You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on News within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. This may be a slow news day considering that this is both the off-season and the last day of a three day weekend. Of late, the two things discussed most
This may be a slow news day considering that this is both the off-season and the last day of a three day weekend. Of late, the two things discussed most over the last few days would have to be the Boyle to San Jose trade and the newly reported rumors of teams wisely being interested in Kings’ own Patrick O’Sullivan. Let’s take each separately.
Much has been made, mostly negative in Visnovsky’s mind, about the Oiler trade of last weekend. Visnovsky’s stock didn’t drop the way other athletes have (Michael Vick will probably always win that contest. *ugh*) Make no mistake, his play last year – all under the control of Visnovsky personally – had everything to do with why Lubomir is an Oiler. I provided my take on Visnovsky early on in my blogging gig on Hockey Buzz. The short version is he is not that comfortable in the English language. He may be the player who was most upset by the Demitra trade, a fellow Slovakian countryman. Lombardi’s signing of Nagy and Handzus, also Slovakian countrymen, may be one of the key reasons Visnovsky signed his extension last summer, or not.
If my speculation is accurate or not, I believe that if Visnovsky spent last season playing the game that earned him that extension in the first place, he would still be a King. I get he will never see it that way. That doesn’t make his opinion valid – just understandable. It is no easy feat to be able to take a step back and take ownership of what a person had to do with how their life played out. Personal responsibility and accountability require both a higher level of self awareness and some intestinal fortitude when the person involved is a public figure.
Fast forward to the last month or so where Lombardi is quoted as saying that Visnovsky through his agent had 100% knowledge he was on the block. Lack of knowledge and the proverbial surprise factor is where Visnovsky has been hanging his disgruntled hat. The Daily News reporter, Rich Hammond, wrote the following:
“Lombardi said that Visnovsky's representatives were well aware that a trade was possible, especially since there had been talks of a trade for the last couple weeks.”
I get that Visnovsky had no interest in relocating to Siberia. I do take issue with Visnovsky’s claim that somehow his trade is solely a black mark against the Kings and the alleged organization’s lack of professionalism/credibility. I have zero doubt he believes that. Owning up to one’s contribution to that very same person’s life is no cake walk. It is far easier and more emotionally satisfying to place all blame with everyone/anyone other than one’s own self.
Imagine my thorough pleasure that the actual last place team of this season may have just bumped the Kings alleged bad acts off the front page in favor of Tampa Bay and the Bolts. Boyle too probably thought he had a bolt tattooed on his backside. He claims three to four days prior to his trade that scuttlebutt of him going elsewhere was just that.
Heck, Visnovsky gave the Kings his wish list of team destinations which sure seems to contradict his claim he had no idea a trade was a possibility. His “No Trade Clause” was not in effect when he got the boot. In direct contradiction, Boyle had a valid contractual right to veto any and all trades. Nonetheless, if Boyle’s statements are accurate, then heck, the Lightning have their own perception issues which appear contradictory to new owners Koules and Barrie who say they are going to be known as a team that does the right thing. Here is Boyle’s take:
“I'm speaking from the heart and not trying to grab headlines. ... I've given this franchise everything I had. I love it. I love the area and the fans. But at the end of the day, I was misled and lied to and completely disrespected. When you're threatened to be put on waivers and end up in Atlanta, it was an eye-opening situation for me."
. . . .He said someone in the new ownership group, he would not say who, questioned his work ethic.
"He knows who he is," Boyle said. "But when your work ethic is questioned, I can't even, I'm at a loss for words as to what was said. It's absolutely disrespectful and not a way to treat a person."
No allegation of impugning Visnovsky’s professionalism or work ethic exists to my knowledge. This is something in the court of public opinion on the docket between Boyle and Tampa Bay. Thankfully, that is helpful to the Kings’ alleged perception issues. Boyle is a fish because the new ownership brain trust overspent elsewhere and decided dispatching Boyle was the answer. Bottom line from my perspective, in the PR wars, I conclude that the Bolts look far worse than the Kings.
Newest Trade Rumor:
Over the last couple of days, there has been press suggesting that the Rangers, Canadiens and now purportedly the Wild have ‘major interest’ in O’Sullivan. Let’s get the easiest part out of the way, of course teams are interested in him. Lombardi and Hextall have publicly stated he is part of the team’s core. That valuable a piece in the puzzle would no doubt be coveted elsewhere. That part of this rumor is easy to acknowledge. In fairness, Lombardi is taking his own PR hits this week due to the resounding scream of silent inactivity this week unless you consider trading for Gauthier as material activity. I already provided my take on letting Blake go so there is no need to reiterate that transaction/player further.
If these rumors are accurate, and more importantly if trade is on other teams’ agenda, then Lombardi has a new challenge. This being he is either wholly without credibility based upon his young core plan. Or, in the alternative, with Preissing and Gauthier being the most senior defensemen in the organizational depth chart, an offer Lombardi cannot refuse for obvious reasons is presented to him.
As to the offer sheet route, well……… if some team is so desperate to get O’Sullivan to offer him a Vanek type offer sheet where he will make anywhere from $7 to 10 million dollars next year, then you sort of half to let him go. There, I said it. As much as I want O’Sullivan to be the team’s next captain, a vacancy thankfully available due to the greed of Blake, if another team lays the gauntlet of an obscene proposal, then Lombardi has to check his emotions at the door and make a business decision to benefit the Kings. I would characterize that type of player transaction to be an excellent example of discerning the difference between the forest and the trees. But, it better be an off the charts proposal for Lombardi to justify it.
Rich Hammond on all this talk:
"I will be happy to get an update for everyone tomorrow on O'Sullivan contract negotiations. As for trade talks, I try to keep the blog focused on non-fiction. That will remain my only comment on that."
1. Is Lombardi the next and biggest flip flopper since Presidential candidate Kerry if O’Sullivan is elsewhere regardless of what the transaction gives back to the Kings for him?
2. Do the Kings really have a credibility/perception problem over the Visnovsky trade or is this more of a case of sour grapes by Lubomir?
Great post Carla. If the offer sheet to Sully is 3-4 million than I believe that DL will match it. On the other hand as you have mentioned,if it is an outrageous offer like Vanek's even though the Kings have alot of cap space then Lombardi has to say I'll take the draft picks and/or prospect,NHL roster player.
On the Visnovsky trade,if everything you say is true(which I wouldn't doubt it) then Visnovsky is the only one to blame for being traded.
On the Visnovsky trade,if everything you say is true(which I wouldn't doubt it) then Visnovsky is the only one to blame for being traded.
To be fair, my opinion on Visnovsky is in fact just that - my opinion. We will never know definitively if Visnovsky would still be a King if he had a different year. But, it sure feels probable considering the value of a puck moving defenseman on the open market. (Visnovsky at his best could easily be considered better than Campbell.)
If O'sullivan is part of the "core" of young players, then why has he waited to so long to sign him? I think he is shopping him. I fully expect for DL to let me down on this subject. I believe that a contract should have been done with Sulli before he became a rfa.
If O'sullivan is part of the "core" of young players, then why has he waited to so long to sign him? I think he is shopping him.
You had me until you suggested that DL is 'shopping him'. That would contradict everything Lombardi has said about how he plans to build this team and establish the non-existent "Kings' culture". I have no doubt other teams are fishing and DL is listening. If your suspicions are true, and Sully is being shopped, then I will volunteer to drive DL to the airport myself as he rightfully leaves town jobless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidc1968
I fully expect for DL to let me down on this subject. I believe that a contract should have been done with Sulli before he became a rfa.
I am waiting to pass judgement until this thing fully plays out. I completely agree with you that O'Sullivan should have been re-signed before it got this far. Other teams poaching was a 100% predictable scenario.
Make no mistake, his play last year – all under the control of Visnovsky personally – had everything to do with why Lubomir is an Oiler.
I wouldn't say "everything" but I do believe that if we had seen the vintage 06-07 Lubo last year that he'd still be around. However, there's clearly been orders from AEG to cut payroll. Understandable, really, since it probably wasn't easy for Lombardi to explain why the Kings were close to the cap last year and still ended up in 29th place.
Quote:
2. Do the Kings really have a credibility/perception problem over the Visnovsky trade or is this more of a case of sour grapes by Lubomir?
How about both. Clearly there is some sour grapes from Lubo but, IMO, the Kings still look bad by shipping him out 48 hours before his NMC kicks in (I couldn't care less about the communication issues). When a player is asked to give up his UFA rights in order to sign an extension, it is because that player wants to stay with that team (and often is willing to take an below-market deal in order to do so). If team management is willing to give a NMC, then the team is making the commitment to the player. In the pre-cap days, the existing contract would just be modified to include the NMC and that would be the end if it. In the no-modification rules of the CBA, a loophole is created that technically allows that player to be moved. Without an implicit understanding that the player won't be traded, there is little reason for a player to agree to an extension.
Clearly DL is within his contractual rights to make that trade, but that doesn't mean there aren't potentially negative repercussions that go beyond the fact that what's left of the Kings' D is a total disaster. Think of it this way. Next summer when DL approaches Frolov about giving up his UFA rights in order to sign an extension (likely at a discount to what he would earn as a UFA) and talks glowingly about how Frolov is a cornerstone of the Kings future, will Frolov a) realize that the only reason Lubo was traded was because he sucked during the year and therefore feel confident that he won't suffer the same fate or b) chuckle for a few minutes and then tell Lombardi to go pound sand? My money's on "b".
I wouldn't say "everything" but I do believe that if we had seen the vintage 06-07 Lubo last year that he'd still be around. However, there's clearly been orders from AEG to cut payroll.
Your first take is fair and I agree with. The last suggestion of cutting payroll, I won't go there without proof. Conjecture is easy, evidence not so much. It would be easier for me to make that leap if the named 'core' group leave over material money issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAHobo
the Kings still look bad by shipping him out 48 hours before his NMC kicks in.
... there aren't potentially negative repercussions that go beyond the fact that what's left of the Kings' D is a total disaster. Think of it this way. Next summer when DL approaches Frolov about giving up his UFA rights in order to sign an extension....
Your take is very fair and accurate possibility as to the Kings' existing players. From what I have read here, others have talked about the reputation of the organization to other players, not the Kings' own. As to the Kings' now existing D core, I suspect I am both biased and delusional but I am ready to see what this group does before I book my expectations for the 2009 NHL draft lottery picks.
[quote=CarlaMuller;1194630]You had me until you suggested that DL is 'shopping him'. That would contradict everything Lombardi has said about how he plans to build this team and establish the non-existent "Kings' culture". I have no doubt other teams are fishing and DL is listening. If your suspicions are true, and Sully is being shopped, then I will volunteer to drive DL to the airport myself as he rightfully leaves town jobless.
I think that by not signing him prior to the rfa is a form of "shopping him". I believe a 3.5-4mil contract over 4-6 years is fair. We have the cap space and I think Sulli would have jumped on it. So by letting it get this far we now have let other teams throw in there 2 cents. taking a very real chance of someone offering him a sheet we are not willing to match. While listening to some trade offers. Maybe I'm a little down on DL right now because he has let it get this far with Sulli.
The last suggestion of cutting payroll, I won't go there without proof. Conjecture is easy, evidence not so much.
Fair enough, although I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to be highly suggestive, such as:
1) Last summer DL made it quite clear on numerous occasions that he had authority to spend to the cap and any money he didn't spend was his choice, not ownerships. I haven't heard anything remotely similar this year.
2) DL has made a big deal about the fact that ownership supported going young. This is the first time in the Lombardi tenure that there's been a public ownership position on how to build a hockey team. Since ownership is mostly concerned with the financial aspects of the team and since young is, for the most part, synonymous with cheap, this indicates to me a significant change from the approach described in #1 above.
3) A while back Rich Hammond, in response to a reader's question, stated that the important number to AEG is the actual annual payroll expenditures and not the cap effect. This indicates to me that their financial considerations don't correspond to effective cap management. This could have been a big factor in the Lubo trade since his contract was front loaded.
I don't have quotes/links for any of the above. If you remember them, terrific. If not, then you'll think I'm full of crap. Nothing I can do about that. I also recognize that these facts, as well as many others, are open to everybody's own interpretation.
Finally, I think the desire for a lower payroll by ownership is an inevitable (and reasonable) expectation. The Kings will likely suck this year even if they spend to the cap. Staples will likely be even more of a ghost town than it was last year. No valid reason to spend a bunch of money on this team right now.
Carla Muller
More Rumors and How Tampa Bay Helped the Kings' Perception Issues 
