KINGS Claim Nikita Scherbak

[funky]

Now that he cleared, hopefully some proper coaching in the AHL for the rest of the year will help fix the deficiencies in his game. Maybe not the player he was once billed to be but still could be an effective player in the future that cost nothing to get

 

[HeadInjury]

Looks like he cleared waivers

https://www.tsn.ca/kings-f-scherbak-clears-waivers-1.1237332

Can we now please stop the silliness about Scherbak not getting playing time because he's Russian?

Hopefully, he takes his assignment to Ontario well and works on his game.

 

[lumbergh]

Can we now please stop the silliness about Scherbak not getting playing time because he's Russian?

No we cannot, because conspiracy theories are much more plausible than legitimate reasons for a marginal NHL player to not play. At least that's the way I understand HFBoards.

 

[Peter James Bond II]

Since Ontario (like the parent club) has an abysmal offense, hopefully Nikita plays line one and starts scoring near a point per game clip and he, Amadio
and Rempal start scoring more...and Nikita gets good coaching and works on his game. I know Sean O'Donnell works with the D (and I guess Modry, since
he's ast coach) but who works with forwards? Glen Murray? Nelson Emerson? AND, has anyone heard anything about Adam Oates doing anything
with the Kings or Ontario, since that obscure announcement he would be working with organization?

 

[Sleeping Dog]

Paying players to not play does not give the owners cost certainty.

Agree, but unless you totally tie up the GMs to not sign players to over inflated (both salary and length) contracts, this gives teams some solutions when trying to improve a team. How would you like to be the new GM of a team at the cap limit, so you’re options are extremely limited? You almost have to wait until some bad contracts expire, which could be years.

I’d also like to see teams be able to remove a previous buyout contract from their cap. For example, if team A doesn’t have any onerous contracts with their current players, but they have a buyout on their books, they should be able to use their compliance buyout on that contract to get it off the books. (I am not suggesting teams get to remove both a previous buyout AND a current player - just that they could use this item for one or the other).

 

[KINGS17]

Agree, but unless you totally tie up the GMs to not sign players to over inflated (both salary and length) contracts, this gives teams some solutions when trying to improve a team. How would you like to be the new GM of a team at the cap limit, so you’re options are extremely limited? You almost have to wait until some bad contracts expire, which could be years.

I’d also like to see teams be able to remove a previous buyout contract from their cap. For example, if team A doesn’t have any onerous contracts with their current players, but they have a buyout on their books, they should be able to use their compliance buyout on that contract to get it off the books. (I am not suggesting teams get to remove both a previous buyout AND a current player - just that they could use this item for one or the other).

At this time all the risk burden is borne by the owners and the fans. If a player signs an 8-year deal and starts playing poorly 2 or 3 years into the deal, the owner has no recourse. That needs to change, and it shouldn't change in a way which exposes ownership to cost uncertainty, or the players getting more than 50% of the revenue.

The fans shouldn't have to pay good money to be "entertained" by the type of effort the Kings are putting forth in many games this season. Too bad the fans can't get a refund on games where the team doesn't feel like showing up.

I think the contract lengths are out of control. Probably the best way to fix it is to make the actual salary paid in a season the cap hit of the player for that season. GMs who seem to only have a plan for the current season and maybe the next one would be forced to temper their desire to "game" the system with the long term contracts.

I think most GMs act assuming they won't be around in five years and it will be the next guy's problem.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

I think most GMs act assuming they won't be around in five years and it will be the next guy's problem.

And that is the issue. No long term planning, because you’ll just be setting up your successor.

 

[KINGS17]

And that is the issue. No long term planning, because you’ll just be setting up your successor.

Agreed, but that is the fault of the owners. If I were an owner, I would conduct a thorough search for the right GM, and give that person a lot more rope than I would give any player.

Dean Lombardi was hired by the Kings in April of 2006. Many here wanted him to be shown the door by the summer of 2010. That's hardly enough time to execute a plan leading to a Stanley Cup victory. Fortunately, Dean was able to work the plan (not to perfection, but well enough) and stayed with the Kings for 10 years. Even without the cups, Dean presided over the best 3-4 year run in the history of the franchise.

The current people in charge are not the right managers to come even close.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Agreed, but that is the fault of the owners. If I were an owner, I would conduct a thorough search for the right GM, and give that person a lot more rope than I would give any player.

Dean Lombardi was hired by the Kings in April of 2006. Many here wanted him to be shown the door by the summer of 2010. That's hardly enough time to execute a plan leading to a Stanley Cup victory. Fortunately, Dean was able to work the plan (not to perfection, but well enough) and stayed with the Kings for 10 years. Even without the cups, Dean presided over the best 3-4 year run in the history of the franchise.

The current people in charge are not the right managers to come even close.

Bolded the amusing part, because in the same thought process, at what, 2 years, they aren't the right people.......so....gives PLENTY OF ROPE....OMG they haven't done anything in TWO YEARS....

 

[KINGS17]

Bolded the amusing part, because in the same thought process, at what, 2 years, they aren't the right people.......so....gives PLENTY OF ROPE....OMG they haven't done anything in TWO YEARS....

I wouldn't call looking in the offices next door and finding Blake and Robitialle (two proven losers as players with the Kings) a thorough search.

I call it organizational nepotism, and the old boys players club from the '90s.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I wouldn't call looking in the offices next door and finding Blake and Robitialle (two proven losers as players with the Kings) a thorough search.

I call it organizational nepotism, and the old boys players club from the '90s.

Yes, organizational nepotism from a corporation lol I guess....

But just curious what do the players careers have to do with anything, are you saying that unless you won as a player you can't win in the front office?

 

[KINGS17]

Yes, organizational nepotism from a corporation lol I guess....

But just curious what do the players careers have to do with anything, are you saying that unless you won as a player you can't win in the front office?

I will wait for you to address my comment regarding a thorough search first.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I will wait for you to address my comment regarding a thorough search first.

Um ok, you made a comment about a thorough search....

The fact that they hired Robitaille and Blake doesn't preclude that they didn't, it just means you didn't like who they hired and choose to assume they did not.

 

[KINGS17]

To suggest AEG did a thorough search for new executives for the positions of President and GM is laughable, and I think everyone knows it.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

To suggest AEG did a thorough search for new executives for the positions of President and GM is laughable, and I think everyone knows it.

I dont know if they did or not, neither do you but again how do players playing careers determine front office success again?

 

[DryIslandBartender]

I dont know if they did or not, neither do you but again how do players playing careers determine front office success again?

They didn’t conduct a thorough search. We would know who was contacted for the job.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

They didn’t conduct a thorough search. We would know who was contacted for the job.

Lol why would you think that? I'm not saying they did or did not but you say you do because you know who they contacted? Ok how

 

[BigKing]

Blake and Luc both won Cups but they did it on other teams. They had to go elsewhere to win and then they came back to collect a check and live at the beach again. In Blake's case, he did it in part to rehab his image here in LA because he always had designs on working for the Kings at some point since he lives here. Don't think for a second that he and Luc didn't discuss that prior to them retiring. Would have been a lot more difficult to bring Blake back into the fold and retire his number without him coming back for a 2nd tour to show how much he "loves" the Kings.

No chance in hell there was an extensive search to replace DL. Complete ignorance if you think Luc/Blake were surprised that they were named to their positions in the same press release announcing the firing.

The point is that these guys are part of a failed legacy of bringing in former Kings to run the team and, to an extent, even letting a roster player in Gretzky run the team. The Kings were notorious for being mismanaged--in large part to various meddling owners--but there is a reason ownership put these guys in place. AEG was trash with Taylor but finally decided to bite the bullet with Lombardi and it worked.

Lombardi spent too much of their money with rapidly diminishing results, including the atrocity that is paying players that aren't even on the team. Enter Luc and Rob to do as they are told, like Dave Taylor.

 

[KINGS17]

BigKing nailed it. Thanks.

 

[King'sPawn]

At this time all the risk burden is borne by the owners and the fans. If a player signs an 8-year deal and starts playing poorly 2 or 3 years into the deal, the owner has no recourse. That needs to change, and it shouldn't change in a way which exposes ownership to cost uncertainty, or the players getting more than 50% of the revenue.

The fans shouldn't have to pay good money to be "entertained" by the type of effort the Kings are putting forth in many games this season. Too bad the fans can't get a refund on games where the team doesn't feel like showing up.

I think the contract lengths are out of control. Probably the best way to fix it is to make the actual salary paid in a season the cap hit of the player for that season. GMs who seem to only have a plan for the current season and maybe the next one would be forced to temper their desire to "game" the system with the long term contracts.

I think most GMs act assuming they won't be around in five years and it will be the next guy's problem.

What would you say to any contract 5 years or longer has an option after 2 or 3 years for either the player or team to renegotiate the contract? That way, if a player is playing out of his mind early into a long contract, he can opt to have the rest of the term negotiated with his team. On the other hand, if a player isn't playing up to his contract early into it, the team also has the chance to re-evaluate.

I think what we need to look at isn't just about giving the owners cost certainty. Players who play very well early into a contract should be allowed to seek further incentive to play above their contract (granted, they SHOULD try to do the best they can every night, but I think anything we do for contracts should also offer incentives in both ways).

 

[KINGS17]

What would you say to any contract 5 years or longer has an option after 2 or 3 years for either the player or team to renegotiate the contract? That way, if a player is playing out of his mind early into a long contract, he can opt to have the rest of the term negotiated with his team. On the other hand, if a player isn't playing up to his contract early into it, the team also has the chance to re-evaluate.

I think what we need to look at isn't just about giving the owners cost certainty. Players who play very well early into a contract should be allowed to seek further incentive to play above their contract (granted, they SHOULD try to do the best they can every night, but I think anything we do for contracts should also offer incentives in both ways).

I would say it might be a step in the right direction.

I am starting to lean toward the idea that contracts should be limited to 4 years in length, and the salary paid to a player in a season is the salary counted against the cap that season. If a player works hard and produces during the 4 years he is under contract, he will get a raise. If he doesn't produce, he won't.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Blake and Luc both won Cups but they did it on other teams. They had to go elsewhere to win and then they came back to collect a check and live at the beach again. In Blake's case, he did it in part to rehab his image here in LA because he always had designs on working for the Kings at some point since he lives here. Don't think for a second that he and Luc didn't discuss that prior to them retiring. Would have been a lot more difficult to bring Blake back into the fold and retire his number without him coming back for a 2nd tour to show how much he "loves" the Kings.

No chance in hell there was an extensive search to replace DL. Complete ignorance if you think Luc/Blake were surprised that they were named to their positions in the same press release announcing the firing.

The point is that these guys are part of a failed legacy of bringing in former Kings to run the team and, to an extent, even letting a roster player in Gretzky run the team. The Kings were notorious for being mismanaged--in large part to various meddling owners--but there is a reason ownership put these guys in place. AEG was trash with Taylor but finally decided to bite the bullet with Lombardi and it worked.

Lombardi spent too much of their money with rapidly diminishing results, including the atrocity that is paying players that aren't even on the team. Enter Luc and Rob to do as they are told, like Dave Taylor.

None, whatsoever? So you think they made the decision to hire Blake, the same time to fire Lombardi? Couldn't be that they decided to fire Lombardi right after the deadline, and put feelers out? Not saying your wrong, but you guys throw absolutes around here like nobodies business,

No chance in hell, no way this happened, we would have heard, etc, like you guys have your ear to the pulse of the NHL and the inside community?

I am still waiting to hear from K17, even you, what a guys PLAYING CAREER, has to do with front office success? Or is it just something you guys can throw around during a tantrum? Of course they hired Blake, he was a loser as a player, because hell, that makes sense...right?

 

[KINGS17]

Ask yourself this question. Do you think Robitaille or Blake would take a job as an executive or GM in Edmonton, Calgary, or Winnipeg?

If you are being honest in your response, then you know why they shouldn't be leading the Kings organization.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Ask yourself this question. Do you think Robitaille or Blake would take a job as an executive or GM in Edmonton, Calgary, or Winnipeg?

If you are being honest in your response, then you know why they shouldn't be leading the Kings organization.

Again, you said you would address this, and you keep avoiding it like the plague,

WHAT does a player's playing career, have to do with front office success??

Answer that and I'll respond to your question there...

 

[HeadInjury]

Not a Blake fan by any means, but it is too early to judge him. He inherited a mess. His free agent signings of undrafted players has been a positive. Won't know for years whether the draft selections were good or not. Posters claiming he should be trading players now instead of at the trade deadline are living in dream land.