Management, on the Visnovsky trade

while i'm all for the youth movement; i also like some truth with my Kool-Aide

call it what it is - a financial move for the future... nothing more nothing less.

LUBO - 5'10" 188 Lbs

HICKEY - 5'11" 182 Lbs

Lubo's size WAS NOT the issue. his contract and NMC was.

personally, i'll take Lubo over Hickey any day...

here's to hoping Hickey proves me wrong.

I think it's both, salary move and ensuring we get younger. the catch is that the majority of Kings fans were calling to trade Visnovsky even earlier (when his stock was even lower), which would have made even less sense.

bottom line: be careful what you wish for. the team will be fine in the long run without Lubo

I don't know how Deano thinks he gets away with it. The question isn't "why did you trade Lubo" it's "why did Lubo go from being a core player with a long term no movement contract" in the space of 12 months?

The question is telling, because the answer is "this plan we are selling right now is not year 3 of a 5 or 8 year plan like we claim, it's year ONE of a new plan. We changed our minds and our focus in the last year because all the FA's we got to 'bridge the gap' failed and we clearly are not going to be ready while Lubo is in his prime."

It's either that, or they completely missed the boat on what it would cost to keep young players in the future and are just learning that now.

OR .... could it be that they were told to TRIM THE BUDGET DOWN TO THE FLOOR of the CBA and tell the fans there's some other reason for it?

Either way the story on Lubo flip flopped in the space of a year and there is NO explanation for it. They told us he was a good signing for this team a year ago and they tell us this year he's not. OK, Dean.

I wonder what his excuse will be when Frolov is dealt a the deadline this year or next year.

This is mere speculation on my part, but if the Kings would have won the draft lottery and taken Stamkos I believe Visnovsky would have been retained. Having Hickey and Doughty lace up for the Kings in the near future made having a puck mover, that would take away huge chunks of ice time from the kids, both expendable and practical for the long term. I'm sure Lombardi would have preferred to trade Visnovsky after the kids are ready and especially after what should be a better all around season from Lubo, but that no movement clause made that near impossible. He had to do it now.

Well, Anon, others will tell you what changed was the acquisition of a pair of blue chip defensemen with the potential to be 1-2, 3-4 defensemen in the next few years, who will demand 1-2, 3-4 contracts, which the club would not be able to afford, capwise and budgetwise, while paying top dollar for a declining Visnovsky.

It's a reasonable explanation, but it relies on too many IFs (IF the prospects pan out; IF Visnovsky contines to fade; IF a faded Visnovsky and his contract can't be moved when the time comes)...

The simpler explanation is that what changed in the last year was the Cash Budget. Visnovsky even said so when he commented on the trade.

Well that was no explaination at all. Not like I think it's terribly important, but the unanswered question is still how he went from being a franchise player we were happy to lock up long term to being a liability. DL gave him the contract in the first place, so what happened between then and deciding that contract was not what we wanted?

Actually I think his age and the way he faltered when responsibility was put on his shoulders, along with the salary number, were much bigger factors than simply his size. There is room for a smallish skill guy on the back end, but maybe you want him for cheaper and to be younger (i.e. a guy like Hickey).

I don't think this is a huge question, but if they are going to address it, they should at least address it and answer the question. What changed? If that means admitting signning the guy to the deal that was given him was either a mistake or simply a bridge to buy a year's time of breathing space to move the guy, that's fine. Just say that. You changed youre mind and decided to go younger than Lubo? Well, fine, at least that's a answer that makes sense.

I don't see any problem with changing the stategy of the rebuild. Given a complete move to youth, Visnovsky became expendable. Rather than play the bridge game, they decided to scuttle the older players -- and certainly those big contracts.

I've always liked Visnovsky and wish him well, but as long as the young players replacing him are talented and promising, I'm on board.

Irish Pat-
I'm on board with that thought. Makes perfect sense. Well, then again, if it makes sense it can't be correct right?:-)

Duckhunter,

Ha, I think you nailed it on the head. Good one my friend. Quisp had a quote from Harlan Ellison in an earlier thread that goes, "no, you're not entitled to your own opinion, only to your own informed opinion". I thought that was great considering how everyone who posts on this site is obviously very passionate and mostly informed regarding the Kings, but at the end of each day we're all really just armchair GMs who want the best for our team. I think the only way Lombardi's decisions will ever make sense to everyone is when Brown lifts the Cup over his head to a cheering Staples center crowd. God, that really sounds fantastic doesn't it? Cheers!

The player didn't change, the market changed. Call it the Kevin Lowe factor.

Over the past year you've seen more and more GMs lock up their young stars before someone signs them to an offer sheet. Lombardi is afraid the same thing will happen to Kopi or JJ if we don't have enough room to match another team's offer. He dumped Lubo to give him "blank-you" space to protect our youngsters.

I hate the trade from a hockey standpoint but I understand it from a resource management standpoint.

I also agree with Irish Pat. Where your draft picks happen to fall will play a part in who you end up trading and keeping. It doesn't necessarily mean that DL is deviating from the overall plan. Time will tell if that was a good trade or not.

Irish Pat – I agree. Also, the difference between last summer and this summer was that we finished in LAST PLACE and got a premiere prospect that will be earning premiere cash in 3 years. This isn’t a case of flip-flopping. The Kings had to adapt to a new reality, and quickly. Last summer, locking up Lubo at that rate was widely considered a good deal. This summer, getting rid of a contract that may have prevented us from resigning (or countering an offer-sheet for) the likes of Johnson, Kopitar or Bernier in a year or two should also be considered a good deal. Let’s face it - the Kings are no better and no worse without Visnovsky.

Daniel,

Well said. I too think the Kings are adapting well and something to consider if the Kings are cellar dwellers again this season; who may be affected if the Kings draft Tavares, Hedman or Schenn? Let's say the Kings draft Tavares or Schenn and they slip into the second line center role immediately. That puts Stoll as the 3rd line center (where personally I think he's best suited) and leaves Zeus and Boyle vying for playing time as the 4th line pivot. The obvious choice for a trade is Handzus, but what if they have to trade Boyle because Handzus' contract is too hefty and his knee never fully recovers? Imagine if the Kings would have retained Lubo and they ended up with Hedman. Good problem to have, but Lubo's contract would have been a detriment to the future payroll of this team. Wow, that was a rather long-winded rant about the future of the Kings roster with a ton of conjecture, but I really think the Lubo trade was proper.

Not that all liked trading Lubo because at least one STH myself didn't--but the point with Lubo being moved to create space for Hickey is that they could not have two guys at that relatively small size in the back. One yes. Two no. The Kings management was tired of the Kings getting pushed around down low because we lacked sufficient size to move people out so they are trying to get bigger--I concur on that point. So if you kept Lubo that means Hickey can't play and they think Hickey looks NHL ready or close to NHL ready. (pbviously Hickey is not as good as Lubo at the moment and may never be but in two years they would be closer and similar comparison as a player)

Seems like rational reasoning even if you disagree with it. Lumbardi and Hextall both lamented losing Vish.

Irish Pat --

re Handzus/Tavares etc.

I think in the scenario you describe, Handzus would be bought out. Handzus is in an interesting position, because he obviously needs to prove himself this year, but if he does, the chances of him getting traded go way up. If he doesn't prove himself, he's just going to get bought out at some point, or traded for pucks. Frankly, it's the same situation at center in '09 if a non-Tavares center prospect arrives (e.g. Trevor Lewis). The future, certainly from '10 on, is not going to include Handzus. Boyle, meanwhile, is the future until he proves otherwise.

The same thing applies to Lubo v Hickey/Doughty. The kids are the future until they play themselves out of a spot.

As an aside, to the people who are lamenting that DL didn't just say "the truth" about Lubo, that he cracked under pressure and is getting old...come on...there's nothing wrong with being polite, if that's what they really think of him. Why not just say what they said: we love Lubo but the deal needed to happen... That's not lying, anymore than "no you don't look fat in that dress."

I just want to say this, and I think you will all agree, Lubo is a class act. I will also say, that your/our team WOULD be better with Lubo. Now the financial part might not be better, but the player would definitely bolster your club. He had one off year his entire career here, didn't miss many games, caused no problems and represented the Kings with pride. Something was amiss last year. Don't know what it was, but something wasn't right. I will miss him representing the Kings, but moves had to be made to improve ourselves for the future. I'm with DL right now. If it doesn't pan out, I might have something to say, but I feel good about the direction we are headed in, at present time.

Irish... It would be great to see Brown holding up the cup! I think it's possible, here in the next couple years(2-3) to have realistic thoughts of a cup around here. At least deep playoff runs.

Quisp...I love your wit. I personally thought my arse looked good in these clothes. Are you telling me otherwise.

"I don't know how Deano thinks he gets away with it. The question isn't "why did you trade Lubo" it's "why did Lubo go from being a core player with a long term no movement contract" in the space of 12 months?"

In 2007 I am sure that DL was not planning on being able to draft a player like Drew Doughty. I would think that Drew Doughty and Jack Johnson are our PP duo of the future (maybe even next year = scary). I think if there was no NTC in the contract Lubo will still be a king today. The real question for me is why the NTC to begin with?

There's also the fact that Lubo and Hickey are HARDLY the same player. Sure, Hickey is small, but he's a LOT more game than Lubo. We can doubt whether or not he'll ever become the puck-mover that Lubo is; I think he will (having seen him play, in person, many times), but he brings an element of grit that Lubo was never going to develop. Hickey isn't Bob Probert (or even JMFJ), but he's willing to get a lot dirtier than Lubo ever was, which is one of the things i'm sure they considered.