Kovalchuk was exactly the same disease the previous regime suffered from. They proved unable to honestly assess their team’s shortcomings. That’s the problem.How can anyone have a problem with the Kovalchuk signing. It made logical sense after we got curbstomped by Vegas. It was for only three years. Who cares? Nothing compared to the Lucic desperation trade.
Completely unfounded proposal here..
To Seattle: pick #8, Rasmus Kupari, Austin Strand
To Los Angeles: Vladimir Tarasenko (50% retained), Jake Bean, future considerations*
*Seattle agrees to select Austin Wagner
Again no smoke to the fire just trying to think of something that may help both teams. Kings aquire an elite scorer with effectively a great contract and a potential long term answer on the left-side blueline. Kings acquire team needs without dealing the cream of the crop of current prospects/young players. Seattle lands two players who will be near the very top of their prospect list and a former T-Bird in Strand who has shown flashes of NHL potential. Strand also helps ease the blow of passing on Dunn & dealing Bean.
Too much value for Tarasenko & Bean??
Kovalchuk was exactly the same disease the previous regime suffered from. They proved unable to honestly assess their team’s shortcomings. That’s the problem.
We all know that, that isn’t exactly the point at this moment.I dunno, they did a pretty good job of assessing the team's shortcomings when building the cup winners. Can't win 'em all.
We all know that, that isn’t exactly the point at this moment.
I’ll rephrase my original point. Bluntly stated,as I see it they were not bright enough to see that the team, ultimately, sucked. And then thought Kovalchuk was the solution to the problem they thought they had, which was scoring, when in fact it was a broader issue of sucking.Well, yeah, but that means they were actually able to pinpoint shortcomings, they just didn't succeed every time. The main shortcoming at the time (as always) was scoring, and he fit the bill. I don't think the Kovalchuk thing was a good move or a bad move, just one that didn't have a lot of downside, like a lottery ticket.
Kovalchuk was exactly the same disease the previous regime suffered from. They proved unable to honestly assess their team’s shortcomings. That’s the problem.
Indeed, the team before signing Kovalchuk had the league's best D and PK. I cannot imagine why they thought a (zero risk) goal scorer would help. They obviously should have gone after better defensemen and goal-tending.Kovalchuk was exactly the same disease the previous regime suffered from. They proved unable to honestly assess their team’s shortcomings. That’s the problem.
Kovalchuk was defensible if they used him on the point and as an additional winger. Even if he didn't play with Kopitar, having another dangerous line and depth would have helped.
Putting him on the pointbfor the power play could have helped with the depth. Instead, he was put as a net-front presence.
Kovalchuk was defensible, albeit I understand disagreement. Kings coaches were playing checkers on a chess board though.
This is the kind of thinking that leads to mistakes like signing Kovalchuk.Indeed, the team before signing Kovalchuk had the league's best D and PK. I cannot imagine why they thought a (zero risk) goal scorer would help. They obviously should have gone after better defensemen and goal-tending.
What mistake? They didn't win the cup? neither did 30 other teams. What assets did they lose? No GM in his right mind is going to tear his team down when he has the best D and PK in the league. It is that sort of thinking that gets you fired, not to mention laughed at.This is the kind of thinking that leads to mistakes like signing Kovalchuk.
When your best players all have their best seasons, and it makes no difference whatsoever, it requires a little more nuance than "hey, that guy used to score a bunch five years ago".
I’ll rephrase my original point. Bluntly stated,as I see it they were not bright enough to see that the team, ultimately, sucked. And then thought Kovalchuk was the solution to the problem they thought they had, which was scoring, when in fact it was a broader issue of sucking.
What irked me about signing Kovalchuk is that it was clear the Kings needed a center. Much more so than a winger.
Not being able to recognize what the team actually needed, makes me lose faith in the management team.
Luc also commented that AK was brought in to benefit the PP. However, anyone who takes a deeper look can see that Kovalchuk doesn't improve PP's. This shows another judgement error by management.
I never had much of an issue with the Kovalchuk signing because they didn't give up any assets. But my point still stands; the Kings needed a center, management never made any attempt to address that, and instead pursued a winger. This inability to recognize the issue makes me question their judgement.I don't see it that way. They used Kovalchuk for screen and tips. They didn't use him properly at all on the PP. And again, they wanted to get scoring but the coach was an idiot. On top of that, they got Kovalchuk as a UFA who has had an impressive goal scoring resume. Lastly, you take what you can get from the UFA pools. You take best player available, and if you remember, the Kovalchuk sweepstakes were a hot topic. So the Kings weren't the only teams desperate.
Wasn't it that disgustingly putrid Stevens who made the world's worst PP choices that slotted Kovalchuk as a freakin net front position.
There's nothing wrong about adding Kovalchuk at that time and point. It was logical.
That's not to say that Kovalchuk was amazing either. Forcing passes and terrible puck control made him lose the puck rather easily from what I remember.
I never had much of an issue with the Kovalchuk signing because they didn't give up any assets. But my point still stands; the Kings needed a center, management never made any attempt to address that, and instead pursued a winger. This inability to recognize the issue makes me question their judgement.
Also, AK was never going to make much positive difference on the PP. That fact that management thought so, also makes them suspect.