Will Stoll be here for three years?

2012 Free Agency Update – Surly & Scribe

While I feel that having a playmaker on each line is a blueprint for success, it is difficult to argue that Jarret Stoll brings nothing to this team. He has some offensive skill and so creates matchup problems for the opposition. If matched up against a team’s greater offensive players, he can defend effectively. If matched up against that team’s lower lines, he can go on the offensive. He wins face-offs. He kills penalties. Who am I kidding. Jarret Stoll is important and he is here for the next three years.

One of the advantages of signing players to cap-friendly contracts is that those contracts are tradeable assets. Would it be mean or disloyal for Lombardi to trade Stoll, say, at the trade deadline, or next summer, or anytime before his contract expires in 2015, considering that Stoll could have gotten more money signing somewhere else next week? Well, put it this way: Visnovsky, Johnson, O’Sullivan, Cammalleri.


  18 comments for “Will Stoll be here for three years?

  1. June 24, 2012 at 8:28 PM

    Agree. Was thinking the same thing – can’t imagine him being here holding down the 3rd line for three years w/ all the kids in the pipeline or potential upgrades in free agency. Either way, good to have him back for however long.

  2. USHA#17
    June 24, 2012 at 8:39 PM

    Quite right. Stoll may indeed get “Johnsoned” (sounds like a truck stop T-Shirt).

    Wonder who they’ll pack him with (does that require a film permit?) for a go at Parise.

    I happen to agree with S&S but when it came to my second guessing Lombardi last season I tended to be…well lets just say thank god he ignored my advise!

  3. Garrett79
    June 24, 2012 at 9:19 PM

    Any money he sacrificed by not going to the open market was so that he could play for the defending Stanley Cup champions. That is a trade-off. Players will sometimes take less to play on a good team. I think that’s what Stoll did, more than giving a hometown discount. He has to know that with a cap-friendly contract he could be moved before it’s over, and I don’t think that’s a betrayal. Lombardi is showing faith in him by keeping him around when he could have let him go and used Loktionov or any number of other kids in his spot for even less money.


  4. DougS
    June 24, 2012 at 10:28 PM

    Yes, the one scenario under which I could imagine Stoll being re-signed was if it was a tradable contract, and I suppose this fits the description: modest term, slight pay cut from his last contract. I continue to believe that Stoll will be traded if Loktionov (or someone else who is younger and cheaper) pushes him.

    To be perfectly fair about the terms of your comparison, though, Quisp: Cammy and O’Sullivan were traded because they were pains in the ass over their contracts. If Stoll gets dealt, it will *in spite of* being very accommodating over his contract.

    Still anxious to see how Penner’s situation plays out, although I suppose the official word is that nothing will happen pending medical developments.

    • June 25, 2012 at 10:42 AM

      Well, you’re right about Cammalleri in the pain-in-the-ass sense, BUT: the key for me is not that he was a dick but that he was a dick who took Lombardi to arbitration and THEN scored 19 goals the next season for the Kings. Similarly, with POS, if he had not sucked the first year of his deal, I doubt he would have been dealt. If Cammalleri had scored 34 goals instead of 19, he might still be on the team. He might not (might have been a deadline trade the following year). But the point i was trying to make is — visnovsky, cammy, osullivan, even johnson — don’t suck relative to your contract.

  5. Token
    June 25, 2012 at 6:46 AM

    No doubt DL had this in mind. Stoll also knows the situation and how much depth is knocking on the door.

    If you look at a championship team being intact with Lokti, Nolan and Cliffy waiver exempt, why not stack the deck again for a long postseason.

    We were very lucky this season with team durability. Only one player went down long term.

  6. June 25, 2012 at 9:56 AM

    Stoll is is my favorite KING, so I was much pleased to see him back on the team for the next season. If he gets traded in the future, then so be it, I’ll be sorry to see him go, but he is a smart player, so I’m sure he’ll land on his feet/skates.

    • June 25, 2012 at 10:47 AM

      I like Stoll, too; more than my “take” on him reflects, probably. I just don’t think the fact that he was re-signed is an indication that the top three center positions are locked down till 2015, or even 2013.

  7. Uni
    June 25, 2012 at 10:58 AM

    “Don’t suck relative to your contract.” When put that way, this signing looks quite smart. Lombardi wins either way. Stoll plays great, or he gets moved fairly easily for someone who can play better. Even if he has another low-scoring season it would not be hard to find someone to pick him up at that contract given his experience, especially the winning part of it.

  8. Dan H.
    June 26, 2012 at 9:02 AM

    Now to keep Lokti from going to the KHL and making some money…

  9. JB
    June 27, 2012 at 9:27 AM

    Quisp- I agree with you that Stoll’s contract makes him an attractive tradeable asset but I think your love for Lokti is coloring your view a bit with some wishful thinking. No way Stoll is traded next year and probably not even year 2. Look how much they allowed Penner to “sort through” his slump! Stoll would have to totally flop for us to trade him and then he wouldn’t be a very attractive asset to other teams. And by flop I mean be terrible on face offs and defensive side. Obviously we’re not expecting 20-30 goals from him.

    His final year maybe he could get traded if we have someone in system forcing him out of that spot but that’s a long way down the road. And I don’t see that guy in our system now.

    This contract shuts the door on Lokti so hopefully DL can trade him for something before he bolts to KHL. However, at best I think all DL could get is some draft picks and since he wasn’t traded at last week’s draft it seems like he’s KHL bound.

    • June 27, 2012 at 11:13 AM

      You could also argue that it’s wishful thinking to believe Stoll will ever be better or even as good as he was in this year’s playoffs. The Kings’ problem during the Stoll years has always been goal-scoring and power-play, and Stoll is of little to no help in these areas.

      Trading Loktionov for a pick — or worse, creating a circumstance where he bolts for the KHL — would be a horrible outcome.`

      • JB
        June 27, 2012 at 3:08 PM

        Heck I would say scoringand PP has been a problem for the last several “Brown and Kopi” years! I don’t recall Stoll running the PP this year. The guy had one “bad” regular season year only as far as scoring stats when everyone on the team had a “bad” regular season.

        Lokti’s skills are best suited for top six role and I think for LA he would be a better winger. Especially since we’re gong w/ size down the middle but he didn’t look comfortable at all in that wing spot during the year. I think your looking for a spot for him even at the cost that he isn’t suited for that spot.

        Only reason Lokti would bolt for KHL is if we can’t trade him because no other team is sold on his potential. There should be other teams that would take a small but skilled Russian center. Heck Edmonton seems to love those types or even Phoenix.

        • June 27, 2012 at 6:18 PM

          the first two lines are the checking lines. the “third” line doesn’t get the tough defensive assignments.

          • JB
            June 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM

            Right and neither does the 4th line so why did Lokti look so lost and suck on the defensive side of the puck when playing on those two lines?

            To your other above comments: You recognize that Brown and Kopi are as if not more responsible for lack of scoring over years but as you say they’re not going anywhere. Nor should they as they bring a lot more than just pure scoring stats. But with Stoll your going to judge him on scoring?

            I’m sorry with Lokti it seems the promise is all “potential” but we’ve yet to see evidence of that potential. I say trade him and even if he flourishes elsewhere that’s fine. Kind of like Boyle. Even with him flourishing in NY I don’t regret LA sending him off.

            • June 28, 2012 at 1:21 PM

              I’m not judging Stoll based on scoring alone. He’s okay defensively, not great. He’s prone to bad penalties when trying to “play big”. He’s excellent in the face-off circle. Important. But not the only thing in the world to consider.

              Loktionov’s numbers (I’m thinking of +-/60) are about the same as Stoll’s.

        • June 27, 2012 at 6:19 PM

          i agree re kopi and brown, but they’re not going anywhere.

        • June 27, 2012 at 6:19 PM

          the short version is, I choose loktionov over stoll. now. three years from now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.