Mike Richards clearly had problems as a member of the Flyers, if Alexandre Burrows playing on the other side of the continent knew about it, you can bet Kings management did as well. The Kings clearly didn't care about it when they made the trade, that could be for a variety of reasons..
1. Drug use is so rampant in the NHL that it's a non-issue acquiring a player with a problem.
2. The Kings thought they could fix the problem.
3. The Kings were so excited to be getting a player of MR's caliber with a bargain contract that they decided to just look the other way.
This is my only issue with DL's handing of all of this, I think in a way Dean's comments are an attempt to deflect any blame from himself, and I don't think that's fair. The Kings clearly had no problems acquiring the player and committing $50m in salary to him when he was a likely drug user playing at a high level, but then they tried to play the victim card when he became the worst player on the team. This is one area where Kings ownership should really grill Dean when it comes to the handling of Mike Richards from the start.
didnt Deaner admit that he saw the warning signs and just refused to believe them?
here:
"I heard the rumors that Mike might have some off-ice issues, but I refused to believe that they were true despite some obvious signs,” wrote Lombardi.
I fail to see how the Kings are playing the 'victim' card when it was Richards decision to take drugs in the first place. Dean gave him the benefit of the doubt more than once and Richards **** on him. How can you see it any other way? Dean isnt the bad guy here...
even Bill Daly said the Kings had an outright cause for terminating the contract and stood a good chance at winning in arbitration.
“In our view, the Kings had a ‘Bona Fide' opportunity to win this grievance,” Daly said. “In that case, they would have no cap hit at all. This way, there's some penalty.”
Last edited: