Toggle sidebar

Kings Article: Is Andrej Sekera worth It?

There isn't any reason Sekera shouldn't be resigned if he's asking for anything remotely reasonable (6 or less AAV over 5ish years). That's market value on a player of his caliber right now, and we parted with good assets to get him.

He rounds out the puck moving transition game in or back end, something which suffered greatly throughout the year.

I'm all for bringing the guy back at the numbers above. Deal with Voynov whenever that's resolved, likely a trade. Or **** it, keep em if you can get rid of Richards.
 
Richie10 said:
There isn't any reason Sekera shouldn't be resigned if he's asking for anything remotely reasonable (6 or less AAV over 5ish years). That's market value on a player of his caliber right now, and we parted with good assets to get him.

He rounds out the puck moving transition game in or back end, something which suffered greatly throughout the year.

I'm all for bringing the guy back at the numbers above. Deal with Voynov whenever that's resolved, likely a trade. Or **** it, keep em if you can get rid of Richards.
Click to expand...

Yep, outside of Doughty, he's the best puck carrier out of the zone on the team. Much better than Voynov and also better than Martinez. I don't mind the contract length at all. PMDs do not age as quickly as physical stay at home guys. The smarter the defenseman is, the longer they can play in the league and I think Sekera will still be able to play at a high level in 5 years.
 
Richie10 said:
There isn't any reason Sekera shouldn't be resigned if he's asking for anything remotely reasonable (6 or less AAV over 5ish years). That's market value on a player of his caliber right now, and we parted with good assets to get him.

He rounds out the puck moving transition game in or back end, something which suffered greatly throughout the year.

I'm all for bringing the guy back at the numbers above. Deal with Voynov whenever that's resolved, likely a trade. Or **** it, keep em if you can get rid of Richards.
Click to expand...

Why does what we paid for him impact if we sign him? They are two seperate issues. If we gave only a 2nd we can let him go?

He was worth a 1st and McKeown when we acquired him, it has no impact on his value on a contract.

Ron said:
It was a joke.
Click to expand...

Well screw you then.





















:sarcasm:
 
kingsfan said:
Well screw you then.





















:sarcasm:
Click to expand...

You are a smart guy. I thought you would get it. Then again, I take people far too seriously far too many times...it's hard to guage intent from a written post.

And I just hate to use this lame emoticon :sarcasm: you would think they could come up with a better representation for sarcasm eh?
 
There is value in what we traded to obtain Sekera and it is important at that. We paid a 1st and very highly regarded prospect to get him and that certainly adds to our internal view of the value of the player. It may not matter to Sekera or to any other team in the league but what we paid for him is part of the impetus to resign him. Not the entire reason but certainly considered part of his overall value.
 
417th said:
There is value in what we traded to obtain Sekera and it is important at that. We paid a 1st and very highly regarded prospect to get him and that certainly adds to our internal view of the value of the player. It may not matter to Sekera or to any other team in the league but what we paid for him is part of the impetus to resign him. Not the entire reason but certainly considered part of his overall value.
Click to expand...

That's just an extremely flawed system. Does the price you pay for a truck impact on your decision to later buy a boat to haul around as well?
 
kingsfan said:
That's just an extremely flawed system. Does the price you pay for a truck impact on your decision to later buy a boat to haul around as well?
Click to expand...

Your analogy doesn't apply. Before a team moves significant pieces for a rental at the deadline do you honestly believe that they don't consider the value they are paying as part of the price in what it will cost to keep him? Like I said, of course it doesn't matter to the player or the team he is being deal from but you can bet for certain that it was part of what the Kings were considering when they made the play to get Sekera. It also mattered that he played for people in our mgmt prior to our dealing for him, does it matter if your friend owned the same truck you were going to buy to replace your last truck? It does. It may not be a significant part of your reasoning but it matters.

So yes, it does matter to the Kings that they moved a couple of prized assets to get Sekera. It means that they were (and likely remain) serious about keeping him. Now Sekera holds most of the cards in where he ends up but that doesn't negate the value that the Kings placed on getting him. It isn't a flawed system. It is the way things are done most of the time when dealing for a soon to be ufa. MQn and a 1st is a very steep price to pay for a UFA so I would be willing to bet that the team wouldn't pay such a steep price for a Sekera without at least believing that they wanted and continue to keep him around. You follow the team closely so I don't have to list them for you but how many of the UFA's we have dealt for haven't ended up with the team vs how many who have? A hint. Over the past 4 season significantly more have stayed.
 
417th said:
Your analogy doesn't apply. Before a team moves significant pieces for a rental at the deadline do you honestly believe that they don't consider the value they are paying as part of the price in what it will cost to keep him?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I think the price to acquire him is what it took to acquire him. Now the team might find value in acquiring him at the deadline so they have more time to negotiate, but I don't think DL is sitting there saying 'We gave a first and a kid for this guy, so because of that we should give him an extra XXXX above what we feel he's worth."

417th said:
So yes, it does matter to the Kings that they moved a couple of prized assets to get Sekera. It means that they were (and likely remain) serious about keeping him. Now Sekera holds most of the cards in where he ends up but that doesn't negate the value that the Kings placed on getting him.
Click to expand...

And I never said it didn't. The Kings seen value in getting him ahead of time to have an exclusive negotiating window, just like Gaborik. But that doesn't mean they'll sign him above what they see his value as just because of what they paid for him.

417th said:
It isn't a flawed system. It is the way things are done most of the time when dealing for a soon to be ufa. MQn and a 1st is a very steep price to pay for a UFA so I would be willing to bet that the team wouldn't pay such a steep price for a Sekera without at least believing that they wanted and continue to keep him around. You follow the team closely so I don't have to list them for you but how many of the UFA's we have dealt for haven't ended up with the team vs how many who have? A hint. Over the past 4 season significantly more have stayed.
Click to expand...

Again, when have I ever said they didn't want to keep him? Never. Not once. I said they aren't going to overpay him (in their opinion) jjust because of what they paid to get him. They aren't going to say "We paid this much for him, we have to sign him." Paying for him and signing him are entirely seperate.
 
417th said:
There is value in what we traded to obtain Sekera and it is important at that. We paid a 1st and very highly regarded prospect to get him and that certainly adds to our internal view of the value of the player. It may not matter to Sekera or to any other team in the league but what we paid for him is part of the impetus to resign him. Not the entire reason but certainly considered part of his overall value.
Click to expand...

Let's talk about the bolded part.

McKeown was expendable because of the depth of the Kings D pool. I have also heard their were rumblings in the kings org than McKeown was being seen as Teubert 2: Electric Boogaloo
 
Bad Will Hunting said:
Let's talk about the bolded part.

McKeown was expendable because of the depth of the Kings D pool. I have also heard their were rumblings in the kings org than McKeown was being seen as Teubert 2: Electric Boogaloo
Click to expand...

:laugh:

BWH having a great Monday so far. :)
 
Bad Will Hunting said:
Let's talk about the bolded part.

McKeown was expendable because of the depth of the Kings D pool. I have also heard their were rumblings in the kings org than McKeown was being seen as Teubert 2: Electric Boogaloo
Click to expand...

Time will tell but we had only just drafted him when we dealt him and with a pretty high pick as well. So he was seen by most of the NHL as being a good prospect who was well thought of and that is what I was saying.
 
kingsfan said:
No, I don't. I think the price to acquire him is what it took to acquire him. Now the team might find value in acquiring him at the deadline so they have more time to negotiate, but I don't think DL is sitting there saying 'We gave a first and a kid for this guy, so because of that we should give him an extra XXXX above what we feel he's worth."



And I never said it didn't. The Kings seen value in getting him ahead of time to have an exclusive negotiating window, just like Gaborik. But that doesn't mean they'll sign him above what they see his value as just because of what they paid for him.



Again, when have I ever said they didn't want to keep him? Never. Not once. I said they aren't going to overpay him (in their opinion) jjust because of what they paid to get him. They aren't going to say "We paid this much for him, we have to sign him." Paying for him and signing him are entirely seperate.
Click to expand...


Again, I have said over and over that the value of what it cost to get him is only part of the consideration and it is where you are saying that it isn't and something about trucks and boats. Yes, before a team goes after a pending UFA they consider the cost they are paying for a player both for the present and the future. It is why some great players don't end up moving at the draft, the cost is too high for a rental. I would also point you to respond to what I have said regarding what our team has done over the past 4 years when it comes to obtaining pending UFA's. We tend to pay for these players because we plan on re-signing them. Their overall value becomes whatever we are willing to pay to keep them along with what we have to give up to get them in the first place. It is worth getting a player because they fit in to our long term plans so we will pay what other teams weren't willing to offer. We gave up a 1st and McQn to get Sekera, a pending UFA who has played for people in our org and knew what to expect from him and those things along with need are why we went out and made the deal. Sekera is a highly thought of player around the league and was going to be moved, we payed more than everyone else because we planned on retaining him. That said what we paid to get him was part of what we were willing to give up due to the fact that we planned on keeping him.

So yes, the reason we payed a high price to get Sekera (more than any other team was willing to pay) was due to the fact that we planned on keeping him. If it was for a pure rental then based on what DL has done in the recent past I don't see him making that sort of a trade. There is value, not total value but value in what we gave up to get Sekera because we knew prior to getting him that we would do what it takes to keep him. I never said that they would sign Sekera because they paid a high price to get him, I have said over and over that I believe that the reason that they paid so much for him is that they intend on keeping him. The price they paid is a part of what they feel Sekera is worth, not the entirety. You yourself said that they get additional exclusive neg rights as part of the deal and that is also what I am and have been saying.
Part of the value of getting Sekera and giving up what we did is due to the fact that we believe we can re-sign him so in the end it does become part of the overall value in obtaining him.
 
Beginning of 2013-2014 season, McKeown was regarded as a to 20 pick. the kids stock has been falling a lot the past two years.
 
417th said:
Again, I have said over and over that the value of what it cost to get him is only part of the consideration and it is where you are saying that it isn't and something about trucks and boats. Yes, before a team goes after a pending UFA they consider the cost they are paying for a player both for the present and the future. It is why some great players don't end up moving at the draft, the cost is too high for a rental. I would also point you to respond to what I have said regarding what our team has done over the past 4 years when it comes to obtaining pending UFA's. We tend to pay for these players because we plan on re-signing them. Their overall value becomes whatever we are willing to pay to keep them along with what we have to give up to get them in the first place. It is worth getting a player because they fit in to our long term plans so we will pay what other teams weren't willing to offer. We gave up a 1st and McQn to get Sekera, a pending UFA who has played for people in our org and knew what to expect from him and those things along with need are why we went out and made the deal. Sekera is a highly thought of player around the league and was going to be moved, we payed more than everyone else because we planned on retaining him. That said what we paid to get him was part of what we were willing to give up due to the fact that we planned on keeping him.

So yes, the reason we payed a high price to get Sekera (more than any other team was willing to pay) was due to the fact that we planned on keeping him. If it was for a pure rental then based on what DL has done in the recent past I don't see him making that sort of a trade. There is value, not total value but value in what we gave up to get Sekera because we knew prior to getting him that we would do what it takes to keep him.
Click to expand...

You aren't reading what I'm writing, or else you are missing my point.

I 100% agree with everything you have written here. Always have. What I am saying is that the $ figure we put next to his name on a contract is not going to fluctuate based on what we traded to get him. Dean lombardi is NOT going to offer him more money because we gave up a 1st and McKeown to get him. He's going to offer what he feels is fair in conjunction with what the Kings can afford and quite probably in relation to what others on the Kings are getting.
 
I didn't think the problem with the kings was the defense men last season. I thought forwards didn't play up to their potential, there was to many guys that had bad seasons. Sekera is going to get paid at least 6 mil next season if he doesn't resign with the kings.
 
Reclamation Project said:
I wonder if the Kings go after Christian Ehrhoff.
Click to expand...

Didn't he have 2 concussion this last year?

If the Kings don't bring Sekera back they need to bring someone in... gambling that Voynov makes it back isn't a good option and one that will be sorted out after most of the good UFA's are gone.
 
sinister6000 said:
I didn't think the problem with the kings was the defense men last season. I thought forwards didn't play up to their potential, there was to many guys that had bad seasons. Sekera is going to get paid at least 6 mil next season if he doesn't resign with the kings.
Click to expand...

it only looked that way because doughty was out there for literally half the game

really need a solid guy on second pairing to eat up minutes or doughty will be burned out by ****in january
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom