Jpan85 Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 Would you make a claim. Could slide Lowery to wing and have Richards in the middle on third line.
Jimmy Pop Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 McKenzie: $5.75M cap hit for next 5 seasons after this. $7M this season, 6, 5.5, 4.5, 3 & 3. LeBrun: Kings tried to find interest over past month (incl Tor and Wpg).
Stickem Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 L.A. tried to deal him and we were approached. Don't know if we were that interested in a trade but picking him up on waivers might be an option for us, IF we're that interested. He might/could be an asset in a playoff run.
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 I would absolutely not make a claim with full salary. Im not even sure I'd do it at half the salary although someone probably will. he's got three or four more years on his deal I think. At half the salary....? Hmmmm, Im just not sure he's useful three years from now. But yeah probably at half the salary I'd take him because he's instantly make our bottom six a lot better and he's a proven playoff guy who will bring a lot of emotion and "lead by example" in the playoffs. But I assume LA didnt want to retain half his salary or whatever it might have taken to get him. Im sure the Jets would love to have him under the right terms and since the Kings wanted to trade him, we can assume Kings and Jets spoke about a deal. It didnt work out so I would suspect strongly the Jets wont be in on a claim for him.
Rich Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 That is a lot of money to tie up over the next 5 years. IMO the only way the Jets pick him up would have been a trade where the Kings retain part of his salary.
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 L.A. tried to deal him and we were approached. Don't know if we were that interested in a trade but picking him up on waivers might be an option for us, IF we're that interested. He might/could be an asset in a playoff run. Trade makes more sense because we could trade a limited asset and get Kings to retain salary. Jets wont go near him at that salary for 5 years. The last two years, however, are not too bad at $3 million (even though its a higher cap hit). Kings would have to retain some salary though. What were they thinking not buying him out?
mbrg Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 Would you make a claim. No. Wasn't a good idea during the summer and hasn't gotten any better now. His salary would have to get a haircut, followed by a buzzcut, and we already have players on our lineup who have many of his intangibles.
Atomic Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 Lots of money but hell yes I would do it. I refuse to believe he has fallen so far that he can't come back to being the player he once was.
Blueandgold Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 He's under contract for another five years? No thanks.
Atomic Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 L.A. tried to deal him and we were approached. Don't know if we were that interested in a trade but picking him up on waivers might be an option for us, IF we're that interested. He might/could be an asset in a playoff run. Trade makes more sense because we could trade a limited asset and get Kings to retain salary. Jets wont go near him at that salary for 5 years. The last two years, however, are not too bad at $3 million (even though its a higher cap hit). Kings would have to retain some salary though. What were they thinking not buying him out? Not every team can afford to pay a guy a lump sum of ~$20 millon to not play for them.
Jimmy Pop Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 Would you make a claim. No. Wasn't a good idea during the summer and hasn't gotten any better now. His salary would have to get a haircut, followed by a buzzcut, and we already have players on our lineup who have many of his intangibles. K, well I'd answer Jpan85's question with the same answer you gave as well, but... - Bringing in Richards makes far more sense now than it did in the offseason. We were largely considered a playoff longshot then, now - legit playoff team who *may* be aspiring to reach round 2. Clearly the weakest link on the roster is the bottom 6 FW group, which Richards fits perfectly. - We don't have anyone who matches his intangibles. I have no idea how he's fallen as far as he has the last couple of years, but what he has accomplished is signifcant and shouldn't be ignored (nor should his play this and last year for the record) A champion at every level - Jrs, Pros, International. Tough, physical 2 way forward with goal scoring ability. No, I wouldn't want him for anything near $5M. And no, certainly not for another 5 years.....but let's not pretend this is the worst idea ever. Richards would certainly help the Jets.
Noeller Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 absolutely not worth the money right now. Curious how much of a toll all that hard partying took on him over the years. Very curious... Mr. Perfect 1
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 L.A. tried to deal him and we were approached. Don't know if we were that interested in a trade but picking him up on waivers might be an option for us, IF we're that interested. He might/could be an asset in a playoff run.Trade makes more sense because we could trade a limited asset and get Kings to retain salary. Jets wont go near him at that salary for 5 years. The last two years, however, are not too bad at $3 million (even though its a higher cap hit). Kings would have to retain some salary though. What were they thinking not buying him out? Not every team can afford to pay a guy a lump sum of ~$20 millon to not play for them. The Kings can.
Atomic Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 L.A. tried to deal him and we were approached. Don't know if we were that interested in a trade but picking him up on waivers might be an option for us, IF we're that interested. He might/could be an asset in a playoff run.Trade makes more sense because we could trade a limited asset and get Kings to retain salary. Jets wont go near him at that salary for 5 years. The last two years, however, are not too bad at $3 million (even though its a higher cap hit). Kings would have to retain some salary though. What were they thinking not buying him out? Not every team can afford to pay a guy a lump sum of ~$20 millon to not play for them. The Kings can. You don't know the first thing about their finances.
Goalie Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 Pass. Too much money for too long really plus no real need for him. If this was 5 years ago Mike Richards? In a second but it's not even close. Is it the Kenora thing? Cuz I don't see the appeal in taking on that contract
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 L.A. tried to deal him and we were approached. Don't know if we were that interested in a trade but picking him up on waivers might be an option for us, IF we're that interested. He might/could be an asset in a playoff run.Trade makes more sense because we could trade a limited asset and get Kings to retain salary. Jets wont go near him at that salary for 5 years. The last two years, however, are not too bad at $3 million (even though its a higher cap hit). Kings would have to retain some salary though. What were they thinking not buying him out? Not every team can afford to pay a guy a lump sum of ~$20 millon to not play for them. The Kings can. You don't know the first thing about their finances. Please inform us all of the intimate nature of their finances then. Or are you really going to be so anal as to pretend it wasnt widely believed by almost all hockey insiders that the Kings were going to buy Richards out last year and were certainly financially capable of doing so? im not really sure what the Kings' end game here is. Perhaps this is a desperate move hoping someone blinks and snatches him but if he clears to the AHL I believe the Kings are still on the hook for $4.8 million of his cap. So why not trade him and retain $10million - $15million of his total contract and see if a team would take him.
Atomic Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 L.A. tried to deal him and we were approached. Don't know if we were that interested in a trade but picking him up on waivers might be an option for us, IF we're that interested. He might/could be an asset in a playoff run.Trade makes more sense because we could trade a limited asset and get Kings to retain salary. Jets wont go near him at that salary for 5 years. The last two years, however, are not too bad at $3 million (even though its a higher cap hit). Kings would have to retain some salary though. What were they thinking not buying him out? Not every team can afford to pay a guy a lump sum of ~$20 millon to not play for them. The Kings can. You don't know the first thing about their finances. Please inform us all of the intimate nature of their finances then. I don't know anymore than you do. Which is to say neither of us know anything. You read some speculation, good for you. It didn't happen did it? So maybe you shouldn't always believe what you read.
Goalie Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 Kings did try to trade him several times but that contract is so bad the only thing it sounds like other teams were willing to give up was their bad contracts. Think Clarkson for Richards type things. Why would LA do that. Why not buy him out? It's a valid question. Kings have a very rich owner for sure Brandon 1
New_Earth_Mud Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 Pretty sure we have the richest owner by a long shot
mbrg Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 Would you make a claim. No. Wasn't a good idea during the summer and hasn't gotten any better now. His salary would have to get a haircut, followed by a buzzcut, and we already have players on our lineup who have many of his intangibles. K, well I'd answer Jpan85's question with the same answer you gave as well, but... - Bringing in Richards makes far more sense now than it did in the offseason. We were largely considered a playoff longshot then, now - legit playoff team who *may* be aspiring to reach round 2. Clearly the weakest link on the roster is the bottom 6 FW group, which Richards fits perfectly. - We don't have anyone who matches his intangibles. I have no idea how he's fallen as far as he has the last couple of years, but what he has accomplished is signifcant and shouldn't be ignored (nor should his play this and last year for the record) A champion at every level - Jrs, Pros, International. Tough, physical 2 way forward with goal scoring ability. No, I wouldn't want him for anything near $5M. And no, certainly not for another 5 years.....but let's not pretend this is the worst idea ever. Richards would certainly help the Jets. I agree, but disagree. Nothing wrong with Richards the person or Richards the player, but Richards the player at 6M/5yr on the 3rd or 4th line is a problem for the Kings and it's a problem for the Jets. His resume is fantastic, no doubt about it. "Tough, physical 2 way forward with goal scoring ability." Absolutely. But, we already have that guy in Andrew Ladd, and his goal-scoring ability over the last 3 seasons is trending up, not down, and he costs less than Richards. Would I like to have another guy like that on the roster? Sure, probably every team would. The Jets have the youth coming up and Ladd and Buff to extend over the next season or two. 6M/5yr just doesn't fit that plan unless you do something like dump Ladd, and considering Ladd is significantly more productive than Richards, it isn't a strategy that makes sense. I like Richards, but he's screwed by his great contract. If the Jets go shopping in the next while a forward in the 2M/2yr range suits them a lot better, and some of those guys will come with great intangibles too.
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 L.A. tried to deal him and we were approached. Don't know if we were that interested in a trade but picking him up on waivers might be an option for us, IF we're that interested. He might/could be an asset in a playoff run.Trade makes more sense because we could trade a limited asset and get Kings to retain salary. Jets wont go near him at that salary for 5 years. The last two years, however, are not too bad at $3 million (even though its a higher cap hit). Kings would have to retain some salary though. What were they thinking not buying him out? Not every team can afford to pay a guy a lump sum of ~$20 millon to not play for them. The Kings can. You don't know the first thing about their finances. Please inform us all of the intimate nature of their finances then. I don't know anymore than you do. Which is to say neither of us know anything. You read some speculation, good for you. It didn't happen did it? So maybe you shouldn't always believe what you read. You're right. Applying common sense and logic to this, the Kings are willing to send Richards to the minors and still eat most of his salary but were not financially able to buy him out after winning the Cup.
mbrg Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 I'm sure they gave a buy-out a lot of thought but in the end chose not to. Paying someone 20 million to do nothing is not a choice most people make if there are alternatives. He's won 2 cups with them. They hoped his game would come back to the level that warranted his salary. It has not.
Atomic Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 L.A. tried to deal him and we were approached. Don't know if we were that interested in a trade but picking him up on waivers might be an option for us, IF we're that interested. He might/could be an asset in a playoff run.Trade makes more sense because we could trade a limited asset and get Kings to retain salary. Jets wont go near him at that salary for 5 years. The last two years, however, are not too bad at $3 million (even though its a higher cap hit). Kings would have to retain some salary though. What were they thinking not buying him out? Not every team can afford to pay a guy a lump sum of ~$20 millon to not play for them. The Kings can. You don't know the first thing about their finances. Please inform us all of the intimate nature of their finances then. I don't know anymore than you do. Which is to say neither of us know anything. You read some speculation, good for you. It didn't happen did it? So maybe you shouldn't always believe what you read. You're right. Applying common sense and logic to this, the Kings are willing to send Richards to the minors and still eat most of his salary but were not financially able to buy him out after winning the Cup. Yeah because Mike Richards is really going to be in the minors for the next five years. Come on. FrostyWinnipeg 1
The Unknown Poster Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 Atomic - you sure are grumpy today and do a lot of nitpicking without contributing much. So whats your prediction? They send him to minors, bring him back and pretend it never happened? Whats the end game? (I think I know but since you're an expert, you tell us). The reason the Kings didnt buy him out was because during exit interviews they asked him to do X amount of things over the summer (I believe that entailed fitness related things) and he apparently did more than was asked and they thought he'd contribute more. It was a stupid decision not to buy him out then. Will someone take him? Probably. If Im a team struggling to get to the floor, he's the perfect guy. He has 5 years left and the real dollars are less than the cap dollars. Not a great situation for Richards, but pretty good situation for a broke team.
Rich Posted January 26, 2015 Report Posted January 26, 2015 Total value might be less then the cap hit but he still has some high priced years in there. 14/15 - 7 M (would have to eat just under half of it) 15/16 - 6 M 16/17 - 5.5 M 17/18 - 4.5M 18/19 - 3M You only really see savings in the last 3 years and even then, it isn't a lot of savings as compared to the cap hit of 5.75M You can make that argument in the last 2 years, but there is this season and 2 more before you get there.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now