Kings re-sign Purcell

According to CapGeek and Sportsnet, the Kings have re-signed Teddy Purcell. Early reports suggest that it is a 1-way deal worth $600,000.

And before I get any "This deal will change the face of the Pacific division" comments, perhaps I should point out that Purcell is a highly-touted prospect with loads of skill. Dobber's been rather high on this guy for some time. Lots to be excited about here if you're a King fan.

Scouting report:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/players/Teddy_Purcell/

Dobber's comments (from the 2009-10 Prospect Report):

"Purcell was a surprise cut in training camp last season, losing the spot to Oscar Moller. Once in the AHL, he started decent, but slowly by his standards. By the end of his tenure there, he was a man amongst boys, potting 18 points in his last 11 games before earning a call up to Los Angeles where he remained for good. His 16 points in 40 NHL games are modest, to be sure, but you can glean some promise from them: 1) He had a nine-game run where he earned eight points and 2) He saw a handful of games on the first line. He’s on the team for good now and he’ll continue seeing time on the top two lines. Look for a decent season of 40 to 50 points and then watch him take off from there.

Upside: Joe Thornton-lite (30-50-80+, 40 PIM)
Certainty (NHLer; Upside): 95%; 60%"

Why only one year? 600K is a nice deal though.

I always thought this guy was 5'7" for some reason, he's friggin 6'3". He'll be good this year for sure. Quality signing.

Zoolander wrote:Why only one year? 600K is a nice deal though.

Just a guess here, but I imagine it was the same old story you always hear with young, talented prospects -- he thought he was worth more money, but management thought he had to prove he could be a regular, effective NHLer before they would commit the big dollars.

rooneypoo wrote:

Zoolander wrote:Why only one year? 600K is a nice deal though.

Just a guess here, but I imagine it was the same old story you always hear with young, talented prospects -- he thought he was worth more money, but management thought he had to prove he could be a regular, effective NHLer before they would commit the big dollars.

I see that logic, especially in LA where they are seeemingly going to have a talented RFA up for renewal every year for the next decade. I wonder what it says to the player though. It's basically saying "We want to keep you, but you aren't part of the core" like a Brown or Kopitar.

If Purcell can put together a tidy little 20 goal season, that's some serious value for the Kings, however, they may have to pay more than they originally would have for an additional year had they signed him to a 2 year, $2 million deal. I guess that's the chance you take in todays cap world.

Zoolander wrote:
I see that logic, especially in LA where they are seeemingly going to have a talented RFA up for renewal every year for the next decade. I wonder what it says to the player though. It's basically saying "We want to keep you, but you aren't part of the core" like a Brown or Kopitar.

If Purcell can put together a tidy little 20 goal season, that's some serious value for the Kings, however, they may have to pay more than they originally would have for an additional year had they signed him to a 2 year, $2 million deal. I guess that's the chance you take in todays cap world.

Precisely. The Sens did the same thing with Vermette, for instance, when they signed him to a cheaper, short-term deal last year.

rooneypoo wrote:

Zoolander wrote:
I see that logic, especially in LA where they are seeemingly going to have a talented RFA up for renewal every year for the next decade. I wonder what it says to the player though. It's basically saying "We want to keep you, but you aren't part of the core" like a Brown or Kopitar.

If Purcell can put together a tidy little 20 goal season, that's some serious value for the Kings, however, they may have to pay more than they originally would have for an additional year had they signed him to a 2 year, $2 million deal. I guess that's the chance you take in todays cap world.

Precisely. The Sens did the same thing with Vermette, for instance, when they signed him to a cheaper, short-term deal last year.

Yep. I would much rather do that, cap space permitting (which isn't an issue atm in LA). I remember Havlat being on one year deals (one of them was arbitration I believe) for the last 2 or 3 years in Ottawa. I can't put my finger on it but there's something about habitual one year deals that I don't like. Maybe it's the lack of a committment on either side. In Havlat's case, he was injured alot, but when we had him, we never, ever worried about who was going to put the puck in the net from the 2nd line. We are seriously missing that.

Zoolander wrote:

Yep. I would much rather do that, cap space permitting (which isn't an issue atm in LA). I remember Havlat being on one year deals (one of them was arbitration I believe) for the last 2 or 3 years in Ottawa. I can't put my finger on it but there's something about habitual one year deals that I don't like. Maybe it's the lack of a committment on either side. In Havlat's case, he was injured alot, but when we had him, we never, ever worried about who was going to put the puck in the net from the 2nd line. We are seriously missing that.

The flip side of the coin is, say, the Filppula signing ($3 mil / 5 yr). Filppula was not a $3 million player at the time of signing, but Holland saw potential and wanted it locked up long term at a reasonable price. Kronvall's was another.

These are deals that either make you look prescient or foolish. You really have to trust your staff and your instincts when making these decisions, I'd imagine. The jury's still out as to whether Filppula will live up, offensively, to his deal, but Kronvall's deal already looks like a steal.

rooneypoo wrote:

Zoolander wrote:

Yep. I would much rather do that, cap space permitting (which isn't an issue atm in LA). I remember Havlat being on one year deals (one of them was arbitration I believe) for the last 2 or 3 years in Ottawa. I can't put my finger on it but there's something about habitual one year deals that I don't like. Maybe it's the lack of a committment on either side. In Havlat's case, he was injured alot, but when we had him, we never, ever worried about who was going to put the puck in the net from the 2nd line. We are seriously missing that.

The flip side of the coin is, say, the Filppula signing ($3 mil / 5 yr). Filppula was not a $3 million player at the time of signing, but Holland saw potential and wanted it locked up long term at a reasonable price. Kronvall's was another.

These are deals that either make you look prescient or foolish. You really have to trust your staff and your instincts when making these decisions, I'd imagine. The jury's still out as to whether Filppula will live up, offensively, to his deal, but Kronvall's deal already looks like a steal.

A key point in there is that both of those guys are Red Wings from the start. I don't mind overpaying a little for a guy I've drafted and nurtured for as many as 5 years. Filppula isn't terribly overpaid, and may see more of a role offensively with Hossa gone. Kronwall is definitely a steal. Even a guy like Cleary at less than $3 is shrewd. That's the one thing I really admire out that organization. They take care of their own. They do it so well that people are willing to take less to come there.