Thread: Leverage, Credibility and Interpreting the Sounds of Silence

Originally Posted by KingsFan19

This situation has the markings of a powder keg written all over it. This could very easily develop in to a worse situation than the Camalleri thing ever was.

I agree. Cammalleri was about one 'me first' kind of guy. (Admittedly, that is my perception of him.) The long term implications of this on the entire team is why I am pretty mystified there were not more intense efforts to do this far, and I mean far earlier. I put equal blame on both sides for this.

Originally Posted by KingsFan19

I still maintain that this situation needs to be fixed now rather than later. Every day he remains unsigned and not with the team means that this season is hurt by his absence. And more importantly; the future of the Kings other core players is jeopardized.

That pretty much covers it.

I know... if only Lombardi realized that what he's doing with O'Sullivan right now could also have effect on future player negotiations. If I only knew he didn't realize this, I would have made sure to grab him and tell him this when he was walking to his seat not too far from me on Saturday. Damn it! Could it be that I had a chance to save the franchise and I didn't? I feel so guilty now.

Originally Posted by Carla Muller

What about the possibility of 3. How Dean handles this contract effects his ability to re-sign Johnson and Kopitar. There IS also a big assumption that the offer from DL is fair and appropriate. That may not be the case.

I was basing my statement that he was asking too much money in large part on your own, that O'Sullivan was asking for what in your opinion is too much money. Plus, if your interviewee is to be believed, one of the comparables being used by O'Sullivan's agent is Perry - which is just goofy.

Originally Posted by Carla Muller

DL had challenges getting some players re-signed in San Jose. There is evidence of that here. At some point, this may be about more than the budget he gets from the owners if he has problems re-signing players in 2 organizations. Drafting and developing is one skill; the ability to keep those players in the organization is another. Only time will tell if DL has serious issues of being able to do the latter.

Whatever problems he had in San Jose with holdouts (two prominent players as I recall, in seven seasons), he had no trouble actually keeping players there - Nabokov is still there, and the other prominent player who held out was Stuart, who re-signed and obviously holds no ill will towards Lombardi. So he does have an excellent track record of being very successful not only at drafting and developing players but the "ability to keep those players in the organization."

Originally Posted by Carla Muller

DL may or may not be right on what he is doing with O'Sullivan. He seems to be missing the point that now that he has repeatedly and publicly named the team's core and builders, that these same players will then reasonably want to be paid and treated the way players who have that organizational standing possess. And if DL doesn't back it up so that his actions match his words, what will be the effect of that?

As stated already, and in prior threads going back over a year, Lombardi seems less concerned with getting guys locked up (he can always go to his "he didn't want to be here" card again) than he does with getting more assets. I said it before and I'll say it again, why start negotiations with O'Sullivan (and to the same extent Blake) days before they are set to go on the market? For all the bluster from DL regarding these guys and "core" and "tattoo's" and everything else, he sure doesn't seem to show that same loyalty that he's asking to BE shown.

Like Carla said, this isn't even really about O'Sullivan. He's a nice player, but he's not making the difference between a Stanley Cup or not. This is about all the other guys who everyone just assumes will be here for the next 10 years. Why? I have no idea other than they heard Lombardi say he wants to keep them here. Much like Blake, Vis, and now O'Sullivan.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

I was basing my statement that he was asking too much money in large part on your own, that O'Sullivan was asking for what in your opinion is too much money. Plus, if your interviewee is to be believed, one of the comparables being used by O'Sullivan's agent is Perry - which is just goofy.

The # I quoted as comparable this weekend (without researching stats or specifics) was in line with the offer sheet Clarke gave Ryan Kesler or 1.9 million for the first year. I believe that one NHL year on a losing team with no playoff experience puts #12 at no more than $2 million for this season. I wouldn't provide a 3 year deal that was worth more than $3 million on average. Perry is an absurd comparable - I agree with you completely on that.

The number I was told Sully was offered for a five year deal is a deal I would have turned down if I were him. Whether that # changed once it was rejected, I do not know. (And it is not for me to say publicly what that # was.)

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

Like Carla said, this isn't even really about O'Sullivan. He's a nice player, but he's not making the difference between a Stanley Cup or not. This is about all the other guys who everyone just assumes will be here for the next 10 years. Why? I have no idea other than they heard Lombardi say he wants to keep them here. Much like Blake, Vis, and now O'Sullivan.

That is the scary part of all of this. Major Yikes.

Originally Posted by Carla Muller

The # I quoted as comparable this weekend (without researching stats or specifics) was in line with the offer sheet Clarke gave Ryan Kesler or 1.9 million for the first year. I believe that one NHL year on a losing team with no playoff experience puts #12 at no more than $2 million for this season. I wouldn't provide a 3 year deal that was worth more than $3 million on average. Perry is an absurd comparable - I agree with you completely on that.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that an offer sheet to Kesler given more than 2 years ago (universally considered at the time as a huge overpayment) is a relevant comparable to O'Sullivan now?

i think mmminc needs to PM me directly or something... this cryptic s*** is getting old.

in lieu of another verbose rant, all i'll say is that the TFWO-like unfairness doctrine being embraced with kung-fu grip on either end has become extremely stale.

Why not an incentive based contract? If numbers are of concern..that would be the way to go IMO.

-Deliv