You are welcome - thanks for all your work!

Keep up the great work Rich, you really are appreciated for giving King fans inside info and up to the minute news on the Kings.

This should definitely ease the impact of the dreaded lowe offer sheets. kudos to lombardi for approaching this exactly the way it needed to be approached...

hope you're enjoying life as the most popular offseason blogger in la... increased coverage can only be good!

Thanks for that Rich. I really hope that your bosses realize how much we value you as the source for Kings news.

It took TSN about 12 hours just to copy and paste your news onto their site. With you we get the scoop straight from the source as the news happens and it's reliable, in-depth and you truly care about the team and its fans.

Thanks again,

Danny

Praise Danny Tolensky. Right the BLEEP on!

I wasn't all that interested in the number to do the research, but if I was, I doubt I could have defined it any better. That was excellent, and I hope Mike gets to read it, because if there's a sour bone in his body today, it should all go away after reading that... and knowing that if he stays the course, by the time he's 27, and has (possibly) seen post season action... his pay day will come. Not that 3 million plus is chump change. I know that no matter how inflated salaries and egos get in professional sports, you can buy a lot of exterior comfort for 3 million dollars. Now, what happens inside the head is a whole 'nuther story.

And, on a sidebar, I think it was TERRIBLE that the "other" daily here in LA chose it's headline in this particular story to intimate that MC "lost" --- Dean Lombardi did EVERYTHING he could to NOT frame it that way, and your excellent unbiased reporting was clearly superior to the miserable job put forth by your competitor.

Thanks Rich... and Danny... and the arbitration process...

Rich,

If Kings fans want to write in about how valuable your coverage is to Kings fans and how much we'd love to have you as the Kings beat writer and the proprietor of this blog, who would we contact?

Cause you know, that's all we'd do. We wouldn't threaten....anyone..haha..you know...or anything like that.

:CX

this stuff is great all around!

don't go changin!!

Marc,

Good call on the negative slant by the other local paper. I have been noticing since the lock-out heavy negative connotations whenever dealing with the Kings. Last February, when the Kings traded Nordstrom, the paper quoted DL as saying "This was just a trade for cap space." I asked the author of the report if he meant to say "This was not just a trade..."?

He said he did intend to for word 'not' to be included but for some unknown reason, the editor left it out.

Something is up over there.

Absolutely, DT. I talked to one of the (balding)writers who lives in my town, and he said the sports editor absolutely HATES hockey. Even Helene admits it, and there's nothing the writers can do about it.

Fiveholio is right: the sports editor of the Times HATES hockey. It is so low on his list (Lakers & Kobe rank at top, followed by Dodgers + USC football) that last year he decided the cost of covering the team on the road was not worth it. Rich Hammond is without a doubt - as the many THANK YOU's will support - the best place to find Kings' coverage in So Cal. A blog. Good for Rich! That DL gives him the inside scoop is great for ALL of us. It's almost like we're on the conference call ourselves, listening in.

How cool is that???

In all fairness, Crash Davis, the sports editors of BOTH papers decided to cut road games for BOTH Southern California teams, chosing to go instead with AP reports.

P.S. (as if the horse wasn't dead already)

Hating hockey has NOTHING to do with running a headline that says "Cammalleri LOSES Arbitration Case" --- that's just bad journalism and is diametrically opposed to the way Dean Lombardi proposed it on the conference call, and in all aspects of the media. The Kings PR guy, (who some of us have known for quite some time) is just as much at fault for not hammering this home with the paper itself. I know that he (MA) can't put words in the mouths (and the fingers) of the reporters, but he can certainly make clear Mr. Lombardi's words. That's NOT a "Los Angeles Times hates hockey" thing...

Great work Rich, and great work Dan! You have a future in Hockey arbitrations.

Sure would be nice if the Kings organization, with the help of the most ardent fans, could publicize some of the "issues" caused by the Times editor's apathy toward hockey. Seems like there is too much $ at stake for the NHL for the local print to take such a detrimental position toward hockey in general. This isn't Nashville after all...

As I said in post way back when people were looking at Staal or Vanek for comparisons.

"I look at guys like Cheecho and Zetterburg when thinking of Camm. Or heck even Frolov. They're top line guys making 3-4 million."

I got to say if true then he's got some huge cajones to ask for $6 million. Basically he's saying that he's as good as Dany Heatley or Mats Sundin. If he plays like them this season then I'll eat my words above.

Rich- If you do talk to Camm's agent or him in person I'd love to hear their thoughts on going ARB vs sitting tight and seeing if a guy like Lowe would make an offer sheet. I don't think they made wrong choice just curious on the player's thought process of do they risk it or better to go for the surer thing in ARB.

Come on, Marc. You can't say they aren't related. Within the actual article in the Times, they quoted DL and said "nobody wins", and "these situations aren't for winning and losing." You have to assume Eric Stephens was on the conference call, so he heard how much effort DL put into stressing it not being a win/lose situation. Either the writer went for the easy headline against what DL was saying, or the editor made the call, and we all know how he feels. Either way, pretty shitty coverage and unfair to the Kings, hockey, or both.

Marc and others: It may not purely be a "LAT hates hockey" thing, but I think we can all agree that the editor's "perspective" can affect coverage and influence the decision not to fund a staff writer for out of town games. My son, who has posted on this site, and who knows more about sports at 17 (heck he knew more at 10) than many adults, caught the negativity in the Kings' coverage by the LAT all last season. Papers respond to reader pressure and advertising dollars (especially these days when the Times' readership, ad space and ad revenue are all declining). If you subscribe to the Times, e-mail the publisher, and the editors. As for the Kings organization, push the PR folks. And thanks, Rich, for putting the LAT to shame every day.

With all due respect to Marc and others too: I have a colleague who is high up in the production of the Kings games and he has mentioned a continual, years long negative bias against the Kings by LAT. Now, how much of that is deserved because of the mistakes of the Kings is anyone's guess.

As for the HATRED - which is probably the wrong term - by the LAT's editor re: hockey in general and Kings specifically, I corresponded directly with Helene Elliott about 18 months ago and she was clear that Times's editor felt that hockey ranked behind tractor pulls and gardening clubs, a small niche sport not deserving of fulltime, 82 game coverage. Ok, that's fair. A lockout was in place at that time and every enterprise has to decide how to spend dollars for so many pages of print. But part of that lack of coverage was because, as Helene was pointing out at the time and I posted her comments on LGK with HER permission, the editor didn't "get" hockey and KOBE, USC, Dodgers just got way too many hits on LAT's web. LAT takes note of internet hits on specific sports like anyone these days - including the Daily News with Rich.

Just saying.

Crash (and Fiveholio),

Know that I respect your opinions, and believe your insights, but I too know a myriad of people who are now gone from the Kings organization (and periphery) and none of them have ever said more than a passing word that could be construed as positive regarding the Kings side of the equation.

I just typed a really long example of someone's story within the ranks, and realized that it was far to inflammatory, and would essentially constitute my breaking certain trusts and anonymity, but there are two sides to every coin.

I totally get the LAT not believing that hockey is as important as Women's Ping Pong from Taiwan, but the numbers actually support THEM... not us.

Rich Hammond's newspaper cut back their coverage as well, and as for this blog, yes, it's a godsend, but it's also a way for the paper to assuage Rick when he wants something in the print version of the paper, and it ends up only in the online arena, and THAT has absolutely happened before.

Face it, hockey... Los Angeles... it JUST doesn't mean very much to 99% of people who follow sports.

Try living in Toronto, New York, Edmonton, or Montreal if you want to feel like someone is sympathetic to your case :)

Respectfully,

Marc
(banned from HF, yet again.) LOL

I think we can all help with the poor coverage at the Times by e-mailing the editor (randy.harvey@latimes.com) and asking for a Kings blog as they now provide for the local NBA and MLB teams.

If they get no feedback from the public, who can blame them for thinking that no one cares?

Also, access latimes.com daily and take the 30 seconds or so to click on the hockey link from Sports as well as any hockey-related articles to pump up the numbers.

Don't worry about it Marc, we're all friends here. No need to tiptoe...

The LAT is in the business of selling papers and advertising, and to do that they have to cater to the greatest common denominator. Absolutely understood. The choice they're faced with is either providing crappy hockey coverage or no hockey coverage, and even though some of us would prefer none over crappy, that's still not in the best interest of the local clubs. It's tough being part of the passionate minority, but I just look at it as us being in on the best kept secret in LA sports.

That said, it still pisses me off when I see that article today and know they did that just to piss off Kings brass. I don't know the history you're talking about, but hopefully DL is moving us out of the media dark ages with his relationship with Rich.

The only problem I see with LAT doing a blog on the Kings is it would probably be like the one on HockeyBuzz only worse. The LAT is like the rest of the high profiles in this city, they jump on when you're in the Cup Finals and then don't know you after it's over. Yes the Kings in the past have had some pretty poor management and then some who cared less and probably never kissed up or ever even would speak to those that run the news and so if you don't scratch my back I sure as hell won't scratch yours.

One thing...Bill Dwyre was the hockey-hating editor at the LA TImes sports section. I think Randy Harvey is the editor now. Last I heard, he liked hockey.

Despite what DL or Kings publicist says there are winner/losers and Camm lost. The fact that DL stressed so much to try and portray it as not being that way proves it.

I'm no fan of LAT and their coverage or lack thereof of Kings. But the headline is right and it's not their job to transcribe DL's spin. In fact him stressing it so much is a red flag to any reporter. DL is obviously trying to be the good sport and take the high road. It's the not the LAT job to oblige him in that effort.

In fact I think it's their job to challenge his assertion because obviously if Camm feels there is no loser in this he sure isn't acting like it by hiding out.

Had quite a revelation today. At around the same time I received an e-mail response from the sports editor from a certain local newspaper, and around the same time I was re-reading an article by Frank Rich from WAY back in 2005 (about Dan Rather and the late author Hunter S. Thompson), I received in the mail a package of books by HST.

Mr. Rich’s article was about the recent physical and metaphorical passing of both HST and the journalist Dan Rather, respectively. The key point in Mr. Rich’s article was this: “What's missing from News is the news.”

The reason this was such a revelation to me was caused by the response I had received from the local sports editor. When asked why his paper did not carry a blog about the L.A. Kings, his response was, “As you know, there are passionate Kings fans here, just not enough of them. Our web site people have done surveys and found very little interest in a Kings blog, not enough to justify the cost.
Best wishes.”

Now, that makes business sense (to some) but it does not make journalistic sense. I think that it is safe to say that most ‘journalists’ today are more interested in branding themselves than they are branding their stories. Branding a story means that one uses a certain artistry to convey a story. HST and Mr. Rather branded their stories, to various degrees. Sure, the branding of stories had a diminishing effect on true investigative reporting but it did help break through the cliquishness of the press corps of the era. I believe that Mr. Hammond’s branding of his stories (er, actual research and human communication) has cut through the cliquishness of today’s brand’s self-referential branding of itself.