KINGS17
I believe this to be true, and am thankful because it restored my faith in Dean. At least he didn't make the same mistake twice.Originally Posted by Salty Dog
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
I'm sure this won't be the last time, but here's my trusty old Blake post. I think I first posted in about 6 or so years ago. It's great that the links still work.
BEFORE THE TRADE
Kings sign Blake
Blake holds out in 1998-99 after ONE (count 'em - one) great season after three consecutive years of injuries and mediocrity. He won a Norris in 1997-98 and demanded to be the highest paid defenseman ever. The Kings gave him that deal (a three year deal), despite his history of injuries. Blake promptly got hurt and missed 20 games that season but proceeded with two terrific years after that.
In the summer of 2000 Blake and the Kings begin discussing a contract extension (his contract would run out in the summer of 2001). Blake complained that the Kings were not offering enough money fast enough. He whined to the media about it and after some time, the Kings made a contract offer of about $6.2 mil a year for 3 or 5 yrs, depending on some things. This would have made Blake the 2nd highest paid Dman behind Leetch (who was paid the normal crazy money by the Rangers) and ahead of the likes of Bourque, Lidstrom, Pronger and Stevens. Blake says many times during the summer that it's not about the money. That he loves LA and wants to retire in LA. But he says he is insulted by the offer and counters at $8.5 mil, which certainly makes it seem like it's about the money. Negotiations stall.
In August of 2000, negotiations resume but move very slowly. After several weeks of negotiation, the Kings make a "final" offer of $7.5 mil a year for three years. The Kings use a standard normal contract negotiation term from the U.S. Labor Code and Ralph C. Dills Act (California Collective Bargaining Law) called a "last, best and final offer" (some people may remember hearing this phrase relative to negotiations with unions because there must be a "last, best and final offer" (Labor Code jargon) and an "impasse" declared in order for the employer to hire replacement workers). Blake and his agent Ron Salcer get their panties in a bunch over the "tone" of the contract offer. Blake decides the Kings are such scallywags that he cannot remain Captain of the team and he resigns the Captaincy, which is one of the biggest honors a player can be given by his team, coach and his teammate.
ANOTHER OPINION
CNNSI.com - Inside Game - Darren Eliot - Inside the NHL - CNNSI.com's Darren Eliot: Captaincy and Currency - Thursday December 28, 2000 02:22 PM
This is one of the best articles ever written about Blake and his disgusting use of the Captaincy as a negotiating tool. Here are three quotes from Darren Eliot's article: "Kings captain Rob Blake seems far more consumed with his contract negotiations than he is with the plight of his team and teammates.", "Well, so much for the Kings building on their fine start. Forget about a focused group looking to prove they can contend with the big boys. The season has become all about Blake's situation and his pursuit of pay dirt." and "Well, Blake's insistence on promoting his individual agenda at least proves that his original instinct was his truest act as captain to date."
This is the first time in modern hockey a team Captain has resigned over contract negotiations. At least the first time the public has ever known about it. Joe Sakic didn't resign the Captaincy when he knew he would test the UFA waters (and was signed to an offer sheet by the Rangers). Chris Chelios never resigned the Captaincy when he knew he was in for a very bitter contract negotiation with the Hawks and would likely be traded (even though in the end he wasn't). Gretzky didn't. Messier didn't. Fleury didn't. None of the 7 Habs' Captains in a row to get traded did (Carbonneau, Chelios, Muller, Keane, Turgeon, Damphousse, Corson). NOBODY resigns the Captaincy over contract negotiations...nobody but Blake...
Andy Murray says that if Blake isn't the Captain, they will not have a Captain and this apparently convinces Blake to reconsider. He takes back the Captain's "C". However, his public display and whining to the media created quite a storm and when he voiced his displeasure about the contract through the media (rather than privately), it put the Kings in the terrible position of having to defend their actions through the media or allow Blake's version of this story to be the only one told. Dave Taylor spoke up and explained how the negotiations had gone and that their $7.5 mil offer was fair and reasonable, would have made him the 2nd highest paid Dman behind Leetch's $8 mil and it was the most they were going to be able to pay him.
Blake's response was to whine to the media some more.
On 10/26/00, Chris Pronger signed a deal with the Blues for an insane $10 mil a year after winning the Norris and Hart trophies in the same year.
Rob Blake's contract demand, which had dropped a whopping $400,000 (to $8.1 mil a year after the Kings went up $1.3 mil a year) suddenly went up to $29.5 mil for three years based on the new market value Pronger established. How Blake thinks his Norris trophy and leading the Kings nowhere equates to Pronger's Norris AND Hart and leading the Blues to the President's Trophy (best record in the NHL) in 1999-00 and into the 2nd round of the playoffs in 1998-99 is beyond my comprehension.
BLAKE CONTINUES TO WHINE TO THE MEDIA, CREATING THE STIR DARREN ELIOT TALKS ABOUT IN HIS ARTICLE
Los Angeles Kings Notes for December
This is a terrific website for general notes about the Kings. Read as many notes as you can handle from June of 2000 through February of 2001 for a good picture of how much whining Blake did to the media. [UPDATE: I just went back and read this site for the first time in a couple of years. There actually aren't many notes there anymore so this isn't a very good link any longer.]
Rob Blake then did the worst thing he had ever done to the Los Angeles Kings (which IMO is really saying something after he'd ripped the "C" off in a manipulative attempt to negotiate a better contract). He told the media (and all NHL GM's) that if he were traded, he would not sign a contract extension with any team in the NHL. This reduced Dave Taylor's negotiating leverage almost beyond description. After all, what GM is going to trade for a player who says he is 100% sure (Blake's words) that he wouldn't sign a new deal with the team he was traded to and would DEFINITELY test the free agent market? Almost no GM would do that. Why did Blake do this? Who knows?
Taylor then makes the trade and is later named NHL Executive of the Year (not GM of the Year...Executive of the Year) in large part because of the value he got in that trade.Don Cherry says it was the best trade in the last 3-4 yrs of the NHL.
OPINIONS OF THE TRADE
Welcome to Deadmarsh 18/28 [dot] COM!
"Look at this deal: {Jared} Aulin, Adam Deadmarsh, Aaron Miller and draft pics (including a No. 1 yet to be selected) for {Rob} Blake who may or may not sign a contract with Colorado after this season. Given that he wasn't exactly operating from strength, {Kings Senior Vice President/General Manager Dave} Taylor should be the executive of the year off that deal alone." - Jim Kelley, Foxsports.com, March 26, 2001
"Those who think Colorado won the Rob Blake deal should think again. The Avalanche will miss Adam Deadmarsh more than L.A. will miss Blake." - The Fischler Report, March 27-April 2, 2001
"I love the {Adam} Deadmarsh trade. You know I like {Rob} Blake, everybody in the world would like Blake, this guy is unbelievable, but I'll tell you one thing, Deadmarsh - power, a guy who hits, a guy who fights. Then you have {Aaron} Miller and draft picks. I would say that is the best trade in the last three of four years in the National Hockey League. Those guys are going to be on that team for the next 10 years, and (Kings Senior Vice Presdient/General Manager) Davey Taylor did it and I think that it is great." - Don Cherry, Hockey Night in Canada, March 10, 2001
(What I love about Cherry's quote is that he calls it "the Deadmarsh trade" and not "the Blake trade".)
On 7/2/01 Rob Blake signed a $47 mil, 5 yr deal with the Avs. So much for his pledge to test the UFA waters that took Dave Taylor's trade leverage away. So much for it not being about the money.
BTW, the trade was:
Rob Blake and Steven Reinprecht for Adam Deadmarsh, Aaron Miller, a 1st round selection (David Steckel) in 2001, a player to be named later (Jared Aulin, March 22, 2001) and future considerations. The "future considerations" was a conditional pick (based on whether the Avs re-signed Blake) in the 2002 or 2003 draft and they took Boyle with that pick.
And the FINAL trade worked out to be: Blake + Reinprecht for Deadmarsh (retired) + Miller (left as UFA) + Aulin (traded for Anson Carter, who left as a UFA) + Steckel (unsigned draft pick, compensation pick traded to Boston in Stumpel deal, who left as a UFA) + Boyle (traded for a 2010 3rd rounder).
It's "dawdle" doofus.
And the Kings didn't dawdle, they offered him a contract that would have made him the second highest paid Dman behind a very overpaid Brian Leetch. Then the Blues did the thing that ended up tearing their team apart because they couldn't afford Pronger AND Tkachuk AND Weight: they signed Pronger to a contract for WAAAAY too much. Besides, Blake STILL didn't deserve to be paid only $500k less than a young Dman who JUST won the Norris and led his team to the President's trophy.
I don't care that Pierre Lacroix paid him that much, it was stupid and the Avs never won another Cup because Lacroix paid his core players too much money.
Time gives us all perspective and the Kings made the right decision to trade Blake. Injuries to Deadmarsh and Miller hurt, but in retrospect it was the right decision. Even more to the point is that the Avs, Sharks, and Kings all made the mistake of acquiring him. Not one of them won a Cup because of him.
JT, I've argued with you over this many times too an I still say your argument is extremely one-sided. And no one seems to remember that the Kings were doing the same thing to Stumpel that year and the same thing to Norstrom the year before. Blake even spoke up for Norstrom when it happened. And the fact that Blake was on the NHLPA committee can't be overlooked. The Kings were known cheapskates.
You criticize Blake for asking Pronger-like money and point out that the Blues had more success. If you compare the two teams' lineups back then it's easy to see why that happened. And the Blues didn't even make it out of the second round before Blake went to Colorado so it's not like they were that great.
You mention Blake taking off the "C" but fail to bring up the fact that Blake himself admitted he took it too personally after taking it back.
You mention how he signed with the Avs on 7/2/01 and then say he didn't test the free agent market. A) He was technically a free agent. B) Winning the Stanley Cup would change anyone's mind especially when they are willing to pay the amount asked.
We can go on and on about this but I don't think Blake did was reason enough to hate him for the last 10 years and show no signs of getting over it. He's also worn the "A" in Colorado and the "C" in San Jose so don't you think that the guys who actually know what goes on behind closed doors pick him to leadership roles because he's actually good at leading?
If you're going to give it to JT you may as well give it to me too. Blake is and always will be a greedy pos.
All 3 of you Blake supporters, what did he do for the Kings, that was so great? Did he carry this team? How many playoff series did we win with him as the captain? Was he really that great? What accomplishments did this team achieve that can be directly linked to his playing days here? Why have you placed this particular player on such a pedistal?
So do you hate all other ex-Kings players? After all, none of them carried the team to anything either. Not even the greatest player in the game could do it. This isn't about pedestals. This is about people just hating on the guy and not getting over something that was just as much the team's fault. Every other fan base, player, analyst, etc. has nothing but great things to say about him as a person. You guys who keep blasting the guy almost a decade later just come off as bitter ex's. This especially after Blake has publicly said he'd have done things differently.
Rob Blake was the greatest defenseman this team has ever seen so appreciating that about him is understandable. He IS a Hall of Famer and when he's in as a King, his number will be retired too.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
