[News] Mike Richards on waivers - CLEARS - Page 12 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

saillias · 01-26-2015, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buff

Has he really lost his touch?

He is still young at 29, but to have lost your offense already? That's too young to be on the decline. So, he can turn it around under the right situation, but what is the right situation?

To answer both questions... yes, he really has.

Here's a player who supposedly had poor fitness, yet played like a wrecking ball in his 20s and had well documented drug/alcohol problems.

Look at those guys from that 2003 draft class, most of them are slowing down... Phaneuf and Seabrook can barely skate.

heep223 · 01-26-2015, 02:10 PM

I'm happy that the Kings have this problem and we should not help them solve it in any way. I hope it becomes a distraction to their team down the stretch.

topfiverecords · 01-26-2015, 02:12 PM

Claim him, retain salary in trade to Edmonton. We need to do whatever we can to make the Oilers better for the rest of the season.

Weitz · 01-26-2015, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poe969

So you're friends with Craig McTavish??

I can't believe that the oilers would have no interest in him unless it wouldn't be until the off season. He is exactly the kind of player that team needs but those idiots probably wouldn't want him because it would mean they're admitting they need help and they're not "something special"

They don't him for the same reason no one wants him in Calgary or anywhere else in the league. Term, Money, and performance.

Caged Great · 01-26-2015, 02:16 PM

I would consider it, but probably not claim him. If the Flames could find a way to move Stajan out and retain Richards, I would.

Vulcan · 01-26-2015, 02:17 PM

Quote:

He is still young at 29

Setoguchi is only 28 and he's done.
I wouldn't even look at Richards with the depth at centre that we have. Soon we'll be looking at getting rid of Stajan, why would we want someone elses problem. As has been said we could use a defenceman or maybe a goalie but the otherwise, forget about it.

Vinny01 · 01-26-2015, 02:26 PM

Could Richards playing under Darryl be having similar production issues that Bouw had under Brent? Bouw came to Calgary as a 45pt 2 way Dman but not until Hartley came on board did he score at that pace.

Mike came to LA as a 30 goal 60-70pt center. Maybe under a more offensive style he gets back to the 20 goal 50pt pace and still plays that gritty defensive style ?

Likely too big a risk with that ticket

The_Future · 01-26-2015, 02:28 PM

Apparently Calgary WILL NOT be putting in a claim as per John Shannon.

LINKY

nik- · 01-26-2015, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saillias

To answer both questions... yes, he really has.

Here's a player who supposedly had poor fitness, yet played like a wrecking ball in his 20s and had well documented drug/alcohol problems.

Look at those guys from that 2003 draft class, most of them are slowing down... Phaneuf and Seabrook can barely skate.

No he didn't. There was outside talk of "dry island" crap. That's pretty damn far from "well documented"

DuffMan · 01-26-2015, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frequitude

For those wondering, he carries a $5.75M cap hit for the next 4 years (through the 2018-2019 season).

Actual cash owed starting next season is $6.0M, $5.5M, $4.5M, $3.0M.

That doesn't look too bad.

How about a team that is flirting with the floor

Beatle17 · 01-26-2015, 02:34 PM

Flyers moved him out because of supposed off ice issues when he refused to sign the commitment form (whatever it was called). According to the LA beat writer today on 960 with Dowbiggen, Lombardi met with him 3 times between the end of last season and the buyout period and together they laid out a plan for him to commit and workout to show up in shape, which he didn't do.

As a Flyers fan I wasn't even upset when they traded him for Simmonds/Schenn and a draft pick, I was more upset when they traded Carter. Richards was good as a young player but never committed to what it took to be a long term NHL star and leader. I really hope the Flames don't do anything to take this guy on the team.

The_Future · 01-26-2015, 02:38 PM

Dude has won a lot of stuff in his day, and he isn't 30 yet. I wish his contract wasn't so long. Would be cool to check him out then pass him on if it didn't. However if it did work…... it's a huge risk/reward situation. He plays a structurally sound game and is physical. He is a good player, just not at the money he currently makes. I dunno. I like him when he is good, hate him when he is bad. I think he is a good fit (money, off ice issues aside), its just a big, big risk.

Parallex · 01-26-2015, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

My oilers friends tell me that they have no use for Mike Richards because of Anton Lander.... unbelievable.

You need to make better friends... or at least smarter friends.

MissTeeks · 01-26-2015, 02:49 PM

John Shannon‏@JSportsnet12m12 minutes ago

Strike the Oilers off the list of teams that might have interest in Mike Richards. A simple "No" was the answer to the question about MR.

sureLoss · 01-26-2015, 02:52 PM

http://mayorsmanor.com/2015/01/full-...rsManor.com%29

Quote:

Three teams were most interested in trading for Richards. Yes, the Maple Leafs were trying to peddle Dion Phaneuf to LA. However, the Kings were not that interested, despite their need for defense. There were two separate deals on the table from the Leafs at varying points. One involved Phaneuf, the other did not. Obviously, Lombardi was not agreeable to either. Thus, it never came to pass.

One of the other teams involved was the Calgary Flames. There appeared to be a deal in place between the Flames and Kings, until Calgary allegedly changed the parameters of the deal very late in the process. Again, Lombardi was not agreeable to what was presented and no deal was reached.

ComixZone · 01-26-2015, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

http://mayorsmanor.com/2015/01/full-...rsManor.com%29

Good...good...play hardball Treliving. After it comes to pass at 10AM tomorrow that no one has claimed Richards, he'll be forced to look back at offers. I can't imagine the 925K worth of salary cap relief provided by sending Richards to the minors is the way Lombardi wants this to go.

T@T · 01-26-2015, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

http://mayorsmanor.com/2015/01/full-...rsManor.com%29

Serious bi!chslap to Phaneuf and the Leafs!

djsFlames · 01-26-2015, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

http://mayorsmanor.com/2015/01/full-...rsManor.com%29

Maybe we were trying to dump some salary the other way that Lombardi wasn't interested in taking on?

sureLoss · 01-26-2015, 03:04 PM

If I had to guess, I would say the framework of the deal between Treliving and Lombardi were worked out, but then Treliving asked for additional picks and/or prospects

FlameZilla · 01-26-2015, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

If I had to guess, I would say the framework of the deal between Treliving and Lombardi were worked out, but then Treliving asked for additional picks and/or prospects

Considering the dogfight we're in with LA for a playoff spot, I can live with Treliving trying to get maximum assets in this sort of deal. That Richards contract is a huge, longterm commitment.

If Richards clears waivers will LA be happy to just pay him to play in the AHL, or would their ownership put pressure on Lombardi to get it off the books entirely?