So instead you're going to buy him out and pay $19 million over the next 12 years to have him NOT play for you? Yea that's a good idea.
Mike Richards is a good player. However, for the reason above, he's not going to get bought out, and due to his subpar season, his trade value is at its lowest. Lombardi probably won't get any decent offers for him.
The argument can be made that Richards will never be the player he was 5 years ago. However, after the news of Lombardi's interview, it seems clear that both Lombardi and Richards acknowledge that his level of play is not acceptable, and that something needs to be done about it. Since the Kings don't have any cap issues this offseason and since there is no deadline for a trade like there is for a buyout, there is very little risk involved in the Kings keeping him another year. If it turns out that he can't get his act together, then the Kings can trade him to a lottery team trying to reach the cap floor for a 7th round pick before next year's draft. If he does pick up his play, then Lombardi will look like the smartest GM in the league for not listening to all of the nay sayers and giving up on him. Win/win.
- tkecanuck341
Maybe. Not saying you are wrong, but what if the smart move is cutting bait while you can not have it count against your cap and using that to sign guys you'd like to keep next offseason? Who are younger and entering their prime? I admit it's a dicey question, but the buyout changing substantially going forward makes it quite the debate.
And really, if I'm a GM next year, do I really want a guy signed for another 5 years at 5.75 million or whatever? Sorry, I am more interested in guys like Havlat or the like with only a year or two remaining. Richards intangibles be damned, that's a lot of scratch if he's not producing year-round.
