Stamkos Inked, Doughty Blotted

The first RFA hammer of summer 2011 has fallen as the Tampa Bay Lightning announced today that Steven Stamkos has signed a 5 year deal worth 37.5 million smackaroos.   That’s $7.5 per year for remedial math students or those of you who have a grudge against calculators.  Good for Yzerman, good the lightning, fair for the NHL.

But is this good for the Kings?  Does it even factor in to the prolonged and last heard stalled negotiations between Lombardi and Doughty?

I will venture to say this is good.  Not great.  Not special.  But good, in that it’s minutely beyond nonplussed and lacking the requisite suck quotient to be bad.  $7.5 million per year is not outrageous.  High, extremely high, but not some pain in the ass Ovechkin contract.  I believe the 5 years includes one UFA year for Stamkos.  However the money and term themselves likely have little to do with Doughty.  Though the two young studs were drafted back to back, they have had very different developmental curves aside from the obvious big difference that one scores goals and the other “hip checks the shit out of” people.  What we have to hope for here is not a comparable in Stamkos, but a domino effect for RFAs.

Shea Weber and Zach Parise remain the other two big fish in small or really stinky ponds, respectively, waiting for new contracts.  While those two either struggle to avoid or sit patiently and wait for an arbitration hearing, Doughty’s head agent Don Meehan now has one less thing to worry about and one more big paycheck in his snakeskin-lined pocket.  Though the word is that Lombardi has been the one biding his time with Doughty (with a dash of logic pointing to the Shea Weber arbitration as a reason why), I can’t help but imagine Drew’s agency won’t be making a stronger push to get their other golden apple signed before it falls out of season… by starting the season… the hockey season.  Get it?  Me neither.

I think my point is that I really don’t care about Stamkos or his shiny new contract and that I’ve been bored having nothing to write about for a week.

What’s your point?

Categories: L.A. Kings News

Tags: , , , , , ,

20 replies

  1. Quick question…according to Erik Erlendsson stamkos is not eligible for a NTC/NMC because of his age until the fifth year of his contract. Does this also apply to
    Doughty and do you think doughtys deal is being held up because of a NTC/NMC still?

    • Correct. As reader Sydor25 pointed out to us last week, according to the CBA a player is not eligible for a NMC/NTC until they are UFA eligible, which is either age based or years in the league based, whichever comes first I believe (for Stamkos and Doughty they are UFA eligible at 25 if memory serves).

      I don’t know if an NMC is still a holdup for Doughty at the moment, but I do believe it was a sticking point as of a few weeks ago. All that tells us is that the proposed Doughty deal with an NMC went beyond 5 years. We don’t know what has happened since then, but what we heard was something similar to the deal reported by Helene Elliott (9 years @ 6.5MM) and that the problem was an NMC that would kick in after year 4. The difference being that the deal Helene reported was offered by the Kings, and the NMC issue we heard of was proposed by Doughty’s camp. Now that could mean that Drew countered the King’s offer with an NMC, or simply looked at the Kings offer and said “good, except I want an NMC”. Hard to say where they are right now with the back and forth. Helene claims the Kings offered the 9 years @ 6.5MM, while Mark Guy (Doughty’s agent) claimed last week that they sent a deal to Lombardi at the end of June and that Lombardi hasn’t responded.

      Obviously if they are talking short term deals before or now, an NMC can’t be a factor.

      • Now this confuses me then. If he’s not eligible for a NMC/NTC, then why not sign him to a 6-7 year deal and give him a NTC clause at 25. That way you have 2 years to trade him if he continues to trend down. Even if you’re after he turns 25 and he stops producing, send him to the minors and free up space or trade him just before. A NMC I think is unjustified given his experience

        • Well that’s it, if this NMC thing is an issue it is totally dependent on term.

          Also, defensemen typically don’t fully hit their stride until about 25, right when an NMC would kick in. So I don’t think Lombardi wants to handcuff himself with Doughty right at the time he should know whether this guy is the next Lidstrom or the next Matthieu Schneider. We are likely talking big ass money here, so where big ass money is concerned, so must flexibility be a big factor. If Drew wants an NMC (which I agree he shouldn’t be getting at this point), then let him do his part and take less money. For a 5-5.5 million per year cap hit I am OK with an NMC. If he wants his 6.5+, then I believe he should forget about getting an NMC. Its a two way street. Its a show of commitment to ask for one, but it can be a commitment in two ways – team loyalty and/or comfort. An NMC is a statement of control. With one, the player has control. Without, the GM has control. Of course Doughty’s agent thinks he deserves control, and of course Lombardi knows he needs that control himself. Ultimately I think the resolution is one of many ways to modify an NMC. Such as, player can be moved during off season only and/or has to submit a list of acceptable teams each year or if asked to be traded.

          As far as I know, Lombardi has only given out two NTC/NMCs with the Kings – Visnovsky and Handzus. So in general Lombardi isn’t one of these GMs who tosses them out like candy to entice players to sign.

    • I believe it is 4 years, not 5, for Doughty. They hit the 7 year mark 4 seasons from now. Each has played 3. Regarding the NMC / NTC, yes, I do believe it is held up because of that but, of course, not only because of that. Those who unequivocally say “well, he’s not a free agent until 4 seasons from now so it can’t be NMC / NTC” are being short sighted. The LA Kings have offered Drew a NINE year contract. Drew’s camp has made a counter offer that Lombardi is sitting on. Now, even if that counter is still only 9 years, that is FIVE YEARS of NMC / NTC. See how that can be a hold up? Dean is a long term thinker. His actions and words play that out. He is just as worried about 4 season from now as he is about next season.

  2. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I also want to thank you both for the articles you write. I look forward to every one of your articles. I love how tou tell it how it is and the amount of coverage you have for my favorite team. I can’t wait until October. GO KINGS GO!!!!!!

  3. If I were DL, I would want a longer deal for DD8 than the one Stamkos just got… The Kings don’t want to face the prospect of DD8 as a UFA at 26 years old five years from now… The 9 – 12 year deal at 6 – 6.5 mil per is in the best interest of the franchise IMHO…

    • I agree. The only reason not to lock Doughty up until he is 30 is if you don’t think he’ll ever learn to train as a professional athlete should. He may have been out of shape last year, but as we’ve seen with Kopi, training is not something like hockey sense that can’t be taught. It absolutely can be taught and if what all the player’s say about Tim Adam’s is true, then he is the right man for the job.

      Also, nice username ;)

  4. I think he is a Hall of Famer… A once in a lifetime (my Kings lifetime anyway 1974-2011+) Franchise D-man… Averaged Team high 23:49 as a Rookie(!) at 18/19 years old… “Barely” squeaked into Team Canada for the 2010 Olympics, then played his way to top D pairing with Keith… Was on the ice for Gold Medal winning goal… I’m sure you remember his spin-o-rama moves at the blueline in that tourney… Stamkos didn’t make that team… I’d pick him first overall over SS everyday (and twice on Sunday)… No disrespect to Stamkos, a great goal scorer, but Doughty is our Franchise player, lock him up Deano… 55-60 mil for 9 years please

  5. One point of clarification — Meehan does not rep Stamkos. The agency he is part of does.

  6. Nice. My crystal ball tells me, Doughty will sign within the next 10 days at 6.5 a year. I have no idea how many years though. :)

    • There was a rumor of 9 years, but I say it’ll change, and he signs in 8 days. I’m guessing 8 years at $6.25, with an NTC for $50 mill strait up.

      Couldn’t hurt to take a stab at it. Originally I had DL talking it down to $5.5, but I’m starting to doubt it. If DD’s asking $7, then $6.25’s a good compromise.

  7. shows that Stamkos has an NMC (obviously only in effect for year 5.) I have no idea if that has any bearing on the DD#8 situation.

    • I’m wondering if their are specific out-clauses in any given NMC? Meaning if you don’t reach a certain point total or don’t meet a certain amount of games played….can it be void.

      Jim, I don’t get why he even has a NMC. It’s only relevant in his final year, right? What’s the point?

      • It’s relevant when he turns 25. That is when he starts heading into his prime years. If he has an NMC it gaurentees whoever he’s playing for at that point has to carry his contract till he’s 29 or 30. Thus he doesn’t have to move around during the most productive time of his career. If the Kings were to trade him, they would be forced to do so before he enters this time of his career when he’s 24 or under.

        He could be traded between 25 to 30 but it would have to be approved by him and he would have total control of where he went (much like Smyth did with his trade).

        • Dominick, I understand that if the contract is 8-9-10 years but I was referring to Stamkos contract in which the NMC kicks in the final year. Why does Stamkos have a NMC for one year?

          • Because that final year (2015-2016) of his five year deal is the time when he’ll have seven years in (3 before now, & 4 after now)… That is the time he (& DD8) are eligible for UFA status… So that is when his NMC kicks in… RFA’s are not aloud to get those…

  8. According to this: If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior
    to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring
    Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move
    clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and
    the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

    Richards’ NTC is not automatically binding on the Kings. Do we know if they agreed to continue to it?

    Long term or short term, no NTC will be binding in the first 4 years. That’s plenty to see if he’s going to be what we hope. I’d give him …hell, I dunno.

    I’m glad I’m not a GM….


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,286 other followers

%d bloggers like this: