The dropoff started immediately after leaving Philadelphia, and he was only 26. This isn't a case of a player breaking down. This is a case of a player running into two things:

1) A more defensively responsible system, and hence a more defensively oriented role.

2) His position in playing behind Kopitar and Carter. He's their 3rd line C by default. A solid 2C on most teams. And last year, he was on pace for 55pts, which is very good production for a 2C.

If Ottawa did get him and slotted him in at 3C, expect 40pts. If he gets 2C minutes and 2C linemates, then expect 60pts. And that number is probably better than what you'd get from Zibanejad at this point.

All that being said, doubt he'll be coming to Ottawa. I don't doubt for a second that he'll be leaving the Kings, and probably via buyout, but someone else will pay him more than Ottawa would.
- the_terror

i'm pretty sure for the first 2 years, he didn't play behind carter, but in fact centered the 2nd line, with carter on his wing.

i'm about 95% sure that he didn't start playing on teh 2nd line until some point this season, when he went like 25 games without a goal, or something like that.

obviously the system had some impact, but every analyst you listen to will say that richards is not the player he used to be.

i'm pretty sure for the first 2 years, he didn't play behind carter, but in fact centered the 2nd line, with carter on his wing.

i'm about 95% sure that he didn't start playing on teh 2nd line until some point this season, when he went like 25 games without a goal, or something like that.

obviously the system had some impact, but every analyst you listen to will say that richards is not the player he used to be.
- sensarmy_11

Even if that happened in the first two years, he's still playing in a defense first system. They don't score a ton of goals. And he was on pace for 55pts last year.

No player stays the same as they age, this is true, but if he plays a full season at 2C with 2C wingers in a system that is more about offence than defense, expect 60pts out of him.

Even if that happened in the first two years, he's still playing in a defense first system. They don't score a ton of goals. And he was on pace for 55pts last year.

No player stays the same as they age, this is true, but if he plays a full season at 2C with 2C wingers in a system that is more about offence than defense, expect 60pts out of him.
- the_terror

possible, but debatable.

my point still stands. you can't say spezza and nash's games have declined, and then spend 3 paragraphs richards Richard and ignore the obvious decline in his game.

possible, but debatable.

my point still stands. you can't say spezza and nash's games have declined, and then spend 3 paragraphs richards Richard and ignore the obvious decline in his game.
- sensarmy_11

Ya, and I'm not.

Spezza's game has declined for sure, but almost strictly based on injuries. He was 4th in league scoring the last time he played a full season. He's still there skill-wise, but the body won't hold up.

Nash is a solid player, but way overvalued and way overrated. His game has obviously declined, but even when he was rolling up close to a point per game, he still played on teams that missed the playoffs. It's not like his statistical value was pushing his teams through. If he was putting up a PPG average while his team was making the playoffs, I could get on board with Nash. But I've never felt that he was the player many people made him out to be. He's big and he's got great hands and he's fast, etc, etc, etc, but never puts it all together when the chips are down.

I don't even like Mike Richards. But I do think his decline has way more to do with the system he plays in, and the role he plays on his team.

Ya, and I'm not.

Spezza's game has declined for sure, but almost strictly based on injuries. He was 4th in league scoring the last time he played a full season. He's still there skill-wise, but the body won't hold up.

Nash is a solid player, but way overvalued and way overrated. His game has obviously declined, but even when he was rolling up close to a point per game, he still played on teams that missed the playoffs. It's not like his statistical value was pushing his teams through. If he was putting up a PPG average while his team was making the playoffs, I could get on board with Nash. But I've never felt that he was the player many people made him out to be. He's big and he's got great hands and he's fast, etc, etc, etc, but never puts it all together when the chips are down.

I don't even like Mike Richards. But I do think his decline has way more to do with the system he plays in, and the role he plays on his team.
- the_terror

sorry, was referring to spatso's opinion about richards/spezza/nash, not yours.

he goes on and on about players declining past the age of 26, and not giving them long term big money deals...............then with the next breath, says he wants to acquire richards, who's signed to a long term big money deal, and who's production has dropped by half in less than 5 years.

sorry, was referring to spatso's opinion about richards/spezza/nash, not yours.

he goes on and on about players declining past the age of 26, and not giving them long term big money deals...............then with the next breath, says he wants to acquire richards, who's signed to a long term big money deal, and who's production has dropped by half in less than 5 years.
- sensarmy_11

Whoa! Richards is not on the top of my list. He is ahead of Spezza and Nash. My point was there are going to be some very good players in the secondary market (like Richards or Sharp) available at reasonable price. The point I was trying to make was that Mike Richards for a third round pick would be a great acquisition for any team, including Ottawa. Better than Nash (who would be the worst) or Spezza.

I trust Murray on this. But, I will say a prayer that he calls Winnipeg inquire about Kane

This is ridiculous - David clarkson got nearly 6 million per year, you don't think someone is going to pay more than 3 million for Mike Richards with his resume?

Give me a break, guys. Pull your heads out of your asses and get realistic when you're telling our GM what he should do...
- TommyDeVito

I love how you love to try and destroy people opinion if you don't share the exact same thought process. Also, the next comment you post is about how steep a decline Richards has had.

I think that GM's will have learned from the Clarkson deal and not give those crazy ones out anymore. Also, if Richards is bought out then the next deal he signs will be lower in value. Look at Lecavallier.

I love how you love to try and destroy people opinion if you don't share the exact same thought process. Also, the next comment you post is about how steep a decline Richards has had.

I think that GM's will have learned from the Clarkson deal and not give those crazy ones out anymore. Also, if Richards is bought out then the next deal he signs will be lower in value. Look at Lecavallier.
- riceroni

I dont' necessarily agree with that.

he might take slightly less, but he'll still make atleast 5.5 mil................someone will give it to him.

Whoa! Richards is not on the top of my list. He is ahead of Spezza and Nash. My point was there are going to be some very good players in the secondary market (like Richards or Sharp) available at reasonable price. The point I was trying to make was that Mike Richards for a third round pick would be a great acquisition for any team, including Ottawa. Better than Nash (who would be the worst) or Spezza.

I trust Murray on this. But, I will say a prayer that he calls Winnipeg inquire about Kane
- spatso

i just don't understand how you think richards at 6 for 6 is reasonable (plus you have to give up assets to get him), but spezza...........who is a much better player..........would be terrible to have at 7 for 7.

i'm definitely on the "trade spezza" train, but i don't any logic in your opinion of richards, when comparing it with your opinion of other, better players.

i just don't understand how you think richards at 6 for 6 is reasonable (plus you have to give up assets to get him), but spezza...........who is a much better player..........would be terrible to have at 7 for 7.

i'm definitely on the "trade spezza" train, but i don't any logic in your opinion of richards, when comparing it with your opinion of other, better players.
- sensarmy_11

Fair question. The only way Spezza can help you is as a 1C. He is a great player. But as his skills decline I doubt he can play an effective game as a 3C for example.

Richards, on the other hand, has played as a 1C but he has never been known as a top 1C. On the other hand, he can be outstanding as a 2, 3 or 4 over the balance of his career. I really do believe thar elite offensive players experience significant skills erosion starting around age 28. We see it in Spezza. You can chart it and understand the the skill loss is not gradual but exponential (not unlike LaCavalier). But a guy like Richards who has built his game on his defense (like Lazar) offers so much more than just his offensive output.

I love how you love to try and destroy people opinion if you don't share the exact same thought process. Also, the next comment you post is about how steep a decline Richards has had.

I think that GM's will have learned from the Clarkson deal and not give those crazy ones out anymore. Also, if Richards is bought out then the next deal he signs will be lower in value. Look at Lecavallier.
- riceroni

Ya. Just because Clarkson got a terrible deal, doesn't mean every player will demand more. Richards, if bought out, will get a pay decrease. I don't think it will be around 3 million, but definitely not 6-7 million. Somewhere in the middle.

Fair question. The only way Spezza can help you is as a 1C. He is a great player. But as his skills decline I doubt he can play an effective game as a 3C for example.

Richards, on the other hand, has played as a 1C but he has never been known as a top 1C. On the other hand, he can be outstanding as a 2, 3 or 4 over the balance of his career. I really do believe thar elite offensive players experience significant skills erosion starting around age 28. We see it in Spezza. You can chart it and understand the the skill loss is not gradual but exponential (not unlike LaCavalier). But a guy like Richards who has built his game on his defense (like Lazar) offers so much more than just his offensive output.
- spatso

i disagree. i think spezza helps any team, as either a 1st line or 2nd line center. he's certainly not wasted playing on say the 2nd line in anaheim....or whatever.

as for richards, it's fine to say that he can play the 3rd or 4th line and help a team there, but i'm sorry, i dont' care how good your 3rd line center is, if you're paying him 6 mil, it's a waste. the NHL is a salary cap league, you can't pay guys top six salaries, and then play them in the bottom six. that's a recipe for disaster.

richards is paid like a 2nd line center, and the reality is that on a lot of teams, he wouldn't fit in the top six, which makes him drastically overpaid.

Ya. Just because Clarkson got a terrible deal, doesn't mean every player will demand more. Richards, if bought out, will get a pay decrease. I don't think it will be around 3 million, but definitely not 6-7 million. Somewhere in the middle.
- Gord_Wilson_2.0

he makes 5.75 now, i don't think anyone will get him for much less than that. i see him getting atleast 5.5 on the open market.

I love how you love to try and destroy people opinion if you don't share the exact same thought process. Also, the next comment you post is about how steep a decline Richards has had.

I think that GM's will have learned from the Clarkson deal and not give those crazy ones out anymore. Also, if Richards is bought out then the next deal he signs will be lower in value. Look at Lecavallier.
- riceroni

Lecavalier's deal was lower in value, but still way more than he's worth, wasn't it?

snap out of it. Richards will command 5 million at minimum on the open market.