This is a great opportunity, imo. I don't even care about the contract. The Jackets have enough cap space to take this gamble.
1 bad season in LA doesn't make Mike Richards a bad player. And besides, with LA's depth, he's not getting much ice time. He hasn't had the chance to produce.
The Jackets' Forward depth is nonexistent. We literally have one scoring line. Mike Richards has the potential to help that out..
I had a not so nice post ready to go last night but I held off. This gets the main points across for me. Besides the fact that they have a certain "score by committee" approach in LA he for whatever reason seems to not be IN the committee THIS YEAR. I'm sure his on ice play is part of this reason, but there's obviously way more to this type of stuff. It could be as "simple" as him just falling out of favor with Sutter. Or as simple as them wanting to "wennberg" the younger guys. Or it could be he just needs a change. Maybe he's just had enough of living in LA. Somebody brought up his current not so tight relationship with Carter. Maybe that's a huge part of it. I'll be honest in saying I haven't been following LA and Richards much lately but to me there's no way Mike Richards does not make the CBJ a better hockey team by a quite considerable amount. The amount and length of his contract IS the negative. Not his play.
The only thing the forward lines need is a guy like Jake Vorachek. Mike Richards isn't that.
And how do you expect to get a "guy" like Voracek? Atkinson, Golobeuf and a 2nd isn't gonna get it done. Like the Hartnell trade, this is an opportunity to get a PROVEN (aging, "overpaid") player with legit value for as cheap as you possibly ever could. Bottom line is the team would be better with Richards. We've still got multiple guys that should not be in Columbus at the moment.
-In real money he will cost 22(!) million dollars plus the balance of this season.
There is nothing to like at this point about Richards on this team on hockey terms or, particularly, financially.
There's plenty to like at this point. The "type" of hockey player that Richards is now, is the same as it was 3-4 years ago. There's many different possibilities on why his "execution" on the ice has diminished. There's also many different possibilities of factors that could "spark" his game again. In Columbus, many of those factors are present. I mean just last year his 41pts was 4th best in LA, and would've been 4th best here.
I get the concerns about the CAP hit and length still left on the contract but as a fellow "long time" CBJ fan this "real money" **** is probably my biggest issue with a good number of you guys. This is a NHL franchise. The ownership group or whatever you wanna call it is worth HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS. At least. To me, them putting him on waivers was clearly an attempt to simply get a team to take him for "free". To save them everything. I'm sure these possible future financial issues (both team cap management and Richards value in relation to his cap hit/length) that LA is thinking negatively about is the only negative aspect other teams have when it comes to Richards. We've seen how this can actually work to our advantage with the Hartnell-Umberger trade.
Question I have. Those of you SO against bringing Richards in. Would your opinion be different if we we're sitting good in the playoff race, say 4th-7th? What about if Horton's CBJ era was completely nonexistent?
Although you make good points, I don't agree with the conclusion. Every player who goes to Los Angeles enters an offensive black hole. Their rankings by goals scored since Darryl Sutter took over:
2014-15 - 17th (so far)
2013-14 - 25th
2012-13 - 9th (48-game season)
2011-12 - 29th
That Richards' offensive numbers have plummeted isn't really a shock; it's happened to pretty much everyone who's suited up the last four years. In addition, the depth that he's buried behind limits his ice time and situational use. .
All very relevant. Usage is the main factor when it comes to guys' numbers/stats. And it can vary quite strongly from year to year. Especially with certain coaches. Foligno is the PERFECT example to look at.
I think getting Richards as a reclamation project does make sense under the right circumstances. If a bad contract can be moved, if Los Angeles retains 50%, if everyone recognizes that the right move was not to pick him up back in 2011 at whatever the astronomical price would have been, if he's brought in with the understanding that he's an asset that is being acquired for the purpose of being moved as soon as the right value comes along.
Don't agree really with the very last part. I don't think he should be brought in just to see if he can regain something just to be moved again. He'd be brought in at a crazy low price to see if he still can play at a "top 6" or "middle 6" role. At this point I think he would fit well with our other "underappreciated" vets we have on the team. To me HE is worth the gamble. Like Hartnell, Richards has so many different aspects to his game, and so many different things he could bring to this team. At the very least, a spark.
I don't know how many of you
HONESTLY see this team (healthy+couple tweaks) as a "contender" but I do. At the VERY LEAST (like Hartnell) the next couple season after this year he would make our team better. His on ice attitude and play is exactly the type we should want on this team. I'd rather have him here the next 4 years on any line over our new Scandinavian Filatov.
And hey 1 more guy would be huge getting Boll out of the lineup full time right?!? Right?!?
The amount of
REAL MONEY spent on players might affect the number of "Stuff your Face For FREE" nights in a year or so but I think you guys would survive.
