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 LA Kings Talk within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Of course he is a liar.
He is a GM.
GMs have to lie. Its in the nature of the game.
Let's all keep our fingers crossed that he's not
Let's all keep our fingers crossed that he's not ALSO an idiot.
If he's an idiot, the kings are screwed.
To be honest, the way things are shaping up, I think he is just a liar and not an idiot.
I understand that there's a certain degree of "cloak and dagger" type stuff that goes along with the job... but blatantly pandering to the fan base while making horrible decisions doesn't have to be part of it.
What it means : He's an idiot, didn't do the research or he's prone to making snap judgments based on nothing.
If he really believed it then why did he try to trade the guy twice in two seasons? If Blake didn't live up to his own expectations then I have to seriously question his judgement when you factor in guys like Cloutier, McAuley, Handzus (i know i know... hes gonna be awesome some day) Crawford and Visnovsky.
SCENARIO B
He didn't mean it.
What it means : He'll say anything to make a questionable move sound like a brilliant idea.
If he didn't mean it... then you really don't have any reason to believe a thing the guy says. It's a pretty bold lie to make given the history of Blake getting booed everywhere in Los Angeles for five years.
So. Either he's a liar or an idiot or both.
Scenario C
He meant it. But just because he wants to have Blake in a Kings uni doesn't mean he's willing to get bent over in the process. Maybe he wanted to see if he could get a better deal than 4 or 5 mil with another D man either through trade or FA signing, because quite frankly 4-5 mil for Blake after last years performance WOULD be an over payment.
That makes him neither an idiot or a liar. In my book that makes him wise.
Just because you want someone to play for you doesn't mean at any cost.
He meant it. But just because he wants to have Blake in a Kings uni doesn't mean he's willing to get bent over in the process. Maybe he wanted to see if he could get a better deal than 4 or 5 mil with another D man either through trade or FA signing, because quite frankly 4-5 mil for Blake after last years performance WOULD be an over payment.
That makes him neither an idiot or a liar. In my book that makes him wise.
Just because you want someone to play for you doesn't mean at any cost.
Yeaaa... except that the Kings have cap space to burn, allegedly Johnson loves the guy, and he "belongs in a Kings uniform". If there was any concern about the financial standing of the Kings I'd buy that argument... but there isn't AND he allegedly tried to trade him half way through the first season.
Mix that in with signing Visnovsky to a 5 year NTC only to turn around and start shopping him right away.... I don't know.... it just doesn't scream "I know what I'm doing" to me.
I understand that there's a certain degree of "cloak and dagger" type stuff that goes along with the job... but blatantly pandering to the fan base while making horrible decisions doesn't have to be part of it.
Agreed, but what he "panders" to fans is also how he represents himself to the media, the nhl: players, teams, GMs alike...
Either way, he sure has made quite a few questionable decisions.
For some reason, I find myself overlooking them and still trust Deano wholeheartedly.
And...I blame Crawford for Cloutier. (note that I know this decision ultimately lies upon the head of the GM)
Yeaaa... except that the Kings have cap space to burn, allegedly Johnson loves the guy, and he "belongs in a Kings uniform". If there was any concern about the financial standing of the Kings I'd buy that argument... but there isn't AND he allegedly tried to trade him half way through the first season.
Mix that in with signing Visnovsky to a 5 year NTC only to turn around and start shopping him right away.... I don't know.... it just doesn't scream "I know what I'm doing" to me.
I don't have a problem with the Visnovsky signing or the trade. He was signed to the extension before the youth movement in July 2007, and he became expendable right after the decision was made to go younger -- after the season in 2008.
Whether or not it was a good trade is a whole different matter.
With that logic Lombardi has a proven history of not being able to close deals when needed the most, no?
maybe. possibly. but the hardest part for me to reconcile, at least personally, is the fact that those who generally hold to that opinion and/or the opinion (which i continually provide at least published support to counter) that Lombardi lowballs his players and/or the myriad other opinions all leading to no matter what you say, Dean Lombardi is slime , seem to be the same people who argued that the widely held opinion about Cammalleri being greedy was an argument with a shoddy foundation, when virtually the SAME argument against Mike was being posited.
they also tend to be the same people who were incensed over Dean's free agent acquisitions over the last two seasons but farted a cow about the fact that he hasn't signed one THIS off-season... when he said that he probably wouldn't.
i thought goose and gander and all that?
Don Meehan and Newport Sports Management seems run a pretty vivid undercurrent in all this as well, dontcha think?
i'm not pointing fingers... in fact, i think a fair share of fingers should be pointing in several directions, including the one handling the negotiations, whose name seems to always be carefully omitted from all the Dean Lombardi vitriol frisbeed out by the HF Axis of Evil in particular.
suppose after all of this (probably because it'd be highly unwise to do now), Dean fires Solomon because he didn't like the way this was all handled. then what? you'll have some insist that it was because Lombardi felt that Solomon capitulated and the players ended with deals far beyond what they should have received and even go so far as to question Solomon's hiring in the first place... and several other absurd opinions which ALL stem from the same root argument that Dean Lombardi doesn't know what he's doing. then you'll have others who will make excuses. some within reason and others, not so much. but it's those reasonable "excuses" that i have so far found to be closest to reality.
i realize that Dean Lombardi is the boss, but at what point does he (or we as outsiders armed only with opinions) allow the person to do the job he was specifically hired for? why haven't the internet clownshoe Kings "fans" called out Solomon?
because their favorite player got moved, and so it's funner to dislike the boss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay
I'll tell ya why...
So. Either he's a liar or an idiot or both.
not necessarily... how often have you said something you didn't mean, exactly?
keeping it all within the wishy-washy, you know damn well how easily some of these clowns around here and over ------> there are swayed, and how easily an opinion can change based upon even a cursory glance towards a different perspective.
when Terry Murray was hired, which IS a move by Dean i STILL question by the way and am still not sure i like or am comfortable with, but despite his experience and record, there were those who insisted on zeroing in on ONE thing and based their opinion (and made their dissatisfaction known)on it... what he said after the Flyers were eliminated from the finals.
if Dean were to publicly bemoan Blake for, whatever reason, you would have seen even more people, perhaps even the biggest of Blake loathers, running to Rob's aid, and instead of AN instance where Dean calls out a player, it mysteriously becomes a ferocious (and rampantly baseless) argument and another log in the fire because now not only is Lombardi cheap and completely disconnected to the reality of the CBA and the "new" NHL, he has a reputation for throwing playerS under a bus... plural.
one man's trash is another man's treasure? or something to that effect?
no action, and Dean Lombardi is a lowballing scoundrel with a history of ego-centric behavior regarding chain of command and everyone's overly defined role within it (well, that latter part MAY be true).
action to a degree that it floors some and mildly surprises others, and all of a sudden you get, "wow, Lombardi is a genius, blah blah blah's contract is a TOTAL f***ing steal!"
a flip of a switch is all it takes for some of these chuckle-f***les.
__________________ GESCOM:it's never too early to start beefing up your obituary!
Last edited by gescom; August 26th, 2008 at 01:53 PM.
Yeaaa... except that the Kings have cap space to burn,.
So if you are wealthy and go down to the Mercedes dealer and say "I have to have one of these Mercedes...It belongs in my driveway", you SHOULD be willing to pay more for it just because you are wealthy right? I mean you did say you wanted it right? 30 extra grand isn't going to put a dent in your wallet...your a millionaire! Now you have to buy that car because you don't want to be a liar or an idiot!
That is the rationale you are using?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay
allegedly Johnson loves the guy, and he "belongs in a Kings uniform".
Ohhhhh!!! Well why didn't you say so earlier. That settles everything! Jack loves the guy...pay him whatever he wants. Who cares what he's WORTH.
I'm about sick of hearing about Blake "mentoring" the youth. If Johnson is going to make it in this league he will have to pop Blakes titty out of his mouth and progress without him. Carolina drafted him 3rd overall for a reason and there was no Rob Blake in Carolina. Jack will be just fine without him. That's great that he liked him, but he wasn't going to be around forever anyway. So he lost him a year early. Move on.
The bottom line is that SJ overpayed for an over the hill d-man in Blake. Every player has value, including Blake. Yes he's experienced, blah blah. But he was horrible last season. He wasn't worth the money. I don't care how much cap space the Kings have. They will fill it eventually. I'm perfectly fine with what DL is doing and I really don't care if he lies to everyone about it. And I really don't think he should overpay to keep O'Sullivan.
Would the Kings be a better team with Blake on the roster or not? That's what it comes down to. And the cap-room argument does have some merit, because it means if you want to sign the guy you probably can. Lombardi just caught the wishful-thinking bug from Taylor, thinking Blaker would take $3M and thinking Stuart would go from a Cup winner to a Hedman-Tavares contender.
__________________ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels."
-- Groucho Marx
When dealing with the likes of high profile Hollywood agents, there are those at CAA, ICM, William Morris and Endeavor whom I love dealing with and aren't going to be full of crap - then there are those who are just too much of a pain the ass to deal with and if they happen to have a client we're considering, chances are, we'll pass on that client BECAUSE he's with that particular agent.
Most of the agents I deal with are bright and business knowledgeable so they know how the game works. Example: Robert Downey Jr could have been had for around a half mil a film. After "Iron Man" and "Tropic Thunder" the starting price is 8-10 million AND you'll have to wait until 2010 - That's just the nature of the business.
Sure O'Sullivan is great and Dean will argue "HE'S ONLY PLAYED ONE YEAR" much as the same thing I said when an agent was negotiating with me for Blake Lively (who?). "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" hadn't even come OUT yet and her agent wouldn't let her even READ for a high profile film. We passed on the deal and now she's doing "Gossip Girl" on TV and she barely makes a film "list". Hence, the agent cost her a possible lucrative film career.
Could be the same thing with Sully (see Gescom's take on Mychal Ryder)
When dealing with the likes of high profile Hollywood agents, there are those at CAA, ICM, William Morris and Endeavor whom I love dealing with and aren't going to be full of crap - then there are those who are just too much of a pain the ass to deal with and if they happen to have a client we're considering, chances are, we'll pass on that client BECAUSE he's with that particular agent.
Most of the agents I deal with are bright and business knowledgeable so they know how the game works. Example: Robert Downey Jr could have been had for around a half mil a film. After "Iron Man" and "Tropic Thunder" the starting price is 8-10 million AND you'll have to wait until 2010 - That's just the nature of the business.
Sure O'Sullivan is great and Dean will argue "HE'S ONLY PLAYED ONE YEAR" much as the same thing I said when an agent was negotiating with me for Blake Lively (who?). "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" hadn't even come OUT yet and her agent wouldn't let her even READ for a high profile film. We passed on the deal and now she's doing "Gossip Girl" on TV and she barely makes a film "list". Hence, the agent cost her a possible lucrative film career.
Could be the same thing with Sully (see Gescom's take on Mychal Ryder)
This Blake Lively girl...she a left shot veteran D-Man?
__________________ JMFJ Wants The Shirt Off My Back!
notapalindrome1
