Confirmed with Link: Muzzin signs 5-year extension

[kingsfan]

Not sure how the waivers work to be honest, but three years down the road, Greene will be gone, not sure who replaces him out of the ones you listed,

Then you take stock of what you have at that point, what you don't do, is let Martinez walk for nothing, that's really bad asset management as you don't have to let him walk, just because players are waiver eligible means nothing.

Greene's under contract for four more years including this one and as we've seen with Mitchell and Scuderi, he's not been to inclined to deal away veteran blueliners. I think it's hardly a guarantee he's gone in three years (including the current one).

And just because players are waiver eligible doesn't mean 'nothing' when you are talking about bad asset management. Look at Thomas Hickey.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Greene's under contract for four more years including this one and as we've seen with Mitchell and Scuderi, he's not been to inclined to deal away veteran blueliners. I think it's hardly a guarantee he's gone in three years (including the current one).

And just because players are waiver eligible doesn't mean 'nothing' when you are talking about bad asset management. Look at Thomas Hickey.

What about Thomas Hickey?

When he was picked up for waivers, instead of traded, what do you think you could have gotten back for him? Realistically?

So in the middle of all this success, you would rather deal Martinez who is proven, than let a player go to waivers?

Really? I thought the goal of all this was to win.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

What about Thomas Hickey?

When he was picked up for waivers, instead of traded, what do you think you could have gotten back for him? Realistically?

So in the middle of all this success, you would rather deal Martinez who is proven, than let a player go to waivers?

Really? I thought the goal of all this was to win.

It's been reported that they tried to trade Hickey to every team in the league an no one bit.
Assumably, at least one team figured that they would be able to snatch him on waivers

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

It's been reported that they tried to trade Hickey to every team in the league an no one bit.
Assumably, at least one team figured that they would be able to snatch him on waivers

Exactly.

Which hammers my point, if they couldn't trade him, then they had to make him available on waivers, and....so what?

It's not the end of the world to lose a player on waivers,

The end goal of a professional sports organization is to win championships, letting players like Martinez go so they can keep a "Hickey" type player flies directly in the face of that.

 

[cyclones22]

The talk about Martinez walking at the end of the season being bad asset management is misguided. You're basically saying if you can't sign him, trade him, which in a vacuum is fine. But when do you propose that to happen? Who do you jettison instead? How to do you do it without diminishing your team's chances of repeating? The ultimate goal is to win the Cup. Contenders don't trade away players in their lineups for asset management. They do it to improve their immediate chances, not to get worse and hope to be better down the line. Something historic could potentially be on the line for this franchise and Martinez is needed to help accomplish that. If part of that price is Martinez walking at the end of the year, that's the price of doing business of trying to go back to back. That's what happens when you've got too many good players in a cap system. You know what good asset management is? Drafting Martinez in the 4th round and grooming and developing him into a player who contributed on 2 Stanley Cup winning teams for around a million dollars or less a season. Using your assets to win 2 Cups in 3 seasons is GREAT asset management.

 

[KingCanadain1976]

The talk about Martinez walking at the end of the season being bad asset management is misguided. You're basically saying if you can't sign him, trade him, which in a vacuum is fine. But when do you propose that to happen? Who do you jettison instead? How to do you do it without diminishing your team's chances of repeating? The ultimate goal is to win the Cup. Contenders don't trade away players in their lineups for asset management. They do it to improve their immediate chances, not to get worse and hope to be better down the line. Something historic could potentially be on the line for this franchise and Martinez is needed to help accomplish that. If part of that price is Martinez walking at the end of the year, that's the price of doing business of trying to go back to back. That's what happens when you've got too many good players in a cap system. You know what good asset management is? Drafting Martinez in the 4th round and grooming and developing him into a player who contributed on 2 Stanley Cup winning teams for around a million dollars or less a season. Using your assets to win 2 Cups in 3 seasons is GREAT asset management.

the answer to this is simple you trade him for his replacement. I think you package him with maybe weal or some other prospect and turn it into someone like (not necessarly him ) Marc Methot (or any number 4 defensive d) who yes is a fa you get permission on a extension first. It s more flipping him for a better player or at least his equal with potential to keep longer. If Alec is not going to resign you need to use his trade value to replace him. I feel he can get us someone useful. I would however prefer to use him with slava or drew ( as seen in ot) to give him the mins he deserves. I think you may get him to resign with us for reasonable price if hes getting a bigger role this year.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

The talk about Martinez walking at the end of the season being bad asset management is misguided. You're basically saying if you can't sign him, trade him, which in a vacuum is fine. But when do you propose that to happen? Who do you jettison instead? How to do you do it without diminishing your team's chances of repeating? The ultimate goal is to win the Cup. Contenders don't trade away players in their lineups for asset management. They do it to improve their immediate chances, not to get worse and hope to be better down the line. Something historic could potentially be on the line for this franchise and Martinez is needed to help accomplish that. If part of that price is Martinez walking at the end of the year, that's the price of doing business of trying to go back to back. That's what happens when you've got too many good players in a cap system. You know what good asset management is? Drafting Martinez in the 4th round and grooming and developing him into a player who contributed on 2 Stanley Cup winning teams for around a million dollars or less a season. Using your assets to win 2 Cups in 3 seasons is GREAT asset management.

Definitely and what is so strange is people will want Martinez traded just to get "something" for him rather than lose him for nothing. That is a misguided notion in the first place because we've already gotten what.. 4 seasons out of him? Aside from that, most people would advocate trading assets for a rental at the deadline should there be a need on the roster some where. So in one hand, there is a need to get "something" for a player who may walk at the end of the year and in the other, it is perfectly acceptable to spend assets to acquire a rental who will likely do the same.

 

[cyclones22]

the answer to this is simple you trade him for his replacement. I think you package him with maybe weal or some other prospect and turn it into someone like (not necessarly him ) Marc Methot (or any number 4 defensive d) who yes is a fa you get permission on a extension first. It s more flipping him for a better player or at least his equal with potential to keep longer. If Alec is not going to resign you need to use his trade value to replace him. I feel he can get us someone useful. I would however prefer to use him with slava or drew ( as seen in ot) to give him the mins he deserves. I think you may get him to resign with us for reasonable price if hes getting a bigger role this year.

So this is simple? How many equivalent or better players are going to be available who are also going to be cheaper than what AMart will command in marketplace? And we know that Martinez can bring it in the playoffs. Unless it's a clear upgrade not a maybe, I can see the thought process behind keeping him and letting it ride out, leaving be damned. And that still doesn't explain how the dollars work out with finding an equal or better replacement. I'm with you on playing him with Slava, but we don't ice the pairings. Sutter does and in the past he's seemed averse to this. He did play AMart last night with Doughty and Slava at times, though.

The only realistic scenario I can see is if the Kings struggle this season and need to make a moderate move to shore up the team. A shakeup of sorts where a bigger contract goes the other way. Otherwise, you trade someone like Martinez in the offseason like the Hawks did with Leddy and the Bruins did with Boychuk. But you know what both of those teams had in common? Neither won the Cup last year. Easier to make that call when you finish with a loss. The Kings could've traded Martinez last offseason, knowing it was likely they couldn't afford him this offseason. Good thing they didn't, right? Maybe they could've flipped him for 2 second round picks prior to the 2013/2014 season. That would've been some great asset management in hindsight.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

Trade Martinez for another impending UFA? Huh? Why not just re-sign Martinez then? The reason the Kings would walk from Martinez is the cost. Trading for a better player doesn't really solve that. And who wants to trade us a better player for an impending UFA? Wouldn't you be better off trading the impending UFA for picks or players that are under contract? Your scenario makes little sense and I can't think of one time where something like that has happened. You know, impending UFA for impending UFA. One being better than the other and a draft pick/prospect added to the deal. If a team is selling, they don't want an impending UFA back unless it is a salary dump. They want signed players or picks.

 

[KingCanadain1976]

So this is simple? How many equivalent or better players are going to be available who are also going to be cheaper than what AMart will command in marketplace? And we know that Martinez can bring it in the playoffs. Unless it's a clear upgrade not a maybe, I can see the thought process behind keeping him and letting it ride out, leaving be damned. And that still doesn't explain how the dollars work out with finding an equal or better replacement. I'm with you on playing him with Slava, but we don't ice the pairings. Sutter does and in the past he's seemed averse to this. He did play AMart last night with Doughty and Slava at times, though.

The only realistic scenario I can see is if the Kings struggle this season and need to make a moderate move to shore up the team. A shakeup of sorts where a bigger contract goes the other way. Otherwise, you trade someone like Martinez in the offseason like the Hawks did with Leddy and the Bruins did with Boychuk. But you know what both of those teams had in common? Neither won the Cup last year. Easier to make that call when you finish with a loss. The Kings could've traded Martinez last offseason, knowing it was likely they couldn't afford him this offseason. Good thing they didn't, right? Maybe they could've flipped him for 2 second round picks prior to the 2013/2014 season. That would've been some great asset management in hindsight.

I would rather they make the trade and have a shot at resigning that player ( which you can figure out before you make the trade like they did with gaborik ) This only happens if Martinez is going to walk. However we can and imo should just move him up to play with either drew or Slava He has shown he can play with both in the past Just make it a permanent move.

 

[KingCanadain1976]

Trade Martinez for another impending UFA? Huh? Why not just re-sign Martinez then? The reason the Kings would walk from Martinez is the cost. Trading for a better player doesn't really solve that. And who wants to trade us a better player for an impending UFA? Wouldn't you be better off trading the impending UFA for picks or players that are under contract? Your scenario makes little sense and I can't think of one time where something like that has happened. You know, impending UFA for impending UFA. One being better than the other and a draft pick/prospect added to the deal. If a team is selling, they don't want an impending UFA back unless it is a salary dump. They want signed players or picks.

We only do the move if Martinez doesn't want to sign and we know the player coming back would. We ask permission to talk with the players agent ahead of time to see what kinda deal they want. Perhaps the team would have a larger role for Alec and resign with them.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

We only do the move if Martinez doesn't want to sign and we know the player coming back would. We ask permission to talk with the players agent ahead of time to see what kinda deal they want. Perhaps the team would have a larger role for Alec and resign with them.

I'd say that scenario is highly unlikely. You're assuming that Martinez wants too much or wouldn't stay. I think the problem has more to do with Kings being able to afford him a rate he'd be ok with. That goes for any other player coming here too.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I'd say that scenario is highly unlikely. You're assuming that Martinez wants too much or wouldn't stay. I think the problem has more to do with Kings being able to afford him a rate he'd be ok with. That goes for any other player coming here too.

Which is why I don't think we see Stoll, Nolan, Regehyr, back, and Lewis probably won't be resigned when his deal is up as well....

You replace Regehyr with McNabb, Stoll and Nolan with Andreoff/Dowd/Shore, etc whichever kid is ready to make the leap.

That is how you keep Martinez, a proven commodity on board,

 

[KingCanadain1976]

I'd say that scenario is highly unlikely. You're assuming that Martinez wants too much or wouldn't stay. I think the problem has more to do with Kings being able to afford him a rate he'd be ok with. That goes for any other player coming here too.

I did say in all my posts IF Martinez doesn't want to resign. That is what the discussion is about to me. Weather its he wants to much money or wants a bigger role whatever reason My trade him scenerio is if we can't resign him Resigning him and giving him a top 4 role has always been my position.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

Whether Martinez wants to sign or not, you don't leap through a series of hoops at the trade deadline that you don't have to.

LA Kings - Martinez + other pending UFA defenceman = Kings with 1 pending UFA defenceman.

LA Kings + Martinez = Kings with one pending UFA defenceman that will not have to spend time adjusting

Add D before the playoffs, don't make lateral moves.

 

[Kingspiracy]

Which is why I don't think we see Stoll, Nolan, Regehyr, back, and Lewis probably won't be resigned when his deal is up as well....

You replace Regehyr with McNabb, Stoll and Nolan with Andreoff/Dowd/Shore, etc whichever kid is ready to make the leap.

That is how you keep Martinez, a proven commodity on board,

Moving Nolan won't solve any cap issues, the guys on 700k. Hopefully DL can structure a deal to make it work with martinez. Its a little concerning how it has been set up with about 10 guys needing new contracts next year (you would think it would make sense to stagger how many contract you have to renegotiate). My main concern is that Kopitar gets locked up.

http://stats.nhlnumbers.com/teams/LAK?expand=true&year=2015

 

[kingsfan]

What about Thomas Hickey?

When he was picked up for waivers, instead of traded, what do you think you could have gotten back for him? Realistically?

So in the middle of all this success, you would rather deal Martinez who is proven, than let a player go to waivers?

Really? I thought the goal of all this was to win.

Where in all that did I even say Martinez. Stay on target Porkins.

I said waiver eligibility should be considered in managing your assets going forward and to fail to do so is bad asset management, I never said you should start choosing between waiving someone and trading a proven player.

Let me break down why I said Hickey. Hickey was a player who was sitting in the minors despite the fact he was NHL ready. The Islanders knew he was, it's why he was one of only a handful of players (like Richard Clune, who Nashville took) to be claimed off waivers during the 2013 training camp session. It's rare to see players claimed there, this year I think only three guys in total were picked out of the likely 200 or so that were waived.

DL shoud have recognized the fact he had a stocked blueline a year earlier, had a guy like Jake Muzzin, who was also waiver eligible, coming along at the same pace, and been proactive in dealing Hickey or Muzzin a year earlier. He may not have received much, but likely could have netted a 2nd or a 3rd for Hickey if he had dealt him say at the 2012 trade deadline. Instead he sat on him, and when the team was forced into a Hickey or Muzzin decision and elected to go with Muzzin, he couldn't get much because A) teams knew they could just grab him off waivers and get him for free and B) those who were further down the waiver priority list were likely already deep and set on defense since those are the teams that finished in the playoffs the year before.

It has zilch to do with Martinez, it has everything to do with managing your next crop of assets. Overall LA has done a very good job, but on Hickey they were piss poor.

Now in relation to your original post I quoted, I asked what to do about the crop of guys like Forbort, LaDue, etc. that are coming along since you have posted a blueline that is six deep in young and/or long-term signed players, implying there is next to no room for those young kids. Greene is the oldest and he's far from done his career.

If you think waivers means 'nothing' then I guess we are just going to watch as Forbort is claimed? Or would it perhaps be wise to look at dealing him this season, instead of holding onto him until he has to clear waivers. Holden Caufield would know best, but I believe due to his age, Forbort might be waiver eligible as soon as the beginning of next season. To me, using the blueline you posted, it is certainly bad asset management to just hold onto Forbort until he's waiver eligible.

 

[kingsfan]

I would rather they make the trade and have a shot at resigning that player ( which you can figure out before you make the trade like they did with gaborik ) This only happens if Martinez is going to walk. However we can and imo should just move him up to play with either drew or Slava He has shown he can play with both in the past Just make it a permanent move.

So trade a UFA to be Martinez + a guy like Weal for a UFA to be defeneman who you have a shot at resigning?

You do know you have a shot at resigning Martinez too, right?

You make it sound like we get a better chance of resigning a defenseman with whom we have had no time at all to talk contract with (since that's called tampering) than A-Mart, who we can talk to all season long. We don't, unless A-Mart has specifically told DL and crew that he's going to test UFA no matter what, something we would have zero proof of.

To me all that's going on in your suggestion (using the Marc Methot suggestion you posted earlier) of A-Mart and Weal for Methot is we are in effect giving away a decent prospect and swapping out a guy that knows our system and has player loyalty and recognition with his own teammate for someone that doesn't. I don't see the gain in this.

 

[driller1]

Let me break down why I said Hickey. Hickey was a player who was sitting in the minors despite the fact he was NHL ready. The Islanders knew he was, it's why he was one of only a handful of players (like Richard Clune, who Nashville took) to be claimed off waivers during the 2013 training camp session. It's rare to see players claimed there, this year I think only three guys in total were picked out of the likely 200 or so that were waived.

DL shoud have recognized the fact he had a stocked blueline a year earlier, had a guy like Jake Muzzin, who was also waiver eligible, coming along at the same pace, and been proactive in dealing Hickey or Muzzin a year earlier. He may not have received much, but likely could have netted a 2nd or a 3rd for Hickey if he had dealt him say at the 2012 trade deadline. Instead he sat on him, and when the team was forced into a Hickey or Muzzin decision and elected to go with Muzzin, he couldn't get much because A) teams knew they could just grab him off waivers and get him for free and B) those who were further down the waiver priority list were likely already deep and set on defense since those are the teams that finished in the playoffs the year before.

I disagree that Hickey could have fetched a 2nd or a 3rd. If Hickey was that good and other teams thought he was that good, the rational move would have been to offer a 3rd or a 4th. DL would have taken it.

There is no way that value moves from a 2nd or 3rd to zilch in 2 months. If Hickey was that good (which he wasn't at the time), another team looking for a 7th or 8th D-man would have offered DL a token draft pick. As it stood, nothing was offered. Remember, Hickey was still a RFA, so whatever team acquired him would have effectively control him. Thus, it can be reasonably deducted that Hickey had zero trade value at the deadline or otherwise.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

I did say in all my posts IF Martinez doesn't want to resign. That is what the discussion is about to me. Weather its he wants to much money or wants a bigger role whatever reason My trade him scenerio is if we can't resign him Resigning him and giving him a top 4 role has always been my position.

And I don't think it matters either way. Trading impending UFA's is what non-playoff teams do. Teams that are contending acquire UFA's when possible. I can almost guarantee you there is no scenario where Martinez is traded. Maybe if there is a hockey deal to be made, he is included. With the Kings having excellent depth already and butted up against the cap, I don't see how that is really a possibility either. To jettison him purely because he is a UFA and wants more than the Kings can afford is about as unlikely as it gets. That's my opinion.

DL has let other players walk. He let Frolov walk and more than likely had zero interest in re-signing him. The Kings weren't even a contender then.

 

[kingsfan]

I disagree that Hickey could have fetched a 2nd or a 3rd. If Hickey was that good and other teams thought he was that good, the rational move would have been to offer a 3rd or a 4th. DL would have taken it.

There is no way that value moves from a 2nd or 3rd to zilch in 2 months. If Hickey was that good (which he wasn't at the time), another team looking for a 7th or 8th D-man would have offered DL a token draft pick. As it stood, nothing was offered. Remember, Hickey was still a RFA, so whatever team acquired him would have effectively control him. Thus, it can be reasonably deducted that Hickey had zero trade value at the deadline or otherwise.

I said deal him at the 2012 trade deadline, which was I believe February 28, 2012. Hickey was claimed on waivers on January 23, 2015, or a year after, not two months. And that doesn't mention the fact you have ZERO proof nothing was offered or asked for at or around the trade deadline for Hickey.

 

[driller1]

I said deal him at the 2012 trade deadline, which was I believe February 28, 2012. Hickey was claimed on waivers on January 23, 2015, or a year after, not two months. And that doesn't mention the fact you have ZERO proof nothing was offered or asked for at or around the trade deadline for Hickey.

He was claimed in Jan 2015?

DL put Hickey on waivers. Rationally, he would have shopped Hickey and would have accepted a 7th or token draft pick from any team prior to putting him on waivers, since it was unlikely he would clear (AHL all-star, high draft pick pedigree, young age, etc). We know no one traded for him - thats fact.

You have no proof he would have fetched anything at any time. A 2nd or 3rd? Please. Hickey was unproven at the NHL level and small for a d-man. To pass your valuation of Hickey off as fact while dismissing everyone else is disingenuous.

 

[cyclones22]

Or maybe DL wasn't entirely sure who of Hickey and Muzzin he wanted to keep at the time and was willing to risk losing one of them for the sake of keeping the right one a year later? DL made the right choice.

 

[Scottkmlps]

Since Hickey came up, I looked at his stats and he's tied for 5th in the league for blocked shots with 12. I find that impressive for a guy that was drafted more so for his offensive ability than defensive. We'll just chalk that up to Kings development

 

[kingsfan]

He was claimed in Jan 2015?

DL put Hickey on waivers. Rationally, he would have shopped Hickey and would have accepted a 7th or token draft pick from any team prior to putting him on waivers, since it was unlikely he would clear (AHL all-star, high draft pick pedigree, young age, etc). We know no one traded for him - thats fact.

You have no proof he would have fetched anything at any time. A 2nd or 3rd? Please. Hickey was unproven at the NHL level and small for a d-man. To pass your valuation of Hickey off as fact while dismissing everyone else is disingenuous.

2013, obvious typo as I said "Hickey was claimed on waivers on January 23, 2015, or a year after"

And again, I said A YEAR AFTER, not right before he went on waivers. A YEAR BEFORE.