Toggle sidebar

Line Combos: 2016-2017 Kings Roster

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
tsanuri said:
I think they are misinterpreting the law. Because once you sign a second contract it's a new contract not a continuation of the last one.
But I can't see any athletes doing this. They would be setting themselves up in a big way.
Click to expand...
That's the way California courts have interpreted the provision. From the original Fangraphs article:

The potential impact of Section 2855 is much broader than just long-term deals signed by free-agent players, however. Perhaps most significantly, California courts have applied the provision to cases in which an employee was bound by a series of one-year renewable option contracts cumulatively extending eight or more years. Put differently, Section 2855 does not just apply to a single contract lasting more than seven years, but applies whenever an employer has a contractual right to its worker’s services for a total of eight or more years, even if transpiring under a series of multiple contracts.
Click to expand...
 
tsanuri said:
An option is the continuation of an existing contract not a new contract. That's the difference.
Click to expand...
I understand that, but the more general and important point is that California is an incredibly employee-friendly state. If a California court applies the principle to option contracts, I highly doubt subsequents contract with the same employer would be viewed much differently, especially in the context of how sports contracts and years of team control work.
 
tsanuri said:
An option is the continuation of an existing contract not a new contract. That's the difference.
Click to expand...

I believe the key word is "employment" rather than contract(s).

Think this clause was created in the aftermath of "Child Labor Laws" and specifically with regard to entertainment industry contractual practices. Kids (and talent in general) were getting signed to contracts that were effectively lifetime - before their real economic value was measured; and more importantly, before they could make adult decisions about their careers and lives. Same thing has already been applied to musicians and actors.

quote from the article:
It’s not even about the contract alone. Section 2855 applies “whenever an employer has a contractual right to its worker’s services for a total of eight or more years, even if transpiring under a series of multiple contracts,” according to Fangraphs.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure Sutter is trying to get Kopitar going, he really needs to if we're going to have any success this year. I wish they'd call up Brodzinski from the A, he deserves a shot.
 
i still don't understand any logic behind keeping Zatkoff rather than going for guys like Condon, Tokarski, Empty Net, etc
 
KingPuckChoo said:
i still don't understand any logic behind keeping Zatkoff rather than going for guys like Condon, Tokarski, Empty Net, etc
Click to expand...

When Quick comes back, who goes down, Budaj or Zatkoff? Campbell is getting some good development in being the #1, going 11-1-1 in the last 13 games. Do you make Budaj the Reign back-up or stagnate Jack Campbell's development? We'll have too many goalies when Quick is back.

 
Last edited:
the only STAT that matters for goalies (not talking about intangibles), is SV%

Campbell's SV% in the AHL is horrid

i doubt this guy can sustain the NHL

regardless, Zatkoff is not a goalie

so that answers that question

of course we keep Budaj, it would be sane not to

doesn't change the fact that we need a guy like Tokarski to backup Budaj

until Quick comes back (IF IF IF IF IF IF)

and because of those 5 IFs

id rather be stuck with "too many goalies" than a Budaj/Zatkoff for an entire season.

and i don't care about getting a higher pick, it shouldn't come at the cost of entertainment

nobody in LA is interested (even the players) in a game where Zatkoff is the starter

it's just dead atmosphere

that is very bad for business

this is why i'm really struggling with the fact that Zatkoff is still on our roster

but guys like Halak & Hammond were given the axe

is Zatkoff part of a union or something???

why are we clinging onto a guy that has no business in the NHL? He's stealing a job from an actual professional
 
PJ Kings Hockey said:
When Quick comes back, who goes down, Budaj or Zatkoff? Campbell is getting some good development in being the #1, going 11-1-1 in the last 13 games. Do you make Budaj the Reign back-up or stagnate Jack Campbell's development? We'll have too many goalies when Quick is back.

Click to expand...


Zatkoff doesn't go down as much as Budaj should stay up he's gong down. Zatkoff is the goalie we have signed to expose legally under the expansion draft rules.
Otherwise if he was claimed we'd have to expose Campbell.
And don't think that teams don't know this and might claim just for that reason if they could.
Or we have to get someone signed to expose. Which could happen with Budaj.
 
tsanuri said:
Zatkoff doesn't go down as much as Budaj should stay up he's gong down. Zatkoff is the goalie we have signed to expose legally under the expansion draft rules.
Otherwise if he was claimed we'd have to expose Campbell.
And don't think that teams don't know this and might claim just for that reason if they could.
Or we have to get someone signed to expose. Which could happen with Budaj.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that we'll hear in a few weeks a contract extension for Budaj. He's earned it, based on his play this year
 
PJ Kings Hockey said:
When Quick comes back, who goes down, Budaj or Zatkoff? Campbell is getting some good development in being the #1, going 11-1-1 in the last 13 games. Do you make Budaj the Reign back-up or stagnate Jack Campbell's development? We'll have too many goalies when Quick is back.

Click to expand...


How is that even a debate? You send Zatkoff down and keep Budaj as Quick's backup. Zatkoff is not even an NHL caliber 3rd string goalie - he is just awful, while Budaj has been a solid backup.
 
Ziggy Stardust said:
I'd take Rick Knickle over Jeff Zatkoff. Might be the most incapable goalie I've seen in the Kings' crease since David Goverde.
Click to expand...

Daniel Berthiaume
Mario Gosselin (think Mario is the name)

were garbage too

Dan Cloutier? but I guess he was, at least, an actual goalie
 
PJ Kings Hockey said:
When Quick comes back, who goes down, Budaj or Zatkoff? Campbell is getting some good development in being the #1, going 11-1-1 in the last 13 games. Do you make Budaj the Reign back-up or stagnate Jack Campbell's development? We'll have too many goalies when Quick is back.

Click to expand...


First off it better be Zatkoff going to Ontario as we can all see Budaj is the far better goalie between those two.
 
PJ Kings Hockey said:
When Quick comes back, who goes down, Budaj or Zatkoff? Campbell is getting some good development in being the #1, going 11-1-1 in the last 13 games. Do you make Budaj the Reign back-up or stagnate Jack Campbell's development? We'll have too many goalies when Quick is back.

Click to expand...


How is this even a question? Budaj is the co-team MVP right now with Carter. Why the **** would you keep Zatkoff on the roster and send Budaj down?
 
Fiset and Jamie Storr were better than Zatkoff, and that was one of the worst goalie tandems we had in the dark era.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom