No, lets argue in circles some more.
- Feeling Glucky?

What do you want to start with.

Mike Stanton is a #1 d man

What do you want to start with.

Mike Stanton is a #1 d man
- Bieksa#3

Who?

Who?
- Feeling Glucky?

Plays out west so eastern media doesn't talk about him. He's lhanuef caliber. Does a lot of standing around looking stupid

Plays out west so eastern media doesn't talk about him. He's lhanuef caliber. Does a lot of standing around looking stupid
- Bieksa#3

Vancouver resident?

Richards has half the points Bozak does. He's got less than Holland, who's been injured, and playing bottom-6 for the Leafs.

It's very possible that bringing in Richards would just be to upgrade over Smith.... and he's only up because of injuries. Without injuries, we've got Winnik, Santorelli, and Komarov that can line up as 4th line C.... and they all have more points than Richards. Even Komarov, who's only played 29 games.



The only thing we can hope for is a change of scenery getting something together for Richards... but as it stands he probably wouldn't even earn a spot on a healthy Leafs roster.
- Feeling Glucky?

The only deal I'd consider for Richards would be Clarkson: Kings save 500K in cap over same contract length as Richards, we get a marginally better player.

Vancouver resident?
- Feeling Glucky?

I don't know where he lives

The only deal I'd consider for Richards would be Clarkson: Kings save 500K in cap over same contract length as Richards, we get a marginally better player.
- gravyface

That's as lobsided as Richards for Dion. Clarkson couldn't even get in their line up

The only deal I'd consider for Richards would be Clarkson: Kings save 500K in cap over same contract length as Richards, we get a marginally better player.
- gravyface

Clifford plays clarksons role just fine for about $4mil cheaper

Clifford plays clarksons role just fine for about $4mil cheaper
- RobitailleFAN20

And Holland plays Richards' role for $5M cheaper. If Clarkson can crack their 3rd line they will get more value out of him than Richards. I wouldn't do it if I was LA as they need defense not another checking forward but if that isn't an option then the minimal cap space and extra minutes you get from Clarkson may be better than nothing.

And Holland plays Richards' role for $5M cheaper. If Clarkson can crack their 3rd line they will get more value out of him than Richards. I wouldn't do it if I was LA as they need defense not another checking forward but if that isn't an option then the minimal cap space and extra minutes you get from Clarkson may be better than nothing.
- Steven_Dean

He can't crack the line up. Is he better then Nolon or king?

He can't crack the line up. Is he better then Nolon or king?
- Bieksa#3

I believe so. If he was making the same as Nolan or King then I would prefer Clarkson over either.

But let's say that there is a chance he isn't better or is not a better fit than Nolan or King, would you rather a 50-75% chance to have a 3rd line forward who can occasionally play the power play or 2nd line minutes with the possibility he plays on the 4th line most of the time in Clarkson or a player that is and will play the 4th line guaranteed in Richards.

Of course this assumes there are no other deals available for Richards that are better. Do you trade, free up $500k in cap and take the chance you end up with a better player or not trade, and be stuck with a $5.75M 4th line center?

I would make the deal if there was no other option.

I believe so. If he was making the same as Nolan or King then I would prefer Clarkson over either.

But let's say that there is a chance he isn't better or is not a better fit than Nolan or King, would you rather a 50-75% chance to have a 3rd line forward who can occasionally play the power play or 2nd line minutes with the possibility he plays on the 4th line most of the time in Clarkson or a player that is and will play the 4th line guaranteed in Richards.

Of course this assumes there are no other deals available for Richards that are better. Do you trade, free up $500k in cap and take the chance you end up with a better player or not trade, and be stuck with a $5.75M 4th line center?

I would make the deal if there was no other option.
- Steven_Dean

I wouldn't. Clarkson can't

Skate
Pass
Hit

And Holland plays Richards' role for $5M cheaper. If Clarkson can crack their 3rd line they will get more value out of him than Richards. I wouldn't do it if I was LA as they need defense not another checking forward but if that isn't an option then the minimal cap space and extra minutes you get from Clarkson may be better than nothing.
- Steven_Dean

Is rather LA stick with Richards than trade him for Clarkson... I laughed when he got that dumb contract he had one good year.

The only deal I'd consider for Richards would be Clarkson: Kings save 500K in cap over same contract length as Richards, we get a marginally better player.
- gravyface

I wouldn't. Clarkson can't

Skate
Pass
Hit
- Bieksa#3

And yet he is producing as well as King and crushing Nolan. Obviously his contract is terrible but that's why he is in the discussion.

While there is nothing wrong with standing pat with Richards if Clarkson is the option (I would too) but of you want to move Richards without moving a 1st and/or Pearson then you won't like the return. Period.

This rumour is just so lop-sided I can't believe there's much truth to it. If I were LA I'd jump all over any opportunity to swap Richards for Phaneuf, even if they had to toss in a mid-round pick, prospect or bottom 6 roster player. Conversely, I have no idea why Toronto would even consider a Richards - Phaneuf deal.

By adding Phaneuf, LA would be adding an All-Star Norris finalist to complement their other All-Star Norris finalist. He could step in and instantly fill the big defensive need LA has had since losing Voynov. They've already got Doughty playing in all situations, and I think Phaneuf would benefit if given fewer minutes than he currently sees in Toronto - most of his defensive lapses in Toronto seem to come from him being used too much / trying to do too much.

Richards is basically a dead weight at this point. His value has plummeted in recent years and drops further every day - and it's never going to go back up. Some people here are arguing that it's just swapping one bad contract for another (I don't agree, I think Phaneuf's is pretty much fair market value), but even if that were the case, at the end of the day LA comes out of it ahead by a country mile because Phaneuf still has tons of trade value. He may not last in LA past the end of the year (I'm not positive that Phaneuf's playstyle will meld perfectly with LA's defense-first mentality), but LA would be in a great trading situation in the off-season as lots of teams in the league would love to add a top-pairing defenseman.

And yet he is producing as well as King and crushing Nolan. Obviously his contract is terrible but that's why he is in the discussion.

While there is nothing wrong with standing pat with Richards if Clarkson is the option (I would too) but of you want to move Richards without moving a 1st and/or Pearson then you won't like the return. Period.
- Steven_Dean

One plays 2nd line and power play because his team in garbage. The other plays 3rd/4th line. Yet their numbers are comparable.


This is fun

This rumour is just so lop-sided I can't believe there's much truth to it. If I were LA I'd jump all over any opportunity to swap Richards for Phaneuf, even if they had to toss in a mid-round pick, prospect or bottom 6 roster player. Conversely, I have no idea why Toronto would even consider a Richards - Phaneuf deal.

By adding Phaneuf, LA would be adding an All-Star Norris finalist to complement their other All-Star Norris finalist. He could step in and instantly fill the big defensive need LA has had since losing Voynov. They've already got Doughty playing in all situations, and I think Phaneuf would benefit if given fewer minutes than he currently sees in Toronto - most of his defensive lapses in Toronto seem to come from him being used too much / trying to do too much.

Richards is basically a dead weight at this point. His value has plummeted in recent years and drops further every day - and it's never going to go back up. Some people here are arguing that it's just swapping one bad contract for another (I don't agree, I think Phaneuf's is pretty much fair market value), but even if that were the case, at the end of the day LA comes out of it ahead by a country mile because Phaneuf still has tons of trade value. He may not last in LA past the end of the year (I'm not positive that Phaneuf's playstyle will meld perfectly with LA's defense-first mentality), but LA would be in a great trading situation in the off-season as lots of teams in the league would love to add a top-pairing defenseman.
- Maritimes

Norris caliber

This rumour is just so lop-sided I can't believe there's much truth to it. If I were LA I'd jump all over any opportunity to swap Richards for Phaneuf, even if they had to toss in a mid-round pick, prospect or bottom 6 roster player. Conversely, I have no idea why Toronto would even consider a Richards - Phaneuf deal.

By adding Phaneuf, LA would be adding an All-Star Norris finalist to complement their other All-Star Norris finalist. He could step in and instantly fill the big defensive need LA has had since losing Voynov. They've already got Doughty playing in all situations, and I think Phaneuf would benefit if given fewer minutes than he currently sees in Toronto - most of his defensive lapses in Toronto seem to come from him being used too much / trying to do too much.

Richards is basically a dead weight at this point. His value has plummeted in recent years and drops further every day - and it's never going to go back up. Some people here are arguing that it's just swapping one bad contract for another (I don't agree, I think Phaneuf's is pretty much fair market value), but even if that were the case, at the end of the day LA comes out of it ahead by a country mile because Phaneuf still has tons of trade value. He may not last in LA past the end of the year (I'm not positive that Phaneuf's playstyle will meld perfectly with LA's defense-first mentality), but LA would be in a great trading situation in the off-season as lots of teams in the league would love to add a top-pairing defenseman.
- Maritimes

That's why this won't happen. The Leafs would never take a bad contract (and nothing else) for a top pairing defenseman with a bloated contract. Adding a 2nd or crap prospect won't cut it either. Which is also why LA doesn't do it IMO, why give up Pearson a 1st and possibly another piece to dump Richards for Phaneuf.

Won't happen but fun to talk about.

One plays 2nd line and power play because his team in garbage. The other plays 3rd/4th line. Yet their numbers are comparable.


This is fun
- Bieksa#3

Is producing on a garbage team. King plays for a great team and probably can thank them for half of his production while Clarkson had to "work" for his.



We can argue all day but the point is you are not getting a useful player like Phaneuf (overpaid or not) for Richards unless you give up a bunch.

I don't know where he lives
- Bieksa#3

This cracked me up.

Is producing on a garbage team. King plays for a great team and probably can thank them for half of his production while Clarkson had to "work" for his.



We can argue all day but the point is you are not getting a useful player like Phaneuf (overpaid or not) for Richards unless you give up a bunch.
- Steven_Dean

I think it's safe to say that neither team is going to find a home for their immovables (Clarkson/Richards), not without some pain and suffering in return.

Having said that, yeah, Clarkson has struggled mightily on the Leafs, but playing on a more structured team like LA would probably do wonders for him. He's not a 30 goal scorer, but he's also not a 15 point player either.

This cracked me up.
- Jason_Lewis

Having said that, yeah, Clarkson has struggled mightily on the Leafs, but playing on a more structured team like LA would probably do wonders for him. He's not a 30 goal scorer, but he's also not a 15 point player either.
- gravyface

I agree; I think a change of scenery would do him wonders - I'd lay money on him never scoring 30 goals in a season again like he did in NJ, but I could see him being a valuable top-9 guy capable of putting up 20 goals a season elsewhere. Due to his contract though, he's essentially unmovable. As much as the Clarkson contract is laughable, it's also sad. As soon as the contract was announced he became the target of scorn and derision in the biggest hockey city in the world; a city that is also notoriously demanding of it's stars even when they are producing (just ask Phil Kessel). He was never really given a chance to succeed in Toronto, and probably never will. That sort of stuff gets into a guy's head. I feel bad for the guy - all he did was sign a contract. It was the Leafs that f^%$ed up in giving it to him.

There is no way DL makes a trade like that. Richards has a bad contract, Dion has a bad contract with a higher cap hit. The Kings are in cap hell as it is.

The only way DL makes a deal like that is if Toronto sends some cash our way, Which I know will not happen.