Depth is always an issue when deciding on signing a player, but I feel that term is taken in the wrong context.

I feel like a team should only acquire a player if he is better than anyone they have or can bring up. If this is the case, a team is not adding depth, it is making itself better. 

in the case of Petr Sykora, it is concerning that his only asset to the team may be "depth". Allow me to explain (I will be brief).

What I am concerned about is whether or not the Devils would scratch Sykora if he is not playing well. Is he only on the roster to play, or will the Devils use him situationally (in certain games)? Will the Devils decide to waive/trade him if Deboer and Lou feel he is not a value to the team instead of "scratching him"?

You see when I see a legitimate argument about the Pros of Petr Sykora, much like the one Matt made earlier today, I believe it is worth signing him if he can be the second line powerplay veteran, or be the player that provides offensive flair to the 3rd line and be the scoring presence needed for developing scoring forwards such as Jacob Josefson. However, when I see someone say "we should sign him because he brings depth", what does that really add to the team?

This raises an issue about player development.  If a player like Adam Henrique is playing well in the minors, is that player held up because the Devils do not want to waive/scratch Sykora? To me, if Sykora is not adding anything other than depth, we are in trouble. If Henrique could perform at the same level as Sykora (not arguing that this is realisitc), which one would you want? The obvious answer is Henrique because he is younger and has potential.

My final question then is why would you want Sykora in the first place if a prospect is ready to jump in and take the job? I find that the only way to answer this question is by arguing that "the player brings depth". I consider this a problem.