[News] Mike Richards on waivers - CLEARS

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I thought so too but hearing the comments from Lombardi I get the impression he really tried moving Richards with no luck. The Kings will have to do something with that contract by the summer when they need to sea with the cap and extension for Toffoli

This doesn't mean there wasn't interest from other teams, just that they couldn't agree on a deal. There was interest, but the term of his existing contract caused GM's to try and sweeten the pot more than Lombardi was comfortable.

Use caution with bloggers in LA. Aside from Jon Rosen or Rich Hammond, nobody has enough access to provide actual legit information. The rest, Mayor, Royal Half, etc. aren't accurate, just guessing.

[Meers]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

I expect Mike Richards will end up traded for a roster player rather than picked up on waivers. This is probably to gauge interest.

Um. No.

There's no trade if he's claimed.

A GM gauges interest by talking to other GMs. That's been done here, and there's no interest. Hence the waiver.

And no, the Flames should not claim him.

Richards looks and plays these days like Daniel Day Lewis' character at the end of "There Will be Blood."

[The_Future]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

No one could forsee the Richards fall off? That was a major discussion point for the media and fans this past summer. A few examples

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/co...s-this-summer/

http://www.thescore.com/news/518948

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/20...-mike-richards

Again the Voynov situation is kind of moot. It is exactly the same situation as if any cap team had an injured player.

Again Richards could have provided the cap flexibility to deal with Voynov or even a hypotheical Kopitar injury. Lombardi had the opportunity to give his club that flexibility he didn't do it.

You can claim forever and ever about how big of a mistake it was to not buy him out. You won't change my mind. Lombardi doesn't look like a fool to me, and he isn't an idiot. He is dealing with his problem now, and in my books thats what any GM should do. It's easy to call him a fool now, but hindsight is 20/20.

I wish our team had just won 2 Stanley Cups in 3 years. Richards' resume speaks for itself. I would never fault a GM for not throwing him away, especially with the recent success the team has had. Getting rid of a player because on analysts say you should is a sure fire way to lose your coaching job. He obviously met with Richards, and Sutter and made his decision based on that. You don't plan to lose players for a whole season. His team just won a Stanley Cup. You don't fix things that aren't broken. Again they obviously felt he served a purpose. Now their need is larger than that purpose.

I guess we will agree to disagree on this one, but I would kill for our previous GMs, basically since 1989 to now, to be as big of fools as you say Lombardi is today.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by The_Future

You can claim forever and ever about how big of a mistake it was to not buy him out. You won't change my mind. Lombardi doesn't look like a fool to me, and he isn't an idiot. He is dealing with his problem now, and in my books thats what any GM should do. It's easy to call him a fool now, but hindsight is 20/20.

I wish our team had just won 2 Stanley Cups in 3 years. Richards' resume speaks for itself. I would never fault a GM for not throwing him away, especially with the recent success the team has had.

You don't plan to lose players for a whole season. His team just won a Stanley Cup. You don't fix things that aren't broken. Again they obviously felt he served a purpose. Now their need is larger than that purpose.

I guess we will agree to disagree on this one, but I would kill for our previous GMs, basically since 1989 to now, to be as big of fools as you say Lombardi is today.

Wow... thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never said that Lombardi is a fool...

I said that not using a compliance buyout on Richards when he had a chance was foolish.

But sure whatever go with your narrative and welcome to my ignore list.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by The_Future

You can claim forever and ever about how big of a mistake it was to not buy him out. You won't change my mind. Lombardi doesn't look like a fool to me, and he isn't an idiot. He is dealing with his problem now, and in my books thats what any GM should do. It's easy to call him a fool now, but hindsight is 20/20.

I wish our team had just won 2 Stanley Cups in 3 years. Richards' resume speaks for itself. I would never fault a GM for not throwing him away, especially with the recent success the team has had.

You don't plan to lose players for a whole season. His team just won a Stanley Cup. You don't fix things that aren't broken. Again they obviously felt he served a purpose. Now their need is larger than that purpose.

I guess we will agree to disagree on this one, but I would kill for our previous GMs, basically since 1989 to now, to be as big of fools as you say Lombardi is today.

winning 2 cups is great, but it doesn't make you immune to making mistakes here and there. And Lombardi made a mistake here.

[The_Future]

Originally Posted by devo22

winning 2 cups is great, but it doesn't make you immune to making mistakes here and there. And Lombardi made a mistake here.

Again hindsight is 20/20.

[The_Future]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Wow... thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never said that Lombardi is a fool...

I said that not using a compliance buyout on Richards when he had a chance was foolish.

But sure whatever go with your narrative and welcome to my ignore list.

Whatever man. He isn't a fool, and he isn't foolish. It is easy to say whatever you want about his moves, or lack of moves 6 months after the fact that it has proved you right.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Meers

A GM gauges interest by talking to other GMs. That's been done here, and there's no interest. Hence the waiver.

Well it's not really that simple. It seems to me that there was interest, by more than one team, but that Richards has negative trade value. Lombardi would prefer have someone pick him up on waivers than to pay a price to get rid of him. If he clears waivers then Lombardi has to decide if he wants to pay the trade price or send Richards to the AHL and absorb the cap hit. It's highly likely that they won't want to eat the cap long term and will therefore need to pay the price to make a trade.

[sureLoss]

McKenzie transcript from TSN radio today.

Hope_Smoke @Hope_Smoke
McKenzie "I think they [Kings to buying Richards out] were real close. I know Lombardi is taking it hard on the chin today."

Hope_Smoke @Hope_Smoke
McKenzie "He was maybe blinded a bit by loyalty & basking in the glow of the Cup."

Hope_Smoke @Hope_Smoke
McKenzie "Lombardi went to Richards' home in the summer & said he should buy him out but he believed he still had something to offer &..."

Hope_Smoke @Hope_Smoke
McKenzie ".. told him he needed to work out & by all accounts Richards did work harder but the results aren't there"

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by The_Future

Whatever man. He isn't a fool, and he isn't foolish. It is easy to say whatever you want about his moves, or lack of moves 6 months after the fact that it has proved you right.

You do realize that there is a fairly significant difference between calling someone foolish (which sureLoss did not do) and calling their actions foolish (which he did) ... right?

[The_Future]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

You do realize that there is a fairly significant difference between calling someone foolish (which sureLoss did not do) and calling their actions foolish (which he did) ... right?

I understand that, and it is my mistake for not going back and getting clarity from his post.

In that regard I still disagree with saying Lombardi's actions were foolish. As the transcripts he posted from the TSN radio have shown, Lombardi made his decision based on discussions he had with Richards, and likely Sutter also. Considering what you have accomplished with said player, and said player's resume, I wouldn't think it to be foolish to keep him on your roster. In hindsight it was foolish, and now he is dealing with the issue. Had the outcome went the other way, he would look like a hero today. Again it isn't like we are talking about a 36 year over the hill player. Richards is 29, you'd have to believe there is still some gas in the tank. He has won on every level, this decision is much easier if it would have been a different player. I think all aspects in tow, it wasn't a foolish action.

[getoverit]

Nope, it was definitely foolish

Originally Posted by The_Future

I understand that, and it is my mistake for not going back and getting clarity from his post.

In that regard I still disagree with saying Lombardi's actions were foolish. As the transcripts he posted from the TSN radio have shown, Lombardi made his decision based on discussions he had with Richards, and likely Sutter also. Considering what you have accomplished with said player, and said player's resume, I wouldn't think it to be foolish to keep him on your roster. In hindsight it was foolish, and now he is dealing with the issue. Had the outcome went the other way, he would look like a hero today. Again it isn't like we are talking about a 36 year over the hill player. Richards is 29, you'd have to believe there is still some gas in the tank. He has won on every level, this decision is much easier if it would have been a different player. I think all aspects in tow, it wasn't a foolish action.

[Yoho]

Should have gone with "No_Future"

[SebC]

29 is old enough in that he may only get worse from here. The average NHL forward sees his socring peak at 25 - something GMs would be wise to consider when signing long-term deals.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by The_Future

Again hindsight is 20/20.

Which is exactly what a GM's job is suppose to be able to do...to predict. Using the "hindsight" excuse is rather ridiculous considering that's what Lombardi is suppose to be good at (which he is...but he made a mistake here).

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Meers

Um. No.

There's no trade if he's claimed.

A GM gauges interest by talking to other GMs. That's been done here, and there's no interest. Hence the waiver.

And no, the Flames should not claim him.

Richards looks and plays these days like Daniel Day Lewis' character at the end of "There Will be Blood."

It just happened this year with Derek Roy.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

It just happened this year with Derek Roy.

and with Bork...and it happens all the time

Player clears waivers and is traded soon after...the fact is most teams need to drop a salary to add. Using waivers to gauge interest is pretty common in the NHL

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

29 is old enough in that he may only get worse from here. The average NHL forward sees his socring peak at 25 - something GMs would be wise to consider when signing long-term deals.

No proof of anything otherwise...but i dont believe this to be true at all.

IIRC the best years are between 27-31 (or at least thats how it used to be) but maybe that has changed as the game has gotten younger. Just not sure its been "younger" long enough to have that kind of data.

[Vinny01]

It is crazy how much he has fallen off I once thought he was a franchise level player 5 years ago. Too bad for him he didn't get bought out that contract could bury him for a while. The Kings likely have to eat 35-50% of that cap hit

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No proof of anything otherwise...but i dont believe this to be true at all.

IIRC the best years are between 27-31 (or at least thats how it used to be) but maybe that has changed as the game has gotten younger. Just not sure its been "younger" long enough to have that kind of data.

I'll see if I can find it, but there's been work done and apparently the peak is approximately 24-27

Edit: best years are before 28, with 25 being the most common (the "peak"). Elite players peak sooner and stay high longer, their peaks are closer to 28. Average plus/minus is negative before 22, then positive until 30 then negative again.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/when-nhl-pl...rics-1.2646054