HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Roster Thoughts and Offseason Speculation for the 2012-2013 Season III

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-14-2012, 11:23 PM
  #1
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 26,671
vCash: 424
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
Roster Thoughts and Offseason Speculation for the 2012-2013 Season III

Continue on...

__________________

“This is for you Kings fans wherever you may be. All the frustration and disappointment of the past is gone. The 45 year drought is over. The Los Angeles Kings are indeed the Kings of the National Hockey League. They are the 2012 Stanley Cup Champions!” - Bob Miller
Telos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 11:39 AM
  #2
KopitarFAN
Reno Sucks!
 
KopitarFAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
At least the players showed some willingness to negotiate with their proposal.

KopitarFAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 12:16 PM
  #3
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KopitarFAN View Post
At least the players showed some willingness to negotiate with their proposal.
I must admit, I am a bit surprised myself. Especially with some of the stuff certain players have been saying in the media and twitter.

But remember, they did get a chance to see the NHL's books, which likely showed just how ugly and dire the situation was for many of the league's franchises.

Herby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 01:27 PM
  #4
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KopitarFAN View Post
At least the players showed some willingness to negotiate with their proposal.
Are you sure? I pretty much agree with this summary from the main board:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
The NHLPA is a wonderfully crafted piece meant to garner media and fan support while not really offering any real concessions to what the owners want aside from potential short-term HRR share reductions that were pretty much an inevitability for them unless they wanted to ride out another lockout.

Let's compare some of the key points from the owners vs. players proposals:

1. HRR and Player's Share
  • Owners proposed an 11% reduction and a redefining of what constitutes HRR to lower it.
  • Players proposed no reduction but modest raises for 3 years with a NHLPA option to jump back to the current 57% in a fourth year. Also rumored to want to redefine HRR to increase it.
Result: In truth the sides are not really close together. The owners want player shares to be significantly reduced, the players offer no reduction at all but on a short-term band-aid before going back to the current system which owners clearly do not want. Also the HRR issue, while not widely reported, will be a major point of negotiation between the sides as adding/removing revenue sources to what is considered HRR can cause huge shifts in the number.

2. Salary Reduction/Rollbacks
  • Owners propose 24% rollback of current contracts
  • Players says they will not accept salary reductions but only a 3-year artificial cap on growth of salaries.
Result: The players refuse to give up any of their current money or share, essentially offering a 3-year window for the NHL to somehow turn everything around before going back to the 57% HRR system the league has deemed unacceptable. Short of mass contraction or large-scale relocation of up to 20-25% of the current teams it's likely impossible that the revenue mess many teams currently have could be reversed in 3 years.

3. Contract limits, Free Agency, and ELCs
  • Owners want limits on the length of contracts, and increase of the age for the start of free agency, and longer ELC lengths.
  • Players have stated they do not want changes to any of these and didn't include any proposals on them in their CBA offer as starting points for negotation.
Result: One of the major issues owners put on the table to negotiate has been flatly refused by the players, leaving the sides absolutely no starting point for discussions on these issues at this point.

4. Arbitration System
  • Owners want it gone.
  • Players not only want to keep it, but expand it to make all arbitration cases binding by eliminating a teams "walk away" rights.
Result: Probably not a major issue for either side, but clearly a message sent by the NHLPA that they do not intend to budge at all from the current arbitration system.

5. Revenue Sharing
  • Owners proposal included no change to the revenue sharing system.
  • Players want a massive overhaul of the system whereby the top teams will be asked to pay a very significant amount more into the system, reportedly as much as $25M+ in the first year alone.
  • The incentive/restrictions in the current CBA on revenue sharing would be removed such as:
    • Elimination of market size restrictions so teams in large markets can get revenue sharing (NYI, ANA, FLA for example).
    • Elimination of revenue growth restrictions so that teams who cannot grow their revenues by the same percentage as the league average will still get full revenue sharing (CLB, NSH for example).
Result: The large-revenue teams will now be expected to shoulder the load for the rest of the league until those small markets become viable. However, there will be no restrictions on the the teams who get the money now. In fact, by eliminating the market size and revenue growth caveats to the current revenue sharing system more teams who were not eligible before will be now, partially/fully offsetting the increased revenue sharing dollars the top teams put in so it's possible the per-team revenue gain from revenue sharing will not change significantly.
Note: For all you Jets fans, it's very likely that had those revenue sharing restrictions not existed in the last CBA that the Thrashers would still be in Atlanta since their market size prevented them from being eligible for revenue-sharing dollars. This is also probably a setback to any Quebec fans hoping for a team to relocate there.

6. Salary Cap
  • Owners propose no change to the current hard-cap system.
  • Players propose a hard-cap but with exceptions that will allow teams to go +/- 4M over/under the max/min cap. Cap space could be traded or (maybe even) sold to other teams.
Result: Seems like a minor issue, although it seems like it's geared towards allowing "sellers" or low-payroll teams to simply generate more revenue by creating a new "asset" to sell. This would seem to favor the large-market teams who can afford to essentially "buy" an extra 4M in cap space every year.

7. Competitive Balance
  • Owners proposed no changes to the system
  • Players propose extra "sellable" draft picks for teams in financial trouble.
Result: Reportedly this is like the MLB model, which in it's first season is already being exposed as flawed. The Detroit Tigers, for instance, have the 5th highest payroll in MLB this season yet were given a free "competitive balance" draft pick. This is a very dangerous system to adopt, especially in a sport where you don't have the massive player pool to draw from like MLB and where later-round picks do not have the same type of success rate as in baseball. The MLB draft is far more of a crapshoot than the NHL draft is. More importantly, if these extra picks are solely tied to revenues then it becomes extremely important to see how revenues/losses are calculated. For example, despite being a big-spending team the Tigers were able to qualify because of their stadium debt. Similarly the Yankees were able to reduce revenue sharing payments by massive amounts (iirc over 20M) because of "stadium debt". The Red Wings could build a new arena and suddenly qualify for extra draft picks. So could the Rangers. Or Leafs. You get the picture. Giving away "free" picks just because a teams business model is failing/not profitable seems unwise. Not to mention a team could spend spend spend to the cap and just incur losses to qualify for this, just like the Tigers in MLB.

8. Non-player Spending Limit
  • Owners proposed none, simply letting teams spend whatever they want on non-player expenses.
  • Players can to cap non-player spending.
Result: Pretty audacious demand from the NHLPA, trying to tell owners how much they are allowed to spend. This would obviously impact things like scouting, travel costs, team management and employee payroll, advertising budgets, etc. Considering the inequity in travel expenses is already a sore topic to several teams (Winnipeg, Detroit, Minnesota, Dallas, Vancouver) telling them they not only have to spend MORE than almost every other team in travel while having the same limit to non-player spending would be problematic. If anything, this would force a de facto cap on coach/GM/Scout salaries. It may also lead teams to cancelling events like prospect camps, the Traverse City tournament, etc. as those added costs would eat into the available funds for more important things like scouting for example. I just don't see why the NHLPA would even attempt to do this.

Alot of this seems to be tied into the MLB model. However, that model is very flawed still with tons of loopholes that teams are abusing. I don't think the MLB revenue sharing model or "competitive balance" system is really the best way for the future of the NHL. The sides really are nowhere close at this point on any of the key issues. All the NHLPA has done is propose a system where low-budget/revenue teams will be given "free" assets in the form of picks/cap space to "sell" to the big-revenue teams, while at the same time telling those big-revenue teams to pay a huge chunk more into revenue-sharing. No offers to lower the cap floor as apparently several teams have trouble maintaining a payroll that high. No salary concessions. No reductions of player share from the current level. Guaranteed annual raises with the option for a massive 4th year boost. It's just a big, long-worded document that says to the owners "Let the big-revenue boys maximize the amount of money they give to the little sisters of the poor. That's now he will fix the system. Oh, and we aren't giving you **** in terms of payroll concessions or a reduction from our current levels. In the end we'll still get ours. We win and give up nothing, the small teams win and get a huge cash windfall, and the only loser in this will be the successful teams that get to shoulder all the burden themselves of keeping the league financially viable." Essentially, Fehr proposed a system where the large markets will underwrite the rising player salaries for the smaller markets but didn't really address any of the fundamental problems whatsoever. A wonderful fluff proposal the get the fans and media fawning all over the NHLPA but in reality it's only slightly less rigid and draconian than the NHL's leaked proposal.

tl;dr version: Fehr says we are partners but it's your mess and we aren't gonna help find a solution. Just let the big boys give more money to the little guys to pay for the rising player costs. Why fix the problem when we can just let someone else pay for it?

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 01:37 PM
  #5
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
What jolly ray of sunshine summed this up for you?

Jason Lewis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 01:41 PM
  #6
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
What jolly ray of sunshine summed this up for you?
It's in the quote box, "FissionFire".

Seems like the poster has a good handle on it.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 02:09 PM
  #7
KingKopitar11*
Drew Doughty Eh?
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: staples center
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 16,404
vCash: 500
It's funny how much simmonds value has gone up, he had 28 goals, but this is the flyers, if you have a lot of ice time on the flyers especially You should have 30+ . Pretty overrated.

KingKopitar11* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 06:22 PM
  #8
bobafettish*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,961
vCash: 500
so is doan retiring?

bobafettish* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 07:21 PM
  #9
Johnny Utah
Registered User
 
Johnny Utah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 7,032
vCash: 500
Back to the roster issues please....Still wondering what Lombardi plans on doing with these extra players....Nolan and King pretty much took Richardson, Clifford and Westgarth's spots...and with Gagne back, there isn't much room.

Brown-Kopitar-Williams
Penner-Richards-Carter
King-Stoll-Lewis
Gagne-Fraser-Nolan

Clifford, Westgarth and Richardson are all sitting. Drewiske is sitting as the #7 D but as other posters mentioned Hickey and Muzzin are waiver eligible. So that's 6 players that will need to be up here and only 3 spots...Typically 2 healthy forward and 1 healthy D as scratches.

Johnny Utah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 07:21 PM
  #10
Tadite
Registered User
 
Tadite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rhode Island
Country: United States
Posts: 4,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobafettish View Post
so is doan retiring?
I think he's trying to be loyal. Hard to sign a retirement contract with a team as disorganized as the Yotes. If they showed even the slightest sign of competence I think he'd have already signed. Only reason why you would wait this long is to see if they can get things together.

If he wanted to leave he'd have been gone by now.

Tadite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 07:56 PM
  #11
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,352
vCash: 500
Drewiske will be 28 by the time the season starts after the lockout ends. He has played less than 50 games over the past two seasons and has never played a playoff game in his career. The Kings could maybe get a very low pick for him, but he is more than likely destined for Manchester.

Westgarth's time with the Kings is likely done as well. A nice guy, but a useless player who performs a job that is being phased out. He has zero trade value, and is under contract for this season and next. He will probably be one of the highest paid players for the Monarchs the next couple of years.

Richardson would be an ideal 13th forward. His contract is manageable, he can play all three forward positions and is versatile enough to fill in on any line.

Clifford is a big question mark, I think a lot depends on where he stands on the Kings depth chart in comparison to King and Nolan, if the Kings feel the other two have more upside, they could send him packing. It will be interesting to see how he looks in camp, whenever that begins.

Herby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 07:59 PM
  #12
Flour Child
Unleavened User
 
Flour Child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Drury Lane
Posts: 21,851
vCash: 460
That was a good summary of the impacts of the player proposal.
I am now worried about the season starting on time.

Flour Child is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 08:01 PM
  #13
Flour Child
Unleavened User
 
Flour Child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Drury Lane
Posts: 21,851
vCash: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Utah View Post
Back to the roster issues please....Still wondering what Lombardi plans on doing with these extra players....Nolan and King pretty much took Richardson, Clifford and Westgarth's spots...and with Gagne back, there isn't much room.

Brown-Kopitar-Williams
Penner-Richards-Carter
King-Stoll-Lewis
Gagne-Fraser-Nolan

Clifford, Westgarth and Richardson are all sitting. Drewiske is sitting as the #7 D but as other posters mentioned Hickey and Muzzin are waiver eligible. So that's 6 players that will need to be up here and only 3 spots...Typically 2 healthy forward and 1 healthy D as scratches.
It's time to say goodbye to Richardson and Drewiske.

Westgarth should be kept to forage for food in the event of a natural disaster.

Flour Child is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 08:45 PM
  #14
Reaper45
Registered User
 
Reaper45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 30,795
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Reaper45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Utah View Post
Back to the roster issues please....Still wondering what Lombardi plans on doing with these extra players....Nolan and King pretty much took Richardson, Clifford and Westgarth's spots...and with Gagne back, there isn't much room.

Brown-Kopitar-Williams
Penner-Richards-Carter
King-Stoll-Lewis
Gagne-Fraser-Nolan

Clifford, Westgarth and Richardson are all sitting. Drewiske is sitting as the #7 D but as other posters mentioned Hickey and Muzzin are waiver eligible. So that's 6 players that will need to be up here and only 3 spots...Typically 2 healthy forward and 1 healthy D as scratches.
Richardson goes to Manchester. Clifford is the healthy scratch. Westy is the other. Drewiske gets waived/traded. Muzzin and Hickey fight it out for the #7 spot.

Reaper45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 08:57 PM
  #15
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,956
vCash: 500
Richardson's ability to play multiple positions coupled with the fact that he can skate and be used on any of the lines probably makes him a more desirable player to retain as the 13th forward on the roster as opposed to having Kevin Westgarth who is very limited in how he can be used and how many minutes he can play.

Ziggy Stardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 09:20 PM
  #16
Johnny Utah
Registered User
 
Johnny Utah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 7,032
vCash: 500
Woah, a lot of hate for Clifford. Honestly boys, I am going to go on a limb and say that Gagne is the odd man out.

Clifford-Fraser-Nolan was a great 4th line until Clifford got hurt and then Sutter rotated in Richardson, who did okay as a speedy pest, and then Gagne, who did nothing.

Clifford is a 2nd rounder coming off a disapointing but still decent season with 5 goals and 12 fights in 81 games. Let's also not forget about this playoff performance in 2011.

Gagne, on the other hand is a soon to be UFA and missed most of the season. He has shown he is only effective on the top 2 lines but where does he fit? I believe he is the odd man out to get waived or traded. I think that Richardson and Clifford provide more value for their position and how the fit into the current line-up.

The Kings could go with...

Brown-Kopitar-Williams
Penner-Richards-Carter
King-Stoll-Lewis
Clifford-Fraser-Nolan

Extra's: Richardson, Westgarth

Nolan goes back to this RW position and the other 3 lines stay the same leaving a versatile Richardson as a the healthy scratch along with Westy in case he is needed.

Johnny Utah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 10:32 PM
  #17
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 12,991
vCash: 500
Gagne will be in the lineup, the guy is making 3.5 million dollars.

He is a versatile, experienced, Two way forward.

The only thing that will keep him out of the lineup, is another injury.

Westy will be given the opportunity to return to Manchester(to play out his contract). I doubt he will be picked up off waivers. Hickey will most likely take the 7th spot (just not sold on Muzzin).

Richardson is a perfect 13th Forward (doesn't complain). Clifford is waiver eligible, and would be claimed in a heartbeat.

Davis will either get traded (low pick), or waived.


Last edited by damacles1156: 08-15-2012 at 10:38 PM.
damacles1156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 11:56 PM
  #18
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
Richardson is the ultimate utility forward.

If it came down to he, Westgarth, and Drewiske on the "which garbage player should we keep" question, Richardson makes that cut hands down.

Jason Lewis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2012, 12:07 AM
  #19
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
The Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,713
vCash: 500
Really scratching my head at why people think Westgarth will hang around. He played in just 7 of the Kings final 49 games following the Sutter hire. What good is the guy?

Nobody in this day and age needs a fighter that can't play any hockey, it is a complete waste of a roster spot. The Kings and Devils were both in the finals in LARGE part due to their ability to roll four lines at you night after night, and have all four coming at you hard. When you put a Westgarth on a line, it completely ruins any chance of that. His being in the lineup hurts the Kings, it's that simple.

Suggestions that Clifford (who can fight AND play hockey, what a nice combination) and the very versatile Richardson might go to Manchester make no sense at all for me. Both are nice role players. And get rid of Gagne? No chance, he will can be very effective in a 3rd line role, adds twoway awareness and scoring punch to a 3rd line, that would be huge.

Anything other than Richardson, Clifford and Hickey/Muzzin as the 3 extra players is not going to make me happy at all. I think it's pretty clear that Drewiske and Westgarth have no place on the Kings anymore, there are better players available now.

Holden Caulfield is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2012, 01:11 AM
  #20
KingLB
Registered User
 
KingLB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,255
vCash: 500
Wayne got paid.

KingLB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2012, 01:23 AM
  #21
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingLB View Post
Wayne got paid.
I believe you mean OVERpaid.


He scores 28 goals on a team that doesn't play ANY defense and doesn't preach any kind of defensive responsibility....and it inflates his contract numbers.

You realize he now makes more than Jarret Stoll, Alexandre Burrows, Ryane Clowe, Dave Bolland, Chris Kunitz, Val Filpulla, Matt Duchene, Milan Hejduk, Stephen Weiss, Tomas Kopecky, Joe Pavelski (Same), David Perron, Patric Hornqvist and Paul Gaustad? Not to mention tons of others.

Talk about a stupidly inflated contract for a good year on an "open the barn door" style team.

All of those players bring a lot more to the table than Simmonds does. Does anyone care to argue that? He's a player whose production has almost been completely dictated by his teammates.

Simmonds had close to 50 points, and was still an ES -1. He was a -6 in the playoffs in 11 games. He had 16 points and 11 goals on the powerplay.

Now I am not saying he isn't a good player. I am not saying that at all. He is a very good young player.

But Philly just shelled out 4 mil a season to a 33 point, 17 goal, -1 even strength third liner.

Ouch.

Jason Lewis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2012, 01:26 AM
  #22
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,956
vCash: 500
I'm thinking when Brown is up for a new contract he's going to get $5 to $5.5M per year.

Ziggy Stardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2012, 01:32 AM
  #23
KingLB
Registered User
 
KingLB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
I believe you mean OVERpaid.


He scores 28 goals on a team that doesn't play ANY defense and doesn't preach any kind of defensive responsibility....and it inflates his contract numbers.

You realize he now makes more than Jarret Stoll, Alexandre Burrows, Ryane Clowe, Dave Bolland, Chris Kunitz, Val Filpulla, Matt Duchene, Milan Hejduk, Stephen Weiss, Tomas Kopecky, Joe Pavelski (Same), David Perron, Patric Hornqvist and Paul Gaustad? Not to mention tons of others.

Talk about a stupidly inflated contract for a good year on an "open the barn door" style team.

All of those players bring a lot more to the table than Simmonds does. Does anyone care to argue that? He's a player whose production has almost been completely dictated by his teammates.

Simmonds had close to 50 points, and was still an ES -1. He was a -6 in the playoffs in 11 games. He had 16 points and 11 goals on the powerplay.

Now I am not saying he isn't a good player. I am not saying that at all. He is a very good young player.

But Philly just shelled out 4 mil a season to a 33 point, 17 goal, -1 even strength third liner.

Ouch.
Meh, its about market, and he brings other aspects of the game. Not to mention, with long term deals (none retirement deals), generally you overpay the first couple years then on the back end its a steal. Kinda like DD....if Wayne continues to improve or just stays stagnate tbh the deal is fine.

KingLB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2012, 02:39 AM
  #24
Jason Lewis
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Jason Lewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingLB View Post
Meh, its about market, and he brings other aspects of the game. Not to mention, with long term deals (none retirement deals), generally you overpay the first couple years then on the back end its a steal. Kinda like DD....if Wayne continues to improve or just stays stagnate tbh the deal is fine.
Yeaaaa...it just bothers me that a team like Philly inflates the contract so much.

He would be a 2.5 a year player on our team..but in Philly with no system, and no defensive responsibility he is a 4 mil player.

The other side of that coin is he will be a 0 cup player in Philly...whereas here he might already have had one

Jason Lewis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-16-2012, 03:25 AM
  #25
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygokings View Post
Yeaaaa...it just bothers me that a team like Philly inflates the contract so much.

He would be a 2.5 a year player on our team..but in Philly with no system, and no defensive responsibility he is a 4 mil player.

The other side of that coin is he will be a 0 cup player in Philly...whereas here he might already have had one
I think if Simmonds got PP time in LA, then he probably would have scored 20 goals. Meaning 4M per season wouldn't be too far out of reach.

When I look at the recent signings of guys like Hemsky and Ruttu, Simmonds at 4M looks reasonable in comparison.

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.