in my opinion. All the same, thanks for reading.
The NHLPA Filed A Grievance on Ilya Kovalchuk's contract rejection
Per TSN's Darren Dreger, It's official.
There will be a 48 hour period for the Arbiter to rule whether or not the contract is legal or not. According to John, the 48 hour period does not kick in until both sides have agreed on a suitable arbiter.
Update: The NHLPA has released an official statement:
"The NHLPA has filed a grievance disputing the NHL's rejection of the Standard Player Contract between the New Jersey Devils and Ilya Kovalchuk. Under the terms of the CBA, the NHLPA and Mr. Kovalchuk are entitled to an expedited resolution of this matter. The NHLPA will have no further comment until this matter has been resolved by an Arbitrator."
Reviewing the Goals Allowed by Martin Brodeur: January 2010
by John Fischer on Jul 25, 2010 9:00 AM EDT
in Devils Issues & Views
6 comments
This is the fourth of a series of posts looking at all 168 goals that Martin Brodeur gave up in the 2009-10 season. The intent of this series to identify what goals allowed were soft, where Brodeur was beaten, and any other additional information about how the goals got past Brodeur. You can review the past three months consisting of 79 goals (47.02% of all goals allowed) in these three posts: October 2009; November 2009; and December 2009. I've already done the 2010 playoffs with this review back in April, so check that out if you're so inclined.
While Brodeur gave up 34 goals in December 2009, the most in any single month, January 2010 came awfully close with 33 allowed. The big difference between the two, per NHL.com, is that the record suffered. These numbers would look nicer with 10-4-0 rather than what happened in January:
It starts to make sense when you look back upon January 2009 as a whole. The team was starting to cool off, show that they started missing some of their injured players, and so inconsistent performances reigned. While they shutout the opposition three times, they also got shutout three times as well. Some nights, the defense would make a critical error here or there, and as such, Brodeur and the Devils suffered. Other nights, a few bad breaks happened and the Devils couldn't make up the difference offensively.
These were some of the things I realized whilst looking back in the 33 goals from this past month. Please set your viewing to "Wide" and continue after the jump to see what exactly I found and what we can conclude from those findings.
Prospect Profile: Alexander Urbom
by Tom Stivali on Jul 24, 2010 5:00 PM EDT
in Prospects - Devils & Otherwise
31 comments
Alexander Urbom was drafted in the 3rd round (73rd overall) of the 2009 NHL Entry Draft, he was a relatively unknown player to most Devils followers. Late round picks, especially those playing in Europe, are a little harder to find information on. Most of the information initially reported by any Devils website had some variation of the following description:
Great size, shutdown defenseman, can contribute offensively, but not that much (oh, and he was Jacob Josefson's roommate when both of them played with Desjardins).
More recently, Urbom was an intriguing prospect to many Devils fans when he received some ice time in 2009 exhibition games there was talk that he could possibly be a longshot for the team. To not rush his development, he went to play for the Brandon Wheat Kings of the WHL (part of the CHL). After his rookie campaign there he was ranked 4th at Hockey's Future in the Devils prospect listing (behind Matthew Corrente, but above Brandon Burlon in defensemen) and he seemed to have a lot of ‘upside' as a prospect. It was assumed he would either head to Albany in the AHL next year or stay in the WHL for another year. That assumption changed quickly when Lou Lamoriello made the following comments following the free agent signing of Henrik Tallinder (emphasis mine)
Lamoriello said Urbom, a 6-4, 215-pound Stockholm native (same town as Tallinder) is, "our top prospect" and expects him to compete for a spot on the NHL team in training camp.
Now, on a big day in Devils free agent history (the loss of Paul Martin, signings of Anton Volchenkov and Tallinder) I feel like this quote didn't really get the evaluation it deserved. Top Prospect? Maybe Lamoriello meant to say "top defensive prospect"? Even if that was the case that would mean Lamoriello rated him higher than Jon Merrill, Matthew Corrente, Eric Gelinas and Brandon Burlon, which is pretty impressive off only one year of North American hockey.
Urbom, at only 20 years old does not have the extensive North American playing history (or even European playing history) of fellow defensive prospects Matt Taormina or Tyler Eckford. For me that is both good and bad. It is good, because there isn't that much information to find on the player. It is also bad for the same reason, especially because most of the information regarding his early career in Swedish Juniors and the Swedish Elite League are hard to find and once found hard to translate properly.
That said, there is still a decent amount of information to look through to profile his past. After the jump I will look at his recent past in Sweden and the CHL. Please set your viewing mode to wide.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Trending Topics: Odd arbitration decisions; more NHLers Tweeting
- Ovechkin wins fifth Kharlamov Trophy, talks Talbot
- Puck Headlines: Witt hits waivers; Kovalchuk grievance details set
- Jersey Fouls: Sharks get creatively awful; hockey movie pass/fail
- White, Flames agree to one-year deal; Bruins sign Wheeler
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
