2019-20 Kings News/Rumors

[DryIslandBartender]

I'm thinking maybe we need to revise that phrase. I do believe in "get in and anything can happen," but I think it's more about what you're doing leading up to the playoffs than it is in finishing in a certain position. 7-game series is a different brand of hockey than a one-off game in December. 2012 Kings should have had no worries, they were a bulldozer.

But especially in this era that holds true. The 2000s Kings were running into capless dynasty teams.

Kings should have been capless as well given AEG’s deep pockets but they ripped off the fans and were too frugal.

Years later, DL basically told Lieweekly that they weren’t a serious hockey organization.

 

[Choralone]

The advanced stat mavens noted how dominant the Kings numbers were leading up to the playoffs though. They weren't some team struggling, barely making the playoffs - they were a powerhouse with a head of steam that was only an eighth seed due to digging such a large hole for themselves earlier in the season.

 

[KINGS17]

Remember how many “experts” picked the Presidents’ Trophy winning Vancouver Canucks to advance past the Kings, hot off the heels of their run to the Cup Final in 2011? The eighth seed knocking them off was an example that “anything can happen.” Nobody here or in the media was calling the Kings to win the Cup in 2012. That team pretty much became the emblem of the “anything can happen” mentality.

The Kings weren't your average 8th seed. They were two points removed from being the 3rd seed. Granted when they ended up in 8th I expected them to give the Canucks a rough road, but Vancouver was the obvious favorite. After the Kings took care of Vancouver in the manner in which they did, I don't think too many prognosticators had them losing to St. Louis, Phoenix, or New Jersey.

A friend of mine and I were feeling so good about St. Louis we took some frequent flyer miles, bought tickets, and went out to St. Louis for Game 1 of that series.

The fact that the 2011-12 team was so close to being a much higher seed doesn't aid the "anything can happen" mentality associated with most 8th seeds.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The Kings weren't your average 8th seed. They were two points removed from being the 3rd seed. Granted when they ended up in 8th I expected them to give the Canucks a rough road, but Vancouver was the obvious favorite. After the Kings took care of Vancouver in the manner in which they did, I don't think too many prognosticators had them losing to St. Louis, Phoenix, or New Jersey.

A friend of mine and I were feeling so good about St. Louis we took some frequent flyer miles, bought tickets, and went out to St. Louis for Game 1 of that series.

The fact that the 2011-12 team was so close to being a much higher seed doesn't aid the "anything can happen" mentality associated with most 8th seeds.

But the Coyotes were an average division winner. They finished 11th overall that year. And they would've been the 3rd seed because the division winners got the top 3 seeds. With 3 more points, the Kings are still 6th in the West by total points.

4th in the West in 2013. 6th in the West in 2014. 2 points out in 2015. 5th in the West in 2016.

11-12: +18 goal differential
12-13: +17
13-14: +30
14-15: +21
15-16: +31

 

[KINGS17]

But the Coyotes were an average division winner. They finished 11th overall that year. And they would've been the 3rd seed because the division winners got the top 3 seeds. With 3 more points, the Kings are still 6th in the West by total points.

4th in the West in 2013. 6th in the West in 2014. 2 points out in 2015. 5th in the West in 2016.

11-12: +18 goal differential
12-13: +17
13-14: +30
14-15: +21
15-16: +31

If you want further evidence of 2011-12 not being a case for the Kings of "just make the playoffs and anything can happen", see the Kings 2012-13, and the Kings 2013-14. I don't know what further evidence you need regarding the ability of that roster to dominate whenever it mattered.

 

[KingsFan7824]

If you want further evidence of 2011-12 not being a case for the Kings of "just make the playoffs and anything can happen", see the Kings 2012-13, and the Kings 2013-14. I don't know what further evidence you need regarding the ability of that roster to dominate whenever it mattered.

Dominate might be going a little too far. 2012, up 3-0 in every series, ok. 2013 and 2o14 were hardly dominant when it mattered. The Blues went toe to toe. The Sharks went toe to toe. Then they got outclassed by the Hawks. Everything was much more back and forth, much more normal in that regard, in the playoffs than in 2012. Just in the Rangers series alone, they were 1 shot away from losing all 3 home games, and the Rangers had more than enough chances to get that one shot. Had they lost 1 more game against the Sharks, everything we wanted to see happen in the summer of 2014 probably would've happened. They would've been a 1 hit wonder, and DL might've been able to move on from certain players. The same way he let guys go after 2013 and 2015.

 

[KINGS17]

Dominate might be going a little too far. 2012, up 3-0 in every series, ok. 2013 and 2o14 were hardly dominant when it mattered. The Blues went toe to toe. The Sharks went toe to toe. Then they got outclassed by the Hawks. Everything was much more back and forth, much more normal in that regard, in the playoffs than in 2012. Just in the Rangers series alone, they were 1 shot away from losing all 3 home games, and the Rangers had more than enough chances to get that one shot. Had they lost 1 more game against the Sharks, everything we wanted to see happen in the summer of 2014 probably would've happened. They would've been a 1 hit wonder, and DL might've been able to move on from certain players. The same way he let guys go after 2013 and 2015.

Going to have to agree to disagree. Those three seasons were not about "just get in and anything can happen". Pundits and other teams were trying to figure out how to avoid playing the Kings in the 1st round, especially in 2013 and 2014.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I just provided a quote from a player on the 2012 team who was considered the final piece of the puzzle who said anything can happen in the playoffs. Those Kings made the playoffs by five points and were 13th overall in the standings. Saying that team was expected to win the Cup is revisionist history.

If that entire season was by design, you wouldn’t have seen a coaching change occur in late December. It was late in the season, in March, when the team finally started to play up to their potential.
2011-12 NHL Standings | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[crassbonanza]

Has this whole argument been over whether or not the Kings should have traded for Palffy? Haha, it seems like such an odd tangent to be on right now.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Has this whole argument been over whether or not the Kings should have traded for Palffy? Haha, it seems like such an odd tangent to be on right now.

Apparently the Kings shouldn’t have traded for Palffy unless they knew they could win the Cup.

 

[Maynard]

Has this whole argument been over whether or not the Kings should have traded for Palffy? Haha, it seems like such an odd tangent to be on right now.

This is nothing. A few weeks ago there was a pages long argument about Drew Doughty’s perceived level of excitement about playing with Tobias Bjornfot. They were pulling up old Doughty quotes about his past D partners and comparing them. It was a hoot.

 

[The Tikkanen]

Apparently the Kings shouldn’t have traded for Palffy unless they knew they could win the Cup.

You'd get at least 10 guys on here argue why the Kings should have traded for Jimmy Carson.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You'd get at least 10 guys on here argue why the Kings should have traded for Jimmy Carson.

Are we talking about 80s Jimmy Carson or 90s Jimmy Carson?

I’d like to see someone defend the Grant Fuhr trade.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

The advanced stat mavens noted how dominant the Kings numbers were leading up to the playoffs though. They weren't some team struggling, barely making the playoffs - they were a powerhouse with a head of steam that was only an eighth seed due to digging such a large hole for themselves earlier in the season.

Exactly. From Carter trade on, we were crushing the league in GPG, GAA, and all possession metrics.

There was only one big name analyst who was actually paying attention, and he was the only analyst to pick us over Vancouver. Forget his name, unfortunately.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I just provided a quote from a player on the 2012 team who was considered the final piece of the puzzle who said anything can happen in the playoffs. Those Kings made the playoffs by five points and were 13th overall in the standings. Saying that team was expected to win the Cup is revisionist history.

If that entire season was by design, you wouldn’t have seen a coaching change occur in late December. It was late in the season, in March, when the team finally started to play up to their potential.
2011-12 NHL Standings | Hockey-Reference.com

You’re talking out both sides of your mouth here. On one hand you say the Kings were not expected to contend. Then you say they started playing to potential when they went on their late season run.

The Kings were a top three GAA team all year.

From the Carter trade through the end of the regular season, they were top three in GPG, in addition to becoming top five in almost all possession metrics at the time.

They were absolutely not a run of the mill eighth seed.

Lastly, a lot of analysts had us pegged as a legitimate contender when we traded for Mike Richards that summer. The Kings had a ton of hype going into that season because everyone saw the young core, and the addition of a major impact player like Richards.

Like you said, the team underperformed, and it took them a coaching change and another major add to put them way over the top. I don’t understand why you need to point out that it wasn’t by design. Of course it wasn’t. No Cup winner in the modern era is entirely by design.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You’re talking out both sides of your mouth here. On one hand you say the Kings were not expected to contend. Then you say they started playing to potential when they went on their late season run.

The Kings were a top three GAA team all year.

From the Carter trade through the end of the regular season, they were top three in GPG, in addition to becoming top five in almost all possession metrics at the time.

They were absolutely not a run of the mill eighth seed.

Lastly, a lot of analysts had us pegged as a legitimate contender when we traded for Mike Richards that summer. The Kings had a ton of hype going into that season because everyone saw the young core, and the addition of a major impact player like Richards.

Like you said, the team underperformed, and it took them a coaching change and another major add to put them way over the top. I don’t understand why you need to point out that it wasn’t by design. Of course it wasn’t. No Cup winner in the modern era is by design.

So isn’t that proof that “anything can happen” in the playoffs and all that mattered was getting in? And where did I say they weren’t a contender? I stated nobody picked them to win the Cup. They were expected to improve as a playoff team who had been bounced out of the first round in the previous two years.

 

[Statto]

Are we talking about 80s Jimmy Carson or 90s Jimmy Carson?

I’d like to see someone defend the Grant Fuhr trade.

Shirt sales?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Shirt sales?

I bet the sales of white powdery substances also went up when Fuhr arrived to Los Angeles.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Going to have to agree to disagree. Those three seasons were not about "just get in and anything can happen". Pundits and other teams were trying to figure out how to avoid playing the Kings in the 1st round, especially in 2013 and 2014.

Which is fine, but the reality was that they were 25-19 in the 44 playoff games in 2013 and 2014. Take that 6 game difference over 7 playoff series, and it's winning by 1 game every series. They scored 125 goals, gave up 104, so that +21 over 7 series is a difference of 3 goals every series. If you want to take out the 2013 Chicago series, all the numbers are a little better, but they still ended up playing 39 of 42 possible games. That's not really dominant. That's almost as close to the edge as you can get.

4 of the 7 went 7 games. 5 series went at least 6 games. Down 2-0 to St.Louis. Lucked out in having home ice against SJ. Down 3-0 to SJ. Down 3-2 to Anaheim. Up 3-1 against Chicago, but down multiple times during Game 7. Having to come back in every home game against the Rangers, and being one shot from losing all 3.

No question they were a tough out those 2 years. More than a tough out. Yeah, nobody wanted to play them. But when a team did play them, while most of the time they lost the war, few teams were losing in 4 or 5 games. The Kings were kicking, scratching, biting, and clawing as much as the other teams.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

So isn’t that proof that “anything can happen” in the playoffs and all that mattered was getting in? And where did I say they weren’t a contender? I stated nobody picked them to win the Cup. They were expected to improve as a playoff team who had been bounced out of the first round in the previous two years.

I just think it's a bit disingenuous. The 2012 Kings occupy a very rare place in hockey history. Most eighth seeds are not going into the playoffs with top three GAA, GPG, and possession metrics. "Anything can happen" is not applicable across the board.

Most teams who sneak into the playoffs as a low seed have no chance of contending for a championship.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I just think it's a bit disingenuous. The 2012 Kings occupy a very rare place in hockey history. Most eighth seeds are not going into the playoffs with top three GAA, GPG, and possession metrics. "Anything can happen" is not applicable across the board.

Most teams who sneak into the playoffs as a low seed have no chance of contending for a championship.

How is it disingenuous? I am saying that nobody was considering the Kings as Cup contenders. Is that a false statement? What’s disingenuous is you guys who are claiming they were Cup contenders that season. Show me who picked them to go to the Cup Final or as Cup favorites.

And here’s how the hockey media thought the playoffs would play out.
NHL.com predicts 2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs
Fan Fuel: First round NHL playoff predictions - Sportsnet.ca

2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs: Full Round-by-Round Predictions

You even had these stat nerds heavily favoring the Blues over the Kings in round 2, after the Kings decimated Vancouver.
2012 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs Second Round Predictions

 

[Lt Dan]

You even had these stat nerds heavily favoring the Blues over the Kings in round 2, after the Kings decimated Vancouver.
2012 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs Second Round Predictions

 

[Little Psycho]

 

[Choralone]

Pronman has a new article up on the athletic, Prospects I was Wrong About, 2019 Edition

He includes one King - our very own Blake Lizotte:

Blake Lizotte, Los Angeles

Undrafted

When I reviewed the Kings’ farm system in the summer, I had 21-year-old Lizotte as a non-NHL prospect. He has since made the Kings and is playing real minutes, featured on both special teams. Typically when you make a projection on a prospect it takes time for things to play out, for the player to develop, and you may be proven wrong years later. It’s rare for a call like mine with Lizotte’s where it’s clear immediately you were significantly off. When I watched St. Cloud State in the 2018-19 season, Lizotte stood out as one of its better players, but I was never blown away by him. I saw a small forward with pretty good instincts and competitiveness who lacked standout speed and skill. I don’t think his speed is elite for such a small player, but it’s certainly a lot better than I thought and very good overall. I think his stick is a bit better than I thought, too. I arguably underappreciated and didn’t zero in on a player who was on such a deep St. Cloud team.

 

[The Tikkanen]

Are we talking about 80s Jimmy Carson or 90s Jimmy Carson?

I’d like to see someone defend the Grant Fuhr trade.

Fuhr went on to win 113 games after his disastrous tenure with the Kings. He won 92 games in the next 3 seasons alone. He would've gotten a statue outside the Forum with those numbers.