2019-20 Kings News/Rumors

[Choralone]

I think people on here have way oversold when Blake and Robitaille said the Kings were contenders almost 3 years ago. It was typical front-office marketing speak for a playoff team (and they did make the playoffs that year). There's no way they were saying the Kings were the favorites to win the cup as true "contenders" in that sense. And after last year's disastrous start, they were disabused of the notion that they were even a playoff team - the team's clearly been rebuilding since (even if they haven't gone into firesale mode and rocketed their core into the sun).

I don't think Lombardi made a mistake trying to extend the team's run with the same core, but trading for Lucic was an error. Lombardi was trading for a prototypical Kings player, but the price was too steep, his production was slowing, and the team had more urgent needs on the blue-line. Lombardi took a swing at a player he felt he couldn't pass up, but he wasn't trading for the Lucic of 3 years prior.

I 100% agree with Kings17 that Lombardi's a smart guy and learns from his mistakes. I'm not campaigning for him, but if the team were to bring him back I'm sure he would approach things with a fresh outlook and not immediately trade a 1st round pick for Zack Kassian or something like people seem to think.

But by the same token, I think Blake - despite some gaffes - has done a good job so far. We'll see if we actually have a cohesive, competitive team at the end of this, but I don't think he's done badly to warrant getting replaced.

 

[KINGS17]

Every GM spends time changing the curtains from the previous GM's tenure. Wasn't DL's initial problem was he was told to "make do" and it took further failure to convince ownership to commit to a rebuild?

Very much so. I would suggest Dean did things in the first couple of years to ensure a complete rebuild would be necessary. He knew what he was doing.

 

[Lt Dan]

There is no question in my mind that ownership was meddling. DL knew how to play them early on.

I am pretty damn sure that was was a ton oof pressure to win a third cup and that is why we saw the moves that we saw

 

[BigKing]

Jonathan Bernier, Thomas Hickey, Colten Teubert, Dan Cloutier all happened within the first couple of seasons.

I mean, here we are ad nauseum but I'll bite.

2006 - Immediately moves on Demitra for the top offensive prospect not in the NHL and a first round pick. Flips said prospect later on for Williams. First round pick becomes Lewis who, whipping boy or not, is a member of two SC winners that is routinely named the unsung hero of the team by his teammates and is part of some of the biggest plays in LA Kings history (steal off Hamhuis Game 5 VAN/GWG Game 6 ANA).

I wanted Little but Bernier did have key wins down the stretch in 2012 that helped the Kings simply make the playoffs. It was a better pick than Forbort. Dude is even still playing...kind of, right?

Cloutier? Gross for sure. Crawford? Same. I feel like Blake has had some coaching issues and a bad foray into signing a past his prime veteran, however.

Jack Johnson trade. Completely f***ing awesome. Guy has been on the job for like six months and he's added Patrick O'Sullivan and Jack MF Johnson to the prospect pool.

Signing Blake to come back is gross for me but I understand it since AEG was still meddling a bit.

2007 - Flips Conroy for the pick that becomes Dwight King, two time SC champ and 2012 WCF hero.

Flips Sopel for the 2nd round pick that becomes Wayne Simmonds in the 2007 draft.

Moves a 2007 6th and a 2008 4th (does become Holtby) for a 2007 4th. Takes Martinez, some guy who scored some important goals or something.

Hickey pick. Awful. Norstrom trade a dud since Moller did not pan out; however, he got a ton of picks and we all loved Moller at the time he was drafted and after his first NHL action. Also, everyone was still penciling Hickey in to the lineup just as some on here are with every f***ing prospect Blake has ever drafted.

By the 2007 draft, he's been on the job for a little over a year.

2008 - All of his trades for picks during the season don't pan out, but he does sign Stuart and get a 2nd and 4th for him. Manufactured assets there.

Teubert and the trade to get him. Bad. Drafting Doughty and Voynov. Pretty good. Trades for Richardson. 2012 Cup winner and goal scorer in Game 5 VAN.

Trades for Stoll and Greene. We know those guys.

Trades for O'Donnell. Important for Doughty.

In his first 2 1/2 years, he adds O'Sullivan/Lewis/Johnson/Bernier/Hickey/Moller/Simmonds/Martinez/King/Doughty/Teubert/Voynov/Loktionov/Cameron/Holloway to the prospect pool and adds Stoll/Greene/Richardson to the NHL roster.

I've added names in there that are busts because the argument for Rob so far is just listing every prospect that is in the pool right now. At some point in time, people--including myself--were high on these guys just like they are on kids that have yet to show if they are a Martinez or a Teubert.

I cut Dean's history off right before the Williams trade since that would be adding like an extra month of time for Dean v. Blake so far but just know that I can add that if we want to have this argument in two months.

So, this isn't an argument about the situations they walked in to or any of that: a statement was made that Blake has done a better job v. what Dean did during the start of his stint. Well, I see Blake on his 3rd coach while presiding over his 2nd next-to-last-place finish. I see the failure that was Kovalchuk. I see not really doing anything except drafting and signing some UDFAs: something that Dean also did during that time. Don't think I mentioned the Quincey pick up or signing Drewiske as an UDFA (Big deal except people act like Dean never knew about signing a college guy like Blake f***ing discovered fire or something).

His NHL level work has been horrible but, hey, so was Dean's during that time except Dean didn't try to sell a winner: especially in Year 2. I've said that Dean made a lot of mistakes early on--like Rob--so I'm not ready to say Blake is a complete disaster. Problem is that there are basically no tangible results from anything Blake has done so far while we have history on our side to show that Dean made moves during his first 2 1/2 years on the job that directly led to Cups. Blake has prospects with potential (definitely not a Doughty) but we don't know if they will reach it except for knowing that not all of them will, just like poor Robbie Czarnick.

Long story short: it is ridiculous to think Blake has done better because there is no proof. Only tangible results, stuff we know has happened, are bad. That doesn't even get in to how I can say Hickey/Teubert but then in the same breath say Blake's first 1st round pick has some strange back condition and his 2nd one is sitting with a torn ACL after a rough first AHL season.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

But by the same token, I think Blake - despite some gaffes - has done a good job so far. We'll see if we actually have a cohesive, competitive team at the end of this, but I don't think he's done badly to warrant getting replaced.

I don't necessarily believe Blake has done a bad job, but if you are the owner of this team, do you fire Lombardi with the though process that this team is actually going to get continually worse in the next 3 years? I'm pretty sure that wasn't the plan...

It feels like Blake has done well in rebuilding the pipeline, but you can't argue that this team is putrid and I'm sure they were selling a lot more tickets under Lombardi's watch than Blake's....and that's really the bottom line.

 

[bland]

Anybody can sit still and collect picks. That doesn't take skill of any sort.

Turning those picks into professionals IS a skill, and we haven't seen it happen to a quality level yet. That will take time to evaluate.

What Blake can be judged on are his reactive and proactive moves. The Muzzin trade was a terrific proactive move. Hitting on a couple of collegiate free agent signings is a solid proactive move, assuming those that have potential keep progressing.

That's the extent of the positivity. His NHL free agent signings, trades and buyouts have largely been reactive moves that have simply not panned out.

The NHL roster is largely the same as it was when Blake was hired. He has not been proactive enough in cleaning out a stagnant roster or building a positive, nurturing place for young talent to develop. Of course it isn't easy, why should it be? Its a high value job.for a reason.

Folks need to stop getting caught up on the "gotcha" individual leaves and take a step back and look at the forest. This is still a pretty bleak organization without much tangible proof of a plan to dissect. No, they don't need to state their plan publicly, but it should be evident by now and it just isn't.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Anybody can sit still and collect picks. That doesn't take skill of any sort.

Turning those picks into professionals IS a skill, and we haven't seen it happen to a quality level yet. That will take time to evaluate.

What Blake can be judged on are his reactive and proactive moves. The Muzzin trade was a terrific proactive move. Hitting on a couple of collegiate free agent signings is a solid proactive move, assuming those that have potential keep progressing.

That's the extent of the positivity. His NHL free agent signings, trades and buyouts have largely been reactive moves that have simply not panned out.

The NHL roster is largely the same as it was when Blake was hired. He has not been proactive enough in cleaning out a stagnant roster or building a positive, nurturing place for young talent to develop. Of course it isn't easy, why should it be? Its a high value job.for a reason.

Folks need to stop getting caught up on the "gotcha" individual leaves and take a step back and look at the forest. This is still a pretty bleak organization without much tamgible proof of a plan to dissect. No, they don't need to state their plan publicly, but it should be evident by now and it just isn't.

It’s a shame Dean couldn’t do just that and hang onto draft picks and prospects in the post Cup era, but at least we have memories of Lucic and Versteeg and Bishop and Sekera.

How have the buyouts been reactive? Are those buyouts hurting the Kings?

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

It’s a shame Dean couldn’t do just that and hang onto draft picks and prospects in the post Cup era, but at least we have memories of Lucic and Versteeg and Bishop and Sekera.

Why would he?? We had a solid core in Quick, Doughty and Kopitar still in their primes and you want Lombardi to collect draft picks? Show me one fan that believed in that approach at that time...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why would he?? We had a solid core in Quick, Doughty and Kopitar still in their primes and you want Lombardi to collect draft picks? Show me one fan that believed in that approach at that time...

You weren’t around when the Lucic trade took place and many fans questioned the move? Look at the players they passed on at that draft and tell me who’s in a better position now. He let Williams go as a UFA and gained no assets for him. Same goes for the UFAs he couldn’t retain due to cap constraints.

Thankfully being capped out prevented Lombardi from making another monumental mistake in retaining Lucic. If he had the cap space, he would’ve locked him up long term, which he tried hard to do.

 

[bland]

It’s a shame Dean couldn’t do just that and hang onto draft picks and prospects in the post Cup era, but at least we have memories of Lucic and Versteeg and Bishop and Sekera.

How have the buyouts been reactive? Are those buyouts hurting the Kings?

The buyouts of his own poor decisions are the very definition of being reactive. He made mistakes, and reacted. He spent millions of dead dollars on bad choices. Now the average fan may not care about anything other than following the puck around, but those buyouts cost very real money and are indicative of a general manager who tried and failed to reinvigorate a veteran core instead of proactively trying to break it up and move on when it was clearly the only logical direction to head.

Blake and Co. misread the situation and are playing catch up. That is not a sign of healthy management.

 

[HeadInjury]

Please explain the bolded.

Just what success did DL have early on?

The 2006 draft was awful, although he had to use Taylor's staff so he gets a pass on that.

His drafts in 2007 and 2008 were okay at best, and the wasting of the Hickey pick was inexcusable. 19 total picks in those first two drafts. Basically in 2007 he drafted Simmonds and Martinez. No one else worked out (although Oscar Moller was adorable). In 2008 he drafted Doughty (obvious choice) and Voynov (great selection). Wasted his second 1st round pick in as many years on Tuebert.

While you're asking about my comments on the first couple of seasons, skipping ahead, it doesn't get better. The 2009 draft was arguably his best draft, but then it gets ugly. Toffoli, Pearson and Kempe are the only players selected during in his last 7 drafts that had any real success. Wasted yet another 1st rounder on Forbort.

The Visnovsky trade was good long term. Blake pretty much did the same with Muzzin.

DL talked a good game early on and beefed up scouting. But look at all those wasted picks.

DL traded for Beachball and actually gave up two picks for what was a pure cap dump for Vancouver. As bad as the Kovalchuk signing turned out to be, it was way better than what DL did with Beachball.

DL's selection of Crawford was worse than Blake giving Stevens the job that had already been promised to him.

DL's early teams were bad. Just like Blake's. But Blake's drafts have been better.

I'm not a DL basher. Loved the guy. He was eventually able to build a team, but largely through trades. There really was no build from within. He inherited Kopitar, Quick and Brown.

People here were speculating when Sutter was hired that if we missed the playoffs DL was getting fired. The early years were fairly bleak.

 

[KingsFan7824]

What Blake can be judged on are his reactive and proactive moves. The Muzzin trade was a terrific proactive move. Hitting on a couple of collegiate free agent signings is a solid proactive move, assuming those that have potential keep progressing.

That's the extent of the positivity. His NHL free agent signings, trades and buyouts have largely been reactive moves that have simply not panned out.

See, that's interesting. I would say the Muzzin deal was not a proactive move, but a reactive one to the team sucking. If the Kings are in the race, he's still here. As is Pearson.

On the other hand, I would call the buyouts proactive. He could've let Phaneuf and Kovalchuk linger on the roster, since they weren't assets, and contributed to the tank, as the team was going nowhere.

Kovalchuk was desperation after not getting Pacioretty, but it's possible the team would've been better with Pacioretty. Assuming guys like Muzzin or Pearson weren't part of the deal. Has there ever been a locked in rumor on the names?

The NHL roster is largely the same as it was when Blake was hired. He has not been proactive enough in cleaning out a stagnant roster or building a positive, nurturing place for young talent to develop. Of course it isn't easy, why should it be? Its a high value job.for a reason.

It's not just the term on the contracts, but also the players that are readily available. Nobody needs Lewis in Oct, and certainly not with anything more than 1 year on his contract. The guys with even bigger contracts are obviously that much more difficult to trade in a hard cap league.

The Visnovsky trade gets brought up. How great it was. He was 31 at the time, almost 32, with 5 years left on a contract. Stoll and Greene were 26 and 25. Are there, or have there been, any 30+ year olds with decent contracts on the roster, where people would've been ok with a return of a couple mid 20's role players who had no further upside? To do it right, you can't think about what happened in 2012. Damn near anything can be justified with Stoll's OT goal. One or two 1st rd picks with Visnovsky would've been fine knowing Stoll scores that goal.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The buyouts of his own poor decisions are the very definition of being reactive. He made mistakes, and reacted. He spent millions of dead dollars on bad choices. Now the average fan may not care about anything other than following the puck around, but those buyouts cost very real money and are indicative of a general manager who tried and failed to reinvigorate a veteran core instead of proactively trying to break it up and move on when it was clearly the only logical direction to head.

Blake and Co. misread the situation and are playing catch up. That is not a sign of healthy management.

One of the buyouts was a result of Blake's own poor decision. DL screwed up by giving Gaborik 7 years. There are 2 extra years of Phaneuf on the books though, instead of keeping Gaborik on LTIR. On the other hand, those $1m hits in 21-22 and 22-23 aren't much of anything. Although, added to the Richards leftovers, now it's upwards of $2m per season.

Speaking of healthy management, hiring your friend literally off the farm to try and save your own job, that's not really healthy management either. That is NHL hockey type management though. I'm not sure there's anything more hockey, or Canadian, than that.

 

[BigKing]

You weren’t around when the Lucic trade took place and many fans questioned the move? Look at the players they passed on at that draft and tell me who’s in a better position now. He let Williams go as a UFA and gained no assets for him. Same goes for the UFAs he couldn’t retain due to cap constraints.

Thankfully being capped out prevented Lombardi from making another monumental mistake in retaining Lucic. If he had the cap space, he would’ve locked him up long term, which he tried hard to do.

1st for Penner = worth it due to 2012
1st for Richards = worth it
1st for Carter = worth it
1st for Sekera = not worth it but made complete and total sense
1st for Lucic = not worth it and highly questionable at the time, but the trade still had merit and many here were excited about it and the 2016 season.

So the post-Cup trading of 1st round picks was twice. Sekera one is really, really hard to bash when being in the moment. Lucic one is the real mistake because the reasoning, while I understand it, was just way too risky because it was really a one-year shot.

Dean gets eviscerated on here because he traded so many picks but, shit man, he also held on to and traded for a lot more picks leading up to the Penner and then Richards trades. Plus, he added top tier prospects in O'Sullivan and Johnson while he was collecting draft picks. Two of the 1st round draft picks he traded were used to bring in two former 1st round picks that were highly established NHL players that pushed the Kings over the hump.

Dean's problem wasn't "he traded so many 1st round picks" because they don't win the Cup without the first three times he did it, although I include Penner in there as a sort of butterfly effect thing. The problem was that they didn't draft well with the picks they had except for Pearson who was a key part of a Cup as well so I can't be mad about that.

So, really, we are sitting here in hell because they don't have Connor or Barzal? Get over it, people. Yes, he traded a bunch of 1st round picks but over half of them helped win the two Cups. They are still a bad team with Connor. Of course, I'd rather have him than the one year of Lucic but, really, Dean drafted well beyond the 1st round and then just fell off a cliff in that regard after Toffoli.

Now, I know that you specifically said post-Cup trades of 1st round picks, but it was only two of them and who knows what the Sekera pick would have been. We can throw Cernak in there as another bad move but, really, he and his staff--the current staff-didn't draft well for a good stretch there. The 2014 team unraveled pretty quickly as Mitchell/Williams/Greene/Voynov/Richards/Stoll etc...were either gone or just washed. The lack of hitting on draft picks for most of the decade is what killed them as they couldn't replace these guys: both in production and character.

Voynov is the one that sticks out the most. If everyone wants to give Blake a pass for five seasons until his picks pan out or not because he inherited a mess, let's remember that Dean was just coming off of winning a 2nd Cup in three seasons and the 2015 team started well and then Voynov happened. Here is--arguably--a top pairing RHD but at worst a Top 4 RHD that was the same age as Doughty and signed to a killer deal that just vanishes from the plan.

I still believe that the 2015 team would have been just fine if Voynov doesn't f*** it all up. Crazy OT/SO record and they miss the playoffs by a point even without him and with the Pearson injury. Then Dean went crazy trying to chase it for one more season with the Lucic trade but, without Voynov happening, Dean most likely doesn't trade for Sekera, they make the playoffs and that first rounder he moved for Lucic isn't even in the range to get Barzal or Connor. That's even if he trades for Lucic. If Voynov stays and the Kings have a solid 2015 season and a little bit of playoff fun, maybe Williams doesn't care as much about the east coast.

Anyways, the Lucic thing is used way too often to explain why the Kings suck now when they would still suck if they kept that pick. It is also used as the example of "Dean always traded 1st round picks!!!" because it is the worst one but it ignores the fact that they don't have two Cups without him trading 1st round picks to begin with.

I probably hate not using the amnesty on Richards more than the Lucic deal. At least with Lucic, you knew you were most likely getting one productive season where you figured you weren't even getting that with Richards and you were signing up for like eight more seasons of it. Without going in to the free agents of 2014, maybe Dean is able to sign a good forward or--even better--a good defenseman with the latter helping ease the unforeseen Voynov disaster. Keeping Richards was even more shortsighted than the Lucic trade.

 

[Steve Zissou]

@BigKing Although not traded for a 1st, Gaborik and Robyn Regehr also say hi.

Gaborik was traded for Matt Fratin (barfs) and a 2nd + 3rd. The 3rd became a 2nd because Gaborik helped move us past the 1st round / he re-signed with LA.

Regehr was traded for a 2nd round (that eventually came back to LA since they dealt Hudson Fasching and Nicolas Deslauriers for McNabb and that 2nd)

 

[kingsholygrail]

Anyone still got that pic of Regehr with the Cup in his ferrari?

 

[BigKing]

Just what success did DL have early on?

What success has Blake had early on? Making the playoffs with Dean's team, or is it only Dean's team when they are in last place? Regardless, I said that Dean's early teams sucked.

The 2006 draft was awful, although he had to use Taylor's staff so he gets a pass on that.

I don't give him a pass, nor do I give Blake one for 2017. I'm pretty sure that Lombardi was all over Lewis to the chagrin of Al Murray...maybe Joey Ryan over Lucic as well? Regardless, you want a better player than Bernier or Lewis in the 1st round but I don't believe this was a strong 1st round and, again, Trevor Lewis is an important member of the Cup winning Kings no matter how much he is shit on by this Board.

His drafts in 2007 and 2008 were okay at best, and the wasting of the Hickey pick was inexcusable. 19 total picks in those first two drafts. Basically in 2007 he drafted Simmonds and Martinez. No one else worked out (although Oscar Moller was adorable). In 2008 he drafted Doughty (obvious choice) and Voynov (great selection). Wasted his second 1st round pick in as many years on Tuebert.

He basically drafted Alec Martinez and Wayne Simmonds. Yeah...he sure did. Not in the first round either. Oh, and Dwight King: another important member of two Cup winning teams.

"Obvious selection" of Doughty. Well, Hickey was obviously not the 4th OA but there we were in 2007. Without getting in to the Doughty/Bogosian/Schenn/Pieterangelo debate of the time, I'm going to go ahead and give him credit for drafting the best defenseman in Kings history if you can give credit to Blake for "drafting better" when not one of his draft picks has done anything at the NHL level. On that same note, he took Loktionov in 2008. If Blake took a 5th round Russian with his skill and he was doing what Lokti did in the OHL, Blake would be getting crowned King of Scouting. Point is: none of Blake's picks have proven anything yet so saying he has drafted better is ludicrous.

While you're asking about my comments on the first couple of seasons, skipping ahead, it doesn't get better. The 2009 draft was arguably his best draft, but then it gets ugly. Toffoli, Pearson and Kempe are the only players selected during in his last 7 drafts that had any real success. Wasted yet another 1st rounder on Forbort.

Well, I'm not arguing he drafted well during the 00's: I even said as much in my previous post. I'm commenting on an apples-to-apples time period of what Dean did at the start of his tenure v. Blake so far. Yeah: Dean and his staff's drafting sucked in the 00's and, as I argued in my previous post, is a big reason why they are where they are now. Hard for me to say Blake has done better in his 4th - whatever draft since they haven't happened yet.

The Visnovsky trade was good long term. Blake pretty much did the same with Muzzin.

Dean got two NHL players. I love the Muzzin trade but it is still TBD on the outcome. Regardless, much like the Demitra trade, I love the thought process and the potential of the return. But, yes, Blake's best move so far is the Muzzin trade.

DL talked a good game early on and beefed up scouting. But look at all those wasted picks.

Well, while also building a culture, he didn't bat 1000 on his draft picks like Blake has since none of Blake's have busted yet.

DL traded for Beachball and actually gave up two picks for what was a pure cap dump for Vancouver. As bad as the Kovalchuk signing turned out to be, it was way better than what DL did with Beachball.

Yeah. Cloutier trade sucked. Sandwiched between good Demitra and Jack Johnson trades. Blake kept Dean's team. Before we talk about not being able to trade anyone, he already traded Muzzin and Pearson. Toffoli and probably Martinez are going to go as well. Could have traded them when he took over and got way more in return. DL traded the team's leading scorer, a solid young defenseman in Gleason and then a fan favorite, best defenseman on the team in Visnovsky all within his first 14 months with Demitra happening immediately. Kings had more points in the 2006 season than they did in the 2017 season. Dean went to work: Blake tried to keep winning with Dean's team that we all hate and don't assign Blake any blame for.

DL's selection of Crawford was worse than Blake giving Stevens the job that had already been promised to him.

Ok. I just don't like Crawford so I won't argue that he sucks. There is a strong argument to not hire Stevens if they are trying to change the direction of the team, however.

DL's early teams were bad. Just like Blake's. But Blake's drafts have been better.

Again, there is no evidence of this but I will say that Vilardi is still very much not in the clear and Kupari has a torn ACL. Blake's 3rd draft looks to be his best at the moment but Dean got Doughty and Voynov in his 3rd draft so it is going to be hard for Blake to lay claim to out-drafting Dean in his first three drafts. Wayne Simmonds is not chop liver, either.

I'm not a DL basher. Loved the guy. He was eventually able to build a team, but largely through trades. There really was no build from within. He inherited Kopitar, Quick and Brown.

Yeah, I don't think you are a DL basher but more of a Blake apologist. There was definitely a build-from-within regardless of what he inherited. Building from within allowed him to make those trades. Blake inherited Doughty and signed him long term. He inherited Kopitar and got a Hart-worthy season from him. Dean inheriting 11/23/32 from the start is obviously better but, again, Dean's inheritance doesn't factor in to the claim of Blake doing better over the first three and half seasons. One of those years is Kopitar's rookie year and Quick didn't play a full season until Dean's 4th season.

People here were speculating when Sutter was hired that if we missed the playoffs DL was getting fired. The early years were fairly bleak.

Blake's are bleak and there is speculation at this very moment that Blake may be out.

Responses in bold. I should really get to work today.

 

[BigKing]

@BigKing Although not traded for a 1st, Gaborik and Robyn Regehr also say hi.

Gaborik was traded for Matt Fratin (barfs) and a 2nd + 3rd. The 3rd became a 2nd because Gaborik helped move us past the 1st round / he re-signed with LA.

Regehr was traded for a 2nd round (that eventually came back to LA since they dealt Hudson Fasching and Nicolas Deslauriers for McNabb and that 2nd)

Yep. No cup without the Gaborik trade and Regehr was a good pick up.

Fasching is a good name to bring up because we were going to so regret trading him. Just a reminder when penciling in every prospect drafted in the last three seasons.

 

[crassbonanza]

In his first 2 1/2 years, he adds O'Sullivan/Lewis/Johnson/Bernier/Hickey/Moller/Simmonds/Martinez/King/Doughty/Teubert/Voynov/Loktionov/Cameron/Holloway to the prospect pool and adds Stoll/Greene/Richardson to the NHL roster.

I've added names in there that are busts because the argument for Rob so far is just listing every prospect that is in the pool right now. At some point in time, people--including myself--were high on these guys just like they are on kids that have yet to show if they are a Martinez or a Teubert.

I think the big difference is that most of that list were not considered high end prospects. Nobody was projecting Moller, King, Loktionov, Cameron or Holloway as future potential elite players. Vilardi, Turcotte, and Kaliyev all have elite potential only matched(and exceeded) by Doughty at the time. In hindsight that list is really not very impressive(though again we can't have that discussion yet).

I cut Dean's history off right before the Williams trade since that would be adding like an extra month of time for Dean v. Blake so far but just know that I can add that if we want to have this argument in two months.

I mean, I think we should look back at the issues from Dean's tenure and contrast them to issues from Blake's tenure. I think it would be a worthwhile argument/discussion to have. I'd probably enjoy it actually, haha.

So, this isn't an argument about the situations they walked in to or any of that: a statement was made that Blake has done a better job v. what Dean did during the start of his stint. Well, I see Blake on his 3rd coach while presiding over his 2nd next-to-last-place finish. I see the failure that was Kovalchuk. I see not really doing anything except drafting and signing some UDFAs: something that Dean also did during that time. Don't think I mentioned the Quincey pick up or signing Drewiske as an UDFA (Big deal except people act like Dean never knew about signing a college guy like Blake ****ing discovered fire or something).

I think we have had this discussion, but I don't believe WD should be considered an official coach. He had the interim tag and it was never removed. Similarly I think Steven's was promised the position by Dean, which is why he took the "associate coach" tag. There were plenty of rumors about that being the case. I believe that TMac is Blake's first real coach, but that is just my opinion.

You say you only see a guy who drafted and signed college free agents. I see a guy who has turned the worst prospect pool into the best prospect pool in record time. Look at the assets that Blake had upon taking over. I asked this elsewhere, but who were the best prospects/young players on the Kings when Blake took over? Kempe? Amadio? Forbort? It is absolutely amazing what he has done in that time frame.

The biggest thing I look at is him not deviating from his plan of re-stocking the pipeline. When the Kings were 2nd in the division and playing well in '17-'18 he stood pat at the deadline, something Dean wasn't able to do even when the Kings were on the outside looking in.

His NHL level work has been horrible but, hey, so was Dean's during that time except Dean didn't try to sell a winner: especially in Year 2. I've said that Dean made a lot of mistakes early on--like Rob--so I'm not ready to say Blake is a complete disaster. Problem is that there are basically no tangible results from anything Blake has done so far while we have history on our side to show that Dean made moves during his first 2 1/2 years on the job that directly led to Cups. Blake has prospects with potential (definitely not a Doughty) but we don't know if they will reach it except for knowing that not all of them will, just like poor Robbie Czarnick.

Dean made a lot of mistakes early on, which is what I was pointing out. He made a lot of mistakes the whole damn way, they just didn't end up biting him in the ass until after the cup runs. The thing is though, every GM makes mistakes, and every GM is going to have those mistakes eventually bite them in the ass.

Long story short: it is ridiculous to think Blake has done better because there is no proof. Only tangible results, stuff we know has happened, are bad. That doesn't even get in to how I can say Hickey/Teubert but then in the same breath say Blake's first 1st round pick has some strange back condition and his 2nd one is sitting with a torn ACL after a rough first AHL season.

I don't think Blake has done a better job overall personally. I think he has done a better job re-stocking the pipeline than Dean did. I also think he took over a much more difficult situation than Dean did. I doubt that Blake wins 2 cups in his time as GM, it is hard as f*** to win cups and takes a whole lot of luck, so Dean will likely have that on Blake.

Lastly, I don't think it is fair to criticize Kupari getting injured at the world juniors. Hickey was a huge reach, everyone panned that pick. Teubert was a bruising defenseman with no offensive skill and in hindsight it is clear why he didn't work out. You can predict all of those happening. Hell, you can even predict Vilardi having injury potential. You can't predict a freak accident tearing an ACL. I would hope that is not treated the same by you.

Also, I just love talking Kings hockey, so this is all fun for me.

 

[Steve Zissou]

Anyone still got that pic of Regehr with the Cup in his ferrari?

Hell, they even made a Upper Deck Day w/ The Cup card. That's gangsta

 

[KINGS17]

I mean, here we are ad nauseum but I'll bite.

2006 - Immediately moves on Demitra for the top offensive prospect not in the NHL and a first round pick. Flips said prospect later on for Williams. First round pick becomes Lewis who, whipping boy or not, is a member of two SC winners that is routinely named the unsung hero of the team by his teammates and is part of some of the biggest plays in LA Kings history (steal off Hamhuis Game 5 VAN/GWG Game 6 ANA).

I wanted Little but Bernier did have key wins down the stretch in 2012 that helped the Kings simply make the playoffs. It was a better pick than Forbort. Dude is even still playing...kind of, right?

Cloutier? Gross for sure. Crawford? Same. I feel like Blake has had some coaching issues and a bad foray into signing a past his prime veteran, however.

Jack Johnson trade. Completely ****ing awesome. Guy has been on the job for like six months and he's added Patrick O'Sullivan and Jack MF Johnson to the prospect pool.

Signing Blake to come back is gross for me but I understand it since AEG was still meddling a bit.

2007 - Flips Conroy for the pick that becomes Dwight King, two time SC champ and 2012 WCF hero.

Flips Sopel for the 2nd round pick that becomes Wayne Simmonds in the 2007 draft.

Moves a 2007 6th and a 2008 4th (does become Holtby) for a 2007 4th. Takes Martinez, some guy who scored some important goals or something.

Hickey pick. Awful. Norstrom trade a dud since Moller did not pan out; however, he got a ton of picks and we all loved Moller at the time he was drafted and after his first NHL action. Also, everyone was still penciling Hickey in to the lineup just as some on here are with every ****ing prospect Blake has ever drafted.

By the 2007 draft, he's been on the job for a little over a year.

2008 - All of his trades for picks during the season don't pan out, but he does sign Stuart and get a 2nd and 4th for him. Manufactured assets there.

Teubert and the trade to get him. Bad. Drafting Doughty and Voynov. Pretty good. Trades for Richardson. 2012 Cup winner and goal scorer in Game 5 VAN.

Trades for Stoll and Greene. We know those guys.

Trades for O'Donnell. Important for Doughty.

In his first 2 1/2 years, he adds O'Sullivan/Lewis/Johnson/Bernier/Hickey/Moller/Simmonds/Martinez/King/Doughty/Teubert/Voynov/Loktionov/Cameron/Holloway to the prospect pool and adds Stoll/Greene/Richardson to the NHL roster.

I've added names in there that are busts because the argument for Rob so far is just listing every prospect that is in the pool right now. At some point in time, people--including myself--were high on these guys just like they are on kids that have yet to show if they are a Martinez or a Teubert.

I cut Dean's history off right before the Williams trade since that would be adding like an extra month of time for Dean v. Blake so far but just know that I can add that if we want to have this argument in two months.

So, this isn't an argument about the situations they walked in to or any of that: a statement was made that Blake has done a better job v. what Dean did during the start of his stint. Well, I see Blake on his 3rd coach while presiding over his 2nd next-to-last-place finish. I see the failure that was Kovalchuk. I see not really doing anything except drafting and signing some UDFAs: something that Dean also did during that time. Don't think I mentioned the Quincey pick up or signing Drewiske as an UDFA (Big deal except people act like Dean never knew about signing a college guy like Blake ****ing discovered fire or something).

His NHL level work has been horrible but, hey, so was Dean's during that time except Dean didn't try to sell a winner: especially in Year 2. I've said that Dean made a lot of mistakes early on--like Rob--so I'm not ready to say Blake is a complete disaster. Problem is that there are basically no tangible results from anything Blake has done so far while we have history on our side to show that Dean made moves during his first 2 1/2 years on the job that directly led to Cups. Blake has prospects with potential (definitely not a Doughty) but we don't know if they will reach it except for knowing that not all of them will, just like poor Robbie Czarnick.

Long story short: it is ridiculous to think Blake has done better because there is no proof. Only tangible results, stuff we know has happened, are bad. That doesn't even get in to how I can say Hickey/Teubert but then in the same breath say Blake's first 1st round pick has some strange back condition and his 2nd one is sitting with a torn ACL after a rough first AHL season.

He came, he saw, he kicked ass. And I mean BigKing, but yeah Dean did as well.

 

[DoktorJeep]

The tv contract is up with FSW in a couple years. That deal was for 10 years, $250 million. Sinclair is the new owner and I doubt they will pay anywhere near that amount based on the Kings tv ratings.

BLucs message about returning to the playoffs in a couple of years is pinning a ton of hope on the team rebounding. AEG is a bottom line company. I think they are looking closely at the rest of this season and how the team performs at the gate and concessions. Dan Beckerman probably thinks Lafrienere is the name of the sommelier at his favorite restaurant.

If management is forecasting a further downward adjustment to revenue a couple years out two years in a row, then I can see heads rolling.

 

[funky]

Dean was one of my favorite GM’s of all time. If I could pick three people in the world to sit down and have coffee with he would still be on that list as his mind fascinates me. Saying that he did make some major mistakes as does any GM. I don’t know why we cannot celebrate Dean for helping bring us two cups and still be able to criticize him for some of his trades. Both can be done.

I wish Rob Blakes name was Joe Blow right now. I still feel that people look at Blake with tainted eyes due to him leaving our team many years ago. He was my favorite player on the Kings at the time he left for Colorado and his departure did crush me but I also understood why he wanted to leave. I also understand that if Deadmarsh would’ve been fully healthy our bitterness may not be what it is today.

I have not agreed with all Blakes moves but I sure love our prospect cupboard that we have. He did inherit a huge mess and he is slowly cleaning it up.

Unfortunately I do believe that some of the kings acquisition in the last few years have been more than Blakes ideas. Everyone wants to criticize him for a phantom trade that was possibly made with Montreal with possibly who knows going back that fell through at the last minute. I cannot prove it as I am still not sure if this trade even did exist or if it was any different from 99% of the trades that actually fall through but I do believe it was not Blake and it was Luc pushing for this trade. I don’t really give a crap about the Kovalchuk situation as the kings do make the owner a ton of money and he should invest it rightfully so. They took a gamble and it didn’t work but in the end it’s just money.

You cannot trade off everybody on the team if there’s not players in the wings to replace them. We are just getting to that point and should see the team turn over a lot in the next year to year and a half. It will take another year after that to start to be able to see what Blake has brought to the team or what vision he lacked.

Right now Blake is in the middle of his grace period. The team on the ice is a pile of dog shit but that was to be expected. Give him a failing grade if you want for the a nice team but you have to give them an a for not just drafted players players players is acquired through the college ranks. You have to remember that it sometimes takes a big name like Blake to convince those free agents to sign with a place like LA. This is an area dad Dean did not have success with.

In the end give Dean credit, give him a little flock as both are deserved. No one is perfect and at the end of the day he let us to 2 cups and admitted he did not make the right decisions at the end of his Reign. On the other hand we have to remember Blake was wet behind the ears and appeared to have some strong influence on how to shape the team. He is still early in his tenure and he has provided some very positive things. I am very excited to see the shape of this team one year from March 1.

 

[BigKing]

@crassbonanza

Check out this 2008 organizational ranking of prospect pools by HF. LA Kings #2OA. Kings ranked at #2. Outside of Doughty, look at that f***ing list hahaha. Peter Harrold has already cracked the roster! Even Azevedo (!) is an asset. All Dean Lombardi draft picks except for Purcell who was another--gasp--UDFA college signing. I just wish Dean would have done more of that like Blake has, or maybe it is easier to sign those guys when your NHL team sucks and there is a path to playing time.

2. Los Angeles Kings

Strengths: Depth is not a concern and with a potential franchise blueliner and goaltender leading the way, things are looking good in LaLa Land. Drew Doughty is already showing why he was the second overall pick last June and Jonathan Bernier is a blue chipper who is adapting to the pro game. Thomas Hickey and Colten Tuebert give LA two more potential top four blueliners and Peter Harrold has already cracked the roster. Brian Boyle and Teddy Purcell are both projects who could be close, while Oscar Moller and Wayne Simmonds are providing depth and have great upside. Even junior scoring sensation Justin Azevedo is adding to the Kings’ embarrassment of riches. Weaknesses: A lack of a blue-chip, high-end forward is one drawback. Also, if there is one area that is not as deep as others, it is down the middle. Top 5 prospects: 1. Drew Doughty, D, 2. Jonathan Bernier, G, 3. Thomas Hickey, D, 4. Colten Teubert, D, 5. Ted Purcell, RW. Key losses to graduation: Jack Johnson.

Anyways, let's check out the 2009 ranking. Doughty graduates and Simmonds is most likely considered an NHL player. Schenn, who would become the top prospect in the world, still can't unseat Hickey or Bernier (!) even though we have seen a fair amount of these two since their draft years. Moller is ahead of Voynov. Teubert still gets a shout out and there is Loktionov and even Zatkoff being mentioned.

5. Los Angeles Kings

Strengths: Seven consecutive years of picking top 15, and top five the last three drafts, has enabled the Kings to maintain a good prospect pool despite the graduation of key players each fall. Thomas Hickey highlights a blueline crew that includes Colten Teubert and Vyacheslav Voinov. Prospect goalie depth is not a problem as Jonathan Bernier, Martin Jones and Jeff Zatkoff all appear to have bright futures. Sniper Brayden Schenn is the top newcomer to the list of forwards and he joins CHL imports Andrei Loktionov and Oscar Moller. Toughness, scoring, goaltending — there’s not much missing for L.A.
Weaknesses: Perhaps high-end natural wingers could be considered an area that might be getting thin. The Kings might lack top-notch checkers. The Kings have more boom or bust prospects than some teams around them.
Top 5 Prospects: 1. Thomas Hickey, D, 2. Jonathan Bernier, G, 3. Brayden Schenn, C, 4. Oscar Moller, RW, 5. Vyacheslav Voinov, D.

So Blake improved the prospect pool by using all of his draft picks for three straight years. Well, Dean did the same and landed the #2 prospect pool, a pool that was #2 because of Doughty and four non-impact players ranked in the Top 5.

I do not agree with the "elite prospect" comment because I'm not saying that Moller or Holloway etc...were being touted as elite: the point is that they were penciled in as legit NHL players just like anyone taken by Blake from Rounds 1 -4 is currently being. But, as these prospect rankings hilariously prove, Hickey and Bernier were considered blue-chip prospects, as were Teubert and Moller. This is the whole argument though: I'm being told Dean didn't draft all that well and everyone is focusing on Hickey, Bernier and Teubert while dismissing Simmonds, Martinez, Lewis, King and not giving credit for Doughty. Like, he doesn't get credit for Doughty but Blake gets credit for Turcotte? WTF, right?

Blake is being given credit for building a strong prospect pool. Great. He used his draft picks. It's probably the best thing he has done but it isn't pat on the back worthy: the pat on the back will be the results of these picks. Unfortunately, the current pool's potential is being treated as a given that it will translate which is the problem I have with the original comment about Blake doing better so far because it is based on hope and not facts.

As for Vilardi and Kupari, I've always maintained that I would have taken Vilardi even with the injury concerns because he had the most talent. Lombardi totally would have as well. Much like the Lucic trade, I can understand the reasoning but if we are judging everything based on the results and not the reasoning, it will be a giant mistake if he winds up being damaged goods. I don't blame Blake for Kupari's injury and a late-teens/low 20s pick isn't a slam dunk (nothing totally is), but he could have drafted a guy that isn't losing a ton of development time on top of the guy he took a year earlier that also is. Bad luck and not his fault, but if Kupari is basically Adrian Kempe, do we love the pick? We definitely don't love it is as much as everyone did last season when he was putting up nice highlights in Europe.

I mainly just bring them up because they are key parts of this prospect pool being highly touted but things have not been smooth yet they are treated like nothing bad as happened and everyone will reach max potential. Everyone is great in their D +1 and D + 2 seasons as evidenced by the Hickey and Bernier leading the charge for a Top 5 rated prospect pool. I understand the fun of talking about how great these guys are going to be because that hope is much better than the current product but I've been down that road many times and know there will be busts. The way these guys are being talked about now is how these dudes were being talked about back then and how Lehoux, Grebeshkov, Pushkarev, Tukonen and Tambellini were talked about before them.

Dean was able to draft well--or so thought at the time--and parlay that building from within to trading for guys to push the team over the top. I've stated many times that it looks like Blake and Co. have drafted well and I'm excited to see how it turns out. I f***ing love Kaliyev and would demand Blake's firing if they didn't wind up with him after not grabbing him earlier. The fact they rolled the dice and got Bjornfot too was fantastic. Kudos. While I've said this, I've also said I'm worried about what happens when it is time to make legit moves to the NHL roster. Will he move prospects that will bust before it is too late? Will he package the wrong prospects in a trade for immediate NHL help. That time will come and, of course, I'm terrified of his NHL level evaluation since it has been horrible so far.

 

[Matt13]

Hell, they even made a Upper Deck Day w/ The Cup card. That's gangsta

I bet those ears really slow the car down.