Thread: Clock's Ticking Mr. O'Sullivan

Earlier this off-season, I wrote one of my most controversial blogs about Patrick O'Sullivan. I said it then and I will say it again: He needs to man up and take some personal responsibility for this contractual stalemate. Sometimes life really is that simple. He can take control of his destiny – or not. He can delegate this to his agent – or not. For those who reasonably say that it is inappropriate or one-sided to project this inaction solely on O'Sullivan. That is a fair statement. It also fails to address who really has the bargaining power.

One year does not a career make. Potential is just potential. What might be, what he might do is one possibility. The truth of it all is he could just as easily become injury-prone, inconsistent, or frankly an also-ran. The player who implored his teammates to no longer be satisfied with individual success but team success seems to have his own words slap him on the backside. This is either about the whole team or just him. He needs to figure out which is his goal. Yesterday.

This is not Phil Esposito's NHL where you can show up to training camp, out of shape and use the three to four week camp to get one's game on. In the 2008 NHL, players hit the ice on Friday and play a game on Monday. Players who miss all or part of camp are more likely to be less game ready and therefore more apt to injury. No one can make me believe Lombardi lacks motivation to get this deal done. He probably still has nightmares about the effects of Nabakov and Stuart and the consequence of those players' hold-outs had on his job security. I received word on good authority earlier this off-season that O'Sullivan loved this team and wanted to be a King for the long haul. All summer the Kings communicated how O’Sullivan was a core player that this organization wanted in its long term plans.

Here is the rub as I see it. In my day job, when I negotiate if I have an accurate assessment of my client’s strengths and weaknesses and the opposite side does the same – assuming there is client control, a deal gets done. Period. That tells me that someone over-values their hand, someone has delegated the process, someone does not have client control or someone is missing the big picture. Here is what I have heard:

• Per Hammond, O’Sullivan’s agent started at $4 million;
• A Pittsburgh media source talked of a deal at $4.25 million per annum for unknown years;
• Lombardi already lost a GM gig over players’ contractual challenges;
• O’Sullivan has played exactly one year, has won nothing and showed exciting promise and potential only;
• The only quote O’Sullivan gave this summer is that he was delegating this to his agent;
• Solomon said he spent a large part of the off-season with O’Sullivan’s agent paring down to comparable players and that this organization was committed to keeping him here long term.
• During one of the Town Hall Meetings this summer, Hextall spoke of O’Sullivan when he talked about one of the players this organization wanted to build their future around.

Borrowing a line from the movie, “Jerry Maguire”, O’Sullivan now has to decide if he wants to be a ‘paycheck guy’ or a team heart and soul guy who will inspire others to leave their last drop of themselves on the ice – not in their wallet. As much as I spent last season singing O’Sullivan’s praises, if he does not sign, I will drive him to the airport personally if he does not wise up, sign and show up. Period.

Consequences …. it can be so easy to miss the boat on the costs of not taking into account on how what we do today only effects the rest of our lives. Rather than talk in generalities, I will share the last part of my interview with Terry Murray. This is the right time and the right context to give teeth to the point I am trying to make. It would take a major gaffe to think that the coach of a Stanley Cup Final team would be unemployed shortly after the series is over. Murray made such a gaffe.

For those who either are unfamiliar or forgot, when the Murray led Flyers lost to the Red Wings, Murray described Philadelphia’s play in that series as a “choking situation”. I asked him if he knew then the price of that statement, would he repeat it. Here is his response:

“Well, the statement was the wrong thing to say. When we lost that series and went back to Philadelphia, we had our team meeting, break-out meeting two days later. I addressed the team on that, apologized to the players, to the team for saying it. It's – it's something that the terminology should have been different, deer in the headlights. It could have – it should have been different. It's never going to go away. It was said.”

Mr. O’Sullivan, do you want to start your career with a step that will never go away and may lead other teams to see you as someone who is more interested in what you make or more interested in what you plan to do to earn that paycheck you covet. The clock is ticking. Your time is up.

Carla Muller

Carla.hockeygal@att.net

Well done Carla!

ugh. same tired argument.

it make perfect sense for o'sullivan to go over his agent's head and sign the deal himself for a bucket of quarters and a bag of pucks. hell it will come in handy in vegas. in fact, why dont players just get rid of agents altogether. they are just greedy, money grubbing, slime, and any player with one is the same.

ok that was sarcasm. but in all seriousness, couldn't you say that lombardi needs to man-up, learn from his mistakes, and sign o'sullivan.

no, because its a ridiculous statment, just as was your first post on the subject. do you really need to post an ill-conceived argument twice? can you not stretch your imagination to approach the subject from a fresh perspective?

this is the problem with writing from a fan's perspective. a fan will rarely (if ever) take a player's side in this situation. because for a fan the team is obviously paramount. in ths way we are more like a gm. for a player its much more complicated. being self-interested, however is not at all the same thing as being selfish. remaining concerned about one's livelihood is not the same thing as not being concerned with the overall health of one's team or mates. this is not a zero-sum game. nonetheless, as fans we can only demand that all of the sacrifice has to come from the players side of the negotiating table. if dean signs him for more than we think he is worth he's a money grubbing locker room cancer. if he signs for less he is a hero.

what if when you were negotiating for a raise or a promotion, your employer told the rest of your co-workers how the negotiations were going revealing compromising details about you and your desired salary and benefits?

no, you don't raise these as issues. instead, like most people reporting about sports and money, you lay the lion's share of the blame at the feet of the players.

on the other hand, don't you think its suspect that lombardi is negotiating through the press? don't you think it is a bit underhanded and detrimental to the negotiating process?
why hasnt lombardi reached out to talk with patrick? training camp begins tomorrow and NOW he is talking about getting in a room with o'sullivan. to use your turn of phrase, wasn't the time for that yesterday? hasn't time run out for that?

i forgot, a 22 year-old kid is negotiating from a position of power vis-a-vis a veteran nhl general manager and former player agent that just so happens to run a multi-million dollar franchise.

[QUOTE=Carla Muller;1256540]Earlier this off-season, I wrote one of my most controversial blogs about Patrick O'Sullivan. I said it then and I will say it again: He needs to man up and take some personal responsibility for this contractual stalemate. Sometimes life really is that simple.

Says it all.....POS needs to eve ball DL and get a deal done........from now on anything else is going to be BAD for him in the long run

This thread is ridiculous. Lombardi won't agree to what the agent wants, and the agent won't agree to what Lombardi wants. We have no details on what those numbers are and therefore no way of knowing who is being reasonable or unreasonable. This is just the emotional rant of a frustrated fan.

And as someone else mentioned, it's also ridiculous to say that he's unproven and may not amount to much but we NEED to lock him up for 5+ years. DL is the one insisting on a long-term contract, and he's said that if it was going to be a short-term contract the deal would already be done. Sully & his agent are fine with signing a short-term contract and letting him show what he can do, but DL is determined to lock him up. This tells you that ALL PARTIES INVOLVED (including DL) are convinced that his value is going to go up over the next few years.

Simonez is point on. Blaming the party being paid for an impasse in negotiations is not appropriate without having any actual details of of the numbers or who offered what and when. Rumors are just that. Arguing POS should give away his earnings is easy to do when its not your earnings, just as its easy to argue AEG should dole out more of their money when its not yours.

Since O'Sullivan's career history is so short he's hard to compare--hopefully he'll improve but who knows. on the other hand, Lombardi paid $3.75 million to sign Nagy (over paying in retrospect but I thought Nagy played well for us before he got hurt) and other contracts signed this summer by other teams pay players a lot, seeming overvalued. If Nagy got $3.75 million can't one argue O'Sullivan should be paid more than that? Was (or how much) was Nagy overpaid at the time his contract was signed? And, if so, so what? I still do not think this valuation is so easy.

But we do not know who offered what. So why assume its the Kings who got their valuation/contract offers correct and its Meehan/O'Sullivan who are off and should make concessions?

And, if the parties are off on valuations as it seems from Hammond's column they are, then O'Sullivan/Meehan's request for a short term contract is right--What I would do is offer the following, "Since we do not have a track record, Dean, and we disagree on valuation, we'll sign a short term contract at just what you offered--or less--and get you that record you say we lack. If you want a long term contract so you can tatoo Kings on my client's butt, then I need him paid full value for a solid average nhl quality top six winger, not take a 30% discount over fair value on a long term contract because you a) think O Sullivan can play; but b) know he lacks the longer track record. This kid can play and he'll take the risk. Give us the 2 year contract (at less than the offer) and we're done for now. And hey Dean, let's go get some ribs at houstons"

If Meehan made an offer like that--something I do not know--then its the Kings who are the problem if there is one. But what do I know. I thought O'Sullivan would sign this week to make sure he'd attend the training camp and not miss time with the new coach.

it would be great to get Sully signed for long term, but this team does not and will not revolve around 1 player. You're right Carla, if Sully really wants to stay he should go to Lombardi himself and get it done, or viseversa. PLEASE

All contracts should be based on insentives, play better, more money. Play crappy, less money

Originally Posted by 8ball

All contracts should be based on incentives, play better, more money. Play crappy, less money

Incentive based contracts are no longer allowed under the new CBA unless it is an entry level contract or a contract for a player 35 and older.