2016-17 Kings Roster Part 2

[KingsFan7824]

Exactly. All these retrospect signings look genius but they were dumpsters at the time.

But I agree you could easily argue Budaj is as impactful a signing as any of them.

I'm not sure I buy the idea that the signings were JUST seatwarmers for the youth, but they were similar signings to the ones that have panned out. Gilbert is a former top-4 RHD coming off injuries, was fine to gamble on upside, for example.

Purcell, Gilbert, and Zatkoff you can argue were seen as maybe more than just seat warmers. The rest? League minimum 1 year contracts. The definition of seat warmer.

Lucic, Ladd, Okposo, and Eriksson aren't walking through the door for a 1 year contract. Gagner, Parenteau, Versteeg, all dumpster diving. Even Versteeg, coming back from Europe on a tryout, wasn't signed by the Oilers, who gave him the tryout. The same Oilers that gave up on Gagner and Purcell. The same Oilers that thought they would be better this year, but still didn't go all out to sign a vet like Versteeg.

 

[johnjm22]

These criticisms about off season signings are a joke.

 

[theMajor]

These criticisms about off season signings are a joke.

some people just love looking for arbitrary things to complain about

 

[kovacro]

These criticisms about off season signings are a joke.

This is HF, isn't it?

Lot's of armchair GM of the year candidates in here.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I guess the point that some low budget signings can actually work out went way above some of your heads.

The point is that these useless signings took up unnecessary cap space and didn't result in a single player who could even be used as a serviceable role player.

There are low budget signings that work, which were pointed out, to contrast with the pile of crap that Lombardi signed which is common for him. I already pointed out that this is an old tactic that he employed in San Jose when he'd bring in guys like Granato, Hrudey and McSorley when they were all well past beyond their prime.

These signings that were supposedly done to bide time for younger prospects didn't even hold up. But apparently some people just love to ignore facts and blindly believe that there's some strategy in place with these transactions.

Remember folks, this is the same GM who failed to notice a rapidly declining Mike Richards right before his eyes and could have walked away scot-free with no cap penalty on his contract, but elected not to.

It's rather funny how many of you make a laundry list of excuses for all of Dean's blunders.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Which is fine. no GM is perfect, which is why they get hired to get fired. I think the point that people are firing back--at least I am--is that classifying them as 'blunders' is a little bit of an overstatement when they haven't stopped us from doing anything, they weren't passed off as some sort of impact signings, and that a series of low-risk potentially high-reward signings that didn't pan out is actually exactly what your'e advocating doing with your series of examples above.

 

[driller1]

I guess the point that some low budget signings can actually work out went way above some of your heads.

The point is that these useless signings took up unnecessary cap space and didn't result in a single player who could even be used as a serviceable role player.

There are low budget signings that work, which were pointed out, to contrast with the pile of crap that Lombardi signed which is common for him. I already pointed out that this is an old tactic that he employed in San Jose when he'd bring in guys like Granato, Hrudey and McSorley when they were all well past beyond their prime.

These signings that were supposedly done to bide time for younger prospects didn't even hold up. But apparently some people just love to ignore facts and blindly believe that there's some strategy in place with these transactions.

Remember folks, this is the same GM who failed to notice a rapidly declining Mike Richards right before his eyes and could have walked away scot-free with no cap penalty on his contract, but elected not to.

It's rather funny how many of you make a laundry list of excuses for all of Dean's blunders.

I think its fair to criticize DL on the MR debacle. However, are any of the offseason signings a "blunder"? Especially if the direction of the team is to go as far as the young guys will take them? It's like you don't even acknowledge the fact that the organization is high on a couple of prospects and will hitch their fate to them as opposed to relying on vets brought in that make less than Lewis, King, etc.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

From the day those signings were announced, most questioned the "fit" of those players. That held to be true.

Most actually preferred they go in a youth movement, trial by fire. They elected to insert plugs into the lineup instead, as if we're back to seeing the 2006-2008 era Kings.

The Reign barely have any prospects (gee, why is that?) to supply the main roster. Are people failing to notice this as an organizational problem?

I'm questioning what exactly the long term plan is, if there even is a plan. I get the purpose of short term signings, but as we're seeing here, they're not even good enough to serve that purpose.

 

[driller1]

From the day those signings were announced, most questioned the "fit" of those players. That held to be true.

Most actually preferred they go in a youth movement, trial by fire. They elected to insert plugs into the lineup instead, as if we're back to seeing the 2006-2008 era Kings.

But the plugs (who mostly sat on the bench/pressbox), allowed the kids to play big minutes in Ontario and develop. I don't think its a stretch to say that we get a better version of the kids after 2/3 of a season of heavy usage than if they were sitting on the bench.

 

[HookKing]

I guess the point that some low budget signings can actually work out went way above some of your heads.

The point is that these useless signings took up unnecessary cap space and didn't result in a single player who could even be used as a serviceable role player.

There are low budget signings that work, which were pointed out, to contrast with the pile of crap that Lombardi signed which is common for him. I already pointed out that this is an old tactic that he employed in San Jose when he'd bring in guys like Granato, Hrudey and McSorley when they were all well past beyond their prime.

These signings that were supposedly done to bide time for younger prospects didn't even hold up. But apparently some people just love to ignore facts and blindly believe that there's some strategy in place with these transactions.

Remember folks, this is the same GM who failed to notice a rapidly declining Mike Richards right before his eyes and could have walked away scot-free with no cap penalty on his contract, but elected not to.

It's rather funny how many of you make a laundry list of excuses for all of Dean's blunders.

Excellent point! Now just tell everyone which ones will work and the team is good to go. HF boards, the hall of second guessing.

 

[AlphaBravo]

I am absolutely fine with all of the off season signings, even after the fact. I followed the off season very closely, and there was absolutely no move that the DL could make to make this team better. The top 6 forwards that could make an impact (Lucic, Ladd, Okposo, Ericksson etc.) wanted $6MM plus and for long term, which the Kings could not do for a number of reasons, including the raises they have to give to Pearson and Toffoli.

There was no top 4 defenseman to sign based on the very high demand and the crazy deals teams were handing out to the few available (e.g., Yandle).

Lombardi had a choice. He could either sign some low-cost, one-year term players and hope it works out, or do nothing. The Gilbert, Purcell, Zatkoff, Trotman, and Latta signings had absolutely no negative impact on this team. First of all, we have plenty of cap space THIS YEAR, so even if their full value applied to our cap hit this year, which it does not, its not a problem. Second, because these players were signed for less than $1.6MM, burying them in the AHL makes their cap hit almost non-existent.

If the argument is that Lombardi should have played Kempe, LaDue, and Gravel to start the season, I don't think there is much merit to that either. What if they did not perform well? What do you do then? You don't have plugs to play, and you cannot afford to send them down to the AHL for seasoning because you wont have a full roster for the NHL club. With the plugs we signed, it gave the team some flexibility beginning of the year. And look at us now? We are in the bubble and could make the playoffs despite all the injuries.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Excellent point! Now just tell everyone which ones will work and the team is good to go. HF boards, the hall of second guessing.

Or, how about not wasting roster spots on them? LaDue and Kempe outplayed a number of vets in preseason and camp. Would their development really have been hurt if they started the season with the team?

 

[theMajor]

I am absolutely fine with all of the off season signings, even after the fact. I followed the off season very closely, and there was absolutely no move that the DL could make to make this team better. The top 6 forwards that could make an impact (Lucic, Ladd, Okposo, Ericksson etc.) wanted $6MM plus and for long term, which the Kings could not do for a number of reasons, including the raises they have to give to Pearson and Toffoli.

There was no top 4 defenseman to sign based on the very high demand and the crazy deals teams were handing out to the few available (e.g., Yandle).

Lombardi had a choice. He could either sign some low-cost, one-year term players and hope it works out, or do nothing. The Gilbert, Purcell, Zatkoff, Trotman, and Latta signings had absolutely no negative impact on this team. First of all, we have plenty of cap space THIS YEAR, so even if their full value applied to our cap hit this year, which it does not, its not a problem. Second, because these players were signed for less than $1.6MM, burying them in the AHL makes their cap hit almost non-existent.

If the argument is that Lombardi should have played Kempe, LaDue, and Gravel to start the season, I don't think there is much merit to that either. What if they did not perform well? What do you do then? You don't have plugs to play, and you cannot afford to send them down to the AHL for seasoning because you wont have a full roster for the NHL club. With the plugs we signed, it gave the team some flexibility beginning of the year. And look at us now? We are in the bubble and could make the playoffs despite all the injuries.

pretty much everything I was going to say. great post!

 

[BigKing]

Have to factor in that not everyone wants to play in the West and deal with the travel. So Grabner is the name that jumps out to me out of all these "bargain bin" guys. Already played for the Islanders so playing for the Rangers and living in NYC probably had more appeal than LA. We don't know everyone that DL talked to that decided to go somewhere else.

As for the rest of the names, I was pretty surprised at the numbers those guys are putting up. Almost all of them would have been met with "meh" just like the signings DL actually made.

Could he have done better? Sure. Is it a big deal? Hardly.

The main issue with this team this year is its best players not performing to expectations: especially #11. Some Brett Connolly window dressing isn't going to change that fact.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Or, how about not wasting roster spots on them? LaDue and Kempe outplayed a number of vets in preseason and camp. Would their development really have been hurt if they started the season with the team?

Apparently the organization thought so. Why is playing big minutes in the AHL bad? Especially for guys in their first FULL professional year.

Does this organization not have a good enough rep for development that you question not rushing Kempe and LaDue?

 

[johnjm22]

I guess the point that some low budget signings can actually work out went way above some of your heads.

The point is that these useless signings took up unnecessary cap space and didn't result in a single player who could even be used as a serviceable role player.

There are low budget signings that work, which were pointed out, to contrast with the pile of crap that Lombardi signed which is common for him. I already pointed out that this is an old tactic that he employed in San Jose when he'd bring in guys like Granato, Hrudey and McSorley when they were all well past beyond their prime.

These signings that were supposedly done to bide time for younger prospects didn't even hold up. But apparently some people just love to ignore facts and blindly believe that there's some strategy in place with these transactions.

Remember folks, this is the same GM who failed to notice a rapidly declining Mike Richards right before his eyes and could have walked away scot-free with no cap penalty on his contract, but elected not to.

It's rather funny how many of you make a laundry list of excuses for all of Dean's blunders.

There's plenty to criticize Dean about, but these irrelevant off season signings aren't one them.

Yes, everyone understands the point that low budget signings can sometimes work. That doesn't validate your criticism.

 

[KingCanadain1976]

imo Micheal Mersch had a better training camp then setogushi Dean and futa both said hes got nothing left to learn in the ahl He should have had the roster spot I understand letting players like ladue kempe and other get that 3/4 of a season more in the ahl However in Mersch case it was not needed He should have made the club over seto

 

[theMajor]

Mersch did get to play with the NHL team for a while (17 games) and was mostly useless (1G/2A). not sure what else he could learn in the AHL like you said but he got his chance and disappointed. Im sure he'll get another look sooner than later, hopefully he has a speedy recovery

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There's plenty to criticize Dean about, but these irrelevant off season signings aren't one them.

Yes, everyone understands the point that low budget signings can sometimes work. That doesn't validate your criticism.

Sure it does. Answer these questions:

1) What was the point of those signings?

2) What resulted from those signings?

3) Did those signings serve a purpose or play a role on this team?

I get that some of them were minor league, depth signings, but 3 or 4 of them were not intended to be that way, those being Purcell, Gilbert, Zatkoff, and to a lesser degree, Setoguchi.

Even in the short term, these said players were not a good fit. At the time of those signings, they weren't considered minor league signings. They were brought in to compete for roster spots, and failed to achieve that.

I don't care that they didn't work out, my issue is that this management team seeked out these players who would be a poor fit and couldn't even identify serviceable depth forwards. They failed to achieve the bare minimum of what they were expected to do from October through April.

This is a team that has won one single playoff game since 2014. Any criticism of this management group is fair, warranted and just. These aren't minor nitpick, it's a microcosm of an organizational problem: failing to identify talent.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

New thread time.