Proposal: Mike Richards

[MsMeow]

How do you know this?

The Kings were playing at a ridiculous level during the playoffs. It's hard to know what the end result would have been if you pull one player out of the equation not named Quick.

I feel comfortable saying this though; without Darryl Sutter the Kings don't win the cup. He, more than anyone, is the x factor that got the Kings over the hump. Not Mike Richards.

The thing with the Kings' victory was everyone made a difference. Do you think Kopi's line would have had as much impact if Stoll was the second line centre?

 

[Live in the Now]

How do you know this?

The Kings were playing at a ridiculous level during the playoffs. It's hard to know what the end result would have been if you pull one player out of the equation not named Quick.

I feel comfortable saying this though; without Darryl Sutter the Kings don't win the cup. He, more than anyone, is the x factor that got the Kings over the hump. Not Mike Richards.

Because our second line center would be Stoll, and because we wouldn't have even been in the playoffs without Richards early performances. Every single player who was played in the clincher pulled their weight in the playoffs, we wouldn't win the Cup without any of them.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

How do you know this?

The Kings were playing at a ridiculous level during the playoffs. It's hard to know what the end result would have been if you pull one player out of the equation not named Quick.

I feel comfortable saying this though; without Darryl Sutter the Kings don't win the cup. He, more than anyone, is the x factor that got the Kings over the hump. Not Mike Richards.

Trading for Richards, firing Murray, hiring Sutter, calling up King and Nolan, trading JJ for Carter, it all mattered.

Entertaining the notion of removing Richards from the team at this junction, rather than letting him find his game and conditioning, is profoundly Pejorative Slured. (not directed at you, just at the sheeple in general)

 

[Whiskeypete]

 

[funky]

Richards is a perfect 2nd line center on a playoff team. Plays a cerebral two way game. Plays all situation, doesn't back down, great pedigree.

 

[damacles1156]

Mike will be fine after about 10 games. He will be back to his old self.

It's just painful to watch atm.

 

[Scottkmlps]

How do you know this?

The Kings were playing at a ridiculous level during the playoffs. It's hard to know what the end result would have been if you pull one player out of the equation not named Quick.

I feel comfortable saying this though; without Darryl Sutter the Kings don't win the cup. He, more than anyone, is the x factor that got the Kings over the hump. Not Mike Richards.

Yes, and it takes every player to buy into the system that Sutter implemented, and it takes leaders like Richards who have won at every level to lead the team. Richards was an big part of that cup win, just like every player that played for the Kings on that 16-4 run.
The Kings have a solid 1-2 punch at center and after one cup some people want to trade Richards. There are many players in the league right now who are struggling due to the fact they haven't played competitive hockey in 7 months. Add the fact no training camp and you've got a recipe for players struggling. Give it more than 4 games before you start lambasting certain players.

 

[johnjm22]

You guys are just proving my point. It's a team sport. The Kings weren't any better with Richards in the lineup until Sutter, Carter, Nolan, King, Fraser all came along.

That's why you can't unequivocally say that we don't win the cup with out him. You just don't know. Richards all on his own isn't enough of a force to make or break a season.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

You guys are just proving my point. It's a team sport. The Kings weren't any better with Richards in the lineup until Sutter, Carter, Nolan, King, Fraser all came along.

That's why you can't unequivocally say that we don't win the cup with out him. You just don't know. Richards all on his own isn't enough of a force to make or break a season.

I think it's fair to say that the Kings weren't going to win the Cup with Stoll as the second line center, though.

 

[johnjm22]

The thing with the Kings' victory was everyone made a difference. Do you think Kopi's line would have had as much impact if Stoll was the second line centre?

I've been watching Kopitar long enough to know that when he gets on his game he's a force, and he's going to score PERIOD. I've seen him be hot, and cold, with all types of different lineup variations around him.

Statically speaking he had the best year of his career when Stoll was the 2nd line center.

I remember when people were crediting Smyth for Kopitar's success. Now it's because of Mike Richards? Gimme a break.

I think it's fair to say that the Kings weren't going to win the Cup with Stoll as the second line center, though.

Probably, but I think Dean would have figured something out. We had a ton of prime assets. I do wonder if we would have been able to get Carter, if we didn't already have Richards. IMO, Carter is more important to the team right now.

 

[RonSwanson*]

Spoken like someone who is clueless about hockey. I guess 2 way play, pp, pk, hitting, occasionally fighting isn't important.

I get it. You're a Richards homer.

I like Richards too. But I am not blind to the fact that he's putting up less points than he did with Carcillo and Nodl as his linemates. Hell, even you posted a few pages back that he's being outplayed by an over-the-hill Doan.

As for my comment that you quoted above, I'm far from clueless about hockey. All I was saying is that DeeShamrock using Richards' 65 pts in 82 games stats wasnt very impressive by itself and certainly not indicative of a guy getting paid near max like Richards is. Anyone, even those who happen to be clueless about hockey can understand that.

 

[RonSwanson*]

Jesus, I know the slow start has taken an effect on some of you, but are some of you seriously in favor of trading away a key piece of what brought this team it's only Stanley cup ever? Our two way center play is one of the best in the league and those who think a four day span by a player who is obviously rusty means we should trade him should get their heads examined. Who is going to step in and play second line center? Stoll? Please. Also, we would not get a better center to replace him in a deal for Richards. Look at a list of centers and decide which ones you think are better than Richards. Guess what? Those teams are not trading those centers! Regardless, Dean isn't trading him, so people need to stop wasting their time. If I was Gagne or Penner though, I wouldn't be feeling to comfortable come trade deadline time.

No one is advocating trading Richards. The OP isnt a Kings fan.

 

[deeshamrock]

But I am not blind to the fact that he's putting up less points than he did with Carcillo and Nodl as his linemates.

His point production was 11 G and 20 points in 24 games last year, thru Nov 30. His regular season ended Dec 1 with a head injury. PERIOD. If you watched the Kings last year, you saw the noticable drop in his game after the injury, Sutter mentioned post Cup taht Richards didn't 'start' to recover from it until the end of March.

As for my comment that you quoted above, I'm far from clueless about hockey. All I was saying is that DeeShamrock using Richards' 65 pts in 82 games stats wasnt very impressive by itself and certainly not indicative of a guy getting paid near max like Richards is. Anyone, even those who happen to be clueless about hockey can understand that.

I said 65 points in 82 playoff games and it is an impressive stat , esp when you figure he generally plays against the top lines, does PK time and is a physical force. Most knowlegable hockey analysts, Bob McKenzie and Pierre LeBrun two that talked of it, pointed it out last year. That MR is 'money' in the playoffs due to that production and everything else he brings.

And TSN noted that Richards is 3rd in playoff scoring in the NHL ove r the last 3 years.

But i guess winning the Stanley Cup isn't important to you. To most Kings fans, MR earned every cent in that Cup run.

 

[kingsfan28]

Richards is a proven playoff performer.That's why you have him on your team. That hit he laid on Burrows in the playoffs set the tone for the entire playoff run.

 

[RonSwanson*]

His point production was 11 G and 20 points in 24 games last year, thru Nov 30. His regular season ended Dec 1 with a head injury. PERIOD. If you watched the Kings last year, you saw the noticable drop in his game after the injury, Sutter mentioned post Cup taht Richards didn't 'start' to recover from it until the end of March.

I said 65 points in 82 playoff games and it is an impressive stat , esp when you figure he generally plays against the top lines, does PK time and is a physical force. Most knowlegable hockey analysts, Bob McKenzie and Pierre LeBrun two that talked of it, pointed it out last year. That MR is 'money' in the playoffs due to that production and everything else he brings.

And TSN noted that Richards is 3rd in playoff scoring in the NHL ove r the last 3 years.

But i guess winning the Stanley Cup isn't important to you. To most Kings fans, MR earned every cent in that Cup run.

You've said it multiple times now, but it's not true that MR's season ended Dec. 1. If you want to say that his injury made him less of a player, he also played injured on that line with Carcillo and Nodl.

The Kings won the Cup, not Richards alone. I'm amused by how you like to attribute it solely to Richards.

 

[Papa Mocha 15]

Richards is overrated. He's a glorified 2C because he cherry picks on the PK for shorthanded goals and occasionally he hits people.

Hi Ron. I'm going to disagree with you on the cherry picking part. I think he aggressively follows through with his checks on players who shoot from the point during the PP and creates opportunities so it throws players off and makes them vulnerable. See the "the Shift" and also the hit on Burrows in the playoffs. While we were not on a PP against the Casucks, it is the same mentality. Vancouver had an empty net and Burrows was not expecting it. Even Fox recognizes it in his commentary at 1:04.

I guess my point is, I don't see him as a cherry picker. Just part of the PK that creates opps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mVgeoqoP58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs_3PeQQUxc

 

[KingKopitar11*]

the only thing I can agree on is that he's really good on the PK but other than that I dont think he was the game changer or set the tone in the playoffs. The whole team was better during the run, saying that he was a big key seems very unlikely to me. Brown, Kopitar, Doughty, 4th and 3rd line, and then Carter, Penner, then Richards. Richards did score well during our run but he wasn't necessarily "cannon" after the Vancouver series. Just me 2 cents about his real contribution to our run. Yes I do think he's overrated.

Brown was the legitimate "cannon" along with Kopitar through the whole thing. IMO. And no matter how much you disagree it wont change my perspective, this is to the extreme richards fanatics.

this is the old richards, this is who i thought he was gonna be. Wish he played like this as a king.

Last but not least, No Im not saying this cause of the first 4 games of the new season. I wouldn't trade him now, i think his conditioning is off, If he doesn't improve by the end of the regular season then you dangle him in the market, well that would be what i'd do.

 

[Eagle Fang]

Game 1 of the Vancouver series, Mike Richards was everything I thought we were getting. No doubt it's impossible to do that every game, night in and night out, but I wish we'd see that more frequently.

I also thought he would be able to create more offensively.

That being said, you can't deny this guy just wins. It's no coincidence that he's won almost every major championship there is to win for a hockey player. Whether or not LA would've won the Cup without Richards is impossible to know. All that matters is that LA did win and he played big minutes for the team in doing so.

 

[Papa Mocha 15]

Game 1 of the Vancouver series, Mike Richards was everything I thought we were getting. No doubt it's impossible to do that every game, night in and night out, but I wish we'd see that more frequently.

I also thought he would be able to create more offensively.

That being said, you can't deny this guy just wins. It's no coincidence that he's won almost every major championship there is to win for a hockey player. Whether or not LA would've won the Cup without Richards is impossible to know. All that matters is that LA did win and he played big minutes for the team in doing so.

This. Close thread.

 

[KingKopitar11*]

This. Close thread.

I second that