mojo1917 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 @pilldocCharchidi just can't let it go can he... unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 E5 - Carter has requested a demotion to the Manchester Monarchs. Prepared to go in full "beach house lockdown" if it doesn't happen. The Monarchs are moving to California next season. It all makes sense now. http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150127/SPORTS0702/150129175 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 But it only creates about $900k in cap space. Does that really make a significant difference in what the Kings can do? Good Point, but doesn't that also make him more tradeable if only $900K is on another teams cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 And... the Monarchs play the Phantoms in Allentown on March 29th. THAT should be interesting, assuming he's still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 @pilldocCharchidi just can't let it go can he...unbelievable.What is Homer smiling about in Sam's world?Homer himself set the bar at "winning a Cup" and Richards is up 2-0 in that area...Getting himself out from under the mess he was instrumental in creating isn't a moment to pat yourself on the back as your team flounders away four years later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 @radoran just proves the stupidity and idiocy of the Flyers beat writers...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 @radoran just proves the stupidity and idiocy of the Flyers beat writers......That's like proving water is wet.It's something everyone knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Good Point, but doesn't that also make him more tradeable if only $900K is on another teams cap? I'm not sure I understand... you can only get $900k relief on an NHL contract now, so teams can't stash players in the minors. So by putting Richards in the AHL, the Kings gain approx. $900k in cap space, while carrying $4.85M in dead cap space ($5.75M AAV for Richie - $900k savings = $4.85M in dead cap space). Unless I'm reading the rules wrong? So he would count for at least that much on another team's cap in the event of a trade I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'm not sure I understand... you can only get $900k relief on an NHL contract now, so teams can't stash players in the minors. So by putting Richards in the AHL, the Kings gain approx. $900k in cap space, while carrying $4.85M in dead cap space ($5.75M AAV for Richie - $900k savings = $4.85M in dead cap space). Unless I'm reading the rules wrong? So he would count for at least that much on another team's cap in the event of a trade I would think. I think you're reading them right. What's different is the possibility of retaining salary. I think this moves shows Lombardi that no one is going to take Richards for his current production and contract - or they obviously would have. The question then is, what does it take to trade him? If Lombardi says "I'll keep $2M and gain $3.75M on the cap instead of just $925K on the cap" - leaving a team with a $3.75M "Mike Richards" on their cap - I think there might be more teams inclined to make that deal. And the Kings are much more motivated now to make something happen. The real question is: is Richards now more motivated to live up to his contract? If a team - say, Edmonton - could be convinced that Richards is committed, I think LA might get something of value back for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'm not sure I understand... you can only get $900k relief on an NHL contract now, so teams can't stash players in the minors. So by putting Richards in the AHL, the Kings gain approx. $900k in cap space, while carrying $4.85M in dead cap space ($5.75M AAV for Richie - $900k savings = $4.85M in dead cap space). Unless I'm reading the rules wrong?So he would count for at least that much on another team's cap in the event of a trade I would think.Yeah, if that wasn't the case some team surely would have claimed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'm not sure I understand... you can only get $900k relief on an NHL contract now, so teams can't stash players in the minors. So by putting Richards in the AHL, the Kings gain approx. $900k in cap space, while carrying $4.85M in dead cap space ($5.75M AAV for Richie - $900k savings = $4.85M in dead cap space). Unless I'm reading the rules wrong? So he would count for at least that much on another team's cap in the event of a trade I would think. Well what I was thinking was since Richards is on waivers another team picking him up wouldn't acquire the NHL cap space as they can stick him in the AHL. They would next year though. i'm not sure though... we need a new cap geek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Well what I was thinking was since Richards is on waivers another team picking him up wouldn't acquire the NHL cap space as they can stick him in the AHL. They would next year though. i'm not sure though... we need a new cap geekI can't imagine it can work that way. He's not on an AHL contact. He's on a one way NHL contact. A team claiming him takes that contact, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I can't imagine it can work that way. He's not on an AHL contact. He's on a one way NHL contact. A team claiming him takes that contact, no? I believe they can stash him in the AHL this season, but they still have the $4.85M on their cap. You are correct, there's no way to "bury" contracts in the AHL any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Good Point, but doesn't that also make him more tradeable if only $900K is on another teams cap? I just got lost on this. Is it still $925K if he's traded or does it go back up to the original cap hit? I thought the $925K was the Kings' savings for sending him down, not the hit for his playing in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I just got lost on this. Is it still $925K if he's traded or does it go back up to the original cap hit? I thought the $925K was the Kings' savings for sending him down, not the hit for his playing in the NHL. @hf101 Sorry, posted before realizing this has already been discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I can't imagine it can work that way. He's not on an AHL contact. He's on a one way NHL contact. A team claiming him takes that contact, no? yeah, it was more thinking than than anything. Carryon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howie58 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Hi Howie,You speak good sense. With GMs and owners, that may last until... Ooh Shiney!And then we'll just have another lockout to make it all better.Rux: You're right..I am being idealistic.... Go Flyers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Because Bobby Clarke was never anointed "The Next Bobby Clarke" and handed the role. Bobby Clarke fought, hacked, slashed, bit, punched and clawed his way to the top. Mike Richards was handed everything on a silver platter. Now he likes caviar and vodka on his silver platter and has tens of millions of dollars and two Stanley Cups to go with his Memorial Cup, Calder Cup and Gold Medal. The only player ever to do so. What else does he need to prove? To be clear, I think this is a classic cautionary tale, but what do you tell guys? "Don't be like Mike Richards - he never won any... oh,wait..."? He's also headed to the AHL and words like "retirement" are being thrown around at age 29. It's not like it's sudden either. His role with LA has been diminishing for a few seasons. Both teams he's played for have questioned his work ethic and dedication. He had some good (very good) seasons, but can you honestly say that's what he's remembered for? I'm sure he doesn't care, but that's also the reason he's headed to the AHL at 29. I don't think too many guys will be lining up to be first in line at that table. If it's possible to be both a winner and a loser at the same time, he's proof of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Not sure. He probably had a lot of raw talent and early success and kinda coasted on that. It's like those kids who coast their way through school because learning came easy to them, and then struggle at university/college when no one is spoonfeeding them and nothing comes easy. You gotta work for it. I don't disagree. I also think karma's biting him in the ass a little bit. You reap what you sow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I don't think too many guys will be lining up to be first in line at that table. If it's possible to be both a winner and a loser at the same time, he's proof of it.I also think karma's biting him in the ass a little bit. You reap what you sow. Only player in history to win what he's won - Memorial Cup, Calder Cup, 2 Stanley Cups, Gold Medal. Financially set for life - and likely several generations down the line if handled well. Still has his head on his shoulders. How many more hockey hills does he have to want to climb? What more does he have to sow? I think the real cautionary tale is one that everyone knew moments after the ink dried on his contract - making those sorts of commitments to a player is a Bad Idea. We will never see that kind of deal again, primarily because they're now illegal but also because I don't really recall one that has worked out as envisioned. Hossa? (Also now illegal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Only player in history to win what he's won - Memorial Cup, Calder Cup, 2 Stanley Cups, Gold Medal. Financially set for life - and likely several generations down the line if handled well. Still has his head on his shoulders. How many more hockey hills does he have to want to climb? What more does he have to sow? I think the real cautionary tale is one that everyone knew moments after the ink dried on his contract - making those sorts of commitments to a player is a Bad Idea. We will never see that kind of deal again, primarily because they're now illegal but also because I don't really recall one that has worked out as envisioned. Hossa? (Also now illegal). I'm happy for him. He doesn't have to do anything, but if he's happy with where his career is right now he's kind of a loser. If you want to know why I think he's a loser, just see my first post in the thread (or ones on other threads about him), because I'm not in the mood for a drawn out Richards debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'm happy for him. He doesn't have to do anything, but if he's happy with where his career is right now he's kind of a loser. If you want to know why I think he's a loser, just see my first post in the thread (or ones on other threads about him), because I'm not in the mood for a drawn out Richards debate. I never bought into the whole "next Bobby Clarke" schtick and my feelings are all over this thread - and others - as well. He was rushed into a position by a team that was desperate to make him into what they projected him to be. They made a complete commitment to him and then had buyer's remorse within the first year or two. Blew up the whole team and sent him away, only to see him win two Cups while their own team floundered. On the one hand, I completely agree that it is a "loser" mentality to have handled himself the way he apparently has and be "done" at 29. On the other, it's hard to call someone a loser who has won championships at more levels than any other player in history. It a definite conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I never bought into the whole "next Bobby Clarke" schtick and my feelings are all over this thread - and others - as well. He was rushed into a position by a team that was desperate to make him into what they projected him to be. They made a complete commitment to him and then had buyer's remorse within the first year or two. Blew up the whole team and sent him away, only to see him win two Cups while their own team floundered. On the one hand, I completely agree that it is a "loser" mentality to have handled himself the way he apparently has and be "done" at 29. On the other, it's hard to call someone a loser who has won championships at more levels than any other player in history. It a definite conundrum. (Most) People have two hands, why can't he be both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (Most) People have two hands, why can't he be both? That's the "conundrum" - he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 This is probably way out there, and I'll probably get crucified for asking the question but what the hell: Does anyone get the impression that Richards doesn't really even like hockey? I just suspect that he likes the lifestyle associated with it (recognition, girls, money, girls, fame, girls, etc., girls) but not necessarily the job itself or the work that goes into it. Clearly, he wanted nothing to do with the off-ice responsibilities of being a captain.He apparently didn't want to do the off-ice work like lifting, training, being in under curfew, etc. It just seems to me that the guy had a tremendous amount of talent and on-ice smarts and was able to more than get by on that (while making a pretty good paycheck) but when age started happening--which it always does--and talent had to be subsidized with WORK he was either unwilling or unable and, therefore, his play and effectiveness dropped. I don't know, of course, but just suspicious of this looking from the cheap seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.