Stuart's contract

Maybe Dean's theory about signing one year fillers and bridges may not pan out w/o showing some slightly longer term commitments (e.g. 2 or 3 years).

Yeah, it is the 4 year deal that made the difference. Stuart accepted that he isn't going to make much more anytime soon and he wanted insurance on how long he could make $3.5+ There was no way the Kings can offer 4 or more years to a UFA defenseman right now unless they are Dion Phaneuf or something of the sort.

That's a no brainer decision for Stuart. He's already won a cup there and stands to win more. Why go back to a team thats rebuilding? All DL and the Kings can do is sell the potential of this team to win down the road and the So Cal weather. That's pretty much it.

Free agency is pretty darn thin this off season so the real crucial signing by DL is a coach with the passion to inspire youth and produce results on the ice.

Yep, the four years did it and personally I wouldn't have given it, that's a long time for someone who's play was inconsistant. Yes, he played better with the Wings and their supporting cast but I don't think he would have thrived in LA again. We'll move on...

The difference is that Wings are a much, much better team. That coupled with the likelihood that LA will struggle again next season makes his decision an easy one to make. Playing for a bottom dwelling team (no matter how much you make) can't be an easy thing to handle night-in-night-out.
The chance for him to win another cup or two is much better there than in LA over the next few seasons.

Why not sign him for more than 4 years.
He no longer has to be filler.
He's only 29 years old and a damn good D-Man.
Is that too old for DL.

Well I guess Frolov will be over the hill in couple of years. Then Sully & Brown. Then Kopi & JJ.

Looks like we'll be seeing Doughty in the royal colors next season....

I dont get all the Lombardi love. This signing is just an indication of the indecisiveness with DL and his team.

First we ante up for Visnovsky and because he has a bad year, we trade him for guys who might be 3rd or 4th liners at best. I understand letting him go because of his, he still has value, we are going young etc, but then why sign him?

Then we have a draft where we have the second pick and we get a good player. How can you screw up having the second pick. Man he must be a genius. Then he trades to get an 18 yr old who talks tough, says all the right things, but certainly isnt a star in the making, and fans being so desperate for someone to care, love the kid because he is enthusiastic.

Free agent signings last year were horrible. If you are going young, why sign any of them? You sign them because even if you are going young, you need established players to mix with the young guys, and a star veteran might be nice.

DL is well into his tenure and the Kings, while filled with young potential, are still near bottom in the est. Even if things go well, we are atleast 2 years from playoffs and probably four-five from being legit playoff threats. This is the same story we hear every time we make a change yet we dont improve. This team is like groundhog day and as a 35 year fan who has seen it all, I just think we are not getting anywhere. Rebuilding is fine, but we are in a constant mode of rebuilding.

Letting Stuart go was not smart unless we are signing someone similar. You cannot rely on young guys and an atmosphere that forces us to trade Cammeleri is not good. He is young, shows the talent, and we trade him for what? This wasnt a talent trade, its getting rid of a guy because he does not want to be on our team for some reason.

The problem is we are committed to DL and getting rid of him is not realistic. But if anyone thinks he has done a bang up job, I think they are ignoring reality.

Rich- Do you think DL was hesitant to sign Stuart to a 4 year deal? I see this and think that fist it helped that it was Detroit and a proven winning team, second long term deal and lastly the no-trade clause. Unfortuantely DL can't change what the team's recent record has been so all he could offer was more $ and a long term deal. I could see DL not wanting to do a no trade clause since he seems to like being in a position to trade assets for draft picks or younger players.

I can't believe people are suggesting longer term contracts to free agents. Handzus anyone? Preissing anyone? Barring those 2 players, flexibility is one of the strongest points of Lombardi's current situation. Honestly, more than 4 years? 2 years from now he'd have to go to make room for somebody. Maybe it's Voinov, or Kidd, or Campbell, or Teubert. Maybe it's somebody we draft next year.

Goon squad, it seems like the only GOOD players available do not want to be labeled as fillers or bridges, hence we end up with guys like Nagy.

Kings pick up Denis Gauthier and a 2nd in 09 for Hersley and Lukacevic.

Jeremy said: "First we ante up for Visnovsky and because he has a bad year, we trade him for guys who might be 3rd or 4th liners at best."

Yes, it's weird that we signed him to that outrageous contract in the first place. But Stoll absolutely has 2nd line potential, he's considered one of the top faceoff men in the league, and can play the point on the PP. Furthermore it's better to recognize a mistake and fix it now than to get buried under that contract for 5 years.

"Then he trades to get an 18 yr old who talks tough, says all the right things, but certainly isnt a star in the making..."

Why isn't he a star in the making? Because he went 13th? Or because he's a defensive defenseman? Was Scott Stevens a star?

"You sign them because even if you are going young, you need established players to mix with the young guys, and a star veteran might be nice."

Sign Chris Pronger, we're still not in the 2008 playoffs. And we don't draft Doughty.

"This is the same story we hear every time we make a change yet we dont improve. Rebuilding is fine, but we are in a constant mode of rebuilding."

As a fellow 30+ year fan, I strongly disagree. This is NOT the same story. The same story would be keeping Cammalleri and losing him for nothing next year. Or signing him for too much money and not keeping the financial flexibility to fill holes later, thereby sentencing us to more mediocrity.

"You cannot rely on young guys and an atmosphere that forces us to trade Cammeleri is not good. He is young, shows the talent, and we trade him for what? This wasnt a talent trade, its getting rid of a guy because he does not want to be on our team for some reason."

The "atmosphere" that forced us to trade him was the free market. The "reason" is he wants more money, more freedom, and a chance to win sooner. We weren't forced to trade Brown, were we? Some people will choose security and loyalty, some will choose the high dollar. Cammalleri chose his path.

"The problem is we are committed to DL and getting rid of him is not realistic."

Nor would it be a good idea at all. Waiting for Lombardi's build to come to fruition could take years. Replacing him now would insure that it would never come to fruition. Welcome back Palffy. Welcome back Fuhr. Welcome back first round playoff exit. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid, but I definitely prefer this approach.

Why on earth would Brad Stuart sign with the Kings when he can get comparable money to play for a team that will challenge for the Cup every year?

We spent last season trying to finish last overall and we couldn't even do that.

I love it, some of the same people that said DL was "horrible" for signing Stuart last summer are ripping him for not signing him again this summer for more money and a longer deal...fair weather.