HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Another Pacific Division team makes a trade.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-02-2006, 10:56 AM
  #26
Game Misconduct
Registered User
 
Game Misconduct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 1,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
Yeah, afterall, it's a well-known fact that acquired players don't contribute until the trade deadline (and the Kings haven't needed help), anyways
LOL

Game Misconduct is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 11:00 AM
  #27
Game Misconduct
Registered User
 
Game Misconduct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 1,862
vCash: 500
We need a power play QB and a new PP assistant coach.

Game Misconduct is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 11:01 AM
  #28
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubbyTerrion
I don't know about Flinn, but I can say with pretty strong certainty that as far as Bure is concerned, the money is removed from the cap total. I say this because of the constant jabber on XM about the Flyers and Primeau and if he doesn't return this season, they have that money to work with come deadline time. So, with Bure absolutely NOT coming back and having never played a game in the regular season, the same thing would have to apply... No?
Actually Tubby you are incorrect....not your fault though. Alot of "experts" in the league do not know how to properly read the CBA.

"All" injured players count against the cap. If a player has a long term injury then the team is allowed to exceed the cap by that amount. So technically the Kings could have a payroll of $40.5 million becuase of Bure's injury. But I do not see the King's ownership approving that kind of payroll increase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
I'm not sure that anyone outside of Kings management and the league can know exactly what their cap hit is. Keep in mind that a player needs to be injured for at least 10 games or 24 days for his replacement player's salary to not count against the cap. The Kings have had some players who missed less than that minimum and whose replacements impact the cap. So, I think that that's one major reason why the Times has a cap space figure that's lower than yours. Calculating all of this out would make anyone's head spin and I kind of doubt that anyone but a capologist could do it. I would trust that the Times' figure is right since they probably got it from the Kings, themselves.
Like I stated earlier "all" (even long term injuries) count against the cap unless it will put the team over the cap. But since the Kings are no where near the cap limit it makes all of the players on the Kings roster (including every injury) count towards the official cap number.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 11:09 AM
  #29
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadite
What?


Spong I know your having some sorta emotional problem but good lord pick when to have a outburst.

Moving 2 backup goalies and some 3rd liners isn't something to get worked up about.

Now if the Yotes had ended up with Iginla you are more then welcome to run around and scream.
I am not saying that this was a blockbuster trade by any means. But every team in our division has made a trade(or 3) in the past 2 months to "improve" their team. You might not think the trades improve the teams involved and I might not think the trades improve the teams involved. But the GM's making the trades do....otherwise why would they do them?

My point is by the time Taylor does make a move (probably at the deadline) this team is going to be on the outside looking in. The player(s) acquired are not going to have enough time to make an impact on whether or not this team makes it to the playoffs. If Taylor would have made a move or 2 while the Kings were still in 3rd place in the conference it might have helped to prevent the freefall the Kings are currently in.

Some of the "optimists" think that Taylor is going to make 1 or 2 "minor" deadline trades and this team will go from an average team to an "elite" team. This scenario has played itself through on more than one occasion in the past 5 seasons. Why would this year produce better results than in the previous 5?

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 02:15 PM
  #30
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
I am not saying that this was a blockbuster trade by any means. But every team in our division has made a trade(or 3) in the past 2 months to "improve" their team. You might not think the trades improve the teams involved and I might not think the trades improve the teams involved. But the GM's making the trades do....otherwise why would they do them?
Whatever happened to the saying, "Don't confuse activity with achievement?" Last I saw, the ONLY team that has been for the better since a trade is San Jose.


Quote:
My point is by the time Taylor does make a move (probably at the deadline) this team is going to be on the outside looking in. The player(s) acquired are not going to have enough time to make an impact on whether or not this team makes it to the playoffs. If Taylor would have made a move or 2 while the Kings were still in 3rd place in the conference it might have helped to prevent the freefall the Kings are currently in.
Or the trade or two might not have made a difference and the Kings would STILL be where they are, except they've traded away some of their future, and cap space... both of which will be very valuable when more teams that are out of playoff contention will be sellers. Unfortunately, we'll never know...

But tell me, what moves HAVE been made do you think the Kings should have done? Bear in mind that you would have to make a better offer than what the receiving team made. You wanted to trade three prospects who aren't completely worthless, three picks (including a 1st) for a rental in Weight who, likely, wouldn't be the difference maker in bringing us a cup? Do YOU want Sauve, Boucher, LeClerc, or Reinprecht?

Instead of criticizing DT for his non-moves, tell us what you would have traded to get any of the players/prospects you're so upset about missing out on.

Quote:
Some of the "optimists" think that Taylor is going to make 1 or 2 "minor" deadline trades and this team will go from an average team to an "elite" team. This scenario has played itself through on more than one occasion in the past 5 seasons. Why would this year produce better results than in the previous 5?
Yet it's a "minor" trade right now that has you so upset! Do you not see how ridiculous it is that you're starting a thread in disgust for DT's failure to acquire Boucher and LeClerc or Sauve and Reinprecht?

Maybe the trades won't turn an average team to an elite team... but the right moves will turn an average team into a better team... then from a better team to a good team, than a good team to a great team, then a great team to an elite team.

Maybe either of the pairs of players would have made the Kings better. None were a defenseman, though, which is the biggest need. I was just hoping it was a joke that you were upset over this. Apparently it wasn't.

King'sPawn is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 02:41 PM
  #31
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
Whatever happened to the saying, "Don't confuse activity with achievement?" Last I saw, the ONLY team that has been for the better since a trade is San Jose.
Like I said before we all have our own opinions as to who won what trade. Even when a trade looks extremely in the favor of one team someone will spin how the other team made out better. I believe that when a GM makes a trade he does it because he believes it improves his. Whether or not you and I agree with that opinion is another story.


Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
Or the trade or two might not have made a difference and the Kings would STILL be where they are, except they've traded away some of their future, and cap space... both of which will be very valuable when more teams that are out of playoff contention will be sellers. Unfortunately, we'll never know....
You are correct. We will never know. Just like we do not know if a trade could have prevented the Kings slide or at least shortened it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
But tell me, what moves HAVE been made do you think the Kings should have done? Bear in mind that you would have to make a better offer than what the receiving team made. You wanted to trade three prospects who aren't completely worthless, three picks (including a 1st) for a rental in Weight who, likely, wouldn't be the difference maker in bringing us a cup? Do YOU want Sauve, Boucher, LeClerc, or Reinprecht?

Instead of criticizing DT for his non-moves, tell us what you would have traded to get any of the players/prospects you're so upset about missing out on.
Kristian Huselius
Mike Sillinger
Anton Babchuk

Just off the top of my head.



Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
Yet it's a "minor" trade right now that has you so upset! Do you not see how ridiculous it is that you're starting a thread in disgust for DT's failure to acquire Boucher and LeClerc or Sauve and Reinprecht?

Maybe the trades won't turn an average team to an elite team... but the right moves will turn an average team into a better team... then from a better team to a good team, than a good team to a great team, then a great team to an elite team.

Maybe either of the pairs of players would have made the Kings better. None were a defenseman, though, which is the biggest need. I was just hoping it was a joke that you were upset over this. Apparently it wasn't.
It doesn't upset me like "I am going to go on a shooting spree" but it does annoy me.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 02:56 PM
  #32
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
Kristian Huselius
Mike Sillinger
Anton Babchuk

Just off the top of my head.
What would you have traded for them? Bear in mind the offer should be better than their original deal.

King'sPawn is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 03:08 PM
  #33
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
"All" injured players count against the cap. If a player has a long term injury then the team is allowed to exceed the cap by that amount. So technically the Kings could have a payroll of $40.5 million becuase of Bure's injury. But I do not see the King's ownership approving that kind of payroll increase.
That's what I've been saying. A lot of people are confusing money and cap space. The Kings don't save a dime on Bure (they have to pay all $1.5M to him). Just because a player is injured for the entire season, it doesn't mean that the team doesn't have to pay him; they do. All the Bure situation allows the Kings to do is exceed the cap by $1.5M in order to bring in a replacement. Since the Kings are nowhere near the cap at the moment, the clause in the CBA that everyone is referring to regarding the Bure situation doesn't help them in the slightest.

Osprey is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 03:13 PM
  #34
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP
What's obvious to me is that the ONLY trades that helped the team AT THE TIME were made well before the trade deadline
Good observation, PSP.

Osprey is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 03:16 PM
  #35
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 30,887
vCash: 500
The discussion is if the Kings take a hit on the salary cap because of Valeri Bure's salary. THEY DON'T. Valeri Bure does not count against the cap, and that is what I was pointing out and it has been confirmed elsewhere in early reports when it was announced that Valeri Bure will be having hip surgery and won't be returning this season.

Nobody said Valeri Bure isn't going to get paid. And insurance cover games lost by players who are injured for a long period of time, just as it did with Allison and Deadmarsh when they missed the entire 03-04 season.

As for Ken Belanger still counting against the cap. That isn't true. Craig Patrick has confirmed that they are off the hook from Palffy's contract due to his retirement.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
02-02-2006, 03:29 PM
  #36
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Nobody said Valeri Bure isn't going to get paid.
Actually, a lot of Kings fans have. They're confused about the cap exemption and take it to mean that DT has extra money in his pocket to re-allocate. Take a look at the Nolan thread today for one example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
And insurance cover games lost by players who are injured for a long period of time, just as it did with Allison and Deadmarsh when they missed the entire 03-04 season.
Insurance covers only the top 5 salaries on the team. Allison and Deadmarsh had 2 of the highest salaries on the team; Bure does not.

Osprey is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 04:48 PM
  #37
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 30,887
vCash: 500
The issue I disputed was whether or not the LA Times had their numbers correct in saying that the Kings had about $3.5M in cap room to spend.

I don't see how the Times reporter got that number according to my calculations, with or without Bure's contract counting towards the cap.

As I stated earlier, IF you included the contracts of Valeri Bure and Ryan Flinn, the Kings total payroll will be $35,256,150. That gives the Kings $4,243,850 of cap space.

Remove Val Bure ($1.5M) and Flinn ($450K) and the Kings payroll towards the cap is $33,306,150, with $6,193,850 of cap space available.

As far as I know, the contracts of Bure and Flinn (as well as Ken Belanger) DO NOT count towards the salary cap.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
02-02-2006, 05:05 PM
  #38
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
The issue I disputed was whether or not the LA Times had their numbers correct in saying that the Kings had about $3.5M in cap room to spend.

I don't see how the Times reporter got that number according to my calculations, with or without Bure's contract counting towards the cap.
Yeah, I understood your point. That's why I pointed out that some of the replacement players (callups that you didn't account for with your figure) probably affected the cap, thus reducing the cap room from $4.2M to $3.5M. I'm sure that there are lots of tangles that need to accounted for. If managing the cap were really so easy that you or I could do it, then there wouldn't be a need for capologists.

I'd trust the Times number, since it was probably received from DT or TL, themselves. Regardless, though, it really doesn't matter much which figure is right because the Kings aren't likely to dent more than $2M of that, anyways. That's because raising the payroll by $2M would require acquiring someone with a $6M yearly salary or two players with $3M salaries, and we can surely agree that that's more than the Kings are likely to acquire.


Last edited by Osprey: 02-02-2006 at 05:13 PM.
Osprey is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 05:23 PM
  #39
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 30,887
vCash: 500
My guess is they'll likely add two players whose combined salary will be at about $3M or so, at most, and it would be rental players along the likes of Emerson, Ronning, Carter. So the name Dean McAmmond doesn't seem to be a long shot.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
02-02-2006, 06:10 PM
  #40
Tadite
Registered User
 
Tadite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rhode Island
Country: United States
Posts: 4,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
Yeah, I understood your point. That's why I pointed out that some of the replacement players (callups that you didn't account for with your figure) probably affected the cap, thus reducing the cap room from $4.2M to $3.5M. I'm sure that there are lots of tangles that need to accounted for. If managing the cap were really so easy that you or I could do it, then there wouldn't be a need for capologists.
.

I think Bonuses count. So if player "A" gets a certian number of points and gets a bigger check because of it that money counts against the cap total.

But I think you hit it on the head. All the money we spend on AHL callups count against the cap. Sure its a few thousand here and there.... but that adds up when your talking 6 or 7 guys.

Tadite is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 06:16 PM
  #41
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
My guess is they'll likely add two players whose combined salary will be at about $3M or so, at most, and it would be rental players along the likes of Emerson, Ronning, Carter. So the name Dean McAmmond doesn't seem to be a long shot.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Any addition is most welcome, but I have doubts that what the Kings get will be of enough quality and/or early enough to make much of a difference (just like the 3 former Kings that you mentioned). It should be enough to hold onto a 1st round appearance (which, as I've maintained for a while now, is all that management is concerned about), but probably not to advance to a 2nd.

Osprey is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 06:17 PM
  #42
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 30,887
vCash: 500
Let's see... the Kings have called up the following players this season and I have included the number of games they have appeared in.

Tambellini (4 games)
Kanko (10 games)
Grebeshkov (8 games)
Petiot (2 games)
Flinn (2 games and currently on IR)
Clarke (5 games)
Hauser (1 game)
James (2 games)
Ryan (12 games)

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
02-02-2006, 06:21 PM
  #43
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
My guess is they'll likely add two players whose combined salary will be at about $3M or so, at most, and it would be rental players along the likes of Emerson, Ronning, Carter. So the name Dean McAmmond doesn't seem to be a long shot.
Or a guy like Halpern, Gratton, Bates, or Young

 
Old
02-02-2006, 06:24 PM
  #44
Fat Elvis
Registered User
 
Fat Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Money Pit
Country: United States
Posts: 5,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Let's see... the Kings have called up the following players this season and I have included the number of games they have appeared in.

Tambellini (4 games)
Kanko (10 games)
Grebeshkov (8 games)
Petiot (2 games)
Flinn (2 games and currently on IR)
Clarke (5 games)
Hauser (1 game)
James (2 games)
Ryan (12 games)
Am I right in that they get paid for days on the roster and not just game played? Because Petiot has been a healthy scratch a few times as well.

Fat Elvis is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 06:30 PM
  #45
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Let's see... the Kings have called up the following players this season and I have included the number of games they have appeared in.
Don't forget that players are paid their NHL salaries even if they're not playing. For example, Petiot may've played in only 2 games, but he was on the Kings roster and receiving his NHL salary for probably some 8 games total. Kanko, as well, was up with the Kings for probably some 20 games total. EDIT: ah, Elvi beat me to it

Let's do some dirty number-crunching. The total games played in that list of yours is 46. Taking into account what I just said above, let's say that they were on the Kings roster for 82 games. Assuming all of those players make $500K at the NHL level and they, as a whole, have accounted for 82 games with the Kings, then that's an extra $500K that the Kings paid to players who weren't on the opening night roster. That's potentially a $500K cap hit (and the difference between your cap room and the Times' is only $700K), but probably less than that because of the 10/24 clause that exempts replacements of long-term injuries. Regardless, it does suggest that callups can make a noticeable dent on a team's cap figure. Also, count in any unlisted bonuses that players are receiving, as Tadite mentioned.

Osprey is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 06:32 PM
  #46
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 30,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
Or a guy like Halpern, Gratton, Bates, or Young
I don't mind those guys, with the exception of Chris Gratton. He has been such a disappointment. I recall back in the summer of '97, before the Kings dealt Khristich and Dafoe to Boston for Stumpel and Moger. The Kings were rumored to be after Chris Gratton, who was a restricted free agent at the time, but refused to sign with LA, thus nixing a deal between the Kings and the Bolts.

Halpern and Bates could help the Kings penalty kill, but they're not going to be very productive offensively. Scott Young would add a huge shot on the wing and could help the powerplay, but he is also on the downside of his career.

So the Kings would be looking at potential reclamation projects, similar to what they attempted to do with Erik Rasmussen, trying to pass him off as an acceptable fill in for a top six role.

It seems to me that the Kings are more interested in making a Steve Heinze type addition. Donald Audette was a good scoop by Dave Taylor and he was one of the few Kings bright spots in that abysmall 98-99 season.

It would be great if he was able to make a similar acquisition who can have the type of impact Audette had when he was acquired, immediately helping the teams offense and giving them another weapon on the wing.

Unfortunately, those names mentioned above don't really add that offensive punch, but I guess a reduction of goals allowed is more important.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
02-02-2006, 06:37 PM
  #47
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,429
vCash: 5700
I say make a deal, just for the sake of making a deal. Who cares if it improves the team or not. Even if its Frolov for future considerations

GKJ is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 06:42 PM
  #48
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
It would be great if he was able to make a similar acquisition who can have the type of impact Audette had when he was acquired, immediately helping the teams offense and giving them another weapon on the wing.
I agree. Unfortunately, though, the Audette situation was a lot different than a deadline deal. Audette was acquired in December and so had plenty of time to help the team. Also, he hadn't played all season (he held out), so he was potentially fired up to start playing and not starting to tire out from months of play like deadline acquisitions. If you look at Taylor's record, as posted earlier, his three biggest trade successes (Audette, Potvin, Deadmarsh/Miller) all happened at least a month before the deadline, and all of his most dismal rental failures happened within a month of the deadline. Obviously, Taylor's record isn't good when waiting until the last minute, hence the impatience that many of us feel (for anyone who disagrees with it, maybe you can at least understand it).

Osprey is offline  
Old
02-02-2006, 11:59 PM
  #49
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,391
vCash: 500
KING ELVI is correct...... but to elaborate the NHL calculates a players cap hit based on a 200 day season. For every day a player is on the roster (even days that there is no game being played) a player has 1/200th of his total contract added to the cap figure.

In reference to Tadite's and Osprey's comment on bonuses. They are correct that bonuses do count against the cap. But only rookies signed with bonus clauses in their contract are eligible (injury and veteran exemptions are not currently applicable to LA). But the Kings have no rookie who has signed a rookie contract with bonus clauses on the team.

I am confident that the $3.5 million figure that the LA Times used is correct. But this debate is probably moot anyway. Because I can't imagine AEG spending anywhere near $39 million in salaries this season anyway.

Captain Ron is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:39 PM.

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.