This is the most absurd argument I've ever heard.
Really? On a forum littered with a couple dozen versions of overzealous "blow it up" arguments, a GM paying guys that won Cups is the most absurd argument you've ever heard?
Even if you assume your completely absurd premise that players are more willing to play for a GM who gives out bad contracts, why were players willing to play for the 2012 Kings, then?
Gosh, I don't know. Why would a bunch of rich guys want to live in one of the most beautiful places in the country, where the wealthy are treated like royalty, the glamor of Hollywood is at their fingertips, and there's a better than even chance of nailing a Kardashian?
Yeah, the LA teams have always had trouble being attractive trade destinations and luring free agents...
You're seriously trying to spin giving out terrible contracts that converted a cup contending team to a team that has missed the playoffs in 2/3 years as a positive attribute.
No, he's clearly saying that he's willing to endure that kind of crap if it comes on the heels of winning a Cup or two.
He's saying that he thinks Lombardi is pretty great. You're saying he's a disaster. The fact that neither of you can concede that the truth lies pretty squarely in the middle is getting tiresome.
Personally, I'm not gonna jump off the roof if we stick with Trotz and Mac. I don't have much of an issue with what Mac's done with what he inherited, and I see as many reasons to keep Trotz as I do to fire him.
I like some of the available coaches, but "Once upon a time, this guy coached a Cup team" isn't all that convincing to me. We've all seen unremarkable coaches win championships in every sport.